• fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    17 days ago

    Because not all rough sleepers are technically “homeless” and not all homeless people sleep rough.

    For example, a domestic abuse escapee has a home, it’s just not safe to be in, so runs away and sleeps rough.

    The other way round, many homeless are sleeping on a friend’s sofa, for example.

    • nialv7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      isn’t this more reason to use the term homelessness? people who are homeless but don’t rough sleep still do need help finding a home. like obviously solving rough sleeping means giving them a home, not finding them a friend’s sofa to sleep on?

      • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        I guess they’re specifically looking at rough sleeping, as it’s one of the very visible manifestations of homelessness - both easier to track who needs support - and from a political perspective, easier to tell people you’ve solved it.

        Wider homelessness is a much larger issue, harder to solve and harder to prove that you’re “doing well at it”.

    • TWeaK@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      Most homeless women find a place for the night. Staying on the streets is too dangerous for them.

      Many homeless people don’t want to sleep inside or under other peoples’ rules. I worry the subtext of this story is that Burnham is going to criminalise sleeping outside.

      • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 days ago

        I have the same worry - though I’m hopeful that won’t be the case. The article sounds quite positive about it, but we’ll see what actually happens!