Skip to content

Seaham4

🚨 The Language of Division in Reform UK Seaham's Week 4 Update

Reform UK Seaham recently shared a community update marking their fourth week in post. While the update lists various actions taken and plans underway, what stands out most is not what they’re doing — but how they talk about it.

It’s worth examining the language carefully, because language shapes our perception of what’s acceptable. And in this case, the tone and framing reveal a worldview that divides the community into insiders and outsiders — into those who belong and those who should be removed.

🧩 Case Study 1: "Users being housed in our communities"

One section celebrates a visit to Addictions Northeast and reports:

"Clients are tested, no more addresses will be rented in Seaham, the people being treated will remain Sober and if not will be removed. This is better than users being housed in our communities."

🧠 Why This Matters

  • Refers to people in recovery as "users", a reductive and stigmatising label.
  • Suggests that simply living in Seaham is a privilege to be revoked.
  • Frames sobriety as a pass/fail condition for basic rights like housing.

Recovery is a process, not a contract. This language implies surveillance, not support — and punishment, not progress.

📬 A Question With No Answer

Out of concern, I reached out to Councillor Harrison to clarify the intent of that language. Here’s what I asked:

Dear Councillor Harrison,

I was reading the Week 4 update from Reform UK Seaham and had a quick question about the section on Addictions Northeast.

The update says:

"Clients are tested, no more addresses will be rented in Seaham, the people being treated will remain Sober and if not will be removed. This is better than users being housed in our communities."

I just wanted to clarify what’s meant by that final sentence. Specifically, does it suggest that people in addiction treatment or recovery aren’t considered part of the community unless they meet certain conditions?

Thanks for your time,

Councillor Harrison did respond. However, the reply did not engage with the central question. Instead, it reframed the issue as simply providing reassurance to residents, and described the original post as "clear," "factual," and "very positive."

Here is his full response:

Hello Neil

Residents raised concerns that houses were being allocated to people that are addicted to substances. Communities are just that and given that new people are moving into an area as A Councillor I must answer people’s concerns, The message was that of reassurance that any properties rented by Addictions Northeast are done so with the community in mind. The post is clear and factual and, in my opinion, very positive.

People who have addictions is a common part of life and Seaham has a particularly good way of offering help. If testing is a way that an organisation feel is necessary, that we will support this.

I really don’t understand how a positive post excludes people from a community but will continue to pass information the Seaham Community.

Thank you and hope the post and this information clarifys that we will do anything that ensures community cohesion and safety for all.

Regards,

Andrew

There was no acknowledgment that referring to people as "users" might be stigmatising, nor any recognition that linking housing to sobriety is ethically fraught.

🚩 Why This Is a Red Flag

This does not appear to be a deliberate evasion of the question. Rather, it suggests a deeper issue: a lack of awareness that certain ways of speaking — like referring to people as "users" — are not neutral. They carry weight.

When public representatives cannot see how language shapes inclusion or exclusion, they risk unintentionally reinforcing stigma. It isn’t just what policies are put in place — it’s how those policies, and the people affected by them, are spoken about.

🚯 Case Study 2: "Rough sleeper moved on"

Another bullet point states:

"Rough sleeper moved on from Spectrum Park with info from Cllr Colin Shaw."

🧠 Why This Matters

  • The person is referred to as a problem to be "moved on", not someone to be supported.
  • No detail is given about what help was offered or where they went.

This kind of phrasing centres public appearance, not public welfare. Displacement is not a solution to homelessness — it just moves the problem out of sight.

🚛 Case Study 3: Travellers "moved" after complaints

The update continues:

"Travellers moved from Wembley fields after noise concern."

🧠 Why This Matters

  • No context or balance is provided about the Travellers’ situation.
  • Implies that a complaint alone justifies displacement.
  • Risks reinforcing longstanding stereotypes.

The use of "moved" is passive and opaque — how were they moved? Was it voluntary? Were rights respected? The lack of detail here is telling.

🔀 A Consistent Pattern

Across all these examples, a pattern emerges:

  • A vulnerable group is mentioned.
  • Their presence is framed as a problem.
  • Their removal is presented as success.

This is not inclusive governance. It’s image management. The message is clear: some people belong, others do not.

💭 Final Thoughts

We should expect more from our local updates than vagueness, euphemisms, and punitive framing. We should see investment in long-term solutions — not just announcements about removals.

People experiencing addiction, homelessness, or living nomadically are not statistics or inconveniences. They are humans. Neighbours. Residents.

The way we talk about them matters. And the way we frame our successes tells us who our leaders believe deserves to be helped — and who should simply disappear.

This blog reflects the personal views of the author, a resident concerned about how we build inclusive and compassionate communities.