JUNE 2 — People tend to have a rosy view of emigration. “Mesti best duduk kat UK,” I’ve been told over the last two decades.
Of course, it certainly has its perks and the economic opportunities are not the least of them. But one should never forget, even a so-called First World country can have its problems.
In the case of the UK, adverse social habits (alcoholism, drug use) compounded with the rising costs of housing has resulted in more than 4,000 people being homeless.
While this may seem to be a small number compared to its 60 million-strong population (0.007 per cent), I am of the belief that no human being should be left behind.
How can the rest of society sit comfortably knowing that there are some of its members who have to, to use a colloquialism, “sleep rough”?
Now that the general elections are upon the UK once again (Theresa May called for a snap election two months ago), political parties are vying to “solve” the homelessness problem in the country.
I am not particularly convinced by this. After all, the problem was around during both the Labour and Liberal Democrat’s time in office (both are currently in the Opposition) but was never eliminated.
The UK government spent nearly 30 billion pounds on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on a threat which was no even there (although ironically, the war itself created new enemies)! Such a hefty sum could have easily solved the issue of homelessness.
The problem is not limited to the phenomenon of the aforementioned rough sleepers alone. There are also the “statutory homeless” which “local councils had decided those people or families did not have somewhere to live that they had a legal right to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in.”
There are nearly 60,000 such households in the UK! However, it is not known how many of these cases overlap with the “rough sleepers” mentioned above.
Bear in mind, local councils are not duty bound to provide housing for all the homeless. They do also have priorities to consider such as households with dependent children, pregnant women, people who are vulnerable in some other way, for example, because of mental illness or physical disability.
Further, In 2002 the vulnerable category was extended to include teenagers aged 16 or 17, those aged age up to 20 who have previously been in care, people who were vulnerable as a result of time spent in care, custody or the Armed Forces and people who have had to flee their home due to violence or the threat of violence.
As readers can see, the list of clients is long and the chances of those who are not on the above list getting help is somewhat remote!
What can society as a whole do for such people? If one were to see society in the bell curve format, the middle of the chart is usually the section in which citizens have the capacity to help.
These are what is known as the “two holidays a year” crowd which should be self-explanatory. I believe a truly compassionate “two holidays a year” folk have the capacity to eradicate the problem of homelessness once and for all.
Even if they are half the population (30 odd million), they could easily contribute towards an institution which houses and feeds the homeless.
This is something any conscientious society should do for its underprivileged and oppress. The reward, of course, is social harmony which, if you think about it, is utterly priceless.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
