What do you think?
Rate this book
Invisible - A Diary of Rough Sleeping in Britain
Many writers and books talk about the homeless. Andrew has direct experience. His writing on life as a rough sleeper, interwoven through this scorching diary piece, offers a clear-eyed truth from the gutters of Britain’s housing crisis.
His testimony is joined by news articles, features and analysis on homeless self-organisation and institutional failure which refuses to look past or through the bodies on Britain’s streets.
His testimony is joined by news articles, features and analysis on homeless self-organisation and institutional failure which refuses to look past or through the bodies on Britain’s streets.
- GenresPolitics
198 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2018
26 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 15, 2021
this book is an absolute must read for everyone, homeless people have become socially stereotyped beyond recognition and we should all be ashamed, this book exposes some pretty horrific treatment from everyday well known companies as well as supposed homeless ‘charities’ and last but not least the government. If you do not have enough money in your savings to pay your rent for at least 6 months then you are considered at risk of homelessness. That’s me and the majority of people i know, we are all so much closer to the line than we realise and it’s time we closed the divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and be a bit more god damn human
August 11, 2021
[i]'Invisible - A Diary Of Rough Sleeping In Britain'[/i] is a hard hitting account of the experience of one's persons homelessness and pretty essential reading for just about everyone, especially those who turn away or mumble something meaningless as they pass homeless people on the street. The book is split between diary entries of the author as he experiences homelessness and also accounts of mutual aid and solidarity in the squatting community against a backdrop of politicians promising to eradicate homelessness whilst continuing evictions and implementing anti-homeless measures. (there is an awful lot in there about the latest 'Great Red Hope' of Andy Burnham and his promise to eradicate homelessness in Manchester whilst he and his cronies do the absolute opposite making things worse.)
The author's diary entries come from a blog, initially (as far as I can tell) produced by the author in response to anti-homeless alarms beeping through the night behind a Marks and Spencers in Ilford - the back of the store had an access tunnel which meant it was a relatively safe and dry space for people to sleep - people who were not causing a nuisance. (As an aside the author's campaign saw the alarm removed and Marks and Spencers supporting the development of a hostel https://www.theguardian.com/society/2...)
As someone who has experienced homelessness, housing insecurity and squatting (albeit for a relatively short space of time) I could identify strongly with the author and the people he interacts with in the context of homelessness - his friends (both 'old' and current), members of the public, people who are a danger to homeless people and of course 'officialdom' in the charitable / housing / government sectors).
What is evident reading this book is the absolute necessity to recognise the humanity of homeless people. Fraser does a great job of doing this, not just because he is a good writer, but also because his own humanity shines through on the pages. He recognises his challenges and what hurts him, but also what strengthens him. His words reminded me of something I recognised from my own poor and working class background which was accentuated during periods of homelessness - those who have the least are typically the most generous. When you and the people you share your life with have very little, when someone comes into a few quid through work or a benefit payment or through informal economies it is typically shared. When one has food, a roof for the night, a blanket or fags, booze and drugs they are shared. When my life became more stable I had a habit of always cooking a little more than I needed so there were some spare if a friend needed food. That led to a camaraderie and solidarity with others and a habit of sharing everything that I hope I haven't lost (indeed as an aside, in times when I shared spaces with junkies and alcoholics I never had anything stolen. The only time a 'communal resource' was stolen it was by a person who now is a rich person and notable businessman in my area. That to me says an awful lot...)
Back to 'humanity'. One can't help but be moved, or laugh or want to get angry or cry at the vividness of Fraser's words and experiences and other homeless people. They are all real, they have families, histories, they are varied. I think we treat homeless people as a homogenous mass to ignore / feel sorry for and yet we never consider the richness of their lives, their skills, their feelings, the things they do that are wonderful, the habits they have that make you want to scream or smile.
Society generally has only a few lens to look at homeless people. Fraser challenges this quite strongly and successfully. So there is the lens that we 'feel sorry' for them, particularly at Christmas and think 'something should be done' and yet our whole economy and structures are built on a precariousness that means homelessness is never far away for many and nowhere near being eradicated. There is the lens of the 'nuisance' - that they make city centres 'untidy' which leads to anti-homeless measures such as legislation to prevent begging (or in Fraser's more useful term 'asking for help) or drinking to designing doorways and benches to prevent people sleeping on them. Fraser highlights something really important here - no one actually WANTS to be homeless! It's really hard work finding food and a place to crash and getting a few quid together for a brew or something (this was something I could attest to - when you have nothing, your entire day is consumed with getting the basic resources for survival together).
This leads to another lens which is linked - that homelessness is primarily a 'personal failing' and the notions of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' homeless, particularly around themes of drugs and alcohol. I remember my Dad, who at times would have been borderline in slipping, telling me that there was a Trinity that led to homelessness and that if one went then the other two elements often quickly followed which led to someone being on the streets. He cited alcoholism, family breakdown and unemployment. It always struck me because you could see if one happened the other two followed. What strikes me about today though is the number of homeless who are working, or who are maintaining healthy relationships. Now the primary cause is the lack of social housing at affordable rents and continued austerity measures impacting benefits and access to good jobs.
One of the things that I have always been keen to highlight, which Fraser does to, is that it's okay for homeless people to have a drink or take drugs or smoke. Lots of other people smoke and drink to unwind after a hard day. If you're on the streets every day is hard so why can't they unwind and have a laugh with their friends. It's like that adage, 'don't give homeless people money because they'll spend it on...'. Why not? Why can't they make a decision to have a beer. It's like we've denied them a home so we have to deny them anything to make their day a little more tolerable!
A major theme in the book is the ineffectual nature of housing authorities, charities and benefits systems in tackling homelessness. One thing I wasn't aware of is that two charities St Mungo's and Thames Outreach actively boasted about supporting immigration authorities in creating a hostile environment for EU nationals who became homeless. So people come over here to work, fall on hard times because of high rents and precarious rents and rather than support them charities SUPPORTED immigration in finding them and deporting them. How fucking low can you go? No doubt some KPI was met and a measure of 'reducing' homelessness was ticked - by deporting people with nothing, often to places where having nothing will be even worse. That's systemic murder in my opinion. It's not just these two shitty charities though - it's pretty much acknowledged that the grift of major execs in these charities lose an awful lot if they are actually effective! (But yeah, once every couple of years they will spend a night in a sleeping bag with a few hundred others in a football ground or something to 'raise awareness').
There is such a strong focus on housing authorities displaying total inhumanity (a lot of this is the direct result of reduced stock and funds, combined with a belief in New Public Management, the market, competition and 'choice' and the triage of need for people 'worthy' of a roof over their head). I really hope there is a glimmer of hope here in that at least some in public service are trying to address this recognising that humans are unique so require support and help bespoke to them, and also recognising that the circumstances that lead to homelessness are often complex and always interrelated and also that people experiencing homelessness have strengths and a community to call on. Sadly, it still feels like this https://www.humanlearning.systems/ approach is on the fringes of public service. (Indeed, for those who are engaging in this type of work I would STRONGLY recommend this book to highlight the absolute wreckage current systems inflict on homeless people).
So what can we do? Fraser makes a good point, that on at least on a personal level we should help those experiencing homelessness and rather than give to charities we should ask what homeless people need and if we can help, we should. Whether that is giving someone a few quid, buying them a beer or a brew or a sandwich or attending to other needs if we have the resources - a blanket, a roof, a shower, charging a phone. Our personal support should be bespoke by default. Fraser also mentions the support of friendship. In a ten minute walk through my city centre when I was working in the office I once counted fourteen people asking for help. There's no way I could help everyone, but that doesn't mean help 'no one'. And even, if we have no cash there are other ways we could support by stopping and saying hello and recognising another's humanity and extending our hands of friendship and locus of concern.
On a wider level, if one has the confidence and capacity they can support squatting and other forms of provision, sharing our knowledge and skills. We can call out anti-homeless measures and promote the needs of the community and the individuals in it.
If we work in public service where we have a role to help, then we need to change how we help. Move away from allocating by 'greatest need', utilising empty spaces / reusing other spaces. Designing services around the needs of people, recognising their humanity first (so I know of at least two local homeless hostels that make sobriety a condition of use. Whilst that may sound 'noble' for reducing drink problems, we actually need 'wet' spaces for people to at least give them a roof or some food).
For those who are more privileged and can afford a 'buy-to-let' mortgage or have an inheritance, then my words are clear - DON'T. DON'T BE A GREEDY SCUMBAG WHO GETS SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY YOUR MORTGAGE SO YOU CAN SELL IT AS YOUR PENSION FUND!! I absolutely DESPISE landlords and the notion as amateur landlord as a part time job / income. All it does is reduce housing stock and makes it more and more unattainable for poor folk.
(Although I am not a statist, and I would prefer an end to the notion of property rights and homes are used by those who need them - everyone who needs a home has one, I would right now legislate against ALL second home ownership and transfer all the stock at cost of rebuild to social housing groups at GENUINELY affordable rents. 'Right to Buy then let to the poor' has had devastating impacts)
Great book, have a read, then do something about it.
The author's diary entries come from a blog, initially (as far as I can tell) produced by the author in response to anti-homeless alarms beeping through the night behind a Marks and Spencers in Ilford - the back of the store had an access tunnel which meant it was a relatively safe and dry space for people to sleep - people who were not causing a nuisance. (As an aside the author's campaign saw the alarm removed and Marks and Spencers supporting the development of a hostel https://www.theguardian.com/society/2...)
As someone who has experienced homelessness, housing insecurity and squatting (albeit for a relatively short space of time) I could identify strongly with the author and the people he interacts with in the context of homelessness - his friends (both 'old' and current), members of the public, people who are a danger to homeless people and of course 'officialdom' in the charitable / housing / government sectors).
What is evident reading this book is the absolute necessity to recognise the humanity of homeless people. Fraser does a great job of doing this, not just because he is a good writer, but also because his own humanity shines through on the pages. He recognises his challenges and what hurts him, but also what strengthens him. His words reminded me of something I recognised from my own poor and working class background which was accentuated during periods of homelessness - those who have the least are typically the most generous. When you and the people you share your life with have very little, when someone comes into a few quid through work or a benefit payment or through informal economies it is typically shared. When one has food, a roof for the night, a blanket or fags, booze and drugs they are shared. When my life became more stable I had a habit of always cooking a little more than I needed so there were some spare if a friend needed food. That led to a camaraderie and solidarity with others and a habit of sharing everything that I hope I haven't lost (indeed as an aside, in times when I shared spaces with junkies and alcoholics I never had anything stolen. The only time a 'communal resource' was stolen it was by a person who now is a rich person and notable businessman in my area. That to me says an awful lot...)
Back to 'humanity'. One can't help but be moved, or laugh or want to get angry or cry at the vividness of Fraser's words and experiences and other homeless people. They are all real, they have families, histories, they are varied. I think we treat homeless people as a homogenous mass to ignore / feel sorry for and yet we never consider the richness of their lives, their skills, their feelings, the things they do that are wonderful, the habits they have that make you want to scream or smile.
Society generally has only a few lens to look at homeless people. Fraser challenges this quite strongly and successfully. So there is the lens that we 'feel sorry' for them, particularly at Christmas and think 'something should be done' and yet our whole economy and structures are built on a precariousness that means homelessness is never far away for many and nowhere near being eradicated. There is the lens of the 'nuisance' - that they make city centres 'untidy' which leads to anti-homeless measures such as legislation to prevent begging (or in Fraser's more useful term 'asking for help) or drinking to designing doorways and benches to prevent people sleeping on them. Fraser highlights something really important here - no one actually WANTS to be homeless! It's really hard work finding food and a place to crash and getting a few quid together for a brew or something (this was something I could attest to - when you have nothing, your entire day is consumed with getting the basic resources for survival together).
This leads to another lens which is linked - that homelessness is primarily a 'personal failing' and the notions of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' homeless, particularly around themes of drugs and alcohol. I remember my Dad, who at times would have been borderline in slipping, telling me that there was a Trinity that led to homelessness and that if one went then the other two elements often quickly followed which led to someone being on the streets. He cited alcoholism, family breakdown and unemployment. It always struck me because you could see if one happened the other two followed. What strikes me about today though is the number of homeless who are working, or who are maintaining healthy relationships. Now the primary cause is the lack of social housing at affordable rents and continued austerity measures impacting benefits and access to good jobs.
One of the things that I have always been keen to highlight, which Fraser does to, is that it's okay for homeless people to have a drink or take drugs or smoke. Lots of other people smoke and drink to unwind after a hard day. If you're on the streets every day is hard so why can't they unwind and have a laugh with their friends. It's like that adage, 'don't give homeless people money because they'll spend it on...'. Why not? Why can't they make a decision to have a beer. It's like we've denied them a home so we have to deny them anything to make their day a little more tolerable!
A major theme in the book is the ineffectual nature of housing authorities, charities and benefits systems in tackling homelessness. One thing I wasn't aware of is that two charities St Mungo's and Thames Outreach actively boasted about supporting immigration authorities in creating a hostile environment for EU nationals who became homeless. So people come over here to work, fall on hard times because of high rents and precarious rents and rather than support them charities SUPPORTED immigration in finding them and deporting them. How fucking low can you go? No doubt some KPI was met and a measure of 'reducing' homelessness was ticked - by deporting people with nothing, often to places where having nothing will be even worse. That's systemic murder in my opinion. It's not just these two shitty charities though - it's pretty much acknowledged that the grift of major execs in these charities lose an awful lot if they are actually effective! (But yeah, once every couple of years they will spend a night in a sleeping bag with a few hundred others in a football ground or something to 'raise awareness').
There is such a strong focus on housing authorities displaying total inhumanity (a lot of this is the direct result of reduced stock and funds, combined with a belief in New Public Management, the market, competition and 'choice' and the triage of need for people 'worthy' of a roof over their head). I really hope there is a glimmer of hope here in that at least some in public service are trying to address this recognising that humans are unique so require support and help bespoke to them, and also recognising that the circumstances that lead to homelessness are often complex and always interrelated and also that people experiencing homelessness have strengths and a community to call on. Sadly, it still feels like this https://www.humanlearning.systems/ approach is on the fringes of public service. (Indeed, for those who are engaging in this type of work I would STRONGLY recommend this book to highlight the absolute wreckage current systems inflict on homeless people).
So what can we do? Fraser makes a good point, that on at least on a personal level we should help those experiencing homelessness and rather than give to charities we should ask what homeless people need and if we can help, we should. Whether that is giving someone a few quid, buying them a beer or a brew or a sandwich or attending to other needs if we have the resources - a blanket, a roof, a shower, charging a phone. Our personal support should be bespoke by default. Fraser also mentions the support of friendship. In a ten minute walk through my city centre when I was working in the office I once counted fourteen people asking for help. There's no way I could help everyone, but that doesn't mean help 'no one'. And even, if we have no cash there are other ways we could support by stopping and saying hello and recognising another's humanity and extending our hands of friendship and locus of concern.
On a wider level, if one has the confidence and capacity they can support squatting and other forms of provision, sharing our knowledge and skills. We can call out anti-homeless measures and promote the needs of the community and the individuals in it.
If we work in public service where we have a role to help, then we need to change how we help. Move away from allocating by 'greatest need', utilising empty spaces / reusing other spaces. Designing services around the needs of people, recognising their humanity first (so I know of at least two local homeless hostels that make sobriety a condition of use. Whilst that may sound 'noble' for reducing drink problems, we actually need 'wet' spaces for people to at least give them a roof or some food).
For those who are more privileged and can afford a 'buy-to-let' mortgage or have an inheritance, then my words are clear - DON'T. DON'T BE A GREEDY SCUMBAG WHO GETS SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY YOUR MORTGAGE SO YOU CAN SELL IT AS YOUR PENSION FUND!! I absolutely DESPISE landlords and the notion as amateur landlord as a part time job / income. All it does is reduce housing stock and makes it more and more unattainable for poor folk.
(Although I am not a statist, and I would prefer an end to the notion of property rights and homes are used by those who need them - everyone who needs a home has one, I would right now legislate against ALL second home ownership and transfer all the stock at cost of rebuild to social housing groups at GENUINELY affordable rents. 'Right to Buy then let to the poor' has had devastating impacts)
Great book, have a read, then do something about it.
October 24, 2022
It's not particularly well written, and the proofing leaves something to be desired, but I gave it 5 stars because it's a unique and truthful personal account of rough living in London.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews