I understand that there may be risks involved, but the Churches could probably improve their reputation somewhat amongst the populace by doing on a massive scale what the government will not do, and sheltering significantly more people. From a very dispassionate point of view, this crisis unquestionably has the potential to give them a new lease on life in an otherwise rapidly secularizing country. Admittedly, this would require that the Churches in the UK have some vitality and initiative in them, and I’m not entirely sure that this is the case.
Surprised ppl have not dropped dead allready. Absolutely baltic out there x
Yet another article conflating rough sleeping with homelessness.
The article is about people who are actually sleeping on the streets.
Then it starts banging on about how much the government is spending to help homeless and vulnerable people. That’s all good, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are classified as homeless because they are in temporary or unstable accommodation, and they ned help.
But there is no indication that any of that money is going to help the much smaller number of people who have no accommodation at all, and are sleeping in the streets.
For example:
>payments of £1,200 to millions of vulnerable people
They aren’t going round handing wads of cash to people curled up in sleeping bags in shop doorways. That money is going to people who already have shelter but can’t afford the heating bill. Which is good, those people need help.
But what help are rough sleepers getting? The people the article is actually about? Why is the BBC glossing over the fact that they are probably getting fuck all?
3 comments
I understand that there may be risks involved, but the Churches could probably improve their reputation somewhat amongst the populace by doing on a massive scale what the government will not do, and sheltering significantly more people. From a very dispassionate point of view, this crisis unquestionably has the potential to give them a new lease on life in an otherwise rapidly secularizing country. Admittedly, this would require that the Churches in the UK have some vitality and initiative in them, and I’m not entirely sure that this is the case.
Surprised ppl have not dropped dead allready. Absolutely baltic out there x
Yet another article conflating rough sleeping with homelessness.
The article is about people who are actually sleeping on the streets.
Then it starts banging on about how much the government is spending to help homeless and vulnerable people. That’s all good, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are classified as homeless because they are in temporary or unstable accommodation, and they ned help.
But there is no indication that any of that money is going to help the much smaller number of people who have no accommodation at all, and are sleeping in the streets.
For example:
>payments of £1,200 to millions of vulnerable people
They aren’t going round handing wads of cash to people curled up in sleeping bags in shop doorways. That money is going to people who already have shelter but can’t afford the heating bill. Which is good, those people need help.
But what help are rough sleepers getting? The people the article is actually about? Why is the BBC glossing over the fact that they are probably getting fuck all?