| Non-motoring > Homes for the homeless | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: John Boy | Replies: 90 |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 16:32
Homes for the homeless - John Boy
|
|
An article in today's Guardian is an investigation into why Peterborough council has to put homeless people into Travelodge hotels and why Chelmsford is purchasing static mobile homes for the same purpose. Apparently the problem is more widespread than that and some Tory-run councils are blaming it on various central government policies. The bit that really caught my eye was one local authority member describing the homeless people concerned as “not the government’s lazy scrounger stereotypeâ€. tinyurl.com/jrsbef9 |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 18:26
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
>> is the housing crisis that exploded this summer in Peterborough, landing the city’s Tory-controlled council with a potential £1m bill for putting up homeless families in local Travelodge hotels.<< ....and people still wonder why we voted for Brexit? Pat |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 19:14
Homes for the homeless - zippy
|
|
>>....and people still wonder why we voted for Brexit? It's bad planning. We have more than enough space in this country for homes but the crazy planning rules that treat the oh so precious green belt as sacrosanct and prevent any meaningful expansion of villages. Villages must have grown from individual houses, to hamlets then to villages and would grow in to legitimate towns as many other towns have developed in the past. The current situation concentrates people in to rabbit hutch homes in over populated towns because it is cheaper than putting in the proper infrastructure that would be required for new towns. Local kids are priced out of villages because the houses are too expensive. They move in to poorly built rental accommodation in the nearest big town. If many more houses were built then according to the theory of supply and demand, house prices would be static and could fall - but then that is not an election winner and therefore the status quo persists. (Rant over) Last edited by: zippy on Wed 5 Oct 16 at 19:15
|
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 20:01
Homes for the homeless - MD
|
|
Horlicks to the lot of it. Modern house building is nothing short of a calamity. Poorly built. Too small. crammed in. No useful gardens where one can grow vegetables. Relax. Children may play and the dog, well, can be a Dog. They are in the main completely soulless places and to be fair, not fit for purpose. Maggie did some good, there's no doubt. However, selling off sturdily built large semi detached houses with H U G E gardens was a pretty poor decision. From some of the properties iv'e seen that fit the above criteria another pair of semi's could have been built in the back gardens and still left room for a garden. Or those semi's could have made four flats. We here earn reasonable money, but if we wanted a 'life' we could not afford private rent. Full stop. Of course we have all been socially engineered to ensure that we cannot survive without both partners working full time. Where does that leave the chilndren? Nannies. Baby sitters. Child minders etc. Getting very grumpy now (not about Costa Coffee carp), so orf to shower and bed. It's been a long day thus far. |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 19:57
Homes for the homeless - smokie
|
| How did/will a vote for BREXIT improve the homeless situation? |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 20:14
Homes for the homeless - zippy
|
|
>> How did/will a vote for BREXIT improve the homeless situation? >> 'Cause there'll be less Muslims init! |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 20:21
Homes for the homeless - Runfer D'Hills
|
|
>> ....and people still wonder why we voted for Brexit? Good Lord, really? You people scare me, you really do. It's no longer funny. |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 20:35
Homes for the homeless - CGNorwich
|
| Amber Rudd seems very strange and worries me. God knows where we are going. I didn't vote Conservative for this lot. |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 20:51
Homes for the homeless - zippy
|
|
Amber Rudd has gone from moderate to right wing overnight is it a case of power corrupts or was she always like this and has waited for the right opportunity? The new Government does appear to be much further to the right then Cameron's Government was. Perhaps it's bravado from having won the Brexit vote that I suspect many of them secretly wanted and perhaps it is because they have little real opposition? Of course it could be a reaction to the increasingly left wing opposition. Me, I'm a social democrat by nature. Free market with a decent safety net and social responsibility and would probably be on the right of the centre ground. |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 20:52
Homes for the homeless - tyrednemotional
|
|
...was looking at Hifi today (Man Maths may be required). In the background, the very large screen TV was relaying Treza from Birmingham. In the middle of our conversation on specs, kit, etc. the youngish, (but not too young) salesman looked over at the TV, turned back to me and said, "What do you think to our new Empress, then? They worry me, that lot!" 'nuff said. ...and while The Express, Mail, and their ilk continue with their rabidly Brexit headlines, I think that this week, someone at the Telegraph must have turned over in their sleep and got a mild whiff of the coffee. There have been a number of articles that have been wildly at odds with their previous gung-ho stories and editorial. Maybe the Barclay Brothers have got large sterling investments. ;-) |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 04:12
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
>> I didn't vote Conservative for this lot. << Yes, but you did. Your vote put your trust in them to make decisions on your behalf for the term of their office. Whether you agree with those decisions or not should determine where you place your next vote. Pat |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 20:44
Homes for the homeless - No FM2R
|
|
>> ....and people still wonder why we voted for Brexit? No, we know exactly why you voted Brexit. |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 21:06
Homes for the homeless - Dog
|
|
Gof off. :o} |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 21:24
Homes for the homeless - Bobby
|
|
I know its old fashioned, socialist or what I dont know, but I believe that houses are homes and not investment vehicles. I would banish "private landlords". Allow Councils and proper Housing Associations to have rental homes only. Not quite sure how I would strip ownership of all the private rental homes but would come up with some sort of compulsory purchase idea........ :) |
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 21:30
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
The Guardian article describes a situation I see every day at work. I've spoken to people in both Chelmsford and Peterborough today. Even in Corby (FFS) private sector rents are set at frightening sums. Rents are rising but the amount allowed under benefit rules for private rentals was first massaged down to cover only the bottom end of the market then frozen. Real rents are subject to rules of the market. Tenants, vast majority either working, albeit insecurely, or genuinely disabled have to bridge gap themselves. At same time they're also increasingly required to contribute to Council Tax. Add in real life complications like health troubles, particularly mental health, and the system simply fails. The underlying issue can only be solved by a return to affordable, almost certainly social, housing. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 5 Oct 16 at 21:32
|
|
New Wed 5 Oct 16 22:43
Homes for the homeless - zippy
|
|
>>The underlying issue can only be solved by a return to affordable, almost certainly social, housing. Releasing land at reasonable prices for building, banning land banks and building more homes will increase supply and should stabilise or even drive down prices. The cost of renting is mad. I live in a "low cost" town and rented a house as going through a divorce meant I couldn't buy. Over three and a half years the rent cost me £42k! The landlord purchased the property for £180k so got 23% back in 3 1/2 years - a very good return. The landlord lived in a country on the AML (anti money laundering) watch list but had some UK bank accounts. I bet they didn't pay tax on the rent and I know that they had several properties including all of the 4 and 5 bedroom homes on one street that they had built for them (out of my price range). I had to bite the bullet and move out when they demanded a 20% rent increase with one month's notice. I don't expect a young family would be able to afford renting a very average property with a very small garden at £1,200 a month plus council tax, water, electricity etc. |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 04:29
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
>> >> >> ....and people still wonder why we voted for Brexit? Note the WE, as in Fenland. >> >> No, we know exactly why you voted Brexit. Note the YOU, subtly changed to make it personal and provocative. Same old, same old..... As per the title of the thread, people living and working in this area have seen this situation getting worse and worse for some years now. Our hospitals/doctors/dentists can no longer cope with new patients and existing ones struggle for appointments. Our available and affordable housing is being snapped up by Buy to Let landlords who do nothing more than let the property out to numerous individual people who on many occasions double shift the bedrooms to coincide with the work they do. Meanwhile, our inevitable long term unemployed British benefit scroungers are allowed to continue in their lazy idle ways because they refuse the lucrative land work the foreigners are happy to do. When someone has the guts to refuse those benefits and force them to do menial work, things will improve. At the moment it seems it's preferable to take benefits from the disabled, than force those who can work to do so. It has nothing to do with being racist, it's all about trying to fit a quart into a pint pot and for those who don't live here......don't judge until you have done. That's why this area voted for Brexit with an overwhelming majority. Pat Last edited by: Pat on Thu 6 Oct 16 at 04:30
|
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 07:11
Homes for the homeless - Falkirk Bairn
|
|
It's madness - Local Authorities paying £1000+ / month to a private landlord ............ In a nearby local authority they are building small 3 bed semis on council land - £72.5K each - not the biggest homes around - lounge/dining room, Kitchen & toilet downstairs, 3 beds & bathroom upstairs - ideal for 4, a squeeze for 5. Better built & finished that "new builds" in the same town. Nearby a National Housebuilder are selling tiny (rabbit hutch) 2 bed flats for £150K+ - the land was cheap when they bought it 2/3 yrs ago as there was an issue as to why the council were selling it off so cheaply. |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 07:28
Homes for the homeless - MD
|
| Well said Pat.. |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 08:24
Homes for the homeless - smokie
|
|
Pat, just a point of order!! When I read your original post I took it as meaning why you and Ian voted for BREXIT. I did consider the meaning may have been why "we, the outies" voted for BREXIT" but thought that you wouldn't necessarily be in a position to know why others voted that way. It didn't cross my mind that you meant "We, the Fenlanders". So Mark's response was not an unreasonable response given the ambiguity of your initial comment. |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 08:34
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
My reply was a direct response to the original post, which referred to the situation in Peterborough. Not ambiguous at all, given that everyone knows where I live. There was no mention of Ian or Outies in the thread so it's quite clear. Pat |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 09:03
Homes for the homeless - sherlock47
|
|
This should satisfy the fenlanders.....(and others) Amber Rudd tinyurl.com/gltdkl3 |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 12:43
Homes for the homeless - BrianByPass
|
|
>> This should satisfy the fenlanders.....(and others) >> >> Amber Rudd >> tinyurl.com/gltdkl3 >> No different to Gordon Brown: "British jobs for British workers". Opponents have described it as meaningless, illegal under EU law, even racist. Asked whether the prime minister regretted using the controversial phrase, branded illegal and racist by critics, his spokesman in London said: "I don't see any reason for regret." Ed Miliband: " the truth is that the public were ahead of us in seeing some of the problems caused by the rapid pace of migration, especially from the expanded EU. And they were ahead of us in seeing some of the costs of migration as a whole. rapid changes in population led to pressures on scarce resources such as housing and schools. Some areas were not equipped to cope in the short-term and it brought to the fore questions about entitlements. there were problems with the pace of change in some of our communities. We should survey employers and where there are more than 25 percent migrant workers - double the average share in the population - Jobcentre Plus should be notified." |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 16:39
Homes for the homeless - zippy
|
|
>>Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband Just goes to show that there are pratts in both the Conservative and Labour parties! |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 16:58
Homes for the homeless - No FM2R
|
|
>>Just goes to show that there are pratts in both the Conservative and Labour parties! Most politicians from most parties, I'd say. |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 09:25
Homes for the homeless - smokie
|
|
It was ambiguous. Trust me. We thought it was anyway. |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 10:14
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
Well, Smokie, you know what thought did? On this occasion he was grossly mistaken for reading something (2 things) into a comment that wasn't mentioned and ignoring the direct reply to a comment that was. Knee jerk reaction, I think. In view of the recent upheaval on this forum, and the subsequent good discussion with the lack of rudeness, I would have expected a request to keep all remarks strictly impersonal would have been more appropriate. Wouldn't you, in all honesty? Pat |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 10:14
Homes for the homeless - No FM2R
|
|
God you're a plank. >> >> >> ....and people still wonder why we voted for Brexit? >> >> Note the WE, as in Fenland. >> >> >> No, we know exactly why you voted Brexit. >> >> Note the YOU, subtly changed to make it blah blah whine whine If one person describes a group they are part of as "we" and another person wishes to refer to that same group which they are not part of, what word could they use other than "you"? And then you write lines of emotive confused dribble illustrating how little you really understand. |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 10:19
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
I have just seen No FM2R's post above and I rest my case. Give an inch and some people take a yard and we're back to where we were last month. Target the problem or it will all go tits up again. Pat |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 10:36
Homes for the homeless - Mapmaker
|
|
>>If one person describes a group they are part of as "we" and another person wishes to refer >>to that same group which they are not part of, what word could they use other than "you"? If you'd meant just Pat you'd have written "thee". |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 14:47
Homes for the homeless - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> If you'd meant just Pat you'd have written "thee". >> The scope in standard English for misunderstanding or deliberately snide attack over the connotations of you or we are avoided in Far East pidgin English used in business deals by distinguishing "me/you" from "me/pal", or so I learned on Word of Mouth. Recognising the importance of distinguishing between "we" the people on the same side of the negotiating table, and "we" collectively the people involved in the negotiations, they use me/pal for the former and me/you for the latter. |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 10:44
Homes for the homeless - BrianByPass
|
|
The following is a story in a Labour supporting paper: A French family of 10 have criticised a British council for failing to provide a bigger house - despite turning down a five bed property. Arnold Mballe Sube and his wife Jeanne, both 33, share a three-bedroom council house with their eight kids. But the couple say they need at least six doubles for them to be comfortable. They claim the living conditions are “terrible†but turned down a larger home because of a lack of storage space. Student Arnold, 33, said: “Me and my family have been neglected. It’s so cramped and the conditions are terrible. “Everyone is sleeping everywhere and my wife is sleeping with the baby so I am on the sofa. “I am homeless in my home now. “My children are finding it difficult. We can’t eat as a family, we all have to eat in different parts of the house. “The area is the worst area I have ever lived in my life. This is the worst house.†Arnold and full-time mum Jeanne moved from France in 2012 so that he could study mental health nursing at the University of Bedfordshire. His children are eldest daughter Mejane, 16, Fabian, 13, Analia, 13, ten-year old Prosper, nine-year-old Dylan, six-year-old twins Sharon and Stacy and three-week-old Mary. Luton Borough Council housed the family in a temporary hotel for almost four months before they moved to their current property. The three-bedroom end-terraced house where they currently live in Bletchley, Bucks., costs £1,278 per month. This is fully covered by Luton Borough Council - costing the taxpayer £15,000 a year in rent. www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-family-10-turn-down-8790067 |
|
New Sun 9 Oct 16 08:59
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The following is a story in a Labour supporting paper: >> >> www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-family-10-turn-down-8790067 >> A French family of 10 have criticised a British council for failing to provide a >> bigger house The fact that report is in the Mirror is neither here nor there. Stories about welfare spongers or those insufficiently grateful for the state's 'generosity' sell papers. There are bonus sales if the ingrates are 'foreign'. Double score for foreign and black or Muslim. Did the family go to the press or was the story 'leaked' by someebody at Luton Council? Anyway, let's cut through the scrounging black frogs schtikk and look for some facts. We're not told why Arnold is studying Mental Health nursing in Bedford rather than France. Could it be that we tempted him here because we're desperately short of such nurses? With four years study under his belt he's well on way to being qualified and is probably contributing to well being of patients. Contrary to popular mythology EU migrants cannot just rock up here and retire to a life on benefits. The rules are are complex and different to those for UK citizens but they usually need to be a worker or former worker to qualify. The detail of those rules and 'right to reside' are above my pay grade but they bear very heavily on, for example, single Mums. My first CAB 'gateway' was with a Lithuanian lass who's English boyfriend had impregnated her and scarpered. The fact that she had no option to return to work as soon as her MAternity Allowance stopped was a bit of a shocker, as was her very evident shame about needing a foodbank voucher. Her obvious intelligence & fluent English would at least make the passage into work simple for her. Arnold, having been here for four years long before Brexit day, will soon have right to reside. But the government already recognise that pretty much anyone here already will be allowed to stay: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/08/home-office-says-eu-nationals-living-in-uk-can-remain-after-brexit >> The three-bedroom end-terraced house where they currently live in Bletchley, Bucks., costs £1,278 per month. That seems high but let's take it at face value. I'm pretty certain that the 3 bed end of terrace property started out as Social Housing. Commission for New Towns built thousands of identical places in MK, Hemel, Stevenage etc. Sold for a song to sitting tenants in the eighties many have now become buy/let 'investments'. One house that tells the story of where our housing policy has been wrong for a generation. >> This is fully covered by Luton Borough Council - costing the taxpayer £15,000 a year >> in rent. If that's true then Luton Council are giving a very significant, nay wholly exceptional, discretionary top up over the normal ceiling. The Local Housing Allowance (ie limit) for three beds in MK is £174.81/week or £757pcm - 9090pa. The figures for four beds, and LHA won't cover more, are 223.63/week (£969pcm - 11,629pa). By any rational standard they're grossly overcrowded and should be rehoused. |
|
New Sun 9 Oct 16 09:05
Homes for the homeless - Duncan
|
|
>> By any rational standard they're grossly overcrowded and should be rehoused. By any rational standard, nursey should be practising birth control. |
|
New Sun 9 Oct 16 11:53
Homes for the homeless - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> By any rational standard, nursey should be practising birth control. Ah, but they have a "Right" to as many kids as they want, surely you know that? The fact that they can't afford them and it falls on the rest of us to pay for their little indulgences is neither here nor there. Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 10 Oct 16 at 01:12
|
|
New Sun 9 Oct 16 15:23
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
Whatever happened to the old fashioned notion that if you hadn't got room, and couldn't adequately support additions to the family yourselves, you didn't have them? ...ahhh yes, it became the problem of the local authorities. How silly of me not to realise that. Pat Last edited by: Pat on Sun 9 Oct 16 at 15:23
|
|
New Sun 9 Oct 16 16:28
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Whatever happened to the old fashioned notion that if you hadn't got room, and couldn't >> adequately support additions to the family yourselves, you didn't have them? When and where exactly did that notion prevail? Social Housing was the policy response to overcrowded and insanitary slums. |
|
New Sun 9 Oct 16 16:58
Homes for the homeless - Duncan
|
|
>> Social Housing was the policy response to overcrowded and insanitary slums. >> Do you believe in taking personal responsibility for the consequences of ones own actions? |
|
New Sun 9 Oct 16 17:15
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Do you believe in taking personal responsibility for the consequences of ones own actions? Of course I do in relation for example to criminal, anti-social acts or even drinking/smoking. But I struggle to see the bearing of children through that prism. Government though is trying to do it. In future Child Benefit and Tax Credits will be limited to two children. With an exception for those born as a result of rape. Can you imagine the humiliation of dealing with that question in a benefits application? Other families will simply be impoverished. One rather hopes that May will backtrack on this and one or two of Osborne's 'crowd pleasing' attacks on people's security. |
|
New Sun 9 Oct 16 17:25
Homes for the homeless - Duncan
|
|
>> >> Do you believe in taking personal responsibility for the consequences of ones own actions? >> >> >> Of course I do in relation for example to criminal, anti-social acts or even drinking/smoking. >> >> But I struggle to see the bearing of children through that prism. Therefore a couple can have as many children as happen to come along, and the rest of us have to pay for them? Not for me, Buster. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 00:12
Homes for the homeless - commerdriver
|
|
Social Housing was the policy response to overcrowded and insanitary slums. >> In the days before birth control was freely available and people had or have a choice |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 02:23
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
That notion prevailed in my childhood and early twenties Bromp, among the poor and proud people I was brought up to aspire to. I may be a bit older than you, but I'm sure you remember it. Pat |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 05:23
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
I've been thinking about this and I'm sure you were brought up with those values as well Bromp so to pretend you're unaware of them seems a little unfair. Pat |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 09:30
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I've been thinking about this and I'm sure you were brought up with those values >> as well Bromp so to pretend you're unaware of them seems a little unfair. I don't think I said I was unaware of those values. But they were the views of the middle class and those who aspired to middle class. There was never a golden age where everybody waited until they could 'afford' kids and limited themselves to two. The number of large families reduced after WW2. The Pill played a part from the mid sixties and not without a battle from the 'respectable' who opposed it's provision to unmarried women. A far bigger factor though is healthcare and dramatic fall in infant mortality. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 00:32
Homes for the homeless - Dutchie
|
|
Not that long ago Pat families of more than 5 children weren't uncommon. Where they all irresponsible or selfish? the majority of people where poor. I have noticed more people living on the streets and begging.All age groups amongst them. Now in our so called affluent society we are going backwards.The working poor and not enough affordable homes for them to live in. Yes it is the responsibility of governments and local authorities to supply homes if people can't afford a mortgage. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 02:20
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
>> Not that long ago Pat families of more than 5 children weren't uncommon. >> > Where they all irresponsible or selfish? the majority of people where poor. >> Certainly they were irresponsible and selfish if they hadn't the means to provide for them without government help and that is still the case now. Pat |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 05:33
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
Some random thoughts on being poor. Being poor didn't mean you could indulge you hopes for a big family regardless of whether you had the room or the money to feed them. It didn't mean you could disregard any birth control available, indeed it invariably led to one 'mistake' but it meant you were canny enough to know it couldn't happen again. Being poor didn't mean you could rely or even expect the 'state' to finance you in times of hardship, it meant you worked a bit harder and ate a bit less. (look at the increased weight of both adults and children today) Being poor didn't mean you asked a charity to pay your bills and finance your lifestyle, it meant you it meant you dealt with your own problems and if it got hard you soon learned not to make those problems so you didn't have to deal with them. Now this may, or may not have been, better than this mollycoddled world we live in today but one thing is for sure, people learned lessons and had pride. Pat |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 09:40
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Certainly they were irresponsible and selfish if they hadn't the means to provide for them >> without government help and that is still the case now. I know you've not always had an easy life. Did you bring your child/children up without any help from the state? I know I didn't has we always had Child Benefit and for several years Nursery Vouchers as well. Thinking about it my parents didn't either. As well as the family allowance they got Tax Allowances, in spite of fact that Dad was a higher rate taxpayer and Mum a full time teacher with responsibility addition on top of main professional grade rate. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 10 Oct 16 at 09:41
|
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 10:20
Homes for the homeless - commerdriver
|
|
There is a big difference between child benefit and taxpayer funded housing as you well know. Large families where someone else is paying are irresponsible in 21st century Britain. Yes the newspapers love to choose extreme examples, including the Grauniad, but society needs to look at the priorities for government and local authority spending and to reduce support for larger families seems to me to be entirely sensible. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 11:08
Homes for the homeless - CGNorwich
|
|
All these argments weem to miss the point to me. Whether you think large families are irresponsibile or not the important thing at the end of the day is surely the wefare of the children. Once children are in the picture you cannot ignore them. Sanction on parents effectively punish the children. For those who propose such measures what would you do with the children - pack them off into care? A return to the world of "Cathy Come Home" ? |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 11:20
Homes for the homeless - commerdriver
|
|
The sanctions should be used as a deterrent to try to keep families smaller, you are right, you cannot ignore or penalise existing children. It is not an easy problem but it does need to be faced and attitudes need to be changed, it won't happen overnight. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 11:34
Homes for the homeless - CGNorwich
|
|
"The sanctions should be used as a deterrent to try to keep families smaller, you are right, you cannot ignore or penalise existing children." But what are these sanction you propose? If say you have a rule where no benefits are available for more three children say what do you do if somone ignores that and has six? |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 11:40
Homes for the homeless - commerdriver
|
|
>> But what are these sanction you propose? Don't know but is that any reason not to do anything? Social attitude is , I think, the key. To get people to realise that benefits are a catcher to prevent poverty, as they are for many recipients. Not a right, or a way of life nor a replacement for individual and collective responsibility. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 11:50
Homes for the homeless - CGNorwich
|
|
"Don't know but is that any reason not to do anything? " Unless you know what to do it problably is At the end of the day some people will not act responsibly and someone has to pick up the pieces and look after the children's needs. These days that is the state |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 12:10
Homes for the homeless - commerdriver
|
|
>> Unless you know what to do it problably is >> That's where we will have to differ then. It will take time, and the media will make the most of the extreme examples, but for future generations the trends have to change. There has to be a level and pace of change which can work and the first steps the government are trying to take are a start which needs to be modified over time. What is really wrong with the principle of benefit capping at a reasonable level? |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 12:19
Homes for the homeless - CGNorwich
|
|
What is really wrong with the principle of benefit capping at a reasonable level? Nothing in theory but as I said above what do you do if as a result of such a cap some families are put into a position where chidren are suffering? Do you stick firmly to the rules and let the children suffer or do you ignore the rules and assist the family? |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 12:53
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> What is really wrong with the principle of benefit capping at a reasonable level? We're already have a cap of course. At present set, for families, at £500pw and only really biting in London. The way it works is that when all benefit income goes over £500 the excess above that sum is deducted from Housing Benefit. Shortly it will come down to £385, not much headroom there when rents (which are of course the real problem) even at the government's skewed calculation are set at £220+ in Milton Keynes. There's another bit of the Arnold story that's not making much sense. If the £20k a year quoted is right for his rent then his other benefits are less than £100 a week. To give that context Job Seekers for a couple is around £115. I suspect he's on a low wage and exempt the cap through getting working tax credit (or one of the kids is disabled). Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 10 Oct 16 at 12:55
|
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 16:06
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
Having just got home from work since 6am this morning at 70 years old and being required to stand up all day, you'll forgive me for not being sympathetic to those who rely upon the benefit safety net. >>what do you do if as a result of such a cap some families are put into a position where children are suffering? Do you stick firmly to the rules and let the children suffer or do you ignore the rules and assist the family?<< Now I may not agree that children should suffer obviously, but I have to point out that as a result of the benefit cap many disabled people have, and will continue, to suffer. They didn't have a choice about being disabled, people do now have a choice about bringing children into the world if their circumstances are such that they can't afford them. Unless we find a way of discouraging them from doing so the problem will never improve. Pat |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 17:13
Homes for the homeless - CGNorwich
|
|
You miss the point. Once the children exist any financial sanctions inevitably will impinge on them. The parents may be irresponsible but the children will suffer. You either say "that's OK, I'm happy with that, let them suffer" or you grit your teeth and say " it's unfair to responsible parents but at the end of the day the welfare of children is the paramount issue here". I incline to the latter. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 17:30
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
Going from the heart so do I CG, but hard experience tells me the benefit dependents need a deterrent, even you have to admit that. Pat |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 17:33
Homes for the homeless - commerdriver
|
|
>> The parents may be irresponsible but the children will suffer. >> Would you like to put a definition on "suffer" Do you mean, will starve or be inadequately clothed or do you mean, will not get the latest XBOX game or will have to watch CBBC instead of Sky Emotive words don't make the case for zero sanctions on the parents. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 18:12
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Would you like to put a definition on "suffer" >> Do you mean, will starve or be inadequately clothed or do you mean, will not >> get the latest XBOX game or will have to watch CBBC instead of Sky >> Emotive words don't make the case for zero sanctions on the parents. Inadequately clothed and fed and living in a cold house. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 18:04
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Now I may not agree that children should suffer obviously, but I have to point >> out that as a result of the benefit cap many disabled people have, and will >> continue, to suffer. I do know that Pat, I earn a crust dealing with debt and benefits. Only those getting PIP or in the Support Group for ESA are exempt from the cap. The rest suffer, including from April 2017 those in the Work Related Activity Group where new applicants only get the same rate as Job Seekers. The subject matter here though is children. >> They didn't have a choice about being disabled, people do now have a choice about >> bringing children into the world if their circumstances are such that they can't afford them. You cannot divide parents and disabled into feckless sheep and deserving goats. There is huge overlap between the injured and long term sick and parents. One day you can afford to feed and clothe your children. Then the next you're crocked. As I'm sure you know from your PDA role. >> Unless we find a way of discouraging them from doing so the problem will never >> improve. First you have to know how big the problem is. I make 30-40phone calls a week to people struggling with utility bills, noting amongst other things household composition. Pretty rare for there to be more than 3-4 children. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 10 Oct 16 at 18:06
|
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 19:05
Homes for the homeless - No FM2R
|
|
>>>> Now I may not agree that children should suffer obviously, Well, you say that. But as I recall you got pretty upset about UK NHS money being used to treat Malala Yousafzai after she was shot in the head, and that was just because her parents were foreign. So I can't say I would expect much understanding towards children of feckless parents. Without a shadow of a doubt some families receive less than they "deserve" and some families receive more than they "deserve" and in virtually all cases the children pay the price one way or another. .******* However, if we want everybody to receive all the money they should, then some will get too much. If we want nobody to get too much, then some won't get enough. Whatever the approach there will not be a single set of black & white rules which will fit all cases. I'd love to see the abuses addressed, but I swear I have no idea how that can be done quickly or easily. Ultimately there are some prices to be paid for living in a caring society, and having cynical people take you for a ride is one of those prices. Ultimately though, however unbearable it is to live around such people, it must be better than actually being one of them. |
|
New Tue 11 Oct 16 03:54
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
>>But as I recall you got pretty upset about UK NHS money being used to treat Malala Yousafzai after she was shot in the head, and that was just because her parents were foreign. So I can't say I would expect much understanding towards children of feckless parents. << As I recall it wasn't like that at all, and though I explained my meaning a thousand times you refused to acknowledge it and continued to misconstrue my words as usual. However, if this is to be your tack every time I post anything then it is far easier for me just not to bother posting. I post on forums to enjoy the discussions, not to be stalked and baulked at every turn by one person as do most of those who have gone a long while ago for the same reason. You win mark, does it feel good? I've been annoyed about this situation since last week and have seriously considered whether to bother with this forum again. Last week I made a comment in line with the interesting and polite discussion we'd grown used to undertaking on this forum during the last few weeks since the last upheaval. The posters had started to post more. We had seen so many names re-appear and make some good posts. They were even saying how nice it was to spend time in a forum without the silly backbiting and sniping and more to the point the forum was busy. Then you waded in, and Smokie a Moderator, publicly censored me and tried to point out my post 'could' have been misunderstood by you and promptly allowed you to hurl personal insults towards me with no censor at all. As a consequence the forum went deathly quiet once again....... The stats will prove that. What I can't understand is that you seem determined to destroy this forum, and anyone else who finds pleasure in it. What is even harder to understand is that a moderator is quite happy to let you do it, and indeed, even be seen to encourage it. It's beyond me, and quite frankly I'm beyond caring whether the forum survives or not. Being cynical I have to admit to seeing the irony of being censored by a mod, while being one of the few 'loyal' posters on here, but I've come to realise that's always the way. Disappointed? Yes I am. Surprised?.....Not one little bit. Pat |
|
New Tue 11 Oct 16 09:16
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> As I recall it wasn't like that at all, and though I explained my meaning >> a thousand times I don't often let posts here rile me but that comment did. You were the OP on that thread which is here: www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=12188&m=272250&v=e What you said was that she shouldn't be here reliant on our NHS. Further, in saying she knew the risks you went way into the realms of victim blaming. Even when it was pointed out that her own government was paying you cavilled about how long that would continue. Only at the end did you retreat slightly to the argument that her presence gave succour to the racists. There's no doubt Mark can be a bully and there are plenty of instances where the Mods should have dealt with him. Treatment of Fluffy being a case in point. Nothing like that here. The mild insult 'plank' might be close to the line but that's all. Has Smokie really censored you (ie altered deleted your post)? I thought he just agreed that it was not remotely clear that 'we' referred specifically to the Fens. I too read it first of all as referring to the 52%. And I seriously doubt a few posts in one thread have resulted in drop off of posts here. More likely people are enjoying the autumn sunshine. There's no problem getting to the bar over at the GoF place either, much same on Cyclechat. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 11 Oct 16 at 09:20
|
|
New Tue 11 Oct 16 09:40
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
>>As a country our ability to look after our own residents is being stretched to the limit for a number of reasons�and having an ever open door isn�t helping. Do we ever hear of other European countries doing this? No, but they don�t have a free NHS system<< ...and that quote was the crux of my argument but totally ignored no matter how many times I tried to explain every time it has been brought up. As a matter of fact, it's a point I still stand by and I still haven't heard of any other countries doing it. Pat |
|
New Tue 11 Oct 16 09:47
Homes for the homeless - NortonES2
|
|
www.france24.com/en/20140805-medical-refugees-use-asylum-claims-access-free-french-health-service Now you have. Only one quick Google. |
|
New Tue 11 Oct 16 09:50
Homes for the homeless - sooty123
|
|
> As a matter of fact, it's a point I still stand by and I still >> haven't heard of any other countries doing it. Which one, an open door policy (presumably you mean on health care? ) or do you mean an NHS style system? |
|
New Tue 11 Oct 16 11:20
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
An open door policy on health care, of course. Pat |
|
New Tue 11 Oct 16 13:45
Homes for the homeless - sooty123
|
|
>> An open door policy on health care, of course. I wouldn't really say that we have one here. |
|
New Tue 11 Oct 16 10:05
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> As a matter of fact, it's a point I still stand by and I still >> haven't heard of any other countries doing it. Malala came here because of Pakistan's historical links with UK. If a citizen of one of France's former colonies was treated in Paris how would we know over here. Even if it was a controversy seized on by French populist media/politicians it's not the sort of story that travels. Meanwhile, how many Syrian refugees has Germany taken? Sweden has taken a huge number too as a proportion of it's population. I'm sure they all qualify for medical treatment, particularly those with grave injuries. You seem to conflate (a) Malala brought here for treatment not available in her own country at that country's expense (b) failure of our own government of either stripe to provide the infrastructure for population growth part of which is due to migrant workers brought in by our successful economy (c) the in reality tiny problem of 'health tourism'. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 11 Oct 16 at 10:08
|
|
New Tue 11 Oct 16 11:29
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
>>You seem to conflate << Not at all. But of course, you are entitled to your opinion and if it hasn't changed in four years no further explanation I give will change it now This incidentally, was exactly four years ago and since then it seems that I wasn't the only one to question the decision, or at the very least, the reasons for it. A number of my Pakistani friends also worry about the children still there, and wonder if the resulting publicity actually benefitted their situation or may have made it worse. Possibly the unsung heroes are the ones actually still trying to run those schools on a daily basis. Pat |
|
New Tue 11 Oct 16 20:39
Homes for the homeless - Mark
|
|
Pat It could be seen as a form of stalking, what did someone once say? if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......... Still better being here rather than sat in a near empty Weatherspoons with a couple of "grumpies" shouting at each other. Some of those guys could start an arguement in an empty room. As always Mark |
|
New Wed 12 Oct 16 02:27
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
Yes Mark:) It would seem they've all turned into Nuns now and taken a vow of silence! Even Smokie and Bromp have stopped defending the impossible:) Pat Last edited by: Pat on Wed 12 Oct 16 at 02:27
|
|
New Wed 12 Oct 16 05:49
Homes for the homeless - smokie
|
|
I haven't commented because I haven't felt the need to respond as the history is plain for all to see - but seeing as you keep poking... I'm not sure what you think I was ever defending in this thread, or why you think I might have stopped defending it. I did not censor (or even censure) your comment, I just politely pointed out why your comment could be misconstrued. I have not turned into a nun, I just usually try to restrict my talking out loud just to when I have something sensible, useful or humorous to say. |
|
New Wed 12 Oct 16 06:17
Homes for the homeless - Pat
|
|
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I expect a moderator 1) To be even handed at all times. 2) To be polite and discreet. 3) To use their tact and diplomacy at all times for the good of the forum and it's future. Those are the parameters I've had to work to, both on our forums and ones that were far busier than this one or ours, where I used to moderate in the past. I accepted that was part of the unpaid job I volunteered to do. Pat Last edited by: Pat on Wed 12 Oct 16 at 06:17
|
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 12:28
Homes for the homeless - smokie
|
| Some people today really don't care how much they "impose upon" society on way or another, in fact at best they simply don't care, or at worst they actually take pleasure in doing so. I really don't think appealing to their peoples nicer side is going to do the trick but I don't know the answer. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 12:00
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> A return to the world of "Cathy Come Home" ? Ken Loach thinks that's exactly where we're going. See I, Daniel Blake. www.theguardian.com/film/2016/sep/11/i-daniel-blake-ken-loach-director-film-movie-benefits-system |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 11:28
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> There is a big difference between child benefit and taxpayer funded housing as you well >> know. My original post in this thread was to reply to BrainbyPass's suggestion that this family were symptomatic of a widespread issue that would be solved by Brexit. They're not and, furthermore, the facts as reported don't stack up. Families of 10, wherever they come from, are incredibly rare. Unless exceptions are made Arnold and family would get the same max rent allowance, four bedrooms, if they'd called it a day after 3 (it's not clear whether the two 13 year olds are non-identical twins). |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 12:17
Homes for the homeless - commerdriver
|
|
>> My original post in this thread was to reply to BrainbyPass's suggestion that this family were >> symptomatic of a widespread issue that would be solved by Brexit. Yes, but that's not what you said to Pat For any real change to work, the rich need to take less, but extreme comments from either side don't help anyone and just entrench positions |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 12:34
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Yes, but that's not what you said to Pat Duncan started a tangent about personal responsibility. Pat joined in too and I took up some of her points. Not sure what's 'wrong' or inconsistent there. >> For any real change to work, the rich need to take less, but extreme comments >> from either side don't help anyone and just entrench positions Don't think I suggested anything extreme. My point is similar to CG's. In so far as there is a problem a policy response that punishes the parents' fecundity by impoverishing the children is neither rational nor humane. There's nothing wrong with considering a set of policy options and taking the 'do nothing' route. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 15:17
Homes for the homeless - commerdriver
|
|
>> There's nothing wrong with considering a set of policy options and taking the 'do nothing' >> route. >> Your civil service training is showing :-) |
|
New Fri 14 Oct 16 10:43
Homes for the homeless - BrianByPass
|
|
>> My original post in this thread was to reply to BrainbyPass's suggestion that this family >> were symptomatic of a widespread issue that would be solved by Brexit. They're not and, >> furthermore, the facts as reported don't stack up. >> I made no such suggestion. I posted in full an article from the Mirror, pointing out only that it was from a Labour supporting paper. i made no mention of the Mirror being in favour of Remain or anything else to do with Brexit. The post was in response to John Boy's original post about homes for the homeless. www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=23243&v=t# The article refers to the struggle to find a bigger home for a family, and until they move their existing house cannot be used to house another homeless family. |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 11:07
Homes for the homeless - BrianByPass
|
|
Office for National Statistics figures: Forecast issued 2014 The UK population is projected to increase by 9.7 million over the next 25 years from an estimated 64.6 million in mid-2014 to 74.3 million in mid-2039 The UK population is projected to reach 70 million by mid-2027 Bulletin issued on 23 June 2016 for stats at June 2015: The population of the United Kingdom at 30 June 2015 is estimated to be 65,110,000 derived from the international migration statistics published in November 2015, and birth and death registrations reported within published provisional data on births and deaths. Over the year to mid-2015 the number of people resident in the UK increased by 513,300 (up 0.8%), similar to the average annual increase seen over the last decade. The 2015 figures were broken down as follows England 54,786,300 Wales 3,099,100 Scotland 5,373,000 NI 1,851,600 Clearly there is a lot of room outside South East England to build homes for people. Full details tinyurl.com/zosnsfj |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 19:24
Homes for the homeless - MD
|
| We're all Doomed Captain Mainwaring! |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 21:15
Homes for the homeless - BrianByPass
|
|
>> We're all Doomed Captain Mainwaring! >> Is anyone planning for the infrastructure needed? Roads, Rail, Water, Fuel, Electricity, Food, Schools, Hospitals, Homes, ...? ONS: "Since 1964 the population of the UK has grown by over 10 million people (18.7%). About half of this growth has occurred since 2001. Over the earlier part of this period population change was driven mainly by variation in the number of births. Population grew throughout the 1960s up until the early 1970s mainly as a result of the 1960s baby boom; while over the rest of the 1970s growth was subdued, reflecting falling fertility. The very large birth cohort of 1960s baby boomers beginning to have children saw births, and hence the population, grow again in the 1980s, but births declined again through the 1990s." www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/29/uk-population-expected-to-rise-by-almost-10-million-in-25-years "The UK population will rise by almost 10 million over the next 25 years, according to official estimates. The number of people living in the country is projected to rise from 64.6 million in mid-2014 to 74.3 million in 2039. More than two-thirds of the increase will be the result of assumed net migration and the indirect impact of people arriving on the birth rate, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said. The ONS said: “About 68% of the projected increase … is either directly attributable to future migration [51% of projected growth], or indirectly attributable to future migration through its effect on births and deaths [17% of projected growth].†The population will rise by 4.4 million over the next decade and is projected to reach 70 million by mid-2027, it added. England’s population is projected to increase by 7.5% by mid-2024, Northern Ireland’s by 5.3%, and Scotland’s and Wales’ by 3.1%. The average annual growth rate of 440,000 in the first decade means that the UK population as a whole will rise by more than the number of people currently living in Dorset each year. The estimated growth outstrips the rest of Europe, with the UK’s population estimated to increase by 15% in the next 25 years compared with 3% across the EU as a whole. On current trends the UK will overtake France by 2030 and Germany by 2047, becoming Europe’s most populous country." |
|
New Thu 6 Oct 16 21:39
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
On a linked subject in sense of affording the rent: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/06/concentric-poverty-debt-child-tax-credits In brief, agency working for HMRC is unjustifiably removing people's benefits. Two successive inquiries at work today (one e-mail second by phone) were about Concentrix and failure to understand straightforward, never mind understandably slightly chaotic, lifestyles. I had to explain my ironic laugh at second inquiry. It's quite weird how some advice sessions seem to havea theme. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 6 Oct 16 at 21:43
|
|
New Sun 9 Oct 16 08:07
Homes for the homeless - Stuu
|
| Did you catch the David Waywell article about Concentrix accusing him of being married to his sister? Really quite bizarre. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 10:05
Homes for the homeless - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Did you catch the David Waywell article about Concentrix accusing him of being married to >> his sister? Really quite bizarre. This one? capx.co/meet-concentrix-the-company-that-keeps-accusing-me-of-marrying-my-sister/ The guilty until you prove yourself innocent bit is the thread running through these cases. And that's before the lost papers and the circular firing squad where Concentrix and HMRC each assert that client must contact the other to resolve the issue. |
|
New Mon 10 Oct 16 13:55
Homes for the homeless - Stuu
|
|
That is the one. This is an area where the private sector should be as far away from it as possible, the only motive should be getting it right, nothing else should be a factor and quite clearly that is not the case - give me ten minutes on Ancestry and I can map out a basic family tree for someone, rocket science it aint, which means the motive of the company involved is quite clearly not accuracy. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
