[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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?

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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?