Soup runs and John Bird

No I saw the interview.There are now about 500 (I think )rough sleepers in the country apparently and most of them have mental health issues. Supporting them "on the street" makes it easier to avoid engaging with the services they really need.In the end it would be better if people were not sleepiong rough wouldnt it because of health consequences for them.

I don't know why it has to be an either/ or thing. Homeless people often need access to treatment centres for addiction/ alcoholism and mental health services. But I am not convinced that pulling the rug from under their feet by removing soup kitchens and such like is going to make people more inclined to access these services. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I haven't spoken to John about it so I don't know what he said - he does have two small children so may be a tad stressed at this time of year - but it sounds like him. He's very much into prevention rather than cure.

As a 'rough sleeper' myself..I think John Bird should come and have a go. he did say it! but he's chocolate covered poo pooo! Oh dear! I think I ruptured my pomposity.

I dont think it was close soup kitchens. it was not doing sally army soup runs.

"He's very much into prevention rather than cure." I think what John Bird's suggesting here is probably nearer to being cure than prevention and it's not wrong in principle. The question is if people are unwilling to try and be cured, do you just leave them to die? I generally agree with Jude on this.

For anyone to criticise John Bird's commintment to helping those sleeping rough can only be considered at best ill informed and at worst ridiculous. His past actions speak for themselves. I have no doubt that given the platform from which to clarify his thoughts it will be quickly seen that his intentions are, as always, well intentioned and probably workable. So let's wait and see what he wants do and how he wants to do it before making any comments shall we? Oh yes, I'm glad to hear that Yan2 the 'rough sleeper' has found a spot to rest that has an internet connection!

"For anyone to criticise John Bird's commintment to helping those sleeping rough can only be considered at best ill informed and at worst ridiculous." It's not ridiculous at all. John Bird's commitment isn't in doubt but his views on homelessness are a mixed bag, to say the least. For example: http://www.24dash.com/news/Housing/2007-02-23-Homeless-charities-refute-... As with the current statement, I don't think Bird's attack on the hostel system was entirely groundless but it was highly simplistic. It's one thing to criticise charities or 'the system' for failing to solve all the problems of people who experience a wide range of long-term, complex problems, it's quite another to suggest a workable positive alternative (and even bigger thing to actually carry it out in practice).

His Mail on Sunday article reminds me of the advocates of the Short Sharp Shock treatment for teenage offenders. It's one answer; doubtless there are lots of other answers too. He's really only addressing one type of homeless person in his article, (the addict.) What about all of the homeless people who aren't addicts? (& what about all the addicts who aren't homeless too, come to that?) And if we're going to lock people up, shouldn't we start with dangerous offenders instead of letting them out of prisons to kill innocents? Even if his idea was a good one, (which it probably isn't) it would hardly be at the top of the list of this government's institution-filling-list. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php