Police Confiscate Food and Sleeping Bags From Homeless

[Zaune]

Ilford Recorder

Police swooped on the homeless, grabbing sleeping bags and food parcels donated by the public, in co-ordinated raids around the borough.

Email
Print

Adam Jaskowiak was one of the men targeted and said he pleaded with police to be able to keep his things but was ignored.

He was sleeping with eight other people finding shelter for the night in the former Ilford Baths in High Road, Ilford.

All of their belongings were bundled into a police car leaving the men, one in his 60s, stunned.

A police chief told the Recorder the operation was carried out to “reduce the negative impact of rough sleepers”.

But Mr Jaskowiak, 34, said: “They were just taking the sleeping bags and chucking out everything. I asked to keep it and the food, but they said ‘no’.

“I just grabbed as many of my things as possible and put them into a bag and ran.”

He was given the sleeping bag by the Salvation Army, Clements Road, Ilford, over the winter months after becoming homeless when his friend died.

John Clifton, 26, corps officer at the Salvation Army, said: “I’m shocked and disgusted. Why would you take the only form of shelter someone has from them?

“We have tried to find out why they were taken and if we can get them back.”

After the raid happened on Thursday, the men went to the Refugee and Migrant Forum of East London, High Road, Ilford, for help.

Chief executive Rita Chadha said: “I am appalled because there’s no logic in this – it’s not as though if they take someone’s sleeping bag they will automatically walk into a house.

“It’s not a lifestyle choice and becoming homeless can happen to anyone.”

She also said the action will damage relations between the police and those sleeping on the streets.

Ilford Ch Insp John Fish said: “The public rely on police to reduce the negative impact of rough sleepers, this includes the need for us to assist in the removal of temporary structures, tents, and bedding from public spaces and other inappropriate locations.”

What the fuck?

[fgalkin]

Street sleepers are unslightly. If we take away their sleeping bags, they will no longer be sleeping on the streets, either because they are now sleeping underground in the insulation of the pipes, or because they are dead. Either way, an eyesore is removed.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Zaune]

Update: The police force involved have issued a statement. Even the paper itself is less than impressed with it.

[Haruko]

I think this article is related to a topic I posted just yesterday on my forum titled "Soup Kitchens: Part of the Problem?"

It seems the police involved in this sweep may have been operating under the same theory of how to "help" the poor, that it is a manifestation of this mindset that sees soup kitchens as part of the problem.

As anyone familiar with San Bernardino, a city of over 200,000 people in southern California, America, may know, a lot of the articles about it in the San Bernardino County Sun have to do with poverty and crime. Wanting to keep current with the city I live in, I read these articles and the comments.

In one of these articles, a commenter blamed people who help out in soup kitchens, saying that they help exacerbate poverty and crime by discouraging the homeless, who he considers synonymous with thugs, from taking the initiative and making their lives better, since they know they can just go to a soup kitchen for assistance.

In other words, since I would, for example, go to an Elks' Lodge on Mt. Vernon on the west side of San Bernardino (the far more impoverished area) to help Pastor Mack hand out clothes, give food, keep people orderly, etc., I am part of the problem, and should be ashamed.

I was reminded of this issue again when watching a report via podcast from a German news program called "People and Politics: The Political Magazine" and titled "Dispute over Aid - do food banks harm the poor?" (2 May, 2013). Here is the description:

For 20 years, food that was destined for the waste bin - like day-old bread - has instead been distributed to Germany's needy. In Berlin alone, more than 600 tons of food are distributed to 125,000 people each month. But criticism is growing that this aid actually keeps people in poverty longer.

The criticism in this case is that food banks keep responsibility off politicians and government in general by shifting the burden onto private institutions who take care of the poor for them/it. The implication seems to be that the solution is to make the situation dire enough that politicians are forced to do something. At least, that is how I read it. I wonder how the members of this forum read it? Also, seems implied in the description that this point of view is actually becoming more popular, at least in Germany.

The food bank volunteers know that they are not the solution but just a band-aid for the symptoms, as they put it, but are they really part of the problem, and is the solution to stop and instead focus on pressuring politicians while leaving the poor alone? Or are both sides going about the issue wrongly?

[Simon_Jester]

This represents two separate ideas about the problem: one is that the food banks are stopping the poor themselves from taking initiative, which is kind of laughable because it's damned hard to take initiative when you are starving to death or frozen on the street.

The other is that the banks are stopping the state from seeing a problem with the situation- the problem then being that the "problem" manifests as crime waves (homeless people with literally nothing to lose and their lives to gain) and dead bodies. Can one sanely advocate playing chicken with that?

[Batman]

I'm not sure I see how making the homeless even more desperate by taking away the few comforts charity gave them is going to make that less likely.

[Alyeska]

Just like Bart Simpson said. You catch up by going slower.

[Temjin]

This represents two separate ideas about the problem: one is that the food banks are stopping the poor themselves from taking initiative, which is kind of laughable because it's damned hard to take initiative when you are starving to death or frozen on the street.

With stuff like this, it's important to say what kind of homelessness person you're talking about.

Oh sure, there's a lot of homeless people out there who are desperately trying to improve their situation. They're trying to get jobs, find an apartment, clean up, and those people really rely on soup kitchens, missions, and shelters. A lot of those places also allow them to use them as their fixed address, so that they can more easily receive mail. I get the feeling that in the kinds of threads we've had recently, this is the kind of homeless person people are focusing on.

But those aren't the only kind of homeless person out there. Not by a long shot.

At the homeless shelter I work at, we have a transitional portion. This is a temporary program that welfare pays for that gives them a private room and three square meals a day. I've had plenty of people tell me when I've recommended to them to see their worker so we could book them in to our transitional shelter, that they prefer living on the streets to that. See, when welfare pays for them to live there, they only get about 90 bucks a month in addition to what welfare pays for them to live there. But if they live on the street, they get their full welfare benefits to spend however they like. And most of the time, they like to spend it alcohol and drugs.

Frankly, it could be argued that soup kitchens, shelters, and missions are indeed in some cases part of the problem. These people feel no need to spend their money on food or shelter because too many places just hand them out. There's so many places handing out food near where I work that a person could get fat.

Please note that I'm not saying that all homeless people are like that. I'm not even saying that a majority of them are, although I would argue that a majority of the long term homeless are. The issue of homelessness is a complicated issue, and any solution isn't going to be one size fits all. Any solution that genuinely helps will be taken advantage of by some, and any solution that makes homeless life harder will just make the lives of the ones genuinely trying to improve their lives that much harder.

[Broomstick]

A major problem is, of course, that many people really do want an easy, inexpensive, one-size-fits-all solution to the homeless problem... and that's just not realistic because of the multiple causes of homelessness.

Regarding long-term homeless addicts - they're going to turn down any solution, temporary or long term, that requires them to be clean and sober while in residence. Because they're addicts. Until they are ready to quit trading their poison of choice for three hots and a cot won't be tolerable to them. I question if the mandate to be clean in order to get some of this assistance is actually helping and perhaps it would be kinder/less troublesome overall to allow them to booze/drug in a tiny room. At the very least it would take this activity off the street and keep them from freezing to death. It won't cure them but then the current situation isn't doing that either.

Again, though, society wants a FIX, not harm mitigation even where harm mitigation is likely to be the best we can do.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In Seattle we've had incredible success with a "wet shelter", but it was incredibly expensive to build and house people in it due to the need to monitor their alcohol intake and have nurses on hand to intervene if they binge drink, etc.

[K. A. Pital]

Long-term homelessness is a psychological and occupational problem which is endemic to capitalist societies and may not be adequately solved without:
1) forced government provision of housing for any person who is homeless
2) psychological counselling services for long-term homeless

Without these components, trying to "alleviate" the suffering of the homeless is an everlasting uphill battle. The ease of surviving makes people with psychological problems more likely to stay homeless (they do not perceive homelessness as a very severe life hazard), and also their consciousness is deformed by the experience. Hence, psychological counselling and re-adaptation to integrate those people back into society is a mandatory service which should be imposed as a condition to receive help and benefits. You get meals, you also get an hour at the psych.

The other part is the necessity for the homeless to find a house "on their own". The collossal problem of living in commercially rented apartments instead of own or socially rented apartments is becoming a massive issue in the First World and, sadly, in many other parts of the world as well, thanks to rising housing prices and absolute elimination of the distributorial mechanisms. Social housing should imply a fixed life-time contract with the government as it was before in Russia. Homelessness was a minor issue compared to what it is now.

Of course, this implies an actual effort to reintegrate these people instead of just pretending the problem would go away if you give free meals. It will not.

As Oscar Wilde said, trying to cure the vices of private property while still playing by the rules of private property is pointless. A worthwhile effort is to reconstruct society in such a way to make poverty impossible. I am not saying this is entirely impossible in a market economy either - Europe in the social-democratic consensus period of the 1960s-1970s has largely succeeded in this endeavour.

However, one should clearly set the goals. And of course, America with its culture of "personal responsibility for everything happening to ur ass" is not the best place for such attempts. Sad but true.

[Simon_Jester]

While I do not categorically reject what you have said, Stas...

Long-term homelessness is a psychological and occupational problem which is endemic to capitalist societies and may not be adequately solved without:
1) forced government provision of housing for any person who is homeless

This, in a nutshell, explains why homelessness might not be a problem in a dictatorship. I'm not sure that speaks so well of the dictatorship; of course you can 'solve homelessness' if you force everyone into housing at gunpoint.

A capitalist dictatorship could do much the same.

[Starglider]

I'm not sure that speaks so well of the dictatorship; of course you can 'solve homelessness' if you force everyone into housing at gunpoint.

Stas's solution to everything is to force people to obey his utopian edicts at gunpoint. Of course he assumes an indefinite supply of government thugs and secret police to enforce them, as he would not want to get his hands dirty. The far right is at least honest about their authoritarianism, as opposed to trying to conceal it under a towering edifice of faux-intellectual Marxist rhetoric.

As for the subject of the thread, the police version of events is straightforward and credible; some addicts were squatting in a disused building and were moved on. It appears the author of the story asked leading questions and engaged in selective reporting to create fake contoversy.

[Serafina]

Seems to me that long-term homelessness is first and foremost a drug addiction problem:
Getting their drugs simply becomes more important than proper food or shelter. If getting the latter means having notably less of the former (due to regulations or financial cost), it's not really all that surprising that a severe addict will chose the drugs.


Now there is obviously good reason to keep most homeless shelters drug-free - after all plenty of homeless people are not drug-addicts, and exposing them to drug addicts can be both very stressful and a danger of getting others addicted.
But that doesn't preclude having some shelters where a person won't be turned down if under the influence of drugs. Specific aid for a specific problem.
Ultimately, help first, detox later is a much better approach if you want to help drug addicted homeless people than the other way round - because if its the other way round they won't even take the help due to their addiction.

[Zaune]

Actually, I think Stas might not be entirely wrong here, if you stretch the definition of "housing" to include long-term residential psychiatric care and to a lesser extent supported accommodation for people with learning difficulties. It's a sad fact, but some people are just not capable of looking after themselves, and if their families can't or won't then right now, they've got a postcode lottery of charities and whatever the local council can be arsed to provide. The unlucky ones end up on the street.

I should know, I'm one of them.

[Simon_Jester]

Stas's solution to everything is to force people to obey his utopian edicts at gunpoint. Of course he assumes an indefinite supply of government thugs and secret police to enforce them, as he would not want to get his hands dirty.

It solves the unemployment problem...

The far right is at least honest about their authoritarianism, as opposed to trying to conceal it under a towering edifice of faux-intellectual Marxist rhetoric.

I don't think Stas is being dishonest about this; he is quite explicit about forcing homeless people to live in homes whether they like it or not. Is that better than letting them decide whether or not to roam the streets? I don't know.

What I'm really interested in are what Stas's thoughts are in preventing authoritarianism from becoming a vehicle for the usual sins- abuses of power in the name of keeping some specific person in control, overreliance on an autocrat/aristocrat/technocrat class who are sheltered from the consequences of their mistakes, that sort of thing.

I would fondly hope he has some such ideas.

[K. A. Pital]

Unlike some of the Oblovoms, I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty. However, "forced" does not imply the government should force people into homes.

It implies that the government is forced to provide a home for everyone willing.

Stas's solution to everything is to force people to obey his utopian edicts at gunpoint.

Now I know you're nothing but a pathetic troll, but still that's rich coming from a nation which started building capitalism by calling vagrancy a criminal offense. So I guess you just experience some butthurt because I suggested a more humane solution which does not include damning homeless as criminals, as Victorian moralists love to, and excludes homeless from the convenient scapegoats that the right loves to have - "watch out, these hobo criminals going to steal ur monies". Don't worry, Starglider. Your desire to make everyone work 14 hours at the point of starvation is now suppressed. Just release it and stop worrying, and love the bomb.

Homelessness is not a crime. It is a social problem firmly outside police jurisdiction. Perhaps there should be a special service, much like juvenile protection, that would deal with accomodation for the homeless.

[Simon_Jester]

Unfortunately, Stas, the words "forced government provision" are grammatically ambiguous... you may note that I was fooled too.

[K. A. Pital]

Technically if you find a homeless person on the street, you should bring him to a home. You don't just leave him to wander away after feeding him. You ask if this is his hometown, if that's where he wants to be. If yes, you bring him to the shelter and sign him for an apartment - maybe a small one, like those 25 sqm studio apartments, where he could stay. I refuse to believe that building high-rise buildings full of 25 sqm flats is an incredibly expensive task for the government - that's pure bullshit. So gets the social contract and he can live in the house. He wants to leave? Sure. Why not. However, let him have a taste of his own home. Talk to him or her, explain, that this could be his housing if he does not want to be homeless. When he leaves, leave the door open - give him contacts to make sure he knows where to find a house if he needs it. Perhaps the "soap kitchens" should be re-organized and food should be provided in the social housing, as opposed to outside in the streets, parks, et cetera. Otherwise these people just grab the food and wander off; they have no immediate view of the choice to end a homeless life.

The current system is not truly seeking to help their state of mind and actually reduce homelessness. We are trying to help drug addicts and people with mental issues; why are we thinking that homelessness is just "a choice"? We don't punish drug addicts with criminal liabilities, we don't judge them as criminals, neither applies to mentally sick, but we do treat them.

Instead of punishing the homeless as criminals (the British invention; gladly picked up by such paragons of virtue as Hungary and Bangladesh, among others) or ignoring them (which seems to be the other default option), how about actually trying to help?

[Grumman]

Do you propose any mechanism to prevent it turning into a slum? I do like the idea of the government providing this sort of housing in theory, but there needs to be a way to ensure it is only used by those who will not create an unpleasant or unsafe environment for everyone else.

[Thanas]

My own city has a program where homeless are placed into empty flats and the city pays for the rent.

Problems are the high rate of vandalism of course but I think the program overall is a success.

[Zaune]

I've missed the edit window, but in case anyone's reached the same conclusion as Aaron (who was kind enough to bring it up in a PM):

No, not right now. In the past, yes.

[NoXion]

As for the subject of the thread, the police version of events is straightforward and credible; some addicts were squatting in a disused building and were moved on. It appears the author of the story asked leading questions and engaged in selective reporting to create fake contoversy.

What do you think "moving on" squatters/homeless actually achieves, apart from simply shifting people from one place to another?

[K. A. Pital]

Do you propose any mechanism to prevent it turning into a slum?

Yes. Technically this type of housing should be well-policed, as the risks of it becoming a concentration point for criminals is high. These houses should have strict video surveillance in the doorways and elsewhere (and believe me, high-rise buildings should have it - brutal crimes happen in doorways and elevators quite often).

I do like the idea of the government providing this sort of housing in theory, but there needs to be a way to ensure it is only used by those who will not create an unpleasant or unsafe environment for everyone else.

There is always a risk that an unemployed person is de-facto a criminal. However, if we provide only legal jobs for the residents and you have to pick up a legal job to be a resident at some point, it is fine.

Vandalism which Thanas mentioned is a problem, but generic vandalism is something people can deal with - in a community, too. What needs to be solved is the more serious crime problem and "staying jobless ghetto" problem.

The "staying jobless" is the hardest part of the equation. Since we have unemployment benefits that potentially last for many months, and since the actual state of things in the capitalist economy actually considers it unfeasible for the economy to operate without crises and corresponding "crisis unemployment", as well as generic "natural unemployment", there will always be unemployed.

Tying benefits to jobseeking is a nice idea on the surface, but a person who lost benefits would then be pauperized. At some point we have to make decisions which are bad. And choose the lesser evil.

[ray245]

The "staying jobless" is the hardest part of the equation. Since we have unemployment benefits that potentially last for many months, and since the actual state of things in the capitalist economy actually considers it unfeasible for the economy to operate without crises and corresponding "crisis unemployment", as well as generic "natural unemployment", there will always be unemployed.

Tying benefits to jobseeking is a nice idea on the surface, but a person who lost benefits would then be pauperized. At some point we have to make decisions which are bad. And choose the lesser evil.

I've been thinking whether we should require jobless people on benefits to be involved in various community work. While it may not provide them with any real income, at least you are keeping them busy. A busy person is far less likely to turn to crime, even if he just doing community work.