Banishing the hungry

From: Simon Jones [mailto:drsrjones@hotmail.com]
Sent: 13 November 2007 13:30
To: oliver.hatch@londoncouncils.gov.uk
Subject: London Local Authorities Bill - Nov 2007 - Free Refreshment Distribution

Dear Mr Hatch:

I am writing to comment on the proposal to criminalise the distribution of food and drink on council-designated land in London, as defined in your consultation document, with a expressed focus of preventing homeless ‘soup-runs’.

When one first reads this, it is with some sense of disbelief. The potential heartlessness of such a move has led some to comment on the internet that this must in fact be a joke, albeit a bizarre one.

However, unfortunately this is not a joke but rather a serious proposal being put forward by a genuine proposer. It would, naturally, be interesting to know who or what community or commercial interest is in fact behind this. Given this affects the use of public land (note my use of term rather than council-designated) then I would expect a transparent declaration of all interests to be appropriate here.

In any case, given the very limited information provided by the above-referenced document, it would appear that the problem being raised is nuisance to properties adjacent to soup-runs, whether residential or commercial.

Now, the first thing I think is important here is the use of the word nuisance; it’s a dangerous term. Nuisance, used euphemistically, can simply be an expression of nimbyism - “we don’t want that sort around here” - kind of thing. However, nuisance can also be very serious, including anything from noise and litter to harassment and even violence. Abolishing the right to give food in a public place to those in need (something that may actually be enshrined in law) is an extremely serious proposal. It is a right any citizen possesses today. Given the potential seriousness of this matter, I would say then that it is the responsibility of London Councils to be much more explanatory and descriptive when outlining such a position and not rely on imprecise terms such as nuisance, without any accompanying evidence.

The second important thing I note from this proposal comes from its different possible interpretations. It’s very easy to have an instinctive reaction of horror when reading this – a revulsion at the fact that in 2007’s London the rich will gladly banish the destitute from their doorsteps, harking back to Dickens’s days. But hold on, this ‘nuisance’ thing again... Is it simply people not wanting to have the hungry fed in their vicinity? If so, then the horror is indeed genuine, and indeed society is regressing backwards so quickly then I don’t even want to see the future. If this is simple heartlessness then London Councils must screw a million copies of this proposal up and throw them all in the middle of Lincoln’s Inn Fields or some other common soup-run location. Then that really will be nuisance. London Councils also represent the homeless, although by definition not having a fixed address they are a lot less vocal.

But, and this is a big but, what if this nuisance is real nuisance? A source well acquainted with soup-runs comments that they can be accompanied by “scuffles and bullying” and gang activity can be present. Now things start to look rather different. However, if such problems are occurring, then banning soup-runs is hardly the solution. Those people need to be fed (and receive all the other ancillary services at such locations: advice, fact-finding, support etc). So if this a matter of riverains having to deal with genuine trouble caused by some / a small number / a tiny minority of soup runs and raising a genuine issue with the London Boroughs then it surely cannot be local government’s response to simply say, ‘oh, ok, we’ll ban them then’.

Might the councils otherwise feel some obligation to provide indoor facilities for food distribution? Or possibly policing the system in some way? I’m always seeing Southwark’s ‘Community Wardens’ doing nothing much at all around Shad Thames and More London, maybe they could help? Nevertheless, this unintelligent knee-jerk response is exactly the most terrible solution to this potential but not-yet-quantified problem. Let’s hope some rationality prevails and that the authorities deign to actually engage with the organisations concerned to improve this situation. Else someone go wake up Dickens.

When engaging the public on this matter London Councils need to better summarise the real extent of any problem. One expert in this area, Jon May at Queen Mary, does not seem to think there are any of the problems I discuss above.

On a final note, there is something in this proposal that leaves a very bad taste in the mouth (pun excusing notwithstanding); the proposal contains a proposed exemption: free sample distribution for marketing purposes outside retail premises. The irony, now I feel really sick.

Please don’t do this.

Best regards,

Dr Simon Jones

Wilkommen in Squaddieland

It's a strange world to witness.. British squaddieland in Germany. I'm British, have spent 95% of my 34 years living in Britain, and I've never seen so many British military personnel. And let's not mention the rather large, rounded ones. No, I have to ... expand... a bit on that. It's like the British Police these days. I'm just surprised to see rotund soldiers that's all; it's not what you expect. The weird vibe that exists around here on the outskirts of Paderborn, 150 km NE of Cologne in Nordrhein-Westfalen, has promted Johannes and I to call it Tatooine. I don't whether it's just down to the German angle or the bored soldiers or both but even the little villages around here have sex shops. I can't put my finger on why but I just can't get used to popping into the local not-delightful Penny Markt for some Happy End toilettenpapier and mingling with all this camoflage gear. Not wanting to winge all Middle-England-like, and I love Deutschland, but on the subject of Penny Markt, Lidl and Aldi: why does Germany only seem to do bargain supermarkets so well? Why, for once, doesn't globalisation achieve something actually desired and install Waitrose all over die Lände? What does strike me though is discovering this annexe of the UK state. I'd never considered it before but there are 7 British bases still in Germany, with c25K personnel and a further c25K associated people. That's a lot of infrastructure. Can u imagine if Germany asked them to leave? Where the hell would the UK put them? Bet we'd lose Dartmoor. Or Hampstead Heath. Apparently that's not likely though as according to the beeb in 94 , all this contributes €1.5/year to the local economy. Plus Germans have got loads of room.

UK property polemics

The UK media seemed to be out for another party again very recently. They were revelling yet again at the prospect of an impending UK property market crash - or at least a serious slowdown; e.g. Times article. Even the BBC joined in BBC article. Now of course I think they did some serious analysis and lots of research before they came up with this important forecast, didn't they? And so what appeared to be the basis of their wise predictions? UK new mortgage issuances were down... This could be important of course, notwithstanding some journalists' unhealthy habit of basing some drastic outlook on the large sample of one single data point. But did anyone when relaying this result to their readership stop once to consider the very relevant recent happenings in the global credit markets and it's possible secondary ripples? Do the writers in question realise mortages means lending money, credit means lending money and hence mortgages and credit may be related? I wonder.

2 big things that may be at play, but which, as far as I know, were conspicuously absent from the articles concerned. The US sub-prime mortage crisis was fundamentally caused by selling too much bad debt - offering mortgages to those that could never really afford them. The trick being to sell loads of these but then package them up and manage (unbelievably) to conceal the default risk associated with these loans (i.e. how dodgy they were) and sell the loans on to some one else. That'll do very nicely thank you sir. So, effect one: lots of naughty lenders are being inspected or feeling that they are about to be hauled over the coals. It's highly likely therefore that mortage lenders worldwide will be feeling at least a little less liberal at lending than they normally are. Hey, they might even read some applications and checking some credentials. And maybe, just maybe, this might be putting the brakes on new mortage figures. The other ignored effect was nicely highlighted in the FT yesterday. Northern Rock - another possible credit crunch effect I wonder - is in so much trouble that it's reducing its lending activity significantly. And no way this is the only lender that this is happening to. So many players caught up in this market scam (a much better label than 'crisis' or 'crunch' in this case) are looking at their balance sheets in an increasingly worried fashion. And guess what? Maybe they've started to work a little harder to check who they lend to. And maybe they've become just a little bit more careful overall. And just maybe this is slowing down the mortgage issuance figures.

Now I didn't see any thinking along these lines when the UK esp. tabloid media went into the cataclysm zone recently. I also didn't see the slightest mention about whether housing demand or supply (such esoteric economic considerations!) appear to be altering significantly. Funny that.

Maybe if the reporting concerned had been a bit more comprehensive then I wouldn't have received the scores of reassuring letters and postcards off local estate agents saying there was nothing really wrong. Straight in the bin where they belong. Along with the articles in the first place.

To the journalists and editors concerned: if you don't really know what is going on, then please quieten down for all our sakes.