More information on the Alma

I've had the followingf feedback from someone involved in the Resident's Action group

As I was at the last meeting I can update you on how PC Carl Ingram reported the facts of the case, he said he and his colleagues had collected a thick file full of witness testimonies and evidence of different incidents that accumulated into an unanswerable case - and the residents who turned up did not dispute that there had been large numbers of drug related incidents and of disorder inside and outside the building, arguing instead that these incidents had now stopped.

Carl Ingram was quizzed closely about the fate of those who were evicted at the last BRAG/PACT meeting - it isn't true that there was only 1 hours notice, as several residents were at the court case itself to contest the closure (the landlord didn't bother turning up!) and knew that the place was to be closed. The landlord was also served a closure notice. A few of the most vulnerable people living there were rehoused, mostly in better accomodation, and this was set up before the eviction.

This is of course not true for everyone who was living there - some were treated as being 'intentionally homeless because of their lifestyle' in Carl's words. No doubt these are the half dozen you talk about who are now sleeping rough.

He also said he had worked hard to sort out accomodation for other residents, though some in his words just sat there drunk while he worked hard to find them somewhere to live - he said "These people were adults, but were doing nothing to help themselves while we worked hard for them, I'll sleep soundly in my bed knowing I did everything I could to find accomodation for those people".

A couple of plain clothes Nimrod police were there, they said that their work had resulted in the conviction of several people from the Alma for drugs offences.

A figure who escapes criticism in your article is the owner of the hotel, who basically encouraged the sub-letting culture by charging a £25 a week surcharge to the residents, unlike most other hotels. In my opinion, it was his willingness to exploit this group of people and his failure to employ proper managers that contributed the most to the problems of the hotel.

All he loses is 3 months rent. Neighbours lost out in terms of quality of life because of the disruption to their everyday life by the activities in the hotel, and some of the residents, as you  point out, have lost a place to live.

I can also report that the mood of the meeting was overwhelmingly supportive of Carl Ingram and the eviction, though some people were concerned about the people who had been made homeless.

I'm glad to hear the other side of the story...and that at least there was some effort made... I  therefore have to change quite a bit of my piece in the light of this information before

 

Apologies Carl that I didn't have the full facts or appreciate the care you'd taken in the process.

 

On the other hand I would still say...

 

1. a provocative argument such as the bit I posted has the virtue of showing that there are different ways to see such a situation and that its dangerous to simply accept the views of the press and the herd.. Challenge at least means people have to justify what they have said and done in public.

 

2. I still stand by the basic points that

• closing the Alma in this way seems to have caused at least as many new problems in terms of rough sleeping as it has solved
• the process of bringing in a closure order is morally if not legally suspect as residents are evicted and punished without any evidence being brought against them individually.

 

 

I'm protected by SpamBrave