It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by neo96
i have never been arrested so i guess i am better than them.
and i do follow the rule of law no matter how stupid it is.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Originally posted by SelfSustainedLoner
They made this law on the basis of "Feed them and more will come".
What do you know?
But a heartless group of Tories have revealed their true colours by banning charities from running soup kitchens for the homeless.
Conservative Westminster council in Central London also wants to make it an offence to sleep rough – while slashing £5million of funding to hostels.
Astonishingly, town hall chiefs claimed soup kitchens only “encourage” people to sleep on the streets.
Westminster council, one of the richest in the land, wants to bring in a bylaw making it an offence to “give out food for free”, punishable by fines. The twisted move blows apart David Cameron’s Big Society boast that an army of volunteers will flock to help those worse off.
Originally posted by OverMan
Ever been homeless?
Ever been homeless and considered too young to work? = helpless unless yer brave enough to sell drugs which I was...
Originally posted by MrWendal
Originally posted by ronishia
no words i can give could describe the utter stupidness of this law
But it is in fact not a "law". The article clearly states it is a "statute" and there is a difference.
"Law" comes from common law. It is more or less the way things have always been done and is usually backed by "Case Law", the way the courts have always handled issues. Common Law relies on a body of history and past cases to determine what the rules are.
"Statues" is entirely different in that it comes from Government Regulation. A "Statute" is debated and eventually agreed upon by Government , not by Judges.
Under Common Law it is Judges who make the laws. When a Judge is hearing a case, he/she makes decisions based on previous Case Law. In a situation where there is no law found or any history to draw from, the decision the Judge makes then becomes Law. This is why you see Lawyers always cite "precedent" when they make a case to a Judge. "Precedent" is nothing more than another word for "history" in regards to Law.
Herein lies one of the many problems with our Police. They are too busy enforcing statutes that Government bodies have told them to enforce. As usual with Statutes or anything that comes from Government, it criminalizes behavior in which there is no victim. No one is hurt, no property is damaged, no one is violated, yet the act of feeding a homeless person is "illegal".
Originally posted by Demoncreeper
The law exists because the people who used the park for pleasure, feared some of the homeless, when being approached for food, money etc. Take your kids to a park, stepping in human feces, is awesome.
It is SUPPOSED to discourage the homeless from being there, "scaring" or "Harassing" people. A LOT of homeless people that live in parks etc, live there because there are always people to "harass" for money etc..
The world is supposed to be kind. Want to blame someone? Blame the people that whined about it. The law didn't come into existence to be a controlling fascist state. It was asked for, by the people.
Hence the law.
Cops treating the people, who are kind hearted enough to feed these guys, like crap isn't right. The law is supposed to keep the parks clean, safe for use by taxpaying citizens.
But if they are breaking the law...then don't feed them in the park.
It could be dangerous to just let random people prepare and hand out food like that with no sanitation inspection (kind of like how vendors at fairs and events have to have their food inspected to make sure it's prepared at the right temperature and that the workers are using clean utensils and wearing gloves and whatnot to prevent food poisoning).