People don’t choose to be homeless, but Braverman chooses to be cruel

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Political cruelty is a choice we should all condemn, unreservedly (PA)

In 1971, the education secretary in Edward Heath’s Tory government, a certain Margaret Thatcher, prompted the playground taunt “Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher”, as she stopped the provision of milk for junior school pupils.

Suella Braverman’s reported call in the King’s speech that homeless people should have their tents removed does not quite have the same ring, but demonstrates a similar lack of empathy for many of those forced into such dire straits by the actions of her government. In addition, she is reported to be looking to fine charities found to have given tents to rough sleepers.

To rub salt further into the wounds and demonstrate to what extent that both she and her government have totally lost the plot, according to Braverman many of those taking up residence in tents are doing so apparently as a “lifestyle choice”. So, as we approach winter, people are apparently deciding that this is the life they want to lead.

People don’t choose to be homeless, in the same way people don’t choose to be poor. And in a cost of living crisis, to take away the tents of people, many of whom have been left in such conditions due to Tory policies, demonstrates how vile this government truly is.

Alex Orr

Edinburgh

The best Braverman can do is leave

Braverman is my constituency MP. I live in Fareham which has been a safe seat for the Tory party for as long as its inhabitants have been registered to vote.

Yet Braverman’s recent comments about homelessness are execrable and transparent in their purpose. Her assessment of those unfortunate enough to call a tent home is beyond careless.

Some weeks ago I spoke to a homeless couple sitting outside our town centre library. Tucked away, wrapped up against the cold, and not causing any nuisance. They were saving to buy a tent as Fareham Borough Council (which is a Conservative administration) was unable to offer accommodation but would allow them to put a tent on a local green field amenity site.

Braverman should find out what’s going on in her constituency before pontificating on behalf of others. She certainly does not speak for me or anyone I know. Her best contribution to our traditionally tolerant way of life would be to give up her seat at the next election

Margaret Mainwaring

Address Supplied

We must choose kindness

Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice. The rise in the number of rough sleepers is not down to the availability of tents but the high costs of rent, increasing eviction rates, a cost of living crisis, and years of underfunding for social housing.

As we enter winter and the temperatures begin to drop, some of the most vulnerable in society will be sleeping outside. We should be supporting them, not confiscating their shelter.

Criminalising the use and provision of tents by the homeless would be an act of egregious political cruelty. We can, and should, choose kindness instead.

David Watson

Southampton

Why choose to be homeless? With so many other options...

“People shouldn’t be living in tents.” No. They should go and live in underfunded, damp, algae-filled council accommodation, but we have precious little of that left...

So that leaves expensive and equally ill-managed private accommodation.

A Rackmanesque property catch-22, manufactured by an appalling short-term government planning policy and targeted help-to-buy schemes aiming to support those who can already afford accommodation in the main.

Back to you Suella, any constructive thoughts?

John Sinclair

Pocklington

Only one choice is worth condemning

Braverman’s claim that homelessness is a lifestyle choice is self-evidently cruel and absurd. Such cruelty, however, is a lifestyle choice – and one we should all condemn, unreservedly.

Ian Henderson

Norwich

Sheer stupidity

Simon Calder’s recent article about the madness of wrecking the tourist industry further by requiring Europeans to have a passport to visit, rather than relying on their identity cards, is spot on.

Plastic identity cards contain all the essential data of the person carrying them. They are the primary national identifier, linked to secure national databases.

Banks on the continent insist on seeing them, rather than a passport, when opening accounts, making large withdrawals, etc. Refusing the holder of a European identity card entry to the UK is misguided, and will act as a major deterrent to visitors, especially those wanting a short break and visiting with children. The sheer stupidity of it all!

Anne Marie Cnudde

Address Supplied

We are at a crossroads and must choose a path

Eleanor Holloway’s recent letter does illustrate an advantage if AI takes over humdrum jobs, in that it will give more opportunity for humanity to indulge their creative abilities.

I don’t, however, agree that AI will be unable to replace some of the jobs she mentions. Robots are already being trialled in elderly care roles, though at a very superficial stage, and are performing some surgery in hospitals now. In Japan, they already have automated loos that will not only clean you as well as themselves but play you music or read you the news while they do so.

As for plumbing, shelving, and roof mending, the problem is not the programming or the ability to do the work, much of which is less complex than many of the, admittedly repetitive, tasks done by industrial robots, but the poor mobility of current robots. Not sure I’d trust them with a nappy yet. But science fiction writers have long postulated robots will eventually do the “dirty” and repetitive jobs, thus freeing humans for more creative pursuits.

We are definitely at a crossroads, we must choose the right path now.

Ian McNicholas

Ebbw Vale