Dave Hill notes the changes that the ConDems want to make to the count of ‘rough sleepers’ (basically, making them voluntary and not mandatory for local council compliance) and uncovers this odd definition, suggested by the newly Labour controlled Islington Council:
It welcomes another proposal, which would expand the definition of a rough sleeper to include people living in tents - migrant workers from Eastern Europe, for example - and those clearly intending to bed down on the street when found by those conducting counts as opposed to only those actually lying down at the time.I don’t know about you, but I’d include those as ‘rough sleepers’.
And it gets worse:
However, it suggests that the new, wider definition should also encompass those who sleep in housing block stairwells, garages, bin sheds, green spaces and on buses. I was surprised to learn that such people are not already categorised as rough sleepers.Me too, Dave.
But then, the last government had a vested interest in hiding those figures, didn’t it? Particularly the migrants….
Why is it necessary to count them? The only reason I can think of is so as to give the impression of addressing the supposed problem, without actually addressing it.
ReplyDeleteStandard political approach, in other words.
If sufficient people felt there was a problem, they could form an organisation, and solicit donations to provide shelter, food and the like for such. We'd have to think of a name for it, of course. Charity has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
Probably achieve more than counting them though, always assuming they want either service...
The target of zero rough sleepers in the City of London by 2012 (Olympics year) is enthusiastically being aimed at by a number of state agencies, including the Police. Having spent some small amount of time sleeping rough in London, I can heartily recommend the Capital, particularly in an Olympics year, when the streets will be full of well-heeled foreigners. Rough sleepers of the provinces! Make your way to London for 2012!
ReplyDeleteI counted hundreds of them in Hull's city centre on Friday night, but it turned out that I was counting "rough slappers" not "rough sleepers".
ReplyDeleteThat last comment is Rossist to slappers.
ReplyDeleteChuckles has it right - apart from bleeding-hearts who want to patronize folk by 'doing something'. who really gives a flying f**k how many folk are sleeping rough every night?
ReplyDelete[Scrooge]
Are there no poorhouses, Sally Army hostels etc?
[/s]
I think 'rough slappers' are the way forward, have met many over time, only in the morning though, they looked alright the night before.
ReplyDeleteI'd suggest they count the legs and arms and divide by four, before applying a statistic al device to account for missing limbs. This would suffice to start with. Later, as research planning tends, an official marking stick, costing several thousand pounds would be needed to prevent double counting. This would be followed by ear tagging with radio emission tracking costing millions, along with an ethical Qwango meeting in a top restaurant monthly, with a sub-committee to discuss healthy soup-kitchen menus meeting weekly.
ReplyDelete"Why is it necessary to count them?"
ReplyDeleteHow else are we to know how many civil servants we need to attempt to resolve the problem?
"Rough sleepers of the provinces! Make your way to London for 2012!"
The Hobo Wars of 2012 will go down in history... ;)
"I counted hundreds of them in Hull's city centre on Friday night, but it turned out that I was counting "rough slappers" not "rough sleepers"."
LOL!
"I'd suggest they count the legs and arms and divide by four, before applying a statistic al device to account for missing limbs."
I wouldn't be too surprised to see a government body using this measurement. Would you?