Still no cull?

[Kizzy]

'The number of beds in homeless shelters has plummeted since the Conservatives came to power, despite homelessness having soared in the same period, The Independent has learnt.

Bed space for single homeless people in England has dropped by almost a fifth since 2010 amid government funding cuts and local council belt-tightening.

There are now significantly fewer places for single homeless people to go, despite the number needing somewhere to spend the night having rocketed. Since 2010, homelessness and rough sleeping have risen in every year.'

I know I get accused of conspiracy theories, but how is this anything else than a drive to rid homelessness not via support and services but literally freezing them out?...


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/homeless-shelter-theresa-may-conservatives-beds-housing-statistics-rough-sleeping-a8303391.html

[Beso]

You come to this country with no fixed abode..you add to the countries homeless problems....one causes the other imo.

[Brillopad]

You come to this country with no fixed abode..you add to the countries homeless problems....one causes the other imo.

You have a point.

[Brillopad]

'The number of beds in homeless shelters has plummeted since the Conservatives came to power, despite homelessness having soared in the same period, The Independent has learnt.

Bed space for single homeless people in England has dropped by almost a fifth since 2010 amid government funding cuts and local council belt-tightening.

There are now significantly fewer places for single homeless people to go, despite the number needing somewhere to spend the night having rocketed. Since 2010, homelessness and rough sleeping have risen in every year.'

I know I get accused of conspiracy theories, but how is this anything else than a drive to rid homelessness not via support and services but literally freezing them out?...


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/homeless-shelter-theresa-may-conservatives-beds-housing-statistics-rough-sleeping-a8303391.html

So tell me Kizzy do you expect the taxpayer to provide homes for all those young men jumping on trucks to get here who have no legal entitlement to be here?

[Crimson Dynamo]

"research by the charity Homeless Link"


oh dear

[bots]

What exactly does the Labour mayor of London do again?

[user104658]

So tell me Kizzy do you expect the taxpayer to provide homes for all those young men jumping on trucks to get here who have no legal entitlement to be here?

To be fair, there's a difference between providing homes and providing a bed and shelter from the elements. At the very least, no one should have to sleep literally on the street.

[kirklancaster]

Careful, IMPARTIAL analysis of the hard FACTS behind slanted articles such as these will ALWAYS expose the utter B.S.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I was in Glasgow yesterday and all I saw were professional beggars

still idiots were giving them money

[waterhog]

most homeless are not people seeking refuge from other countries. they are people from the united kingdom.

the cull is in full sing and all those who voted conservative must agree with whats happening.

[user104658]

I was in Glasgow yesterday and all I saw were professional beggars

There was a small organised crew up in Dundee when I lived there, the Glasgow ones are at least more competent than them.

I had the same girl ask me for bus fare to visit her sick baby in hospital two or three times a week for nearly 4 years. :think:

Oh and I also had two guys use the same story at opposite ends of the same street. That was sort of confusing because they also looked similar. Glitch in the Matrix :worry:

[Brillopad]

To be fair, there's a difference between providing homes and providing a bed and shelter from the elements. At the very least, no one should have to sleep literally on the street.

Sorry TS - They are grown men who are intentionally illegally entering our country and have no right to be here. We are under no obligation to provide them with anything other than deportation.

[chuff me dizzy]

Sorry TS - They are grown men who are intentionally illegally entering our country and have no right to be here. We are under no obligation to provide them with anything other than deportation.

True

[arista]

I was in Glasgow yesterday and all I saw were professional beggars

still idiots were giving them money


Yes every major city
has the same problem

[Nicky91]

i feel sad for all homeless people :(

[Crimson Dynamo]

i feel sad for all homeless people :(

what about people who pretend to be homeless to garner money from young people who think they are being charitable?

[Twosugars]

Britain has enough of its own homeless for it to be a problem. Shipping off foreigners won't make homelessness disappear.

[Nicky91]

what about people who pretend to be homeless to garner money from young people who think they are being charitable?

maybe they are really homeless ;)

[Crimson Dynamo]

Britain has enough of its own homeless for it to be a problem. Shipping off foreigners won't make homelessness disappear.

but you agree we should deport them?

[Brillopad]

Britain has enough of its own homeless for it to be a problem. Shipping off foreigners won't make homelessness disappear.

Not really the point. They are illegal and should be deported.

[user104658]

Sorry TS - They are grown men who are intentionally illegally entering our country and have no right to be here. We are under no obligation to provide them with anything other than deportation.

We're not under any obligation but, in extreme weather (like we had in feb / march) at least trying to provide shelter to people who genuinely will be sleeping outdoors is surely the moral thing to do? I mean there's a pretty big grey area between "setting them up with a home" and "not letting a human being die in the snow".

[Twosugars]

Not really the point. They are illegal and should be deported.
In this thread it is the point. It's about homelessness, not immigration. Even if you deport foreigners, there will be enough British homeless for it to be a problem.

[Oliver_W]

In this thread it is the point. It's about homelessness, not immigration. Even if you deport foreigners, there will be enough British homeless for it to be a problem.

It would be a smaller problem though!

[Twosugars]

We're not under any obligation but, in extreme weather (like we had in feb / march) at least trying to provide shelter to people who genuinely will be sleeping outdoors is surely the moral thing to do? I mean there's a pretty big grey area between "setting them up with a home" and "not letting a human being die in the snow".
more churches should be opened to them; also heard some councils want to use empty shop premises.
But I wouldn't count on much, TS. The country and its people are going through a callous period at the moment.

[Brillopad]

In this thread it is the point. It's about homelessness, not immigration. Even if you deport foreigners, there will be enough British homeless for it to be a problem.

Of course - but a smaller problem.

[Cherie]

more churches should be opened to them; also heard some councils want to use empty shop premises.
But I wouldn't count on much, TS. The country and its people are going through a callous period at the moment.



I refer you to every decade in history, there were always callous times

[Twosugars]

It would be a smaller problem though!
in some places it would, in some it wouldn't. depends, foreigners are not uniformly located around the country. either way, there would still be a problem, even if smaller.

[Kizzy]

[/B]


I refer you to every decade in history, there were always callous times

Yes tory times...

This is their remit isn't it?
Nowhere in the article does it mention immigration and yet those fixated on it will use that as a default setting for which to push their agenda as seen here.

'The government’s Supporting People programme, which is a major source of funding for homeless shelters, has been cut by 59 per cent since 2010, Homeless Link said. At the same time, local councils have seen their budgets slashed by an average of 40 per cent.

'In the last year alone, 39 per cent of homelessness providers said their funding had decreased, while 38 per cent reported no change in funding over the past 12 months. Despite the escalating homelessness problem, only 15 per cent of providers reported an increase in funding.'

the issue is not that funding is not growing to meet the expanding number of homeless families and single persons but that existing funding is no longer ring fenced for purpose and so can be taken from that budget and used elsewhere leaving the local councils floundering as to how to tackle the rising problem.

I see your acceptance of this 'callous' period but could you explain to me why this period is so callous.. If it is not as I suspect a clear governmental strategy then what is it?

[bots]

Yes tory times...

This is their remit isn't it?
Nowhere in the article does it mention immigration and yet those fixated on it will use that as a default setting for which to push their agenda as seen here.

'The government’s Supporting People programme, which is a major source of funding for homeless shelters, has been cut by 59 per cent since 2010, Homeless Link said. At the same time, local councils have seen their budgets slashed by an average of 40 per cent.

'In the last year alone, 39 per cent of homelessness providers said their funding had decreased, while 38 per cent reported no change in funding over the past 12 months. Despite the escalating homelessness problem, only 15 per cent of providers reported an increase in funding.'

the issue is not that funding is not growing to meet the expanding number of homeless families and single persons but that existing funding is no longer ring fenced for purpose and so can be taken from that budget and used elsewhere leaving the local councils floundering as to how to tackle the rising problem.

I see your acceptance of this 'callous' period but could you explain to me why this period is so callous.. If it is not as I suspect a clear governmental strategy then what is it?


So how do you explain the mayor of london's inability to deal with the issue given that he is in charge of the london budget?

[Smithy]

Jesus Christ :facepalm:

What should we do about the homelessness problem?
DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!
But what about the genuinely homeless people?
THERE’LL BE LESS WITH THE IMMIGRANTS GONE!!

Jfc :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

[Kizzy]

So how do you explain the mayor of london's inability to deal with the issue given that he is in charge of the london budget?

Did you see the highlighted portin of the text pertaining to local council budgets?... Why are you focusing solely on the mayor for London there are mayors of towns and cities up and down the country facing the same issue.

Attempting to draw the focus to failings by Mr Kahn is odd seeing as the reductions in services have been ongoing since 2010, he has not been mayor that long.
By reinstating any funding there would have to be a reduction for something else somewhere else, my question was and is why the cut from central govt?

[Twosugars]

So how do you explain the mayor of london's inability to deal with the issue given that he is in charge of the london budget?

and how do you explain that BoJo promised to eradicate homelessness in London and he did ***** all?

[Cherie]

Yes tory times...

This is their remit isn't it?
Nowhere in the article does it mention immigration and yet those fixated on it will use that as a default setting for which to push their agenda as seen here.

'The government’s Supporting People programme, which is a major source of funding for homeless shelters, has been cut by 59 per cent since 2010, Homeless Link said. At the same time, local councils have seen their budgets slashed by an average of 40 per cent.

'In the last year alone, 39 per cent of homelessness providers said their funding had decreased, while 38 per cent reported no change in funding over the past 12 months. Despite the escalating homelessness problem, only 15 per cent of providers reported an increase in funding.'

the issue is not that funding is not growing to meet the expanding number of homeless families and single persons but that existing funding is no longer ring fenced for purpose and so can be taken from that budget and used elsewhere leaving the local councils floundering as to how to tackle the rising problem.

I see your acceptance of this 'callous' period but could you explain to me why this period is so callous.. If it is not as I suspect a clear governmental strategy then what is it?

I don't believe the Torys were in power for every decade no..

As for your last question if feels like being in the Head mistresses office so I will pass thanks :laugh:

[Cherie]

and how do you explain that BoJo promised to eradicate homelessness in London and he did ***** all?

Because none of them are any good!

[Twosugars]

Jesus Christ :facepalm:

What should we do about the homelessness problem?
DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!
But what about the genuinely homeless people?
THERE’LL BE LESS WITH THE IMMIGRANTS GONE!!

Jfc :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

I know.
But, hey, let's wait for Brexit to sort it. Some leading Brexit ministers already said that Brexit doesn't mean there will be less immigration. Some countries like India and China already mentioned that easing visa restrictions will be their condition in any free trade agreements.
So less Poles etc but more Hindus etc. But important thing is nasty EU will have no say, Brits themselves will open the border gates.

[Brillopad]

Jesus Christ :facepalm:

What should we do about the homelessness problem?
DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!
But what about the genuinely homeless people?
THERE’LL BE LESS WITH THE IMMIGRANTS GONE!!

Jfc :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Basic maths! :facepalm: facepalm: facepalm:

[Brillopad]

I know.
But, hey, let's wait for Brexit to sort it. Some leading Brexit ministers already said that Brexit doesn't mean there will be less immigration. Some countries like India and China already mentioned that easing visa restrictions will be their condition in any free trade agreements.
So less Poles etc but more Hindus etc. But important thing is nasty EU will have no say, Brits themselves will open the border gates.

Since when has 'mentioned' meant written in stone. : rolleyes:

[Twosugars]

Since when has 'mentioned' meant written in stone. : rolleyes:
let's wait and see then.

[Kizzy]

I don't believe the Torys were in power for every decade no..

As for your last question if feels like being in the Head mistresses office so I will pass thanks :laugh:

So you have no reasoning for your comment, no answer for my question in the OP, all you have is the statement you can't back 'every decade has callous times'?

[Brillopad]

let's wait and see then.

Lets!

[bots]

and how do you explain that BoJo promised to eradicate homelessness in London and he did ***** all?

the point being that Kizzy is blaming the tories, while london has a labour mayor currently in charge that is in control of the budget for housing homeless people

[Cherie]

So you have no reasoning for your comment, no answer for my question in the OP, all you have is the statement you can't back 'every decade has callous times'?

I do but I am working so haven't time to be at your beck and call Kizzy, might post later if I feel like it

[Oliver_W]

the point being that Kizzy is blaming the tories, while london has a labour mayor currently in charge that is in control of the budget for housing homeless people

Then I guess we're lucky there's no homelessness anywhere else?

Kahn is a joke of a mayor, but he can't take all the blame for homelessness in London.

[Kizzy]

the point being that Kizzy is blaming the tories, while london has a labour mayor currently in charge that is in control of the budget for housing homeless people

Did you read my reply to you?... The issue is a reduction in CENTRAL government funding.
Sadiq Kahn is not in control of that is he ... it doesn't answer why the reduction since 2010 nor does it explain the reduction in every other borough in the UK bar one.

Please stop deflecting the issue...

[Kizzy]

I do but I am working so haven't time to be at your beck and call Kizzy, might post later if I feel like it

Then why bother at all until you have the time to read and understand my point?
Forgive me if I don't hold my breath :)

[Cherie]

Then why bother at all until you have the time to read and understand my point?
Forgive me if I don't hold my breath :)

Please don't dictate the length or content of my posts Kizzy

[Kizzy]

Please don't dictate the length or content of my posts Kizzy

I questioned it... this is a debate forum. You're not over a barrel to respond though, don't worry about it.

[bots]

Did you read my reply to you?... The issue is a reduction in CENTRAL government funding.
Sadiq Kahn is not in control of that is he ... it doesn't answer why the reduction since 2010 nor does it explain the reduction in every other borough in the UK bar one.

Please stop deflecting the issue...

im not deflecting the issue. Kahn has a huge budget, if he wanted to improve the plight of the homeless he could. He has chosen not to. Perhaps check the details of whats actually going on before you post nonsense blaming the conservatives, when labour are in a position to do something about it.

[Kizzy]

im not deflecting the issue. Kahn has a huge budget, if he wanted to improve the plight of the homeless he could. He has chosen not to. Perhaps check the details of whats actually going on before you post nonsense blaming the conservatives, when labour are in a position to do something about it.

It's not nonsense there has been a reduction in government funding, and yes the budget may be large but London is a large area, if he restricted other services imagine the outcry :/

Every borough could rob peter to pay paul in that sense gowever how would that resolve anything and how does it address the initial issue of central govt funding reductions?...

Are you going to address that point or continue to post nonsense about the London mayor?... As I said this is a UK wide problem.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yes tory times...

This is their remit isn't it?
Nowhere in the article does it mention immigration and yet those fixated on it will use that as a default setting for which to push their agenda as seen here.

'The government’s Supporting People programme, which is a major source of funding for homeless shelters, has been cut by 59 per cent since 2010, Homeless Link said. At the same time, local councils have seen their budgets slashed by an average of 40 per cent.

'In the last year alone, 39 per cent of homelessness providers said their funding had decreased, while 38 per cent reported no change in funding over the past 12 months. Despite the escalating homelessness problem, only 15 per cent of providers reported an increase in funding.'

the issue is not that funding is not growing to meet the expanding number of homeless families and single persons but that existing funding is no longer ring fenced for purpose and so can be taken from that budget and used elsewhere leaving the local councils floundering as to how to tackle the rising problem.

I see your acceptance of this 'callous' period but could you explain to me why this period is so callous.. If it is not as I suspect a clear governmental strategy then what is it?

You do understand that this is a clickbait article to trigger you and that the only source it came from is some charity with an axe to grind

because it seems as if you dont?

:shrug:

[kirklancaster]

Yes tory times...

This is their remit isn't it?
Nowhere in the article does it mention immigration and yet those fixated on it will use that as a default setting for which to push their agenda as seen here.



Considering the SOURCE of the 'article' and the 'LEFT WING' political BIAS of that source, it is NO BIG SURPRISE that 'Nowhere in the article' does it mention IMMIGRATION' and THEREFORE, such an omission is certainly NO VALID REBUTTAL of anything which any member on here has to say about immigration being a CONTRIBUTORY factor in any homeless 'crisis'.

LT is 1,000% CORRECT - you are basing your 'argument' on a 'Click-Bait' article that does not mean ZILCH as far as any genuine 'Premise' is concerned.

It is also highly presumptuous and WRONG to declare that ANYONE is 'fixated' on 'IMMIGRATION' just because they may mention it as a 'CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR' because LOGICALLY and OBVIOUSLY it is a contributory factor.

In fact, it is those who WILL NOT CONCEDE any type of link between IMMIGRATION and a rise in this country's HOUSING Crisis and HOMELESS problem who have a 'fixation' and are 'Pushing' their 'Agenda' - and that is a 'fixation' on being perpetually in a state of 'Denial' about FACTS which DO NOT support their 'Argument'.

[Kizzy]

Considering the SOURCE of the 'article' and the 'LEFT WING' political BIAS of that source, it is NO BIG SURPRISE that 'Nowhere in the article' does it mention IMMIGRATION' and THEREFORE, such an omission is certainly NO VALID REBUTTAL of anything which any member on here has to say about immigration being a CONTRIBUTORY factor in any homeless 'crisis'.

LT is 1,000% CORRECT - you are basing your 'argument' on a 'Click-Bait' article that does not mean ZILCH as far as any genuine 'Premise' is concerned.

It is also highly presumptuous and WRONG to declare that ANYONE is 'fixated' on 'IMMIGRATION' just because they may mention it as a 'CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR' because LOGICALLY and OBVIOUSLY it is a contributory factor.

In fact, it is those who WILL NOT CONCEDE any type of link between IMMIGRATION and a rise in this country's HOUSING Crisis and HOMELESS problem who have a 'fixation' and are 'Pushing' their 'Agenda' - and that is a 'fixation' on being perpetually in a state of 'Denial' about FACTS which DO NOT support their 'Argument'.

I really would rather you didn't waffle... I can't get to the crux of what your point is due to your odd posting style.

Immigration has nothing to do with the reduction in council funding, it did not remove the ring fencing at either. The funding streams are distinct, being two very different departments with very different requirements.

Whatever the source the reduction in funding since 2010 remains a fact, wherever it's reported that figure will not change. You can ague with me, or what you deem to be a left wing source, but you can't argue with the figures, they remain constant.

It is a valid and reasonable debate for this section I'm not however forcing anyone to participate, I feel LT s comments were unnecessary and invalid and not worthy of response, whether you do or not is of no consequence to me.

You are the one who is pushing an agenda here, should you wish to discuss immigration be my guest however please don't force the issue on a thread specifically created to question the government and their failings to adequately fund resources for the homeless.

[kirklancaster]

I really would rather you didn't waffle... I can't get to the crux of what your point is due to your odd posting style.

Immigration has nothing to do with the reduction in council funding, it did not remove the ring fencing at either. The funding streams are distinct, being two very different departments with very different requirements.

Whatever the source the reduction in funding since 2010 remains a fact, wherever it's reported that figure will not change. You can ague with me, or what you deem to be a left wing source, but you can't argue with the figures, they remain constant.

It is a valid and reasonable debate for this section I'm not however forcing anyone to participate, I feel LT s comments were unnecessary and invalid and not worthy of response, whether you do or not is of no consequence to me.

You are the one who is pushing an agenda here, should you wish to discuss immigration be my guest however please don't force the issue on a thread specifically created to question the government and their failings to adequately fund resources for the homeless.

And YOU accuse ME of WAFFLING?

[Kizzy]

Four clear sentences Kirk, that's all.

[Brillopad]

in some places it would, in some it wouldn't. depends, foreigners are not uniformly located around the country. either way, there would still be a problem, even if smaller.

Who said there wouldn’t be a problem but we don’t want an even bigger one. The presence of those who have no right being here means what there is even less help to go round for those that do.

[Twosugars]

Who said there wouldn’t be a problem but we don’t want an even bigger one. The presence of those who have no right being here means what there is even less help to go round for those that do.

Yes, but immigration aside, what's your solution to homelessness?

[Brillopad]

Yes, but immigration aside, what's your solution to homelessness?

I don’t have one but I do know we shouldn’t allow illegal immigrants to add to the problem or assist them in their illegal actions.

[Beso]

2 and 3/4 of a million visas issued last year alone...all probably needing housed.

[user104658]

2 and 3/4 of a million visas issued last year alone...all probably needing housed.Nonsense Parmy, 80% of those are for short stay visits and another 8% are students (not eligible for housing and will use Uni residence or rent privately).

[Cherie]

Nonsense Parmy, 80% of those are for short stay visits and another 8% are students (not eligible for housing and will use Uni residence or rent privately).

Universities receive far more applications from overseas applicants for postgraduate study than they do for Home students, mainly because many Home students go aboard so they get their Masters for free, Overseas students are far more lucrative for universities as the fees are 3 times that of a Home/EU, short term study visas will only allow students to stay just over the teaching block, usually 2 weeks.

[Beso]

Nonsense Parmy, 80% of those are for short stay visits and another 8% are students (not eligible for housing and will use Uni residence or rent privately).


Ok..:fist:

[Twosugars]

Ok..:fist:

I thought Scotland was underpopulated

[Beso]

Thats still about 270 thousand people to find housing for.

[Nicky91]

I thought Scotland was underpopulated

maybe way up north of scotland is still some space left :fan:

[Mystic Mock]

So tell me Kizzy do you expect the taxpayer to provide homes for all those young men jumping on trucks to get here who have no legal entitlement to be here?

Not every homeless person is a foreigner though, or are we suppose to not help out British civilians either? After all I'd rather the Taxpayer pay to help out homeless people get homes than on how much sugar, people intake personally but maybe I'm the crazy one and the Tories are sane.:joker: