Yes Joey
we will have those people
in our New Community Sheds.
Army Troops will keep out
Activists trying to put a spanner in the works.

Drunks will be removed from English Streets
there is no need for them - at all.

What on earth are terms like 'community sheds' doing in the UK in the 21st century.

It's a horrible term, whatever happened to hostels,rooms, homes in fact, I am not convinced at all as to this.
It would help if govts 'stopped' helping make people homeless in the first place.

I won't hold my breath on that one particularly with this govt.This govt is part of the problem, not the solution to it.

Its a Term that represents our Zones with live in.


Yes Homeless are on our streets whoever is in power,
This is a Solution
as many will stop being homeless
as they will have The Army sheds
with heating - to keep them safe
until they locate to a safe place to live
under their funding budget allowance.

Yeah lets bring back the workhouse. The last one was closed in 1930 but we can always go backwards instead of forwards.

Lets ship the low life's off to other shores just like we did with the Irish in the late eighteen hundreds.

Evolution my arse!

I thought this was a trolling post for the first two pages but then sadly it dawned on me that you're being serious.

Yes DR.

its not the 1930s
it is 2016 to 2020
And England will change for the better.

No one has to go on a ship
so long as they stay at the Army Sheds
and stay off our pavements

Law and Order
is Common Sense.

Sighs and goes off to do something more productive.

at least the workhouse dealt with vagrancy

now we just shriek and hide our eyes


There is no point just sayin g "!oh we cant do this and we cant do that, its 2016 you know"

Yes that is great we can identify problems and we can look at the past and hold out noses

But if we dont offer a solution then we are worse than the Victorians, who did

"By hiding away the underclass?"


No DR
they are relocated
but can leave that camp at any time they wish
so long as they do not return to Our Public Streets
and stand there begging.

We had a solution... 'care in the community' What an oxymoron.

:joker: Don't give this govt that idea again DemRed.
It's a wonder they haven't looked at it already.

Evolution can be, as I have said in my view on here before, positive or negative, for me this idea of 'community sheds' sounds absolutely awful.

Get them in the community sheds :thumbs:

Where does gentrification end and national socialism begin?

We already have it in a way Joey.
If you now claim unemployment benefit for over six weeks Workfare steps in and finds you up to 30 hours a week work. That could be stacking shelves in a supermarket or working as a cleaner or some other menial task. You don't get paid other than your usual benefits so instead of the average salary of £210 pw you get just enough to put food in your mouth. If you leave your benefits are stopped for six weeks. Many jobs advertised at the Job Centre aren't actual paying jobs but Workfare placements. Its forced unpaid labour that was brought in by Labour and expanded by the coalition.

There have been cases where people have been made redundant from factories only to be later offered a Workfare unpaid job for the same company doing the same job before they were made redundant.

In Arista's defence - He is right. He is - predictably - under attack because he dares to 'Speak The Truth Which Dare Not Speak Its Name', but the protests and criticism is misplaced.

Let's start by IDENTIFYING just WHAT is meant by the all-sweeping term "Homeless":

First of all, a considerable number of 'homeless' people ELECT to be 'homeless' because they are nomadic/hippie in spirit and nature and do not want what they regard as 'conformist' lives. YES - they CHOOSE to 'doss' outdoors.

An even greater number of 'homeless' people MAKE themselves homeless becuse they deliberately and repeatedly do NOT honour many - or even any - of the conditions in their Tenancy Agreements. These breaches include:

a) Wifully NOT paying the rent - even when the British taxpayer has funded that rent - and electing to spend the money given to them instead, on drugs, drink, gambling, or simply using it to fund a lifestyle BEYOND their means.

b) Trashing their rented accommodation, including NEVER cleaning any of the white goods, filling every room with rotting rubbish or dozens of putrid bin bags, damaging the fixtures and fittings by wilful abuse, allowing other druggies and drunks to 'squat' there without permission, keeping one or more dogs or other pets without permission - usually while selfishly failing to look after them properly, leaving them locked in a room until the dog faeces is so bad that they then move them into another room. Each new 'pet prison' is left with new doors scratched through to a depth of an inch or more, and window cills chewed away.

c) Converting the house or rooms in it, into 'Cannabis Farms' - leaving holes in ceilings and doors cut through to accomodate ventilation ducting, and water damaged floors, and the stench of cannabis permeating the decorations, plasterwork and all the internal fabric of the property.

Then, an ever greater number of 'homeless' people are 'homeless' by default because they are 'mentally ill' or socially ill-equipped to manage their affairs - especially fiscally - and continually fall foul of some or most of the conditions of their Tenancy Areements, and THESE are the TRUE homeless.

THESE are the people who the Social Services are failing.

THESE are the people who genuinely NEED professional help and care.

THESE are the people who NEED sheltered accomodation. The other types of 'homeless' listed above are NOT needing of sympathy or help, and - just as with the scroungers and fraudsters who abuse the Benefits System - GIVING them sympathy, help, and money, is doing so at the EXPENSE of the GENUINE people who NEED it .

As for Arista's suggestions - just WHAT is so WRONG with them?

I mean REALLY wrong - not just irrational umbrage from disgruntled anti-Tory factions grinding their own axes.

Are any of you REALLY saying, that housing those sleeping rough on the streets in purposely converted accommodation is NOT a BETTER solution than allowing them to live on the streets because other ORTHODOX options have been persistently abused by these people and other resolutions are NOT FINANCIALLY viable?

As Arista said; these are 'Huts' in name only, but will be modern clean, attractive homes with fitted kitchens, bathrooms with showers and every other facility which conventional accommodation could boast.

They are NOT 'gulags', NOT 'workhouses', NOT 'jungle camps - they will be modern, bright, attractive communities with gardens and flower beds, street lighting and shops etc - much like fixed mobile home parks in seaside resorts.

For years now, working people in a host of countries - who are NOT homeless - have been buying modern new homes which have been converted from shipping containers, and they are NOT complaining:

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/i...crop-smart.jpg

They are NOT complaining, because these converted homes are attractive, and functional, and offer them a chance to own their own homes which they otherwise could NOT afford.

For decades now people have been living happily in communities of prefabricated houses such as 'Airey' houses, and they have made smart and attractive 'Homes' from these prefabs.

For decades too, our military have lived for long periods in similar.

There have been very few 'Bad' houses built but there are tens of thousands of 'Bad' tenants - some of whom eventually become 'Homeless', and where these homeless ARE genuine cases in need of help, then help is what they should be given.

There is nothing wrong with offering the rest a warm, clean, 'home' in a modern bright community - in my opinion.

It begins...
Homeless people could be fined up to £1,000 for sleeping in doorways near popular tourist spots, under new rules launched by a London council.
It’s not clear how destitute rough sleepers are expected to pay.
Hackney Council’s Public Space Protection Order bans sleeping in public places – offenders are handed a £100 fixed penalty, which can rise to £1,000 in court.
Homelessness charities have condemned the move, saying that it turns rough sleepers – who are often escaping lives of abuse – into criminals.
A similar protection order was proposed by Oxford City Council, but the council backed off after a petition against the move garnered 72,000 signatures.
Matt Downie of homelessness charity Crisis said, ‘Rough sleepers deserve better than to be treated as a nuisance – they may have suffered a relationship breakdown, a bereavement or domestic abuse.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/02/homele...rough-5226481/

"In Arista's defence - He is right. "

Thank you Kirk
Great post from you,

Yes Kizzy
I am not alone in getting England
Great again.

Define 'great'.

A Better Nation
like no other.

Bang on right Arista and better for everyone too!
That's why so many folk cross several countries just to get here.

This used to be a great country until labour got in and spent all the money but now with the right man in charge paying back all the money that labour stupidly borrowed I do believe that our David will get this country back on it's feet in no time at all and back to being GREAT once more! :cheer2::cheer2::cheer2:

Supremacy?

No need for that.

A nation dealing with the homeless
is a Example for the World to learn from
our Positive Moves.

Yes Everyone will benefit
from our Helpful
move forward,
Johnny.

Explain how fining someone with nothing £1000 solves anything.
Unless you know it will end in a default, there will be a warrant for their arrest and they will end up in jail.... Job done.
Social cleansing.

I find it strange that people like you and me can be so concerned and upset by this sort of policy whilst others think its a great idea.

I don't know about you but I've never been in a position of becoming or nearly becoming homeless but then I've got a great support network around me. I'd get bailed out long before things got bad.

I'd love to understand what makes people so heartless.