A homeless woman gave birth to premature twins while sleeping rough outside Cambridge University’s wealthiest college.
The woman, believed to be about 30, gave birth outside Trinity College. She was helped by members of the public, who called an ambulance, according to reports.
Because of course she’s not going to be homeless now, is she?
It’s interesting seeing the spin on this news item. The article you linked to showed Trinity’s main gate, as if the woman went into labour there and members of the college ignored her, thus showing what bastards the elite are. In reality she was in Sidney Street by a back entrance to an annexe of Trinity that isn’t really used at this time of year. Most locals would have to think hard to connect the location with the college, and would be more likely to describe is as “over the road from Patisserie Valerie” or “just up from Sainsbury’s”. In fact the passer by who found her went into Sainsbury’s for help but that’s not elite enough to attack.
There’s never any background to these stories. The most I can find is that she was 29 weeks pregnant. How did she become homeless? Is she local to Cambridge? How did the social safety net fail her, and what lessons can be learned?
“Whether we are religious or not, many of us will be familiar with the Christmas story of a mother who gave birth to her child in poverty, seeking refuge in a stable. This is the reality for many people living on the streets.”
Christ. Jesus wasn’t born in poverty, you daft moo. His parents were respectable middle class Jews and the only reason he was born in a manger was because all the B&B’s were full due to the census.
Sleeping in close proximity to domesticated animals wasn’t considered outlandishly grim two thousand years ago, or even 200 years ago if you were a country boy.
And three wise men soon arrived with kingly gifts. You don’t need to go to Cambridge to know this.
As for this being “the reality” for “many” pregnant women on British streets, I doubt it very much.
“Homeless” or “sleeping rough?”
There’s a distinction to be made here, and I think the do-gooders are likely being deliberately equivocal about it, saying one while heavily – and wrongly – implying the other.
pjh, andrew
yes I think we’ll find that the definition of “homeless” includes B&B accommodation paid for by the council.
She 100% isn’t homeless – she lives downstairs from my mate. Fact.
And her gig has been to sit outside Sainsbury’s for as long as anyone can remember. Makes a good income from it – now a Christmas pregnancy bonus – I’m in the wrong game.
Is she, by any chance, Romanian?
Definitions of homeless, from Shelter’s website:
Blimey BiND, I’v e been homeless (in my distant youth) and never knew it!
Indeed.
I routinely stay with family, so I need a grant and a case worker.
PS, can anyone explain why I might give a tinker’s cheesy chuff over asylum seekers or refugees *leaving* prison?
Stick ’em on a barge in the Channel. A hulk, if you will. Made of balsa.
Balsa floats, doesn’t it?
TW
…balsa – unless treated properly with apposite unguents – absorbs water a treat, and a craft as suggested would undoubtedly founder fairly quickly.
Especially if they used a Keil Kraft kit, with tissue as the load-bearing skin. No, wait, those were aeroplanes…
Steve said:
“Jesus wasn’t born in poverty, you daft moo. His parents were respectable middle class Jews and the only reason he was born in a manger was because all the B&B’s were full due to the census.”
And why were all the B&Bs full? Stupid government policies, as usual.
And why were all the B&Bs full?
Well it was Christmas, wannit?
I’ll get me coat…
Typical Guardian turning a good-news story into vitriolic attack on Tories
Implying students and staff were watching through windows and laughing. Stupid cow forgets: Christmas Holidays, few there and looking at street outside 24/7 is not mandatory
Imagine giving birth alone… taxi, bus, car, loo, hill-walking, cycling, walking to Waitrose, doing flowers in Church
….
Mainly because Courts ruled it was a “Breach of human rights” to deport Romanian beggars/rough-sleepers/criminals
Plus, higher population = higher numbers of anything
@Steve +5
@Boddicker – Not surprised, thx
@Mr Lud +1
@ Pcar
How many were sleeping “rough” in 1666? A lot more than 8855!