Rough sleepers under SGR rail bridge



  • Def drugs- I see them scoring from dealers in cars on Fonthill road.
  • edited December 2017
    For anybody with romanticised views on rough sleeping - this provides some insight. The series is shot in Bristol, but it's not hard to see how it translates to London.

    Anybody know whether the Police and council are taking a similar approach? - certainly doesn't seem like it.
  • If I was homeless I’d definitely take drugs, and a lot of them. I’d want to escape from how bad life was. I’d hide them from hostel owners, but I don’t think being inept at hiding them should mean being punished by having to sleep rough. Dealers only exist because some of drugs are illegal.
  • edited January 2018
  • edited June 2018
  • Useful. Thanks. I've used Streetlink before. They do visit.
  • Well, looks like Haringey and Islington are doing something - handing out flyers under the bridge this evening saying what they’re doing and suggesting people donate to local charities or buy the big issue instead. Most of the rough sleepers appear to have moved their belongings away.
  • edited June 2018
  • So the bedrooms are back under the bridge. It's genuinely tragic that this is the best life choice available for some human beings in London in 2018.

    Any ideas on how we as a community might be able to make a permanent difference to the situation?

    (Apart from voting Labour, obviously - remember the good old days a decade ago when social housing and social welfare gave people in crisis and/or poverty a moderate amount of dignity?)
  • Hard sentences for drug dealers, more effective therapy for addicts, better mental health services. At least two of the people that sleep there were given housing from a housing association earlier in the year but didn't stay in it as the conditions of tenancy it required them to attend (free) NHS therapy and get off drugs. Hard as it is to believe, homelessness is a choice for some. It's a more complex problem than just giving out accommodation.
  • I live on Moray Rd and I'm very partial to a Pret croissant in the morning. Since February instead of walking down Fonthill Rd and then cutting round Well's Terrace and under the bridges to Pret, I now walk all the way down Fonthill to Seven Sisters Rd and round that way to pick up my snack and then back to the Seven Sisters entrance to get the tube (you can always get in there even when the main entrance is closed due to overcrowding).
    It's a longer walk but I just cannot bear walking under those bridges one more time. It is so bleak.
  • grennersgrenners Ferme Park Road, N4
    I can't believe they are just handed accommodation in the first place with a condition attached which is going to be very difficult for them to keep.
  • edited June 2018
    I think it's acceptable to give people support to change their circumstances and expect that they will do it if you are supplying the safety net of a secure, cheap or free home. The therapy is free and available on demand.

    Why should someone who has money for drugs from wherever, and no interest in supporting themselves or grabbing the opportunity to change their circumstances, be handed no obligation homes that people who have tried to support themselves are not allowed to have?
  • grennersgrenners Ferme Park Road, N4
    What I am saying is why should a home which can go to a deserving family be given at all to a drug addict even with the condition attached. There should have to be some kind of proof first that they are clean.
  • edited June 2018
    @ Miss Annie. I follow exactly the same route as you to avoid going under the bridge. And when I go to Angel, instead of catching the 4 or 19 from Station Place, I catch any bus to the stop near Waitrose, down Tollington Road, and get the 153 or the 43 on Holloway Road.
    Walking under the bridge is far too depressing.
  • very soon, the world will see it's first trillionaire. so when you ask your "why should..." questions, have a little think about that.
  • I don't see your point.

    I haven't made Jeff Bezos rich, or helped him exploit workers, or enabled tax evasion, or contributed to the destruction of our retail sector. People who use Amazon do that. I've never ordered a product or used a service from Amazon in my life.

    I don't like him, or the way he conducts his business but I don't understand why someone shouldn't make as much money as they like. I do believe that there should be an obligation to use your wealth for good but how you make that a condition I do not know.

  • on a finite planet, "making as much money as you like" involves (perhaps indirectly) exploiting a finite resource beyond its sustainable capacity. unless you're planning to make so much money you haul yourself off to mars when this place is f**ked, then some acknowledgement of this very real situation will be necessary.
  • Indeed.
    It is possible not to line the pockets of the most exploitative companies and individuals. You just have to be a little more discerning about how you live your life.
  • What would you like to see happen rikki?
  • @Brodiej simples - as a start... an end to tax avoidance. a land tax - you can't hide land. a financial transaction tax. a basic income. and co-operative ownership of essentials like NHS, public transport, energy infrastructure and so on. then gradual transition away from hierarchical systems of power (remember 'power corrupts') towards an empowering anarchist system that works for the majority of people, rather than for the benefit of a tiny number of rich and powerful. OR we can just watch the non-sustainable present system destroy everything around us.
  • We've switched to a non profit energy company run by local councils, Islington are promoting it.
    Worth doing.
  • How do you stop tax avoidance?
  • Its either within the rules or its not
  • @Brodiej - semantics, yes, perhaps i wasn't clear enough. the advisors to HMRC are the big four accountants, who then use the loopholes they've effectively smuggled through to advise their clients. moving to land tax and transaction tax would close a huge number of those loopholes. using far more public money to train HMRC accountants, and baning the current interaction with lobbyists and the big accountants, would also see a cost benefit as loopholes get properly closed.
  • I have a friend that started his career at HMRC and then moved into the private sector. It is the known career route. Unless you stop that, its always going to happen. I would say they keep maybe 5-10% of the people they train.
Sign In or Register to comment.