Andy Burnham has made a promise to end rough sleeping as a priority. Although this sounds good, such promises have been made before—and failed to deliver. The danger is that focussing on such headline issues diverts resources from where they are really needed. But in fact the church has something significant to offer to address the real issues of homelessness in our country—and we need to step up.
Jon Kuhrt writes: Andy Burnham could not have been any clearer about his priorities in his first few hours as the UK’s new Prime Minister. On his first morning as PM he visited The Passage, a homeless charity in Westminster, and then announced from the steps of No10:
I will soon go through that door behind me and issue my first instruction: to end rough sleeping in our country.
It’s a bold statement of intent which shows how politically potent the problem of visible homelessness is. And minutes after he walked back through that door, the government announced £340m of new funding to tackle rough sleeping.
Similar pledges
Over recent decades, I have seen many Prime Ministers and politicians make similar promises.
In 1990, Margaret Thatcher launched the first Rough Sleepers Initiative, investing £96m ‘to make it unnecessary for anyone to sleep rough in London’. My university dissertation was on this initiative, and my first job was in a south London hostel funded by it.
In 1999, Tony Blair established a Rough Sleepers Unit, led by Louise Casey, and gave her the target of reducing rough sleeping by two-thirds by 2002. During this period, I managed an emergency shelter in Soho that it funded, and Casey and many politicians were frequent visitors.
In 2011, as London Mayor, Boris Johnson committed to ending rough sleeping in London by 2012, the year the capital hosted the Olympics. At this time, I led the West London Mission (WLM) which ran hostels and a major day centre for rough sleepers in Westminster.
And then in 2018, Theresa May committed £100m to ending rough sleeping by 2027. I was seconded from WLM to the government as a Rough Sleeping Adviser, part of a team assembled to achieve this manifesto pledge. In four years in the role, I worked under four different Prime Ministers and seven Homelessness Ministers.
And then there is Andy Burnham himself. In 2017, as his first act as Mayor of Greater Manchester, he pledged to end rough sleeping across the city region by 2020. He put 15% of his own salary into a mayoral homelessness fund and launched his A Bed Every Night scheme. And initially it worked: rough sleeping in Greater Manchester fell from 268 people in 2017 to 149 by 2023.
But the 2020 target was missed, and the numbers have climbed again since – back up to 197 in 2025. Burnham’s explanation was that decisions taken nationally were undercutting what he could achieve locally. The fact that he now has his hands on the national levers is what makes his pledge so interesting.
Unachieved targets
Of course, a huge amount of good was done under each of these initiatives but none of them, bar one, hit their target and most of them got nowhere near. The exception was Tony Blair’s government which, in an economic boom and a time of huge public investment, just reached its two-thirds reduction – though not without controversy about the final count.
So Andy Burnham’s pledge, however well-intentioned, has to be read in the light of this track record.
Part of the trouble is defining what ‘ending rough sleeping’ actually means. The homeless sector’s technical definition is that rough sleeping should be ‘rare, brief and non-recurring’. But when the public hear ‘ending rough sleeping’ it sounds like a promise that there will come a morning when no one is bedding down in a doorway.
Better public conversation
Some argue that missing targets doesn’t matter: what counts is being ambitious. But I disagree.
Setting unrealistic and unachievable targets is never a good idea. They distort reality and pull money towards what is most visible and away from what is most important. And they exhaust frontline staff and breed cynicism in commentators and the public who believe that homelessness simply cannot be fixed.
I want rough sleeping reduced as much as anyone does, and I hope the Prime Minister succeeds. But we need a far better public conversation about what causes homelessness and the limits of what government policy can do.
Complex realities
Political pledges to end rough sleeping are built on an assumption the issue is fundamentally one of resources: that with enough money, housing and beds it can be solved. The reality is more complicated.
I saw this most vividly during the Covid pandemic, when I was a government adviser working on the initiative known as Everyone In. No one could have foreseen a moment when hotels stood empty and deals were struck that moved thousands of homeless people into them.
Everyone In saw heroic efforts being made by charities, churches and councils. I remember one local authority head of housing who took meals to a man sleeping in a local graveyard, including on Christmas Day, as part of her efforts to try to bring him into accommodation.
The limits of resources
At that time, there were more resources made available to address rough sleeping than ever before, and almost every assessment barrier was dropped. What was on offer was not a bed in a hostel or a night shelter, but a room in a Premier Inn or Travelodge. And all of it happened when public health concerns were at their absolute height.
And yet, even with all those factors in play, the official count still found 2,688 people sleeping rough in the autumn of 2020. This was a fall of 37% on the year before, but nowhere near ‘ending’ the problem. At the most generously resourced, least conditional moment in the history of national homelessness policy, the streets did not empty. Everyone In was a great slogan, but we cannot pretend that everyone came in.
Types of poverty
What this highlights is the kinds of poverty that combine to cause rough sleeping. There is the poverty of resources – the lack of affordable accommodation, unemployment, debt and benefit problems. But it goes far deeper than the material.
There is also the deep relational poverty caused by family breakdown, neglectful parenting, abuse and the on-going issues of isolation and loneliness. People have nowhere to go because they have no one to go to.
Deeper still is the poverty of identity, where the difficulty is not just people’s relationships with others but their relationship with themselves. This is seen in the chronic issues of low self-esteem, mental health problems and the addictions which cluster around them.
This holistic understanding of poverty shows why home-lessness is so much more than house-lessness. Houses are vital resources, but homes are much more: they are fundamentally places of relationship and safety, of identity and belonging.
What government can do
Governments can implement policy and distribute resources, but as Everyone In showed, resources are only one part of solving human problems. Helping someone rebuild relationships, or recover a sense of who they are, is far harder, and lies largely beyond the reach of policy. These are the areas of life where we need families, friends, neighbours, churches and communities.
Housing First, where rough sleepers are offered housing along with intensive, open-ended support, is often spoken about as the solution. And whilst it is a good answer for some, it is very expensive and will only be affordable for those with the most complex needs.
The truth is that commissioned, professional support, however skilled, is not the same as community and belonging. Who someone eats with on a Tuesday evening, or who notices when they stop answering the door, is not something a government can pay for. The deepest work is not something that can be commissioned.
The gospel of Jesus
And this is why I believe, more than ever, in the unique role that the local church has. The gospel message that Jesus preached and embodied has the power and relevance to address each of these three forms of poverty when incarnated in the life of the church.
Jesus spoke a huge amount about how we use our resources. He urged his followers to “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail” (Luke 12:33).
And Jesus urges his followers to build relationships with those who are marginalised: ‘When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbours…invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’ (Luke 14:12)
And this transformed behaviour is built upon a new identity in Christ, a renewed sense of self built on God’s love, grace and forgiveness. Jesus describes as being ‘born again’ and John likens it to adoption: “to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12).
When we understand the gospel in these holistic terms then we understand why the gospel is ‘good news to the poor’ (Luke 4:18).
The example of the early church
And in the early chapter of Acts, we see a community which lived out this message and embodied these qualities:
The early church was a community which radically shared their resources: “And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.” (Acts 2:45).
And as the Acts narrative continually emphasises, the early church was a community which built relationships across racial, ethnic and cultural divides: “Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts”.
And of course, all this was built on a new identity in a crucified and resurrected Christ: “With great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all” (4:33).
And this biblical and theological foundation is why such a huge number of homelessness charities across the country were established by churches and committed Christians.
Healing brokenness
And this is why I wanted to work for Hope into Action: because I was impressed by their model that seeks to address all three forms of poverty and the strong Christian faith which continues to be the engine-room of our work.
We provide the resource of quality, safe accommodation, made possible by investors who use their capital to buy houses. We turn those houses into homes through partnership with local churches, who offer relationships and community to our tenants. And in all of it we offer a chance to rebuild a more positive identity — through being empowered in recovery, finding meaningful work, exploring faith and belonging to a local community.
Power to fulfil
So my fundamental issue with Andy Burnham’s pledge is not that I doubt his commitment or sincerity, but that I don’t believe ending rough sleeping is within a government’s power to fulfil. Had it been a pledge related to resources, such as ‘we will create enough beds to offer every rough sleeper a place to sleep’, it could be achieved. But short of enforcement measures no one would want to see, you cannot force people to stop sleeping rough.
But scepticism about aspirational pledges is not the same as abandoning hope. I believe more than ever that we need a compassionate form of realism which appreciates the complexity of this issue and what it takes to address it.
Political and personal
Homelessness is structural and political, but it is more than that too: it is about human brokenness and the scars of relational trauma, which no government pledge can fix. Yet scars can heal and people can change. At Hope into Action, it’s our joy to know people who slept in doorways for years become tenants, then neighbours, and then the ones welcoming others in.
So it is good news that we have a Prime Minister who has put homelessness at the top of his agenda, and who has worked so positively with faith communities in Manchester. Let’s back him and push for better policies and more resources. But let’s not stop there, because the deepest work will never be done from the steps of No10.
Getting involved
It will be done by people who get involved in the lives of others. Learn the name of the person you walk past on your way to work and see how you can help them. Volunteer at your local night shelter, drop-in centre or food bank. Ask your church how it could be part of the solution. Get in touch with Hope into Action to join our movement to provide supportive homes and meaningful relationships which empower authentic change.
Governments can commission services and fund beds, and it’s vital they do. But it’s people who can offer a warm welcome to the lonely and build relationships with those who are vulnerable.
Homelessness doesn’t end through contracts; it ends in community. And that makes it a job for all of us.
See more about Hope into Action’s work to empower churches to provide housing and community for people who have been homeless. Susie is one of our tenants who escaped street homelessness and this is (part of) her story:
Jon Kuhrt has worked with people affected by homelessness for 30 years. He is a former government adviser on how faith groups address rough sleeping and CEO of the West London Mission. He is now CEO of Hope into Action who work with local churches to house homeless people. He lives with his wife in Streatham, south London and they have 3 children. He likes football….but loves cricket. This article was first published on Jon’s blog here.
Buy me a Coffee
An excellent analysis. I have worked quite closely with The Salvation Army’s homelessness services teams over recent years, although it is not my area of expertise, and much of what I have learned chimes with this.
Nevertheless, there are 2 points I want to make…
1. Ending rough sleeping is not ending homelessness. It often means moving people off the streets into temporary accommodation, such as hostels or bed and breakfast. These last in particular often lack basic amenities: I volunteer at a foodbank at which people in temporary accommodation will sometimes give back some of the items because they do not have a fridge or a kitchen. The Salvation Army published a report some 18-24 months ago in which we called for greater support services for people in temporary accommodation.
2. While Housing First does require a significant investment, a senior civil servant in the Scottish government’s homelessness department contradicted me when I said it was expensive. Her point was because, done properly, Housing First breaks the cycle of recurrent homelessness, it has long-term savings (including reduced costs for A & E and the judicial system) which more than off-set the initial costs.
Hopefully he will but he will need to do it with other bodies as you say. PM Burnham is a Roman Catholic and Christian so hopefully he will recognise the importance of the state working with churches to provide foodbanks and shelters
In his book Head North (2024) he described himself explicitly as lapsed.
So what? He was baptised Roman Catholic, confirmed Catholic and served as an altar boy so in Vatican terms is very much Roman Catholic. He also says Catholic teachings still very much influence is approach to social issues.
Given the last PM Starmer was a confirmed atheist and son of a diehard atheist that is some improvement
If you don’t know the answer to ‘So what’, I can’t help you.
Yes well on your criteria even the Archbishop of Canterbury would find it difficult to classify herself as a Christian!
Why do you use the word ‘even’?
I should add that I agree with you that Burnham is better than Starmer.
Well that is something anyway. The most Christian PMs this century were probably Blair, Brown and May, all regular churchgoers. The only Anglican churchgoing leader now is Ed Davey of the LDs, Farage is nominally Anglican but like Burnham lapsed. Though Swinney as Scottish FM and SNP leader is a Church of Scotland churchgoer and also attends Mass as his wife is Roman Catholic. Sunak was of course Hindu and the first PM of a non Christian faith
Rough sleeping is highly correlated with two things:
-Having suffered sexual abuse at a formative age, and thus feeling unable to go forward, feeling nothing matters sufficiently etc.;
-Being thrown out of the home (and/or not having a family home one can go to).
In other words, remove the sexual revolution with its blurred boundaries and neglect, and you greatly diminish the issue.
(Levels were low 70 years ago, even after the bombing of all those homes. Largely limited to older male ‘tramps’. Because everyone had their own discrete family. Using other presuppositions / structures than these – structures that will inevitably be worse, not better – just plays into the hands of the problem.)
I agree Christopher. Why do you think they have been “thrown out of the house”?
It is wrong that any family member be treated that highly extreme way, or anything near. I am surprised that I would need to say that, as it has mostly been regarded as obvious. (Note that there are double standards for spouses and children respectively, which is unacceptable. Whereas with live-in partners the flimsy basis means one is always fighting a losing battle.)
It is normally (very disproportionately) initiated by women. See for example Baskerville, Taken Into Custody. (Note that the statistic-less stereotype is that it is all because of ‘abusive men’ or ‘deadbeat dads’, who of course also exist, as do their female counterparts. It is vanishingly unlikely that the very men that were chosen as spouses above all others should somehow regularly become, or turn out to be very bad people; but when one sees that this new perception of them very regularly coincides with the perimenopause, then one sees what is really going on here.) Note that this is very different from any other situation in life, since even someone 100% innocent can suffer not just extreme loss on a whim, but the greatest possible loss. Whereas in every other situation harm needs to be proven, in this one it can be agreed on all sides that there is no harm at all.
Adele equates destruction with her happiness. Lily James calls it a cultural achievement.
Women experience greater emotional fluctuation at the best of times; but also depression or downness during the perimenopause 45-55.
The main enabling cause for this trend is the reduced taboo in acting that way.
Which itself is caused by the loosening of family bonds and local church/society.
So this too is to be put squarely down to the sexual revolution again, since family or church would have nipped such selfish behaviour in the bud.
We have today societies where it is financially advantageous for families to fracture (something I can scarcely utter); where individualism means people think they need more and more individual space to be ‘me’ while the successful and happy societies and subcultures continue to have family community and (being less prickly and touchy) comparatively less individual space as they always have.
In any case, they have *not* been thrown out of the house. They have been thrown out of the house in sexual revolution societies only, but have not been in the same society when it was previously Christian. Which just proves the point. Has human behaviour, or humanity, got worse? Of course not, and this pattern proves it. But the structures and presuppositions of society have.
As usual Christopher you are talking complete rot. Where do you think the people who went into the workhouses in the 19th century came from? Or perhaps look up what a two-penny hangover was…
Had I mentioned the 19th century, I would be wrong. But as you know, I did not.
What I said about the comparison with 70 years ago was correct. And the disparity is vast. (‘We’ had it and ‘we’ lost it.) But if it is not, all you need to do is provide the evidence that it is not, which was missing from your answer.
If I am talking rot, that means that the sexual revolution was then and is not now; that men initiate broken families most of the time; that people are needing less space now; are less individualistic now; have more church and community life now. Which of these propositions do you believe? (This is the sort of question that people often, tellingly, avoid.)
Note that 19th century workhouses/orphanages (the latter often misnamed) very regularly arose from not being able to feed so many mouths, not from ‘modern’ causes.
And to justify ‘as usual’, you will have to produce a lot more evidence in addition.
John,
During Covid the government offered hotels 100 pounds per person per night to take in the homeless. Most hotels declined the offer. They must have believed that the homeless would give trouble that would cost more than that to put right. Were they correct? Light is shed by the interesting book “The Prince Rupert Hotel for the Homeless” by the journalist Christina Lamb, who recognised a good story when the upmarket Prince Rupert Hotel in the centre of Shrewsbury, which was already in need of interior renovation, decided to accept the offer.
A fairly small proportion of the homeless were people who had recently hit a patch of bad luck. These got back on their feet once society began to return to normal. But many of the rest were disturbed, and often on drugs. They routinely ignored the No-Smoking rule, crushed cigarette butts into the carpet, hoarded food in their rooms which they tried to keep there even after it had gone off (clearly a behaviour learnt on the streets, which is tragic), and often turned on bathtaps and then forgot about them, causing flooding. Many were on drugs (illegal and legal i.e. alcohol), and expressed a genuine desire to come off them when sober. But it was as if the drug was bigger than them.
The memoir of the daughter of a couple who ran a hostel for the homeless in California says much the same, “Surviving the Milo Arms” by Candy Milo.
I am not going to be so specific as Christopher in suggesting that childhood sexual abuse is the principal cause, but I would agree that addiction to drugs is often a symptom of an unhappy childhood – of which persons who see only the drug abuse and its effects are unaware. A child can be mucked up in many ways, tragically.
Have you sent this article to Andy Burnham Jon?
Yes, I think any drive to get homelessness and/or rough sleeping down to zero would give rise to a phenomenal marginal cost.
I was involved with a homeless charity for some years and understand that many hostels have a policy of no drugs or alcohol on the premises, thus many rough sleepers choose not to take the offer of a place.
And interestingly — a disproportionate number of such were (usually male) ex-service personnel. It seems once they left behind that framework, they were somewhat ‘lost’.
As well-intentioned as this is, as is always the case with prescriptions from what has been called the Homeless-Industrial Complex, it neglects to use the term “personal responsibility” much less exhort returning to a cultural insistence on it. The article quotes important verses from Acts but somehow misses the entire third chapter of 2 Thess.
Spend all the money you like, have all the “conversations” you have time for, require others, through government or the church, to step into other people’s lives to help, treat all homeless people as helpless victims of circumstances beyond their control, and in a society that has dropped all taboos on self-destructive personal behavior, you will still have rough sleeping.
I do not mean to say that government and the church ought not extend charity. We would not allow dogs to roam homeless in cities but we allow humans to do so (with “allow” being an entirely different conversation). And giving relief where we can, no matter the recipient, is a Christian duty. My point is that by never confronting the main driver of homelessness much less our collective Christian obligation to insist on its reversal, we ensure that it will never end.
If I get your meaning correctly….I think that’s unfair. The article is us hardly a long thesis and mainly a critique of various approaches with a view to measuring national approaches.
But….
“And this transformed behaviour is built upon a new identity in Christ, a renewed sense of self built on God’s love, grace and forgiveness. Jesus describes as being ‘born again’ and John likens it to adoption: “to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12).”
… is surely about personal transformation in Christ.
With God in the driving seat I found it was do-able to get every single street homeless person who wanted it into permanent accommodation, for a large town, a few decades ago. Only about five people who were asked preferred sleeping outside or in abandoned houses. This was achieved with no money to speak of. A couple of chaps required Christian retreat home placements for a few months instead so their alcoholism could be dealt with safely. Faith and perhaps naivety (childlike faith) made it happen. That was with no money and no resources and with the authorities avoiding doing anything useful at all. Of course it is all sortable and can be scaled nationally easily. Really easily. People are on the streets because Caesar and his minions and useful idiots want it that way.
a. How did you do that? and
b. Please use a real name, if not in your handle then in your email. Thanks.
My last conversation with a self declared homeless man last Saturday:
“Would you like to know about Jesus etc…”
“No. but I’m glad to stopped me. Have you got any change?”
“No. I can give you a leaflet.”
“I don’t want a leaflet, Bye”
If he had engaged me in conversation I might have been more generous.
The Gospel comes first. You can’t solve peoples problems for them.
Jesus let people go.
Try and offer THE SOULUTION before offering a SOLUTION
This person might have wanted a drink or something to eat? Hungry ears cannot hear.
Rather than giving money an offer to buy a tea/ coffee and some food to consume with them has been accepted, even when saying it is from Jesus.
I have seen people being exploited by others by taking any money received from the person pleading.
The short answer to the set Question – NO.
The quality of mercy from God’s perspective is “I will have mercy on whom I chose to have mercy.
Otherwise he might have fed all Israel’s poor and healed every leper.
Jesus remarked – MARK 14 :7.
14:4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
14:5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
And
Mat 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Luke 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Many years ago missionary organisations realized that merely feeding people rice only produced “Rice Christians” They embraced Christianity because they provided bread [JOHN. 6 V 15]
Merely changing someone’s dire circumstances may only result in
producing sophisticated pagans who no longer have need of a “4th Emergency Service” church.
Perhaps as Jesus found only one in ten healed lepers returned to give thanks and perhaps follow him.
Hence, I think Steve Feist had a reasonable approach.
Homelessness has at root a causative sinfulness, deal with that and
You will see a transformed life.
In the meantime, continue showing mercy as occasion arises,
no one is beyond the mercy of God as He chooses;
as we learnt from this weeks Lectionary- Gospel Reading.
It is not so much our mercy that folks require it is God’s.
Trite responses don’t begin to cut it.
Shalom
I didn’t even get the chance to find out.
The “Hungry ears etc” mantra was probably the slogan used by the Fish n Bread charity set up after Jesus fed the 5000. It probably employed dozens fetching and distributing table scraps. The trusty stakeholders were probably the same people who turned away from Jesus , revolted by what he was offering as the main course- himself
Steve, did you get the chance to find out if he could read?
No. But, about six months ago I did meet a man who admitted he had a reading age of 6. I gave him a Luke’s gospel, he gave me his ghost written autobiography, about his dyslexic adventures. A leaflet is just a means to get a conversation started. Homeless people are just as likely to talk or avoid as anyone. Each one is different.
As for me, I’m willing to go out and talk to people on the street.
How do you get to talking about Jesus?
At first glance it is easy to misread the title of this essay as “Will Andy Burnham end up rough sleeping?”. It has been said that all political careers end in failure, but that would be exceptional.
Excellent article – as someone who has been helping out at Betel UK in Hexham for the last 10 years after 30 years policing the inner city streets of London, I would champion a proper engagement with the failure of how successive governments have addressed addiction, its causes, its prevention and its redemption. Top of my target list is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which has been the primary criminal legislation for 55 years, and is not fit for purpose (and never has been in my experience). Next on my list would be how government policy limits the Christian work of organisations like Betel
But above all of this I want to proclaim how the transforming power of the cross of Jesus Christ is at work, despite all the human and government failures – last Friday we baptised 8 men and 1 woman at Betel Hexham … all of whom have joined us in the last few months, have put their faith and trust in our Saviour, and are allowing His transformation of them to work on the root causes of their previous life in addiction.
To God be all the glory for what He is doing!
You are an expert. Do you share the views of Neil Woods, ex-undercover policeman in Britain’s drug community, in his book “Drug Wars” (2018)? The core of it is that he came to believe his job was futile and that drug use should be seen as a medical problem, not a criminal one. In 19th century England most drugs were legal and there were no mass crazes for opium or cocaine, just a few addicts – except that in Victorian England they were not viewed as criminals.
Mike Barton, Chief Constable of Durham, gave the arguments for decriminalisation of even Class ‘A’ drugs in The Observer on 28/9/2013. When Dr John Marks expanded a traditional British scheme which viewed addiction as a medical problem and prescribed heroin to addicts in Widnes, from 1982, the rate of acquisitive crime fell by 93%. The addicts also stopped trying to get other people hooked in order to sell them heroin to pay for their own habit, and the number of heroin users did not rise. Many addicts were able to hold down jobs, something they had been unable to do while using illegal heroin ‘cut’ with noxious substances, or injected using shared or re-used syringes. After Dr Marks’ programme was ended, Widnes’ addicts resumed dying. This is documented in chapter 6 of Woods’ book. Woods went on to chair the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), a pro-legalisation advocacy group made up wholly of former law enforcement officials.
In the case of Widnes, tax revenue from the whole country was used to pay for drugs used by addicts in a single town, but the national cost would not be prohibitive if addiction were viewed as a medical problem rather than a criminal one, just as it had been before the 1970s. Before criminalisation there was no money in drug dealing; after it there is big money. The USA bullied the UK into criminalisation (see chapter 2 of Drug Wars, and if you want a conspiracy theory, does the CIA make money for its black ops from the drug trade – alarmingly well documented in Paul Williams’ book ‘Operation Gladio’). In 2001, Portugal, which had the highest drug addiction rate and highest rate of drug deaths in Europe, dropped all penalties for possession (though not for dealing) of ‘hard’ drugs, and began to treat people on the basis of addiction rather than criminal law. Fifteen years later its rate of acute drug deaths per year was 3 per million of the population, while the UK’s was 46 per million. (For Portugal, see Woods’ previous book “Good Cop, Bad War”, p.303.)
My broad response to your reply is yes … and I also agree that the Widnes method should be seriously considered on a wider scale and refined.
I think by any measure the criminalisation of drug use hasn’t worked, so it needs to have a complete rethink. Here are a couple of items that make for very persuasive debate.
The UK government estimates that 50% of all acquisitive crime (burglary / theft / robbery etc) funds drug use. Let’s just let that sink in for a moment – if we can rethink how drugs are accessed, we could halve the amount of folk who are traumatised when they have been burgled, same for those who live in fear of the streets after they have had their property robbed from them at knifepoint. My personal experience is that the 50% figure is a significant underestimation – it is far closer to 70%, possibly higher in the inner cities.
When the 1971 legislation was enacted, there were estimated to be 1000 drugs addicts in the UK undergoing some form of therapeutic rehabilitation – whilst this is not a figure showing overall addiction, the latest figures do not compare well (even when population growth is taken into consideration), as I understand that the current government figure for Class A drug addiction is nearly 300000 now for England alone, rising by another 80000 when Class B drugs are included.
Many drug related deaths and near deaths are linked to ‘unexpected purity’, where the user has taken their usual amount, but for once it hasn’t been broken down as much with other substances in the supply chain, and has therefore effectively taken an overdose. If control over the production and supply of drugs was removed from the criminal underworld, then these tragedies could be significantly reduced.
I hope that the current debate on homelessness (and its all too often close relative of addiction) will consider these aspects – there are many others as well.
It is worth remembering that William Wilberforce, one of my greatest heroes of the Christian faith, was an opium / heroin user for about 45 years … although this started as a treatment for a medical issue, he became a daily user and suffered from the side effects and dependency common to all addicts. I often wonder how the course of slave history would have been different if he had been criminalised for his addiction and unable to rise to his position in public life.
Thank you, Charlie. If Andy Burnham needs to free up space in prison, he might look at persons who are inside for drug-related crimes rather than rapists and murderers.
A few years ago I took a guided tour round a former prison, guided by a retired warder. He shared your view too.
Isn’t, Betel centering on salvation and eternity, not public policy questions of crime and medicine.
Charlie has evidenced lives restored down the years through Christian commitment to personal community telationshipd of lives transformed by Christ with personal testimonies.
Thank you Charlie for posting your comment.
Hi Geoff – I’m not sure if I completely understand the first sentence your comment which reads like a question, so I’ll do my best in response … Betel UK (not to be confused with any other organisation with a similar name) focuses on offering a work based programme for an addict to change their life through through the transforming work of Jesus Christ – the salvation and deliverance that is uniquely available through Him.
After 30 years in the UK, the organisation is also well placed to comment / advise on public policy questions where those are relevant to their ministry – indeed, the directors of Betel are often consulted by government representatives, both publicly and in confidence.