Table of Contents
Who can blame it when the issue of Eastern European rough sleepers has long been politically explosive?
Our storyraises questions that the likes of human rights organisation Liberty might be well advised to dwell on.
The Guardian quoted Liberty’s director as saying that Thames Reach and other charities had been co-opted by the government into “spying”. Is it really tantamount to spying to record information about a person – their drug addiction, say, or their nationality – and to pass this to the authorities?
The answer is it depends how the information is used. Charities are obliged to pass some data to other agencies in certain circumstances.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with assisting people to access health or social services. The facts of each case are what matters, and every case is different.
That’s not to say greater transparency isn’t needed. One could argue that if the Home Office is hell-bent on rounding up homeless non-UK nationals, it would be far better to have charity workers involved – and watching – than to shut them out.
Dogmatic activists from the left and right wilfully ignore such complexity.
