The home secretary, Suella Braverman, has described rough sleeping as a “lifestyle choice” while defending her decision to restrict the use of tents by homeless people on the streets of Britain.

According to Whitehall insiders, Braverman plans to crack down on tents that cause a nuisance in urban areas such as high streets – amid growing numbers of rough sleepers and what the government considers a rise in antisocial behaviour.

The home secretary has also proposed the introduction of a civil offence, which could lead to charities being fined if they provide homeless people with tents, the Financial Times reported.

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, Braverman defended her proposals, saying: “The British people are compassionate. We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. But we cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice.

“Unless we step in now to stop this, British cities will go the way of places in the US like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where weak policies have led to an explosion of crime, drug-taking, and squalor.

  • 01011@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The UK has one of the most vile governments in the industrialized world.

  • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Love how there’s only one ‘Lifestyle Choice’ available for billions of people on God’s Green Earth: Work or Die.

  • spiderkle@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Tories are conservative monarchists, what do you expect? They hate “peasants”, especially those on the lowest social ladder.

    • theinspectorst@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes. Literally the only truly evil senior British politician I have come across in my lifetime.

      There are plenty of politicians in my lifetime who I have disagreed with quite severely on certain things - Thatcher, Blair, Corbyn, May, for example. But in each of their cases I honestly believe they were pursuing a course that they believed would improve the lot of the British people and bring about a better, fairer and more prosperous society - I might have disagreed with them (in some cases a lot!) about how to get there, but I never doubted their hearts were ultimately in the right place. Boris Johnson was the first who left me thinking he had no redeeming qualities - selfish and egotistical, heart very much in the wrong place. Boris was only in it for Boris.

      But Suella is something else. Suella isn’t in it for the public good, but Suella isn’t in it for Suella either. Suella is in it to hurt people. That’s her overwhelming motivating goal in life and politics. She gets off on undisguised cruelty. She is genuinely evil.

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Right, and it just so happens that more and more people are “choosing” to be homeless since the cost of living has deepened (never mind over a decade of Tory enforced austerity that came before it), and despite the fact that hundreds of rough sleepers die every year, mostly due to freezing temperatures and/or related illness…

    It’s also a classic Tory projection move how in California the problem is due to policy, but where she makes the policy, it’s anything but… 🙄

  • SomeoneElse@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Hateful woman. Each time I think her policies can’t get any more evil she outdoes herself.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Just in case anyone is concerned, Bretherman is insane and has absolutely no idea or indeed any interest in what the “British people” want. And her and her useless excuse for a government are just biding their time until they get unceremoniously kicked out of office.

    She has repeatedly claimed that “the people” are interested in immigration despite the fact that polling data shows that most people couldn’t give a flying rats backside about immigration.

    The only people who care about immigration are the sort of people who get upset if somebody with slightly different coloured skin walks past them in the street. Or they hear previously unknown language that they suspect might be foreign or possibly Welsh. I.e morons

  • ValiantDust@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I’m not up to date with the online discussion of British politics. Is Cruella Braverman a thing already or do we need to make it happen?

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Definitely already a thing, she is a real piece of work…
      If you want to ruin your weekend, hers is a rabbit hole to go down…

    • loobkoob@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      That and “Suella de Ville”. And she’s fully deserving of either title. I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but where other politicians I dislike feel like they’re either doing the wrong things for the right reasons, or they’re selfish, corrupt or incompetent, Braverman feels like she gets off on the cruelty and is a genuinely evil person.

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Psychopaths have a way to coerce or convince people to take their side. They must have control over others. It’s all about power and doing whatever it takes to get it. Lie, cheat, gaslight, play the victim, whatever.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      If she pulls herself up and really tries hard at itself improvement she might elevate herself to being a really shit human being.

  • ZeroCool@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    “The British people are compassionate. We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. But we cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."

    Oh you’re homeless? Name the top three ways to cook beans over a hobo campfire so I know you’re not a poser.” - Suella Braverman

  • Chozo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Is “rough sleeping” a UK term, or is that as tone-deaf as it sounds to my American sensibilities?

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Stand UK term. Used by charities and the voluntary sector as well as government. Not particularly tone deaf. What is your preferred term?

      • Chozo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I dunno, but I feel like even “homeless” is a more-encompassing term, since it affects more than just your sleep situation. I feel like “rough sleeping” is really downplaying what homelessness entails.

        • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Homeless people are called homeless. But not all people sleeping rough are homeless. For example someone ejected from their home by an abusive partner might be sleeping rough, but wouldn’t be homeless. It’s a question of being precise and not assuming things about someone’s circumstances

    • DizzyG@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m Canadian and the phrase “sleeping rough” is definitely in use here. Many homeless people sleep in shelters or cars or someone else’s place, if they have the option. “Sleeping rough” is useful for differentiating those who are sleeping in bus shelters, tents, etc. I most frequently hear it used by people advocating for the homeless.