[Cherie]

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

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

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]

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?

[Smithy]

Jesus Christ

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

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]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Jesus Christ

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

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]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Jesus Christ

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

Basic maths! facepalm: facepalm:

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

let's wait and see then.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

let's wait and see then.

Lets!

[bots]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

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?