UK Home Secretary wants to ban homeless people from living in tents - calling it ‘lifestyle choice’
UK Home Secretary wants to ban homeless people from living in tents - calling it ‘lifestyle choice’
Suella Braverman is proposing new laws to restrict the use of tents by homeless people, taking to X - formerly Twitter - to say many see it as a mere lifestyle choice.
It's really confusing that a soulless husk like Suella Braverman can actually get voted into parliament.
What kind of psychopath looks at this lady and says "yeah she's got my best interests in mind and totally wouldn't sell me as pig food if she could get away with it"?
Or is "would sell me as pig food" a selling point as an English politician? Like she can make the hard choice required by the office or something?
@Lodespawn it's people who get off on the thought of someone else being sold as pig food.
I honestly would have thought that in a modern country like the UK, the number of people who get off on the thought of other people being sold as pig food would be less than the number of people who don't ..
Have you tried kill all the poor?
Raise VAT and kill all the poor?
By giving them houses, right?
How is it a lifestyle choice? Boomers really think housing is just for free and waiting to be claimed, and huge swathes of people are saying "no thanks, I'd rather sleep on the street."
At this point, for the needless cruelty to make sense to me, it has to be a sex thing. They have to be getting off on it. It doesn’t make sense otherwise.
I get that under capitalism a underclass of people living truly miserable destitute lives has to exist to scare the working class into accepting worse conditions. As all those worse conditions have to be is just good enough to keep the worker out of the underclass to be attractive.
But creating a system where these people have to exist as a societal tool for discipline and then calling the people forced by the system into this misery as taking a ‘lifestyle choice’ as an excuse to take away what little shelter they have is beyond cruel.
Didn’t they also just recently throw out a bunch of people out of public housing? They even warned cities of a big influx of homeless people that is about to hit the cities when they end up without homes. Some cities have started ordering sleeping bags and tents in advance.
Now they come with this law. I truly wonder what their end game is
Capitalists want unemployment to be a death sentence. If it's possible to live outside their system then they lose control.
@fsxylo not really. Neoliberal economics specifies that it demands an "ideal" unemployment rate of at least 5% at any given time for "elasticity". Full employment would mean there isn't a supply of desperate people ready to sign up for exploitative conditions.
As such the unemployed absolutely are not living outside the system, they are the system working as intended.
Picking on the homeless basically functions to keep all the unemployed, underemployed and the precariat, under control through fear of being in the same position.
"We can reduce homelessness by making it so that people without anywhere to live just die!"
It’s a lifestyle choice to live in a tent and not invade some rich persons mansion.
She becomes less likeable every time she opens her mouth. She genuinely seems like an absolute cunt of a human being.
I'm not saying that because of her gender or ethnicity or anything like that. I mean it solely because she seems like a cruel, vindictive and evil person who is devoid of any sense of empathy or compassion.
Wow. That’s a newer, lower low. Congrats.
Really limbo-ing under that bar.
She sounds like a Republican, always go out of your way to kick a man when he's down.
At this point, for the needless cruelty to make sense to me, it has to be a sex thing. They have to be getting off on it. It doesn’t make sense otherwise.
I get that under capitalism a underclass of people living truly miserable destitute lives has to exist to scare the working class into accepting worse conditions. As all those worse conditions have to be is just good enough to keep the worker out of the underclass to be attractive.
But creating a system where these people have to exist as a societal tool for discipline and then calling the people forced by the system into this misery as taking a ‘lifestyle choice’ as an excuse to take away what little shelter they have is beyond cruel.
At this point, for the needless cruelty to make sense to me, it has to be a sex thing. They have to be getting off on it. It doesn’t make sense otherwise.
I get that under capitalism a underclass of people living truly miserable destitute lives has to exist to scare the working class into accepting worse conditions. As all those worse conditions have to be is just good enough to keep the worker out of the underclass to be attractive.
But creating a system where these people have to exist as a societal tool for discipline and then calling the people forced by the system into this misery as taking a ‘lifestyle choice’ as an excuse to take away what little shelter they have is beyond cruel.