Tory Britain

Ziz wrote:LEST WE FORGET!

A homeless ex-soldier died hours after he was evicted from a city centre squat.

Known only as George, the 82-year-old is believed to have passed away from bronchial pneumonia, a support group for veterans has revealed.

He had been living in a disused building in Manchester with 12 other homeless ex-servicemen before they were all evicted.

His ‘band of brothers’ walked with him to Salford Royal Hospital after he was taken ill and he died with four of them at his bedside.

Salford Armed Forces Veterans Network (SAFVN), which is in contact with the group, say they know little about George, but said his death was a damning indictment on support services available for homeless ex-service personnel across the country.

He is believed to have proudly worn his military service medals at all times and been homeless for around 20 years.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/homeless-ex-soldier-82-dies-6851677

Sad as this is, unfortunately I don't think that the services keep tabs on ex service people once they leave the forces.

It would be up to them to seek out what help they might be able to get.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Ziz wrote:LEST WE FORGET!

A homeless ex-soldier died hours after he was evicted from a city centre squat.

Known only as George, the 82-year-old is believed to have passed away from bronchial pneumonia, a support group for veterans has revealed.

He had been living in a disused building in Manchester with 12 other homeless ex-servicemen before they were all evicted.

His ‘band of brothers’ walked with him to Salford Royal Hospital after he was taken ill and he died with four of them at his bedside.

Salford Armed Forces Veterans Network (SAFVN), which is in contact with the group, say they know little about George, but said his death was a damning indictment on support services available for homeless ex-service personnel across the country.

He is believed to have proudly worn his military service medals at all times and been homeless for around 20 years.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/homeless-ex-soldier-82-dies-6851677

Sad as this is, unfortunately I don't think that the services keep tabs on ex service people once they leave the forces.

It would be up to them to seek out what help they might be able to get.

If there were no homeless there'd be no homeless ex-servicemen. Homelessness is a disgrace in a so-called civilized society.

Ziz wrote:LEST WE FORGET!

A homeless ex-soldier died hours after he was evicted from a city centre squat.

Known only as George, the 82-year-old is believed to have passed away from bronchial pneumonia, a support group for veterans has revealed.

He had been living in a disused building in Manchester with 12 other homeless ex-servicemen before they were all evicted.

His ‘band of brothers’ walked with him to Salford Royal Hospital after he was taken ill and he died with four of them at his bedside.

Salford Armed Forces Veterans Network (SAFVN), which is in contact with the group, say they know little about George, but said his death was a damning indictment on support services available for homeless ex-service personnel across the country.

He is believed to have proudly worn his military service medals at all times and been homeless for around 20 years.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/homeless-ex-soldier-82-dies-6851677

Hi Ziz, yeah I read that, just another appalling tragedy, there are over 9000 homeless exservice personnel on our streets, and yet despite these brave warriors putting themselves on the ruddy line for queen and country the far right on here consider them scroungers.

Ziz wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Sad as this is, unfortunately I don't think that the services keep tabs on ex service people once they leave the forces.

It would be up to them to seek out what help they might be able to get.

If there were no homeless there'd be no homeless ex-servicemen. Homelessness is a disgrace in a so-called civilized society.

I agree, but when haven't we had homelessness in this country?

scrat wrote:

Ziz wrote:LEST WE FORGET!

A homeless ex-soldier died hours after he was evicted from a city centre squat.

Known only as George, the 82-year-old is believed to have passed away from bronchial pneumonia, a support group for veterans has revealed.

He had been living in a disused building in Manchester with 12 other homeless ex-servicemen before they were all evicted.

His ‘band of brothers’ walked with him to Salford Royal Hospital after he was taken ill and he died with four of them at his bedside.

Salford Armed Forces Veterans Network (SAFVN), which is in contact with the group, say they know little about George, but said his death was a damning indictment on support services available for homeless ex-service personnel across the country.

He is believed to have proudly worn his military service medals at all times and been homeless for around 20 years.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/homeless-ex-soldier-82-dies-6851677

Hi Ziz, yeah I read that, just another appalling tragedy, there are over 9000 homeless exservice personnel on our streets, and yet despite these brave warriors putting themselves on the ruddy line for queen and country the far right on here consider them scroungers.

The far-right care only for their agenda of hate.

Ziz wrote:

scrat wrote:
Hi Ziz, yeah I read that, just another appalling tragedy, there are over 9000 homeless exservice personnel on our streets, and yet despite these brave warriors putting themselves on the ruddy line for queen and country the far right on here consider them scroungers.

The far-right care only for their agenda of hate.

Agreed, they're eaten up with hatred, they enjoy seeing others suffer, it's the only pleasure they get.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Ziz wrote:

If there were no homeless there'd be no homeless ex-servicemen. Homelessness is a disgrace in a so-called civilized society.

I agree, but when haven't we had homelessness in this country?

That is an irrelevance - this is the 21st Century in one of the richest countries in the world - the problem of homelessness exists only because we allow it, not because it is insurmountable.

£700m of our taxes swanning off to tax evaders in off shore accounts

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/11/09/virgin-care-set-run-social-work-service-unprecedented-deal/

Just like rail privatisation you just know that this will end in further tragedy and farce!

Ziz wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

I agree, but when haven't we had homelessness in this country?

That is an irrelevance - this is the 21st Century in one of the richest countries in the world - the problem of homelessness exists only because we allow it, not because it is insurmountable.

Homelessness is often just part of the issue though isn't it.

It is often the end result of something that goes much deeper, addiction, criminality, abuse and more.

Before being able to eradicate homelessness those issues need to be dealt with.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Ziz wrote:

That is an irrelevance - this is the 21st Century in one of the richest countries in the world - the problem of homelessness exists only because we allow it, not because it is insurmountable.

Homelessness is often just part of the issue though isn't it.

It is often the end result of something that goes much deeper, addiction, criminality, abuse and more.

Before being able to eradicate homelessness those issues need to be dealt with.

A 71% rise in child homelessness, what the fuck did they do wrong, there are over 600,000 vacant properties in the U.K., often owned by overseas property investors.

Can't understand why anyone would defend homelessness, but hey we're living in Tory Britain.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Ziz wrote:

That is an irrelevance - this is the 21st Century in one of the richest countries in the world - the problem of homelessness exists only because we allow it, not because it is insurmountable.

Homelessness is often just part of the issue though isn't it.

It is often the end result of something that goes much deeper, addiction, criminality, abuse and more.

Before being able to eradicate homelessness those issues need to be dealt with.

Yes, that's right, there are some people who need extra help whose problems cannot be solved by simply providing housing. But only a tiny minority are beyond all help if there is a will - trouble is there isn't, it seems that some people in our society need unfortunates to look down upon in order to feel good about themselves.

scrat wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Homelessness is often just part of the issue though isn't it.

It is often the end result of something that goes much deeper, addiction, criminality, abuse and more.

Before being able to eradicate homelessness those issues need to be dealt with.

A 71% rise in child homelessness, what the fuck did they do wrong, there are over 600,000 vacant properties in the U.K., often owned by overseas property investors.

Can't understand why anyone would defend homelessness, but hey we're living in Tory Britain.

I'm not defending it but pointing out that just providing homes is often not the answer to the problem of homelessness.

If underlying issues aren't dealt with too then that person could well simply end up homeless again and again and again.

There is no excuse for children being homeless, although technically they should never be living on the streets because they fall into the vulnerable category which should mean councils are duty bound to provide a roof over their head in some form or other, temporary or permanent.

Ziz wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Homelessness is often just part of the issue though isn't it.

It is often the end result of something that goes much deeper, addiction, criminality, abuse and more.

Before being able to eradicate homelessness those issues need to be dealt with.

Yes, that's right, there are some people who need extra help whose problems cannot be solved by simply providing housing. But only a tiny minority are beyond all help if there is a will - trouble is there isn't, it seems that some people in our society need unfortunates to look down upon in order to feel good about themselves.

I don't think you are just talking about homeless people here are you?

Spindleshanks wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Yes, that's right, there are some people who need extra help whose problems cannot be solved by simply providing housing. But only a tiny minority are beyond all help if there is a will - trouble is there isn't, it seems that some people in our society need unfortunates to look down upon in order to feel good about themselves.

I don't think you are just talking about homeless people here are you?

Here I am addressing your point about people with additional problems such as addiction, abuse etc as it impacts on homelessness - but my point about the will to care (specifically the lack thereof) extends to anyone in need.

Ziz wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

I don't think you are just talking about homeless people here are you?

Here I am addressing your point about people with additional problems such addiction, abuse etc as it impacts on homelessness - but my point about the will to care (specifically the lack thereof) extends to anyone in need.

Oh there is the will to care, but only for the people who are seen to be worthy which is why lately there has been so much online about homeless ex service people.

Only, that has only been recently, not so long ago few people appeared to give a damn.

I do believe that this will to care appeared about the same time as the refugee crisis began.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Here I am addressing your point about people with additional problems such addiction, abuse etc as it impacts on homelessness - but my point about the will to care (specifically the lack thereof) extends to anyone in need.

Oh there is the will to care, but only for the people who are seen to be worthy which is why lately there has been so much online about homeless ex service people.

Only, that has only been recently, not so long ago few people appeared to give a damn.

I do believe that this will to care appeared about the same time as the refugee crisis began.

Worthiness is in the eye the beholder, that's the problem.

Spindleshanks wrote:

scrat wrote:
A 71% rise in child homelessness, what the fuck did they do wrong, there are over 600,000 vacant properties in the U.K., often owned by overseas property investors.

Can't understand why anyone would defend homelessness, but hey we're living in Tory Britain.

I'm not defending it but pointing out that just providing homes is often not the answer to the problem of homelessness.

If underlying issues aren't dealt with too then that person could well simply end up homeless again and again and again.

There is no excuse for children being homeless, although technically they should never be living on the streets because they fall into the vulnerable category which should mean councils are duty bound to provide a roof over their head in some form or other, temporary or permanent.

And yet you are excusing and defending the government who are increasing child homelessness by 71% in the name of austerity to fund capital gains tax relief for those earning over £100k a year, perhaps we should just ignore it, turn away from it and pretend it doesn't exist because I'm alright jack and they're the underserving poor, and as you've already told us that "technically they should never be living on the streets" well technically won't feed them, it won't clothe them, it won't keep them warm or put a roof over their heads, in fact technically is of no fucking use whatsoever.

One must come to the conclusion that you think it's acceptable that in 2016 there's over 100,000 homeless children, and that this number should increase by 71% because it's more important to give tax relief to the rich rather than address child homelessness and poverty.



Tory Britain.

scrat wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

I'm not defending it but pointing out that just providing homes is often not the answer to the problem of homelessness.

If underlying issues aren't dealt with too then that person could well simply end up homeless again and again and again.

There is no excuse for children being homeless, although technically they should never be living on the streets because they fall into the vulnerable category which should mean councils are duty bound to provide a roof over their head in some form or other, temporary or permanent.

And yet you are excusing and defending the government who are increasing child homelessness by 71% in the name of austerity to fund capital gains tax relief for those earning over £100k a year, perhaps we should just ignore it, turn away from it and pretend it doesn't exist because I'm alright jack and they're the underserving poor, and as you've already told us that "technically they should never be living on the streets" well technically won't feed them, it won't clothe them, it won't keep them warm or put a roof over their heads, in fact technically is of no fucking use whatsoever.

One must come to the conclusion that you think it's acceptable that in 2016 there's over 100,000 homeless children, and that this number should increase by 71% because it's more important to give tax relief to the rich rather than address child homelessness and poverty.



Tory Britain.

Where?

Spindleshanks wrote:

scrat wrote:
And yet you are excusing and defending the government who are increasing child homelessness by 71% in the name of austerity to fund capital gains tax relief for those earning over £100k a year, perhaps we should just ignore it, turn away from it and pretend it doesn't exist because I'm alright jack and they're the underserving poor, and as you've already told us that "technically they should never be living on the streets" well technically won't feed them, it won't clothe them, it won't keep them warm or put a roof over their heads, in fact technically is of no fucking use whatsoever.

One must come to the conclusion that you think it's acceptable that in 2016 there's over 100,000 homeless children, and that this number should increase by 71% because it's more important to give tax relief to the rich rather than address child homelessness and poverty.



Tory Britain.

Where?  

Technically!

scrat wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Where?  

Technically!

Technically they shouldn't means that in law children are classed as vulnerable and are required to be housed, this could be temporary at first until a permanent place is found for them. This is why we find people with kids being housed in expensive rental properties when no social housing is available either because there isn't any or what there is isn't a suitable size for their needs.

I don't support the benefit cap nor do I support the bedroom tax.

If a family need a 5 bedroom home because they have a large family, if they cannot get social housing it is not their fault that landlords charge an exorbitant rent so that even if they are working they frequently can't afford the rent payments particularly in the bigger cities and especially London.

120,000 homeless children this Christmas, childline are now having to issue warnings, due to the stress put on children and the worry that they might leave temporary accommodation.


Living on the streets is very hard. You'll be cold, hungry and in danger from other people.

You might face problems like:

having nowhere safe to sleep or rest
not having food or clean water
being at risk from dangerous or abusive people
not being able to wash yourself or your clothes
getting ill or physically hurt
having no money
being attacked or having your belongings stolen from you
feeling lonely.

If you're living on the streets and need help, you can contact a counsellor at any time. Or you might find it useful to look at advice and support below.

https://www.childline.org.uk/info-advice/home-families/family-relationships/homelessness-running-away/

John Healey, shadow secretary of state for housing, said: "Tory ministers should hang their heads in shame over these shocking figures showing over 120,000 children are facing homelessness this Christmas.

"These are the children that can't go home and after six years Conservative ministers can't dodge their responsibility for this scandal."

But hey technically they should be ok, the thinking of those who excuse and defend this disgusting state of affairs and support Tory Britain.

Being homeless means not having somewhere to live, either because you've been kicked out of home or have run away and feel like you can't return.

Many homeless young people:

are forced to sleep on the street, which is not safe and can only be for a short time
get friends to lend them a bed or sofa for the night, which could be dangerous, against the law, or get the friend into trouble
stay with another family member for a short time.
If you're in any of these situations, you'll be considered homeless by law.

The authorities have to find ways to make sure that you have a safe home,

Spindleshanks wrote:Being homeless means not having somewhere to live, either because you've been kicked out of home or have run away and feel like you can't return.

Many homeless young people:

are forced to sleep on the street, which is not safe and can only be for a short time
get friends to lend them a bed or sofa for the night, which could be dangerous, against the law, or get the friend into trouble
stay with another family member for a short time.
If you're in any of these situations, you'll be considered homeless by law.

The authorities have to find ways to make sure that you have a safe home,

Yeah, technically!

Surely it's now time to wake up to the reality of Tory Britain, children sleeping rough on our streets to fund tax cuts for the rich.

scrat wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:Being homeless means not having somewhere to live, either because you've been kicked out of home or have run away and feel like you can't return.

Many homeless young people:

are forced to sleep on the street, which is not safe and can only be for a short time
get friends to lend them a bed or sofa for the night, which could be dangerous, against the law, or get the friend into trouble
stay with another family member for a short time.
If you're in any of these situations, you'll be considered homeless by law.

The authorities have to find ways to make sure that you have a safe home,

Yeah, technically!

Surely it's now time to wake up to the reality of Tory Britain, children sleeping rough on our streets to fund tax cuts for the rich.

Sorry, but you seem to be focusing on runaway children here. How many of these children are sleeping on the streets because their families have been evicted from their homes?

How does this relate to funding tax cuts for the rich?

Spindleshanks wrote:

scrat wrote:
Yeah, technically!

Surely it's now time to wake up to the reality of Tory Britain, children sleeping rough on our streets to fund tax cuts for the rich.

Sorry, but you seem to be focusing on runaway children here.  How many of these children are sleeping on the streets because their families have been evicted from their homes?

How does this relate to funding tax cuts for the rich?

Theres no need for you to apologise, you are simply naive enough to believe in technically speaking and that when the government says councils have a duty that this duty will be automatically carried out and you can then simply ignore the plight of 120,000 homeless children.

"At the dispatch box today, a curious thing happened. George Osborne unveiled his Budget to the chamber and calmly let slip from his lips a series of tax cuts for the well-off and private businesses. From the same face which we are normally accustomed to watching contort into sombre strains as he announces yet more poverty and misery for the most vulnerable in society came an astonishing string of concessions for the most privileged in society."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/85-per-cent-of-osbornes-budget-benefits-will-go-to-the-wealthiest-half-of-britain-but-the-austerity-a6934501.html

Such are the vagaries of Tory Britain.

scrat wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Sorry, but you seem to be focusing on runaway children here.  How many of these children are sleeping on the streets because their families have been evicted from their homes?

How does this relate to funding tax cuts for the rich?

Theres no need for you to apologise, you are simply naive enough to believe in technically speaking and that when the government says councils have a duty that this duty will be automatically carried out and you can then simply ignore the plight of 120,000 homeless children.

"At the dispatch box today, a curious thing happened. George Osborne unveiled his Budget to the chamber and calmly let slip from his lips a series of tax cuts for the well-off and private businesses. From the same face which we are normally accustomed to watching contort into sombre strains as he announces yet more poverty and misery for the most vulnerable in society came an astonishing string of concessions for the most privileged in society."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/85-per-cent-of-osbornes-budget-benefits-will-go-to-the-wealthiest-half-of-britain-but-the-austerity-a6934501.html

Such are the vagaries of Tory Britain.

If children along with their families are slipping through the net then absolutely that needs addressing. No child should ever end up homeless, either because they along with their families have been evicted or because they have run away from home/care.

But, you cannot blame the authorities or the government for children who don't seek help when they run away from home, those that don't want to be found/sent back home/sent back to care/hide at a friends house or whatever.

Perhaps we should employ a child catcher?

Spindleshanks wrote:

scrat wrote:
Theres no need for you to apologise, you are simply naive enough to believe in technically speaking and that when the government says councils have a duty that this duty will be automatically carried out and you can then simply ignore the plight of 120,000 homeless children.

"At the dispatch box today, a curious thing happened. George Osborne unveiled his Budget to the chamber and calmly let slip from his lips a series of tax cuts for the well-off and private businesses. From the same face which we are normally accustomed to watching contort into sombre strains as he announces yet more poverty and misery for the most vulnerable in society came an astonishing string of concessions for the most privileged in society."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/85-per-cent-of-osbornes-budget-benefits-will-go-to-the-wealthiest-half-of-britain-but-the-austerity-a6934501.html

Such are the vagaries of Tory Britain.

If children along with their families are slipping through the net then absolutely that needs addressing. No child should ever end up homeless, either because they along with their families have been evicted or because they have run away from home/care.

But, you cannot blame the authorities or the government for children who don't seek help when they run away from home, those that don't want to be found/sent back home/sent back to care/hide at a friends house or whatever.

Perhaps we should employ a child catcher?  

Obviously homelessness is something you find amusing, I doubt it's that amusing for the most vulnerable in our society, but hey, you couldn't give a fuck about them, 200,000 children are reliant on food banks, no doubt you'll find that just as amusing.

Austerity policies introduced into welfare and social care by the UK government amount to “systematic violations” of the rights of people with disabilities, a UN inquiry has concluded.

It says a range of measures aimed at reducing public spending since 2010, including controversial changes such as the bedroom tax, and cuts to disability benefits and social care budgets have disproportionately and adversely affected disabled people.

The highly critical report, published in Geneva on Monday afternoon, says the rights of disabled people to live independently, to work, and achieve an adequate standard of living have been negatively affected by austerity measures.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/07/uk-austerity-policies-amount-to-violations-of-disabled-peoples-rights

Well I suppose the far right will justify this by commenting that disabled folk, aren't technically human.

scrat wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

If children along with their families are slipping through the net then absolutely that needs addressing. No child should ever end up homeless, either because they along with their families have been evicted or because they have run away from home/care.

But, you cannot blame the authorities or the government for children who don't seek help when they run away from home, those that don't want to be found/sent back home/sent back to care/hide at a friends house or whatever.

Perhaps we should employ a child catcher?  

Obviously homelessness is something you find amusing, I doubt it's that amusing for the most vulnerable in our society, but hey, you couldn't give a fuck about them, 200,000 children are reliant on food banks, no doubt you'll find that just as amusing.

If you don't like my sarcasm aimed at you then don't try to obscure the facts.

Runaway children have nothing to do with the government giving tax breaks to the rich, they are a separate issue to families being evicted or having to move into unsuitable accommodation because the benefits cap means they can't pay their rents where they live.

I've already told you I don't support the benefit cap or bedroom tax or absolutely anything else that reduces the amount of money a family has to live on.

Spindleshanks wrote:

scrat wrote:
Obviously homelessness is something you find amusing, I doubt it's that amusing for the most vulnerable in our society, but hey, you couldn't give a fuck about them, 200,000 children are reliant on food banks, no doubt you'll find that just as amusing.

If you don't like my sarcasm aimed at you then don't try to obscure the facts.

Runaway children have nothing to do with the government giving tax breaks to the rich, they are a separate issue to families being evicted or having to move into unsuitable accommodation because the benefits cap means they can't pay their rents where they live.

I've already told you I don't support the benefit cap or bedroom tax or absolutely anything else that reduces the amount of money a family has to live on.

The abuse you've offered would not faze me, it never does, I'm not homeless nor am I living in poverty, your sarcasm was aimed at the poorest and most vulnerable in our society because you do not care about the well being of our people, you've done nothing but attempt to excuse and defend tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor, because you hate Britain and its people.

Homelessness is not simply about runaway children for which you suggested using a child catcher, (yeah now you're talking like a Tory,) nor is it about the 9000 exservice personnel left to rot on our streets, it is about the fact that this number is rising and it is rising to protect tax cuts for the rich.

Your attempt to deny this, is sadly a further indication of your anti British far right mentality.

I have yet to see a homeless child sleeping rough on the street.What age do you call a child SCAT.

This is a common type of post from scat, on the other forum he posted that much bullshit and lies which he could never back up with the truth.
If caught out in his lies he just would not answer questions but just go on with more bullshit posts.

All ex Soldiers and others should not be homeless but some prefer it like that. There is a organisation that helps ex service men, it's called SSAFA,

LOOK IT UP.


Spindleshanks knows what he's talking about, Scat knows fuck all about the truth.

scrat wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

If you don't like my sarcasm aimed at you then don't try to obscure the facts.

Runaway children have nothing to do with the government giving tax breaks to the rich, they are a separate issue to families being evicted or having to move into unsuitable accommodation because the benefits cap means they can't pay their rents where they live.

I've already told you I don't support the benefit cap or bedroom tax or absolutely anything else that reduces the amount of money a family has to live on.

The abuse you've offered would not faze me, it never does, I'm not homeless nor am I living in poverty, your sarcasm was aimed at the poorest and most vulnerable in our society because you do not care about the well being of our people, you've done nothing but attempt to excuse and defend tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor, because you hate Britain and its people.

Homelessness is not simply about runaway children for which you suggested using a child catcher, (yeah now you're talking like a Tory,) nor is it about the 9000 exservice personnel left to rot on our streets, it is about the fact that this number is rising and it is rising to protect tax cuts for the rich.

Your attempt to deny this, is sadly a further indication of your anti British far right mentality.

Maybe you should have picked your links better since what you linked to was relating to children running away and i never suggested that homelessness was simply about runaway children.

I always post the truth.

http://www.supportbritishsoldiers.co.uk/?p=197

Sadly some don't like the truth,,,,,,,,,up em!

SCAT", I always post the truth". That proves you are a fucking liar, always have been. Now your trying your bullshit on here !

nicko wrote:SCAT", I always post the truth".   That proves you are a fucking liar,  always have been.    Now your trying your bullshit on here !

Calm your life Penfold stop being such a sad act!

scrat wrote:I always post the truth.

http://www.supportbritishsoldiers.co.uk/?p=197

Sadly some don't like the truth,,,,,,,,,up em!

How much support would you give this ex serviceman if you found him homeless Scrat?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29991524

Spindleshanks wrote:

scrat wrote:I always post the truth.

http://www.supportbritishsoldiers.co.uk/?p=197

Sadly some don't like the truth,,,,,,,,,up em!

How much support would you give this ex serviceman if you found him homeless Scrat?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29991524

Are you trying to infer that 9000 exservice personnel are homeless because they're perverts?,,,, good luck with that!

scrat wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

How much support would you give this ex serviceman if you found him homeless Scrat?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29991524

Are you trying to infer that 9000 exservice personnel are homeless because they're perverts?,,,, good luck with that!

Don't be stupid. I am however pointing out that not all ex service people are the angels and hero's some make them out to be.

Spindleshanks wrote:

scrat wrote:
Are you trying to infer that 9000 exservice personnel are homeless because they're perverts?,,,, good luck with that!

Don't be stupid.  I am however pointing out that not all ex service people are the angels and hero's some make them out to be.

Let us reflect on your comments, which are extremely worrying, contradictory and somewhat unwholesome, you want to use child catchers for runaway homeless children and you've inferred that homeless exservice personnel are perverts, only the sickfuck mind of a RW cretin would conjure up such bizarre imagery.

scrat wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Don't be stupid.  I am however pointing out that not all ex service people are the angels and hero's some make them out to be.

Let us reflect on your comments, which are extremely worrying, contradictory and somewhat unwholesome, you want to use child catchers for runaway homeless children and you've inferred that homeless exservice personnel are perverts, only the sickfuck mind of a RW cretin would conjure up such bizarre imagery.

Do you have reading comprehension problems Scrat?

so here we go again...Scrat putting words into peoples mouths .....the swearing blind thats what they said....when its really nothing but Scrat LIES

and crying abuse for one word of sarcasm

aww...one has to feel sorry for the delicate flowers of the left doesnt one...answer....(nope)

I'm pretty sure there were homeless people when Labour were in Government too.

Homeless, single adults are often ignored because they're deemed able to look after themselves, but these are the people who need some help. How much tax is spent on trying to solve the problem? Not much I bet.

Lord Foul wrote:so here we go again...Scrat putting words into peoples mouths .....the swearing blind thats what they said....when its really nothing but Scrat LIES
B
and crying abuse for one word of sarcasm

aww...one has to feel sorry for the delicate flowers of the left doesnt one...answer....(nope)

Are you acting on your own behalf as a poster or at the behest of your moderator applications? We must first proceed with such caution, especially now that your side kick has joined the show.

Perhaps instead of going on one from the off, you should peruse the thread and take note of where such utterances occurred.

P.S There is no Latin word for alligator it's etymology is recent, the correct form is Crocodilus, not being pedantic just making an observation.

Only a very small minority of those officially categorised as “homeless” are actually sleeping rough on the streets. There are 73,120 in temporary accommodation. The latest estimate for the number sleeping rough on any given night is 3,569. A quarter of them are in London. The number sleeping rough has doubled since 2010 – they weren’t really counted properly before then and, inevitably, the figures are still unreliable.

Of course some will be “challenging” for the authorities to “engage” with as they refuse help. Many are drug addicts, or alcoholics, or mentally ill who might be erratic about keeping appointments or filling in forms. However, there are some who sleep on the streets simply because they have nowhere else to go. They have followed all the procedures and been denied any accommodation by their local council. I have had examples of such “casework” in my Inbox over the past year as a councillor in Hammersmith and Fulham and had varying degrees of success in managing to help them.

Bob Blackman, the Conservative MP for Harrow East, wants to do something about it.

On Friday his Homelessness Reduction Bill has its Second Reading. This week it won Government support. One change is that councils would be obliged to take preventative action. The obligation would start before the bailiffs arrive and someone is out on the street with a suitcase shuffling off to the town hall. If this happens to be a strapping single young man the Housing Department will quite likely tell him that he is not a “priority” and he is left to sleep on a park bench.

Instead local authorities would have a duty to help eligible people at risk of homelessness to secure accommodation 56 days before they are threatened with homelessness (up from 28 days at present). It would also ensure that other local services refer those either homeless or at risk of being homeless to local authority housing teams. If the early intervention fails and someone is still homeless the Council would have to provide some emergency relief – even if it is a single young man – rather than just leave him to sleep on the streets. The Bill has the support of the Government – which, of course, greatly increases its chances of becoming law.

The concern that councils have, understandably enough, is the extra pressure the new law would put them under. There might indeed be savings for the NHS and the criminal justice system by averting rough sleeping – but what of council budgets?

Crisis has estimated that a reduction in homelessness would save the taxpayer over £9,000 per person per year. They commissioned Nicholas Pleace at the University of York and Prof Dennis P. Culhane at the University of Pennsylvania to come up with the estimate. Researchers asked 86 people who had been homeless for at least 90 days about the services they had used. The fall in public spending is based on the average estimated reduction of £9,266 per person per year.

An earlier report offered various hypothetical examples – it includes a victim of domestic violence and someone else with learning difficulties. One consequence of refusing help to those deemed not a “priority” is that their situation deteriorates and they later do become a “priority” and end up costing the housing department more in the long term.

In any case, central Government have said that they would provide councils with extra funds to fully meet any extra costs of their obligations if this Bill becomes law.

In fact I am pretty unsympathetic about councils complaining about the cost of their provision for the homeless. This is because of the very substantial public health budgets which councils control. I have written before about how this money is largely wasted.

To take my own council as an example. It spends £23 million on public health. Just over two per cent – half a million pounds is allocated to “supportive housing”. A much bigger share should be. In Hammersmith and Fulham I am told that:

“Adult Social Care estimate that around 55 per cent of residents in the generic supported housing services for homeless people have support needs related to their mental health, often presenting with substance and/or alcohol misuse. Approximately 20 per cent of these residents will have severe and enduring mental illness.”

In other words a majority of those being put in general hostels should be placed in specialist hostels. A disgrace.

We are a prosperous and civilised nation and we should not be forcing people to sleep rough. Councils should offer the homeless – and those for whom the threat of homelessness is looming – a sympathetic, confidential, efficient and timely service. The result should be that nobody is refused a roof over their head. That is morally right and also a matter of good sense both in terms of the public finances and of public order.

MPs should pass the Blackman Bill and councils should make a success of it.


http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2016/10/council-should-rise-to-the-challenge-of-the-homelessness-reduction-bill.html

Tommy Monk wrote:
Only a very small minority of those officially categorised as “homeless” are actually sleeping rough on the streets. There are 73,120 in temporary accommodation. The latest estimate for the number sleeping rough on any given night is 3,569.  A quarter of them are in London. The number sleeping rough has doubled since 2010 – they weren’t really counted properly before then and, inevitably, the figures are still unreliable.

Of course some will be “challenging” for the authorities to “engage” with as they refuse help. Many are drug addicts, or alcoholics, or mentally ill who might be erratic about keeping appointments or filling in forms. However, there are some who sleep on the streets simply because they have nowhere else to go. They have followed all the procedures and been denied any accommodation by their local council. I have had examples of such “casework” in my Inbox over the past year as a councillor in Hammersmith and Fulham and had varying degrees of success in managing to help them.

Bob Blackman, the Conservative MP for Harrow East, wants to do something about it.

On Friday his Homelessness Reduction Bill has its Second Reading. This week it won Government support. One change is that councils would be obliged to take preventative action. The obligation would start before the bailiffs arrive and someone is out on the street with a suitcase shuffling off to the town hall.  If this happens to be a strapping single young man the Housing Department will quite likely tell him that he is not a “priority” and he is left to sleep on a park bench.

Instead local authorities would have a duty to help eligible people at risk of homelessness to secure accommodation 56 days before they are threatened with homelessness (up from 28 days at present). It would also ensure that other local services refer those either homeless or at risk of being homeless to local authority housing teams. If the early intervention fails and someone is still homeless the Council would have to provide some emergency relief – even if it is a single young man – rather than just leave him to sleep on the streets. The Bill has the support of the Government – which, of course, greatly increases its chances of becoming law.

The concern that councils have, understandably enough, is the extra pressure the new law would put them under. There might indeed be savings for the NHS and the criminal justice system by averting rough sleeping – but what of council budgets?

Crisis has estimated that a reduction in homelessness would save the taxpayer over £9,000 per person per year. They commissioned Nicholas Pleace at the University of York and Prof Dennis P. Culhane at the University of Pennsylvania to come up with the estimate. Researchers asked 86 people who had been homeless for at least 90 days about the services they had used. The fall in public spending is based on the average estimated reduction of £9,266 per person per year.

An earlier report offered various hypothetical examples – it includes a victim of domestic violence and someone else with learning difficulties. One consequence of refusing help to those deemed not a “priority” is that their situation deteriorates and they later do become a “priority” and end up costing the housing department more in the long term.

In any case, central Government have said that they would provide councils with extra funds to fully meet any extra costs of their obligations if this Bill becomes law.

In fact I am pretty unsympathetic about councils complaining about the cost of their provision for the homeless. This is because of the very substantial public health budgets which councils control. I have written before about how this money is largely wasted.

To take my own council as an example. It spends £23 million on public health. Just over two per cent – half a million pounds is allocated to “supportive housing”. A much bigger share should be.  In Hammersmith and Fulham I am told that:

“Adult Social Care estimate that around 55 per cent of residents in the generic supported housing services for homeless people have support needs related to their mental health, often presenting with substance and/or alcohol misuse. Approximately 20 per cent of these residents will have severe and enduring mental illness.”

In other words a majority of those being put in general hostels should be placed in specialist hostels. A disgrace.

We are a prosperous and civilised nation and we should not be forcing people to sleep rough. Councils should offer the homeless – and those for whom the threat of homelessness is looming – a sympathetic, confidential, efficient and timely service.  The result should be that nobody is refused a roof over their head. That is morally right and also a matter of good sense both in terms of the public finances and of public order.

MPs should pass the Blackman Bill and councils should make a success of it.


http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2016/10/council-should-rise-to-the-challenge-of-the-homelessness-reduction-bill.html

I was tempted to read through that blurb, especially when I got to the part and the fact that homelessness has doubled since 2010, and then I scrolled down to the source, conservativehome, mmmmmm, conservative home,,,,,,,, commenting on homelessness, mmmmmmm and then I thought mmmmmmmmmm and opened a yellowtail!

That explains why you are so deluded... you only ever read what labour/guardian tells you and believe it all without ever checking the facts...


Look at the bill the Torys are trying you get through to force councils to help ALL homeless people instead of just some that the councils decide are worthy of help... and to make them provide accommodation within 56 days... as well as helping people who are facing homelessness/eviction before they actually become homeless!!!


Maybe you should look into it a bit and actually try to know what you are talking about for a change... instead of just repeating the rubbish that you are fed...

Scat has always put forward what his local LABOUR PARTY send him to post, believe it or not they pay him for it.

He's very good at it though, deserves his pay, although he doesn't really believe what he posts. [he needs the money don't you know]