Tate Gardens/Brixton Central Square

[Gramsci]

I read that report on Waterloo and found it disturbing.It seems to me the first step towards whats been happening in Westminster.They are not just stopping street drinkers but are attempting a zero tolerance policy on the people who live on the streets.Whether the are a disturabnce or not.This includes using ASBOs on beggars stopping them from begging on the streets.

It concerns me that a charity St Mungos are colluding in this punitive approach.They are getting the police to break up existing communities of street drinkers as this makes it more "manageable" for them deal with them.Seems to me that Charities should provide services on the basis of no compulsion.Punitive measures are the province of the state.Call me nieve but I dont think this is a road charities should go down.

Though thinking about it theres a history of charities doing this.St Barnardos notoriously sent kids to Australia who were born "out of wedlock".So perhaps thiere is a section of the charity sector who are still Victorian paternalistic bastards like St Mungos-I just thought that had gone now.

 

[Gramsci]

The potential sale of Raleigh hall was discussed briefly on this neglected thread

I do miss stuff as im not here everyday

 

[pooka]

Though thinking about it theres a history of charities doing this.St Barnardos notoriously sent kids to Australia who were born "out of wedlock".So perhaps thiere is a section of the charity sector who are just Victorian paternalistic bastards like St Mungos-I just thought that had gone now.

Interesting observations Gramsci. Does it have a basis in experience (of being a street drinker or working with street drinkers/homeless) or more of a theoretical muse?

 

[lang rabbie]

There was a brief summary of the position with Central Square; nothing about Drinking Zone.

May I ask who gave this summary? Attitudes to the project seem to range between the messianic zeal of promotion and frosty scepticism that it will ever happen, depending on which council officer you are speaking to.

 

[Gramsci]

Interesting observations Gramsci. Does it have a basis in experience (of being a street drinker or working with street drinkers/homeless) or more of a theoretical muse?

Just say it Pooka-if you want to dismiss what i say put it in plain language.For someone who complains about the tone of recent posting you certainly know how to do it yourself.What HB observed as being mealy mouthed.

What Im saying is quite simple.Charities IMO should keep themselves separate from the State.They are often the only organisations who can lobby and apeak on behalf of less powerful groups in society.Working with the police in "Drinking Control Areas" is IMO crossing the line to colluding.

I was also pointing out that historically this has happened before.

 

[pooka]

May I ask who gave this summary?

Diane Burridge, the Town Centre Manager.

Just say it Pooka-if you want to dismiss what i say put it in plain language.

No, I don't want to dismiss what you're saying. I want to know on what basis I should weigh it. I know very little of your background/experience. I don't know but that you've a fair expererience of this area of life. If you have, and are arguing from that position, then I'd give particular weight to what you have to say. Alternatively you may be adopting a view consistent with some broader, theoretical or value driven, view of what the relationship between charities and the state should be,

So I asked a simple question to establish which.

All I'd say is I have seen first hand the real challange that's involved in supporting people who are dealing with both street homelessness and alcohol addiction, albeit for a short time. But enough to respect the views of people fulfill that role all the time. They may have got it wrong, but I'd be loathe to castigate them on the back of a neat and tidy theoretical analysis. Sometimes the world is a bit messier than just white hats and black hats.

Now, where did I put my nosebag full of meal?

 

[Gramsci]

The problem is that Charities are getting drawn into service provision.More so if New Labour has its way.The danger is seen in how the Government is dealing with homelessness on the streets.The rough sleeper initiative led by Casey warned that charities that did not sign up would have their funding from Central government reviewed.As Ms Ghosh(from Crisis),

"Charites in a sense are the conscience of the nation and we must be allowed to follow our consciences"

see here:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,381794,00.html

Ive looked up St Mungos and they recieve 8% of their income from Central Government.See page 30 of their Annual Report,

http://www.mungos.org/about/Annual_Review_2003.pdf

 

[Gramsci]

Diane Burridge, the Town Centre Manager.


So I asked a simple question to establish which.

but I'd be loathe to castigate them on the back of a neat and tidy theoretical analysis. Sometimes the world is a bit messier than just white hats and black hats.

I didnt like the tone from someone whose being complaining about how people post up on the Brixton forum.

The implication is that anything thats based on "theoretical analysis" is not to be given credence.

I dont live in Iraq but I can have an opinion on the War there.

 

[IntoStella]

Interesting observations Gramsci. Does it have a basis in experience (of being a street drinker or working with street drinkers/homeless) or more of a theoretical muse?

Ah, is this the new editorial line we have all been waiting for to replace the ''tonally challenged'' old one?

Posters may only express opinions on a subject about which they can demonstrate a significant degree of personal experience.

This will be interesting.

So, for instance, nobody would be able to express an opinion about the conduct of Blair or Bush, because they had never been PM or US president.

Almost no one would be permitted to pass comment on the affairs of Lambeth council because (with a few notable exceptions), no one is, or has been, a Lambeth councillor or officer.

Only serving or former police officers or members of the community police consultative group -- like pooka, in fact -- will be allowed to pass comment on the police, in Lambeth or elsewhere.

Fed up with corporate giants like Tesco's? You're not on their boards of directors, so shut up!

Sick of the way the education system is failing your kids? Are you a qualified teacher? No? Then zip it.

All posters must be force fed foie gras before they can opine on whether its production is cruel.

Despite the gentlemen's agreements and calls for amnesty, I see no end in sight to the scary Animal Farm ambience.

Remember: some posters are more equal than others.

 

[pooka]

The problem is that Charities are getting drawn into service provision.More so if New Labour has its way.The danger is seen in how the Government is dealing with homelessness on the streets.The rough sleeper initiative led by Casey warned that charities that did not sign up would have their funding from Central government reviewed.As Ms Ghosh(from Crisis),

"Charites in a sense are the conscience of the nation and we must be allowed to follow our consciences"

see here:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,381794,00.html

Ive looked up St Mungos and they recieve 8% of their income from Central Government.See page 30 of their Annual Report,

http://www.mungos.org/about/Annual_Review_2003.pdf

Actually, its nearer 30% (£8m out of £29m). The argument about about charity independence and the 'contract culture' is one that has rumbled on for the past decade at least. But people often forget that before Govt was contracting with charities to provide services and paying fees, it was giving grants. I'm not sure there was ever a golden age when charities were entirely independent of the state. Charities have always taken money from the state and (mostly) managed to maintain an independent voice.

There was a dust up between Shaks Gosh and Loise Casey. I'm always a little wary when charities adopt this holier than thou bit ('the concience of the nation'). Very easy for them to get bound up with themselves because, ironically, they don't have the same pressures to perform as statutory or commercial organisations.

Crisis started out with a simple, clearly stated mission "To end street homelessness". Three years ago they agreed, with Casey, that street homelessness was so-reduced as to be effectively ended, but didn't wrap themselves up, simply redefined their mission. A mission (in substance) indestinguishable from Shelter's. But Crisis spectacularly failed to merge with Shelter. No conscience is without blemish, perhaps.

But coming back to the case in point, are you saying that you think St Mungo's are failing to give the most useful, practical service they're capable off, to the street drinkers in Waterloo, because they receive Government funding? And if so, what should they be doing instead, again in practical terms?

 

[pooka]

Posters may only express opinions on a subject about which they can demonstrate a significant degree of personal experience.

Not at all what I'm saying. I simply asked where Gramsci was coming from - a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given I don't know much of his background.


I'm sorry if Gramsci thought I was having a go at him; I wasn't: I was just seeking some clarification. Though having got it, I will now say that I do indeed think that experience, where available, is the better instructor than theory.

But seriously Intostella, in what way do you feel that your interjection has benefitted the exchange that was going on between myself and Gramsci? In what way are any of us better informed or enlightened as a result of it? If you need to interject, wouldn't some comment on the issue be a better contribution?

Do we really want to go through all that bollox again?

 

[lang rabbie]

Gramsci

St Mungo's exists to deal with homlelessness. Alcohohol abuse is a major cause of homelessness. Read the rest of their report rather than selecting one figure on funding.

There has been a history of completely inadequate statutory provision in this field.

I don't suppose that you ever visited one of the former Department for Social Security resettlement centres. These, along with some mental hospitals, were truly a cinderella services of the welfare state - direct descendants of workhouses and the Camberwell "Spike" mentioned by Orwell in Down and Out in London and Paris.

Recognition of the inappropriateness of large institutional forms of hostels was reflected in central government’s 1985 policy to replace the reception or resettlement centres run by the (then) Department of Health and Social Security, with smaller less institutional accommodation to be managed by local authorities or voluntary agencies. (Anderson et al, 1993). In fact the closure of all resettlement centres was never completed, and in 1992 plans were announced to refurbish those resettlement units in reasonably good physical condition and transfer them to the voluntary sector

St Mungo's have taken over the management of Cedar's Road in Clapham, which was one of the former resettlement centres.

 

[Gramsci]

Gramsci

St Mungo's exists to deal with homlelessness. Alcohohol abuse is a major cause of homelessness. Read the rest of their report rather than selecting one figure on funding.

There has been a history of completely inadequate statutory provision in this field.

I don't suppose that you ever visited one of the former Department for Social Security resettlement centres. These, along with some mental hospitals, were truly a cinderella services of the welfare state - direct descendants of workhouses and the Camberwell "Spike" mentioned by Orwell in Down and Out in London and Paris.

Back to me not speaking from personal experience again i see I agree with Intostella on this.A new stick to beat the lefties with on BB.

I will reiterate the simple point i was making.On reading the report about the Waterloo DCA i was concerned that St Mungos were seemed to think it was good that the police had broken up drinking groups as this made it "easier" for them to be "helped".The clear implication is that the street drinkers were given no choice in the matter of when they should be helped and how.

Personal Experience:

I was talking to a homeless(drug user) up in Soho.He said what the police did their was stop u give you a list of hostels and said if they caught u again u would be arrested.As he said a lot of homeless dont like the hostels and there are not enough beds.His opinion was that Westminster just wanted to get the homeless out of their borough."Outreach" workers in Westminster now work on the punitive-if u wont less us help u we will report u to the police-model of charity.(I think St Mungos are involved).

Another homeless I know in Soho(a regular well known street drinker)justs wants to be left alone as hes not bothering anyone.True as the local shopkeepers know him and I do and accept him as part of life in London.

Ive also talked to an outreach worker in another borough.At the moment hes still doing outreach work on the basis of getting to know people on the street and giving advice and support if they want it.He still works in a non compulsory way.He was concerned at developments in some areas of London. Westminster where a if u dont accept help we will report u to the police model was starting to be used.

I dont like having to put "personal experience" in under pressure to validate what ive already posted.It does not change my previous posts on this subject.

I also used to now someone who worked in Crisis.The thing about Crisis is that they dont depend on Government funds and could be more outspoken.The point Ms Ghosh was making IMO is that Charities are independant advocates for the groups the lobby for and that debate should not be stifled.Its well known the Casey was armtwisting Charities who got Central Government funding to sign up to the rough sleepers intitiative.

It seems to me that the initiatve like that at Waterloo and Westminster dont take into account either the opinions of those on the street or those who work directly with.This is top down from Central Government/Councils and the Fat Cats who run some of these Charities.

Theory versus Personal Experience.

Ive seen a fair amount of life in London.I use both.My life history informs what im into reading as far as theory goes.Theory helps me to see things in new waits-like art(another interest of mine).In this Country any kind of theory is treated as suspect.The two are not that separate as people might think.

I think Charities can fulfil a useful function as part of Civil society.At the moment they are more popular than the main Political parties.Campaigning groups like Oxfam provide useful bulwark against Government waffle and inaction.

However I reserve my right to criticise them as well-whatever good works they do in other areas.I dont think its an appropriate role for the Voluntary sector to have such a close relationship with the State as seem in Westminster and Waterloo.They lose their independance and ability to criticise.In the end they will be absorbed into the State as just another outsourced service provider.

 

[Gramsci]

As for the square development-i am largely in agreement with Newbies post on this.Also I remember the original "consultation exercise" on it.The consultants were OK.It was just that they didnt come up with the answer the Brixton Town Centre Mge wanted so they ignored it.

The issue of street drinkers did come up.To my surprise most people wanted to make sure they would be consulted and were not going to be just got rid off in an effort to "clean" Brixton up.

 

[lang rabbie]

Gramsci, what got my goat (and may well also have also ruffled pooka's feathers?) was the sheer offensiveness of your post ("Victorian paternalistic bastards") to many of those in the charity sector who work with the homeless.

It concerns me that a charity St Mungos are colluding in this punitive approach.They are getting the police to break up existing communities of street drinkers as this makes it more "manageable" for them deal with them. Seems to me that Charities should provide services on the basis of no compulsion. Punitive measures are the province of the state.Call me nieve but I dont think this is a road charities should go down.

Though thinking about it theres a history of charities doing this.St Barnardos notoriously sent kids to Australia who were born "out of wedlock".So perhaps thiere is a section of the charity sector who are still Victorian paternalistic bastards like St Mungos-I just thought that had gone now.

My recent involvement has been even more tangential than pooka's, but my experience working alongside DHSS 15 years ago makes me think that the services provided by charities now with taxpayer support are one hell of a lot better than what the state used to provide.

You appear to have come to these conclusions only from a reading of the (appalling written) Lambeth officer's report on the Waterloo pilot, which may or may not be a fair reflection of the views of St Mungo's staff.

Oh, and I am fully aware that my views on this are somewhat less libertarian than John Stuart Mill

 

[Gramsci]

Gramsci, what got my goat (and may well also have also ruffled pooka's feathers?) was the sheer offensiveness of your post ("Victorian paternalistic bastards") to many of those in the charity sector who work with the homeless.

You appear to have come to these conclusions only from a reading of the (appalling written) Lambeth officer's report on the Waterloo pilot, which may or may not be a fair reflection of the views of St Mungo's staff.

John Stuart Mill

My conclusion are based on what Ive seen happening in London,pronouncemants by New Labour,local and national newspaper reports and-as Ive indicated in my posts not just the Waterloo report.It seems to me in that the Charity sector did go through a more radical period.ie the setting up of Shelter,War on Want etc which replaced the "Victorian paternalistc bastards".With the government trying to encourage the "voluntary sector" into service provision their could be a step back to Victorian values.

 

[Gramsci]

Didnt realise John Stuart Mill was so good on the idea of Liberty.Blunkett and Tony certainly havent read him.If he was alive today I wonder what he would say.The piece is correct the so called "War on Drugs" is run by people with the same kind of illiberal mentality as those Mill was castigating.

Particularly liked the way that Mill said Liberty was the freedom to do something.And that the puritanical notion was freedom from something-if Ive got it right.His critique of Protestant Christianity is spot on-its joyless and small minded.

I agree if people want to drink cans of special brew and they are not really bothering people let them do it.Their are plenty of laws already to deal with them if they become a nuisance.These Drinking Control Areas are something that the do gooders of the 19c Temperance movement would have supported.

 

[pooka]

Gramsci:

(1) The arguement about contracting jeapordising the independence of charities is a well established one; it's been around since c1990. And ultimately people will have different views.

(2) On balance I'd say there plenty of examples which demonstrate that:

• charities are able to provide more effective, responsive and cost effective service than the state had;
• charities are still able to campaign. Contracting started under Thatcher and in many areas of social policy charities were the only coherent voice of opposition;
• charities have not been returning to paternalism, evidence the shifting of governence structures to beneficiaries;
• charities are in a stronger position to campaign on the back of the direct experience service provision provides;

(3) I actually think that the bigger risk to charities is simply that the State is loath to pay the full price for the services they purchase and charities are faced with the choice of compromising on quality, or subsidising with their voluntary income.

(4) With regards to compulsion, it is (for me) a fine line how far you should go when dealing with something which is addictive and destroying people's lives. As far as public nuisance goes, I think its always been the case that people are wary of gatherings of people getting steadily pickled (or sustaining their pickledness) on booze - because invariably hurling abuse or pissing or fighting comes into it. Whilst you're right, they can be dealt with by as public order offences once they've happened, the Drinking Bans seek avoid them happening in the first place.

I don't think it's anything to do with New Labour or Gentrification. It may be that people are becoming more sensitised given that drink related public grossness seems to becoming more prevalent, in all sorts of contexts.

(5) Overall, I've an open mind and sufficient regard for the reputation and track record of St Mungo's to give them the benefit of any doubt.

I agree with Intostella on this.A new stick to beat the lefties with on BB.

Let's not turn it into another one of those theads, eh ?

 

[IntoStella]

Let's not turn it into another one of those theads, eh ?

You mean let's not have a thread where people say things you don't agree with? My point is entirely valid: I am not comfortable with people stifling debate with self-righteousness (how dare you criticise the way charities are run, gramsci! How DARE you!) and anti-intellectualism. (No theory -- it puts people off.) . Many charities do still cling to Victorian, paternalistic attitudes towards the people they are supposed to be helping. It's a big problem. Righteous indignation certainly won't solve it.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Sorry, but I can't read all this thread at the moment, but just found this in SLP

Lambeth council started looking at the idea of a Brixton square in 2001. More recently, the transport arm of the Greater London Authority - Transport for London (TfL) - has been examining the 133 bus route and has mooted the idea of closing part of Effra Road and rerouting traffic around Brixton Hill. That closure would be a vital part of the square scheme, enabling the spaces to be joined up. TfL is due to consult next April and, if it went ahead, would carry out the plan in 2005/6.

What's the 133 bus route go to do with any of this?

 

[IntoStella]

What's the 133 bus route go to do with any of this?

And why just the 133? Don't they all go round that bit, whether they go up Effra rd or the hill?

Sounds like a really good plan, though.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

And why just the 133? Don't they all go round that bit, whether they go up Effra rd or the hill?

Sounds like a really good plan, though.

The Nos. 45, 59, 109, 118, 133, 159, 333, 250 all go up the Hill. Very strange

 

[pooka]

And why just the 133? Don't they all go round that bit, whether they go up Effra rd or the hill?

Sounds like a really good plan, though.

Perhaps the paper/council got the wrong end of the stick. The problem would be the buses which go up Acre Lane, and which use the St Matthews loop to avoid making a right turn.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Perhaps the paper/council got the wrong end of the stick. The problem would be the buses which go up Acre Lane, and which use the St Matthews loop to avoid making a right turn.

Pretty poor for a newspaper not to know the bus routes that go past their offices (almost)

 

[IntoStella]

Pretty poor for a newspaper not to know the bus routes that go past their offices (almost)

The SLP obviously pays its staff so well that they never have to take the bus.

The wheels on the 45, 59, 109, 118, 133, 159, 333 and 250 go round and round, round and round, round and round...

.........

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Originally Posted by Minnie_the_Bus_Spotter
The wheels on the 45, 59, 109, 118, 133, 159, 333 and 250 go round and round, round and round, round and round...

Shut up woman. At least I know what buses go up the Hill

I'll have you know that the 109, 118 and 250 terminate at Brixton and therefore don't go round and round and round and round. They just stop


*Gets anorak*

 

[lang rabbie]

AFAIK...

The way that Transport for London Street Management work, purely environmental improvement projects s would seldom get through the budget setting process given the overspending on operating London Buses. Each local TfL officer has therefore started including paving improvements, street furniture, streetscape etc. in each bus priority or safety project they propose along each red route/major bus corridor.

The 133 was identified as a bus route for which bus priority measures would be useful - it is therefore the hook for these improvements.

The dates being quoted look optimistic, given the very limited amount of modelling that has been done so far.

I suspect that the scheme could fall, because displacing all the traffic from Effra Road will require roadspace in Brixton Hill currently used as bus stands for routes terminating in Brixton. And bus-stands are in short supply - no-one wants them outsside their own home.

(See also the rows going on in Streatham regarding the ice rink/pool site and London Buses' demands for bus stand space in the new development.)

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

The 133 was identified as a bus route for which bus priority measures would be useful - it is therefore the hook for these improvements.

er, why that route?


Lang - I'm hoping you can explain TFL's logic in putting bus stop shelters in the MIDDLE of the pavement.

Sorry, but you seem to be the resident expert on these matters

 

[Ol Nick]

I'll have you know that the 109, 118 and 250 terminate at Brixton and therefore don't go round and round and round and round. They just stop

But they must go somewhere. Do they get driven into the Stockwell Park Estate and burned out?

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

But they must go somewhere. Do they get driven into the Stockwell Park Estate and burned out?

Yep, they turn around and start all over again. I suppose that DOES mean they go round and round

Such a shame really, was much better when No. 109 went over Westminster Bridge.

Now everyone has to struggle onto the Nos. 3 and 159