FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Homelessness Blues
Homelessness Blues
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Homelessness has risen again. Shelter say there are at least 320,000 homeless people in Britain.
The amount rises around 13,000 per year, around 1 in 200 people are homeless.
Due to spiralling rent, welfare cuts and lack of social housing, are we heading for a perfect storm and what if anything can be done ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
At least the tories have stopped talking about trickle down economics and have now clearly given up on the poorest in society, they've even dismissed a UN report in to poverty.
And in to what Tame has alreay mentioned, the huge rise on zero hours contracts, the fact that people working need benefits on top of their salary to survive and the amount of people dependant on good banks, as a society we have competely lost our way.
Meanwhile the richest in this country have seen their wealth multiply under tory rule.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"At least the tories have stopped talking about trickle down economics and have now clearly given up on the poorest in society, they've even dismissed a UN report in to poverty.
And in to what Tame has alreay mentioned, the huge rise on zero hours contracts, the fact that people working need benefits on top of their salary to survive and the amount of people dependant on good banks, as a society we have competely lost our way.
Meanwhile the richest in this country have seen their wealth multiply under tory rule.
"
The UN report was pretty damning. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I read recently that the development where centrpoint used to be on Tottenham Court Road has sold almost no flats. Turns out there is a limit to how many mukti-million pound flats you can build in London. I think a significant number of the residential properties in The Shard are also still empty.
Maybe we need to look at why we build flats no one can afford buy don't build homes for those who need them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A system for recognising long term consistently on time payments from tenants, who are paying rent far more expensive than a mortgage, which proves they can actually afford it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etLikeMan
over a year ago
most fundamental aspects |
The obvious social and political issues are, well... obvious.
One of the other problems, is that planning authorities are set in their ways as far as developments go. Too many brown envelopes from large developers involved and that is preventing out of the box thinking.
If non conventional building materials were more widely accepted, as they are in other countries, then there could be a lot more capacity catered for. I’m not saying to go back to the post war pre fabs, as engineering has come a long way since then. I believe that safe, energy efficient, inexpensive homes can be built using shipping containers or other innovations.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The obvious social and political issues are, well... obvious.
One of the other problems, is that planning authorities are set in their ways as far as developments go. Too many brown envelopes from large developers involved and that is preventing out of the box thinking.
If non conventional building materials were more widely accepted, as they are in other countries, then there could be a lot more capacity catered for. I’m not saying to go back to the post war pre fabs, as engineering has come a long way since then. I believe that safe, energy efficient, inexpensive homes can be built using shipping containers or other innovations.
"
I agree, I think there could be stop gap buildings, that could be built to home people while they sort theirselves out. Shipping containers could be one method. Pre fabbed houses aren’t what they used to be, cold and inefficient. They are pretty easy to install on ready made concrete bases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too. "
London is just the Canary in the cage, for what will happen down the line for the rest of the country. Why did you put ‘homelessness’, are you suggesting most people are faking living rough on the streets ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A system for recognising long term consistently on time payments from tenants, who are paying rent far more expensive than a mortgage, which proves they can actually afford it. "
You're absolutely right it can be more expensive to rent than have a mortgage but the problem apparently is a deposit to get the mortgage, almost a catch 22. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's been a big increase in the homeless population in Hastings. In a nearby town where there was no obvious homeless population there are now quite a few.
I don't know what the answer is, I really don't.
We are in the process of writing to our mp to start a dialogue about the recent UN report and the rise in homelessness because we feel that unless we communicate with the current politicians in considerable numbers things are going to stay the same. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The fact that having somewhere to live is seen as a commodity instead of a necessity is the problem. Buy to let should never have become a thing in the first place. Some of the stipulations banks put on btl mortgages means alot of people would never be allowed to rent these homes and due to their increasing values, due to the fact they are a commodity, never buy one. Personally I think you should only be able to own one house and that is the one you live in! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The obvious social and political issues are, well... obvious.
One of the other problems, is that planning authorities are set in their ways as far as developments go. Too many brown envelopes from large developers involved and that is preventing out of the box thinking.
If non conventional building materials were more widely accepted, as they are in other countries, then there could be a lot more capacity catered for. I’m not saying to go back to the post war pre fabs, as engineering has come a long way since then. I believe that safe, energy efficient, inexpensive homes can be built using shipping containers or other innovations.
I agree, I think there could be stop gap buildings, that could be built to home people while they sort theirselves out. Shipping containers could be one method. Pre fabbed houses aren’t what they used to be, cold and inefficient. They are pretty easy to install on ready made concrete bases. "
Even conventional built homes are relatively inexpensive to build. I'm not talking high end 6 bedroom 42 garage mansions obviously.
Normal decent 1 or 2 bedroom starter homes don't cost that much to build, especially if the developer took the modern "pre-fab" route.
The challenge for developers is the land cost.
I'd make a case for local authorities to take on the build cost and have the properties as part of their "stock". Whilst it would take capital investment from their budgets in would increase their asset base, give them an income and assets that were increasing in value.
I looked at 3D printing houses with a concrete pour. Not expensive and really quick to build.
Could I find land that could be built on at a reasonable cost? Could I fuck.
I also looked at the igloo style pods. Again inexpensive and quick to build.
Again with the land costs.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A system for recognising long term consistently on time payments from tenants, who are paying rent far more expensive than a mortgage, which proves they can actually afford it.
You're absolutely right it can be more expensive to rent than have a mortgage but the problem apparently is a deposit to get the mortgage, almost a catch 22."
This is very much my experience. The only way I can find the deposit will be to cash in my very meagre pension.
Unfortunately I have to buy before I retire because my pension isn't adequate to pay my rent.
Catch 22 indeed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As a land lord I'd love to offer longer-term contract but not aloud just so letting agency can charge every time it's renewed also the landlord license is not helping as my council wants to start charging me 1500 for it I don't make that on the house so just pass the cost on putting rent up more needs to be done to get the rogue ones not just a blanket cost |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Homelessness has risen again. Shelter say there are at least 320,000 homeless people in Britain.
The amount rises around 13,000 per year, around 1 in 200 people are homeless.
Due to spiralling rent, welfare cuts and lack of social housing, are we heading for a perfect storm and what if anything can be done ? "
and if they get a flat or home are royally ripped off for rent heating and electricity because their tarrifs are double anyone else. Its a complete disgrace as when they cant pay they are out again. The last 20yrs of politicians have ALL stood by and allowed it to happen. hang your heads in shame all those with 3 homes earning big city salaries |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Micro homes, caravans "
Or, corrugated iron cities and shanty towns.
Some Outer London councils are already moving people out to the shit holes of Essex, because there are not enough council properties and the private ones go to the Boroughs who have bigger budgets for homeless rehousing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The obvious social and political issues are, well... obvious.
One of the other problems, is that planning authorities are set in their ways as far as developments go. Too many brown envelopes from large developers involved and that is preventing out of the box thinking.
If non conventional building materials were more widely accepted, as they are in other countries, then there could be a lot more capacity catered for. I’m not saying to go back to the post war pre fabs, as engineering has come a long way since then. I believe that safe, energy efficient, inexpensive homes can be built using shipping containers or other innovations.
Theres still plenty of post war built prefabs in newcastle.
I agree, I think there could be stop gap buildings, that could be built to home people while they sort theirselves out. Shipping containers could be one method. Pre fabbed houses aren’t what they used to be, cold and inefficient. They are pretty easy to install on ready made concrete bases. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Homelessness has risen again. Shelter say there are at least 320,000 homeless people in Britain.
The amount rises around 13,000 per year, around 1 in 200 people are homeless.
Due to spiralling rent, welfare cuts and lack of social housing, are we heading for a perfect storm and what if anything can be done ?
and if they get a flat or home are royally ripped off for rent heating and electricity because their tarrifs are double anyone else. Its a complete disgrace as when they cant pay they are out again. The last 20yrs of politicians have ALL stood by and allowed it to happen. hang your heads in shame all those with 3 homes earning big city salaries"
I have 3 homes and still have to work don't go abroad on holiday and drive a old focus were not all Rich I'm just doing it for my kids because God knows how they would be able to buy there own even in Yorkshire house prices have trippled in last 5 yrs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etLikeMan
over a year ago
most fundamental aspects |
"Universal credit was designed to give less money out.
Some people have to choose between rent and food."
Technically incorrect. It was originally designed to leave nobody any worse off than the legacy benefits that it replaced. However its implementation has left people worse off. There are a few exceptions where some are better off (approximately 80p a week) which is far outweighed by those who are worse off - in some cases £50 per week. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There has been a lack of social housing built. It was a great idea of thatchers to let people buy their council homes, but there has been no plans to replace them. Even new builds that do a percentage of social housing are too expensive for lots of families. And the decline in jobs and zero hours contracts are all involved in making the poor poorer. X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Universal credit was designed to give less money out.
Some people have to choose between rent and food.
Technically incorrect. It was originally designed to leave nobody any worse off than the legacy benefits that it replaced. However its implementation has left people worse off. There are a few exceptions where some are better off (approximately 80p a week) which is far outweighed by those who are worse off - in some cases £50 per week. "
That's what they told us. I believe it was always about saving money, whatever the costs.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution 
Who will generate the money for the rich if there are no more poor?"
Middle class/ working class /  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution
The middle class "
Even they are getting pissed off, as they can't afford to buy in London either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution
The middle class
Even they are getting pissed off, as they can't afford to buy in London either."
Well they can live up Liverpool |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etLikeMan
over a year ago
most fundamental aspects |
"There is a 28 year old homeless girl in rochdale.
She wanted to come to my house for a shower and a place to stay.
"
So you objectified her. I’m glad the women’s hostel took her in to protect her from predatory men. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution
Who will generate the money for the rich if there are no more poor?
Middle class/ working class / "
The working class are getting poorer. Middle classes take the jobs that don't earn money for the rich, or take the money from the rich and use it to pay their mortgages. They'll be rich when they are dead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution
Who will generate the money for the rich if there are no more poor?
Middle class/ working class /
The working class are getting poorer. Middle classes take the jobs that don't earn money for the rich, or take the money from the rich and use it to pay their mortgages. They'll be rich when they are dead."
Yeah just nuke all the unskilled jobless job done |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution
The middle class
Even they are getting pissed off, as they can't afford to buy in London either.
Well they can live up Liverpool "
That would piss off the Liverpool working class because property prices , being in high demand, would sky rocket and they would have less money to spend on football and ferrying across the Mersey. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution
Who will generate the money for the rich if there are no more poor?
Middle class/ working class /
The working class are getting poorer. Middle classes take the jobs that don't earn money for the rich, or take the money from the rich and use it to pay their mortgages. They'll be rich when they are dead.
Yeah just nuke all the unskilled jobless job done "
That won't solve the housing problem, or make working class people better off.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
With reference to new developments with a percentage of "affordable homes"
My understanding is that the developer is able to pay a "fine" in order NOT to build the affordable homes. The fine doesn't cover the cost that would be imposed on the local authority to build them instead.
Anyone in the industry able to confirm this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If some single guy who has his own home wants to have her you can just find her outside asda or the town center or subway."
I have a problem that you give her location and almost pimp her out as if she's easy.
Maybe she's vulnerable or suffering with poor mental health and you just said here you go guys she's easy.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Homelessness has risen again. Shelter say there are at least 320,000 homeless people in Britain.
The amount rises around 13,000 per year, around 1 in 200 people are homeless.
Due to spiralling rent, welfare cuts and lack of social housing, are we heading for a perfect storm and what if anything can be done ? "
I blame the penguins.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution
The middle class
Even they are getting pissed off, as they can't afford to buy in London either."
They're all; moving out to the suburbs driving up the rental prices with so many developments (in the loosest sense of the word) turning empty office blocks in to flats if they are within easy walking distance to the station |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You are not doing yourself any favours by continuing this line. I don’t think anyone sees my comment as white knighting or predatory. Morally outraged, yes. "
I don't care about winning "favours" with you lot.
There's shit loads of prostitutes/homeless women/thai brides....
I'm not pimping them out...
I'm just saying you can find them and spend your money on them...
Then they appreciate it....
I think this lady would be better off with sir random internet stranger vs the street junkies she sleeps in subways with.
That's why she goes asking... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think the figures are higher than those portrayed. They don’t include all those sofa surfing at friends or family.
The Government needs to do more. For one they need to halt the Voluntary Right to Buy, it’s depleting social housing stock even more. It was in David Cameron’s manifesto though so they had to at least pilot it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
How can anyone find the time to sort out poverty when this load of all consuming, tiresome, mind boggling Brexit bull shit endlessly goes on and on and on. We haven't a clue what our public finances will be like in a few months time so how the fuck is anyone able to make coherent long term decisions about dealing with poverty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A system for recognising long term consistently on time payments from tenants, who are paying rent far more expensive than a mortgage, which proves they can actually afford it. "
With top up payments towards rent via housing benefit means some can just about afford rent more than a mortgage. Most struggle even with top ups.
This is because you can't use housing benefit toward your own mortgage. So they lose their home
But you can pay your landlords/ladys mortgage through your rent.
So landlords can justify charging 400 to 500+ a month rent for housing worth 250 to 300 a month because of housing demands. Prices increase and will keep increasing.
Theres a website that will tell you all properties theyve assessed on the market to rent what each value is.
One property in stoke on trent asking rent price 525 for 2 bed house no garden, downstairs toilet/bathroom, galley kitchen. Housing benefit for small family is 395 parents and 1 child. Most properties here are 425 regardless of their worth. To prevent people on housing benefit. Whether in full or topped up.
But no one stops these landlords from charging what they like for poorly maintained properties and people are desperate for a roof over their head. They will take what they can
Then you have the single under 35s required to share properties or 1 bed flat (regardless of predicament) and received shared rate housing benefit only. At 35 your entitled to 1 bed house
So if you end up unable to work or broken families you have to lose everything since councils won't help and offer little support. Worse still if youre a man. Most help they would offer is hostels if your lucky.
Which of course spaces are limited.
A country where the poor get poorer and rich get richer
More needs to be done to control private landlords, prevent them over charging and not maintaining the properties.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution
The middle class
Even they are getting pissed off, as they can't afford to buy in London either.
They're all; moving out to the suburbs driving up the rental prices with so many developments (in the loosest sense of the word) turning empty office blocks in to flats if they are within easy walking distance to the station"
That's exactly what has happened, and is still happening, in my part of London.
The Government decided it's the place to build a whole new town by the Thames, and fill every square inch of green space they can with flats and town houses for people who want to work in inner London but can't afford to live there.
Now, the working class who used to live comfortably here have to move out and can't afford to commute.
Their jobs don't go with them though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I’ll let you know next time in Manchester and we can chat about it babs.
That sounds like a violent thing?
Is that what your saying?"
Moi violent? I said chat honey bunny |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More needs to be done to control private landlords, prevent them over charging and not maintaining the properties.
"
We have a parliament who vote down legislation regarding property standards, it's obscene |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More needs to be done to control private landlords, prevent them over charging and not maintaining the properties.
We have a parliament who vote down legislation regarding property standards, it's obscene"
Could that be because a lot of them are landlords? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More needs to be done to control private landlords, prevent them over charging and not maintaining the properties.
We have a parliament who vote down legislation regarding property standards, it's obscene"
It is shocking and if the tenant reports their landlord, they often end up being evicted so the cycle continues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You're defending an indefensible post. EVERYONE can see what you posted, it;s times like this that I;m so glad posts can;t be editted on here.
You showed complete contempt for her and the comparison to women on here was beyond crass.
A truly vile post which you bizarely seem intent on defending after it;s not got the response you wanted"
If you give a shit you should go and help her...
She needs a boyfriend with a shower and a free house....
The other day I was being moaned at for "hooker shameing"...now I'm trying to help poor women meet a boyfriend..
She would most likely go with any man who has a free house...
Her situation would be improved. It's "sex work" or "goldigger" whatever....
It's legal business...
All the women on hear begging farrari man for handouts is also prostitution.
All the men with young foreign brides is also prostitution.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Work for all, homes for all. That's what this country needs.
Work with a decent wage for all and homes at actual affordable rents is what we need."
A decent wage for all. Rent fixed centrally maybe. The mistake we've made is to allow private home ownership. And to allow economics and technology to make good workers redundant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etLikeMan
over a year ago
most fundamental aspects |
"
This is because you can't use housing benefit toward your own mortgage. So they lose their home "
Again this was because the Daily Fail mentality meant that there was a perception that people were benefiting financially (increased equity) from having a mortgage and receiving HB to pay for it.
They brought in Support For Mortgage Interest (SMI) which provides a loan from Capita to home owners who are receiving benefits. Unfortunately this doesn’t kick in until after 9 months by which point, many people are really struggling; especially if their mortgage providers don’t work with them or they don’t have a “payment holiday” facility. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution
The middle class
Even they are getting pissed off, as they can't afford to buy in London either.
They're all; moving out to the suburbs driving up the rental prices with so many developments (in the loosest sense of the word) turning empty office blocks in to flats if they are within easy walking distance to the station
That's exactly what has happened, and is still happening, in my part of London.
The Government decided it's the place to build a whole new town by the Thames, and fill every square inch of green space they can with flats and town houses for people who want to work in inner London but can't afford to live there.
Now, the working class who used to live comfortably here have to move out and can't afford to commute.
Their jobs don't go with them though."
I used to live in Stevenage as it was as cheap as chips to rent. It has a lot of direct trains in to London, I can think of 3 office blocks that have been converted into "luxury apartments" that are within walking distance of the station and marketed at londoners with "bargain" rents and a 20 minute rail link to Kings Cross. Knock on effect was every other landlord saw pound signs and people got fucked over. It's 2 years since I moved from there and last tome I was there there are properties everywhere to rent as the locals can;lt afford them and Londoner's realised it's a shot hole. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
homeless dosent mean on the street with no roof right ? just means they havent got there own place,owned or rented right?
i blame the (government)...
Chauffered a councillor last week,10,000 new homes built in essex (stansted ) from the horses mouth ,78 % sold to people that already had a mortgage/lived in the reown property.
What shewas saying is all brought upby buy to let people.............
well why dont the government supply more mobile homes/caravans for homeless.
why dont they build timber framed houses, cheaper and can erect one so quickly..
Ntional lottery money ,theres billions in there bank in un claimed prizes ,supposed to be for good causes and we all put into that.....
its like stop n search , wasting £100s on officers and time ,all the naughty boys are doing is hiding there knives and drugs in the streets and getting them just before they need them ..so when searched there clean.
theyve no idea  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You're defending an indefensible post. EVERYONE can see what you posted, it;s times like this that I;m so glad posts can;t be editted on here.
You showed complete contempt for her and the comparison to women on here was beyond crass.
A truly vile post which you bizarely seem intent on defending after it;s not got the response you wanted
If you give a shit you should go and help her...
She needs a boyfriend with a shower and a free house....
The other day I was being moaned at for "hooker shameing"...now I'm trying to help poor women meet a boyfriend..
She would most likely go with any man who has a free house...
Her situation would be improved. It's "sex work" or "goldigger" whatever....
It's legal business...
All the women on hear begging farrari man for handouts is also prostitution.
All the men with young foreign brides is also prostitution.
"
You have no idea what I do for the homeless in society so don't take the moral highground with a flippant "if you give a shit do help her"
Maybe the real question is why don;t you give a shit and why do you appear to have such hatred towards women? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago
hiding from cock pics. |
Everywhere I go in the home counties and London I see a big increase in people sleeping on the streets.
In North Hertfordshire there and I people sleeping rough in train stations and shopfronts that I really don't think were there a year ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sGivesWoodWoman
over a year ago
ST. AUSTELL, CORNWALL |
"A system for recognising long term consistently on time payments from tenants, who are paying rent far more expensive than a mortgage, which proves they can actually afford it. "
I'm in total agreement with this. I have several friends in this situation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Everywhere I go in the home counties and London I see a big increase in people sleeping on the streets.
In North Hertfordshire there and I people sleeping rough in train stations and shopfronts that I really don't think were there a year ago."
There are a deffinatly a lot more beggars, openly under the influence of spice or chimp chalk, rough sleepers and generally down on their ass folks about than this time last year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Work for all, homes for all. That's what this country needs.
Work with a decent wage for all and homes at actual affordable rents is what we need.
A decent wage for all. Rent fixed centrally maybe. The mistake we've made is to allow private home ownership. And to allow economics and technology to make good workers redundant. "
Owning your own home isn't the problem as I see it. But most private homes in my area are not lived in by the owner. They have gone from being say £130 a week to rent from the council, to £400 a week to a private landlord.
This happened when the government told people they will give them housing benefit and tax credits so they can take low paid work or school hours only. Landlords realised they can profit from that and charged triple the council rents.
And that's in one of the cheapest parts of London to live. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etLikeMan
over a year ago
most fundamental aspects |
"
well why dont the government supply more mobile homes/caravans for homeless.
why dont they build timber framed houses, cheaper and can erect one so quickly.. "
They’re more scared now than they were to do anything like this. That was one reason planning authorities are frightened of using non standard building materials - Grenfell (and something similar in Scotland about 15 years ago) have created a mentality of rejecting anything they don’t understand. I’m not at all saying to cut corners here. A good example is straw bail housing in the countryside. It is proven that they are actually more fire resistant than conventional builds. However in people’s minds, the opposite is true.
Plus housing people in caravans can be criticised similarly to a previous comment about tin roofed shanty towns.
There are ways of cutting costs without cutting corners. Just no one is brave enough to take it as a policy for fear of being lambasted on safety or ghettoisation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You have no idea what I do for the homeless in society so don't take the moral highground with a flippant "if you give a shit do help her"
Maybe the real question is why don;t you give a shit and why do you appear to have such hatred towards women?"
You don't do anything for anyone...
Don't take the morral highground with me because I volenteer my time every week to help people. I've helped people in Africa and done things like you would never do.
You say these things at a superficial level on the internet but tell me one thing you do to bennefit society besides blog on forums?
I've gone physicly helping starving people or disabled people in the pool off my own back...
Your "superficial" on forums being morraly outraged by things I say...
But then I actually DO go Africa to help people or go volenteer with amputees in my free time every week...
And I must listern to snowflakes who NEVER DID ANYTHING FOR ANYONE
Superficially telling me about my lack of empathy..
I don't have much empathy...
I'm a doer...
But I've seen enough starving children and dead bodies not to pretend to give a shit online....
I don't have much empathy....that's probably why I am the only person who actually does volenteer on a weekly basis...
WHAT DO YOU DO? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Everywhere I go in the home counties and London I see a big increase in people sleeping on the streets.
In North Hertfordshire there and I people sleeping rough in train stations and shopfronts that I really don't think were there a year ago.
There are a deffinatly a lot more beggars, openly under the influence of spice or chimp chalk, rough sleepers and generally down on their ass folks about than this time last year. "
Every time I visit my LTP I encounter at least 2 train beggars and see 2 or 3 people sleeping rough outside the stations.
The last train beggar was a well spoken woman in her late 30s. I wanted to ask her how she got in that situation but didn't, in case she has mental health issues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
well why dont the government supply more mobile homes/caravans for homeless.
why dont they build timber framed houses, cheaper and can erect one so quickly..
They’re more scared now than they were to do anything like this. That was one reason planning authorities are frightened of using non standard building materials - Grenfell (and something similar in Scotland about 15 years ago) have created a mentality of rejecting anything they don’t understand. I’m not at all saying to cut corners here. A good example is straw bail housing in the countryside. It is proven that they are actually more fire resistant than conventional builds. However in people’s minds, the opposite is true.
Plus housing people in caravans can be criticised similarly to a previous comment about tin roofed shanty towns.
There are ways of cutting costs without cutting corners. Just no one is brave enough to take it as a policy for fear of being lambasted on safety or ghettoisation. "
And they have nowhere to build them. All the land has been sold to private building associations. Their idea of affordable rent is still double council rents. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The underpasses around MK city centre always seem to have tents set up in them.
I have never known it to be this bad.
Despite matey boy above saying he is the only volunteer.
I help out at the shelter and we desperately need toiliteries and canned good before Christmas please people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Everywhere I go in the home counties and London I see a big increase in people sleeping on the streets.
In North Hertfordshire there and I people sleeping rough in train stations and shopfronts that I really don't think were there a year ago.
There are a deffinatly a lot more beggars, openly under the influence of spice or chimp chalk, rough sleepers and generally down on their ass folks about than this time last year. "
I'd suggest the idea to anyone who has never slept rough on the streets this one thought.
Can you imagine the anguish a person feels being alone especially in the winter sleeping under bushes and in doorways looked down upon. Cold wet hungry how long you'd last before turning to substances to help you forget the life you live.
Most people who end up on the streets do in some way look for the escape be it drugs or alcohol.
The nightmare that never goes away. The violence they face the weather conditions.
Because your homeless people think you've done it to yourself. Don't begin to think if they've fled something worse. Or they lost everything through no fault of their own.
So people don't help and people don't care.
I won't give money to homeless due to career beggars I've seen them with my own eyes, they go home to a nice place and have every luxury and go on holidays.
I will buy them a meal and a drink.
I would offer a bed and a shower but it's not safe to do so. I live alone.
I'm charitable but I'm not stupid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You have no idea what I do for the homeless in society so don't take the moral highground with a flippant "if you give a shit do help her"
Maybe the real question is why don;t you give a shit and why do you appear to have such hatred towards women?
You don't do anything for anyone...
Don't take the morral highground with me because I volenteer my time every week to help people. I've helped people in Africa and done things like you would never do.
You say these things at a superficial level on the internet but tell me one thing you do to bennefit society besides blog on forums?
I've gone physicly helping starving people or disabled people in the pool off my own back...
Your "superficial" on forums being morraly outraged by things I say...
But then I actually DO go Africa to help people or go volenteer with amputees in my free time every week...
And I must listern to snowflakes who NEVER DID ANYTHING FOR ANYONE
Superficially telling me about my lack of empathy..
I don't have much empathy...
I'm a doer...
But I've seen enough starving children and dead bodies not to pretend to give a shit online....
I don't have much empathy....that's probably why I am the only person who actually does volnteer on a weekly basis...
WHAT DO YOU DO? "
Nice distraction from the question about why you appear to help women?
So you do all this to help people yet encouraged people to go find a vulnerable woman (going as far as to give a very exact location) as in your opinion they'd be guaranteed a shag by way of gratitude. I'll be honest that level of contempt, that lack of basic respect for another human being, that doesn't correlate with your claims of being "the only person who actually does volunteer" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etLikeMan
over a year ago
most fundamental aspects |
"The underpasses around MK city centre always seem to have tents set up in them.
I have never known it to be this bad.
Despite matey boy above saying he is the only volunteer.
I help out at the shelter and we desperately need toiliteries and canned good before Christmas please people. "
Do you have contacts with Fare Share? They are growing and diverting unused supermarket products to those who need it. Unlike food banks, it can be a bit sporadic as to what they supply. However they do have a lot of sanitary products coming through, which are a much needed resource for those struggling to afford them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too.
London is just the Canary in the cage, for what will happen down the line for the rest of the country. Why did you put ‘homelessness’, are you suggesting most people are faking living rough on the streets ? "
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The underpasses around MK city centre always seem to have tents set up in them.
I have never known it to be this bad.
Despite matey boy above saying he is the only volunteer.
I help out at the shelter and we desperately need toiliteries and canned good before Christmas please people.
Do you have contacts with Fare Share? They are growing and diverting unused supermarket products to those who need it. Unlike food banks, it can be a bit sporadic as to what they supply. However they do have a lot of sanitary products coming through, which are a much needed resource for those struggling to afford them.
"
I suspect the organisers do but will have a look. Thanks mate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etLikeMan
over a year ago
most fundamental aspects |
"
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country. "
To some extent, you are correct. The definition of homeless includes those who live somewhere but do not have a legal tenancy agreement. They are defined as having “no security of tenure” Whilst these people might currently have a roof over their head, I would challenge anyone here to have an arrangement where they don’t know if it’s their last night before being (legally) kicked out on the street. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Simply build more Council Houses. It really is that simple. Not for profit low=cost rented properties where people need them.
If you pay cleaners, shop assistants, dish-washers, support staff in schools, hopsitals and Governement Offices bottom-end wages then it is quite simple. They will NEVER be able to purchase a home. EVER. They will be ttoally unable to help their kids get on their way either.
So it is REALLY SIMPLE. Double the basic wage for basic wage workers. Or build loads of low cost affordable rented accommodation.
End of. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many."
Rough sleeping is, that's about 9,100 people in the UK. Being 'homeless' is mainly about expecting to live in London / South east on a minimum wage job topped up with benefits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country. "
Homeless is the term for anyone of no fixed abode. Be it your sofa surfing in which there's more undocumented cases of due to shame of family discord
There is a staggering amount of families that are homeless but because they sofa surf with relatives they are not deemed needing emergency housing
Even then sometimes emergency housing is a 1 bed flat unsuitable for family which is only meant to be maximum of 2 weeks to allow better accommodation to be supplied. But they can live like that for months
And if only 1 person was living homeless then it is 1 too many regardless of the number of people who are homeless. We live in a wealthy country that allows the poor to suffer.
Those living on the streets who get to have a bed space 1 night a week in a homeless hostel then end up on a sofa for a night else where is deemed accommodated short term. Even if they have no where else. But still homeless as they are of no fixed abode. But not classed as full time rough sleeper.
Highest rate of homeless have mental health issues before they were homeless
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too.
London is just the Canary in the cage, for what will happen down the line for the rest of the country. Why did you put ‘homelessness’, are you suggesting most people are faking living rough on the streets ?
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country. "
Okay, I thought the term ‘homeless’ was referring to people sleeping rough. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country.
To some extent, you are correct. The definition of homeless includes those who live somewhere but do not have a legal tenancy agreement. They are defined as having “no security of tenure” Whilst these people might currently have a roof over their head, I would challenge anyone here to have an arrangement where they don’t know if it’s their last night before being (legally) kicked out on the street. "
I live in the south east. Minimum wage is £7.83 I believe and a basic two bedroom house is ~£280,000. The average in Sunderland is £147,267 and the minimum wage is £7.83 there, as it is here. It's pretty obvious how you solve that 'crisis'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
Rough sleeping is, that's about 9,100 people in the UK. Being 'homeless' is mainly about expecting to live in London / South east on a minimum wage job topped up with benefits. "
Why shouldn't people that do menial jobs still be able to live in London? Where they have probably lived their whole lives! How many on minimum wage can afford to commute?!? And why the bloody hell should they? Just because their local authority decides a little social cleansing is in order?! Always wondered wtf is gonna happen when only the rich can afford to live theren it returns to being considered a shit hole |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etLikeMan
over a year ago
most fundamental aspects |
"
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country.
To some extent, you are correct. The definition of homeless includes those who live somewhere but do not have a legal tenancy agreement. They are defined as having “no security of tenure” Whilst these people might currently have a roof over their head, I would challenge anyone here to have an arrangement where they don’t know if it’s their last night before being (legally) kicked out on the street.
I live in the south east. Minimum wage is £7.83 I believe and a basic two bedroom house is ~£280,000. The average in Sunderland is £147,267 and the minimum wage is £7.83 there, as it is here. It's pretty obvious how you solve that 'crisis'. "
Sending people who had low paid jobs (but at least had jobs) in service industries in London, to areas with fewer job prospects but at least the housing is cheaper? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too.
London is just the Canary in the cage, for what will happen down the line for the rest of the country. Why did you put ‘homelessness’, are you suggesting most people are faking living rough on the streets ?
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country.
Okay, I thought the term ‘homeless’ was referring to people sleeping rough. "
It was when you were younger. These days it's anyone without a fixed address. There are a lot of people that are housed in b&b's (for example). If you rent but the landlord wants their house back, they can legally move you out in 8 weeks. It is possible that your circumstances have changed such that you can't rent in the same area at the same price. The council would typically help with a temporary arrangement and you would become 'homeless'. It's not pleasant, especially for kids. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
Rough sleeping is, that's about 9,100 people in the UK. Being 'homeless' is mainly about expecting to live in London / South east on a minimum wage job topped up with benefits. "
Ahh right ok... sorry. Im currently homeless. Im living in my works as ive given up my flat. Im backpacking next year so getting my affairs in order. Also need to save cash! So i moved my stuff to a room in work and living rent and bills free until i go in March! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
Rough sleeping is, that's about 9,100 people in the UK. Being 'homeless' is mainly about expecting to live in London / South east on a minimum wage job topped up with benefits.
Why shouldn't people that do menial jobs still be able to live in London? Where they have probably lived their whole lives! How many on minimum wage can afford to commute?!? And why the bloody hell should they? Just because their local authority decides a little social cleansing is in order?! Always wondered wtf is gonna happen when only the rich can afford to live theren it returns to being considered a shit hole "
Why should middle class people have to make tough decisions about where we live, how long we commute and how many kids we have, but the working class feel entitled to be free from any such constraints? It's as simple as, you don't have a birth right to live in London. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country.
To some extent, you are correct. The definition of homeless includes those who live somewhere but do not have a legal tenancy agreement. They are defined as having “no security of tenure” Whilst these people might currently have a roof over their head, I would challenge anyone here to have an arrangement where they don’t know if it’s their last night before being (legally) kicked out on the street.
I live in the south east. Minimum wage is £7.83 I believe and a basic two bedroom house is ~£280,000. The average in Sunderland is £147,267 and the minimum wage is £7.83 there, as it is here. It's pretty obvious how you solve that 'crisis'.
Sending people who had low paid jobs (but at least had jobs) in service industries in London, to areas with fewer job prospects but at least the housing is cheaper?"
I know many northern employers who struggle to recruit for skilled jobs in the north because the public sector wages (agreed at national level) are relatively good up north. Therefore the public sector eats the talent pool and the private sector struggle to recruit good people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too.
London is just the Canary in the cage, for what will happen down the line for the rest of the country. Why did you put ‘homelessness’, are you suggesting most people are faking living rough on the streets ?
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country.
Okay, I thought the term ‘homeless’ was referring to people sleeping rough.
It was when you were younger. These days it's anyone without a fixed address. There are a lot of people that are housed in b&b's (for example). If you rent but the landlord wants their house back, they can legally move you out in 8 weeks. It is possible that your circumstances have changed such that you can't rent in the same area at the same price. The council would typically help with a temporary arrangement and you would become 'homeless'. It's not pleasant, especially for kids. "
The FEANTSA developed European Typology of Homelessness and housing exclusion (ETHOS) as a means of improving understanding and measurement of homelessness in Europe, and to provide a common "language" for transnational exchanges on homelessness - it’s been in use since 2005.
rooflessness (without a shelter of any kind, sleeping rough)
houselessness (with a place to sleep but temporary in institutions or shelter)
living in insecure housing (threatened with severe exclusion due to insecure tenancies, eviction, domestic violence)
living in inadequate housing (in caravans on illegal campsites, in unfit housing, in extreme overcrowding)
It goes into much more detail but can’t post a link here.
And to clarify, it’s not simply a case of move out of London as a means to solve things, that’s a rather uninformed viewpoint. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
Rough sleeping is, that's about 9,100 people in the UK. Being 'homeless' is mainly about expecting to live in London / South east on a minimum wage job topped up with benefits.
Why shouldn't people that do menial jobs still be able to live in London? Where they have probably lived their whole lives! How many on minimum wage can afford to commute?!? And why the bloody hell should they? Just because their local authority decides a little social cleansing is in order?! Always wondered wtf is gonna happen when only the rich can afford to live theren it returns to being considered a shit hole
Why should middle class people have to make tough decisions about where we live, how long we commute and how many kids we have, but the working class feel entitled to be free from any such constraints? It's as simple as, you don't have a birth right to live in London. "
Fair point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I am not Racist in amyway or form... but
I was rooflessness in London for a while. I applied for accommodation but as a young single male i wasnt a priority. Immagrants are getting housed faster than British born citizens. Personally I think that's so wrong. If you're born in this Country and your parents and grandparents and great grandparents and so on where born in this Country you should take prioty over an Immagrant?! Sounds fair to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too.
London is just the Canary in the cage, for what will happen down the line for the rest of the country. Why did you put ‘homelessness’, are you suggesting most people are faking living rough on the streets ?
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country.
Okay, I thought the term ‘homeless’ was referring to people sleeping rough.
It was when you were younger. These days it's anyone without a fixed address. There are a lot of people that are housed in b&b's (for example). If you rent but the landlord wants their house back, they can legally move you out in 8 weeks. It is possible that your circumstances have changed such that you can't rent in the same area at the same price. The council would typically help with a temporary arrangement and you would become 'homeless'. It's not pleasant, especially for kids.
The FEANTSA developed European Typology of Homelessness and housing exclusion (ETHOS) as a means of improving understanding and measurement of homelessness in Europe, and to provide a common "language" for transnational exchanges on homelessness - it’s been in use since 2005.
rooflessness (without a shelter of any kind, sleeping rough)
houselessness (with a place to sleep but temporary in institutions or shelter)
living in insecure housing (threatened with severe exclusion due to insecure tenancies, eviction, domestic violence)
living in inadequate housing (in caravans on illegal campsites, in unfit housing, in extreme overcrowding)
It goes into much more detail but can’t post a link here.
And to clarify, it’s not simply a case of move out of London as a means to solve things, that’s a rather uninformed viewpoint. "
London accounts for 14.7% of the population of Britain but 53% of the homeless. The South east is very expensive and not counted in that London. The majority of the problem is clear focussed on the south east. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many."
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too.
London is just the Canary in the cage, for what will happen down the line for the rest of the country. Why did you put ‘homelessness’, are you suggesting most people are faking living rough on the streets ?
There are not 320,000 people living rough on the streets, there are about 9,100. "Homeless" is another of those words with an ever expanding definition that helps make alarming headlines that paint a false picture of the country.
Okay, I thought the term ‘homeless’ was referring to people sleeping rough.
It was when you were younger. These days it's anyone without a fixed address. There are a lot of people that are housed in b&b's (for example). If you rent but the landlord wants their house back, they can legally move you out in 8 weeks. It is possible that your circumstances have changed such that you can't rent in the same area at the same price. The council would typically help with a temporary arrangement and you would become 'homeless'. It's not pleasant, especially for kids.
The FEANTSA developed European Typology of Homelessness and housing exclusion (ETHOS) as a means of improving understanding and measurement of homelessness in Europe, and to provide a common "language" for transnational exchanges on homelessness - it’s been in use since 2005.
rooflessness (without a shelter of any kind, sleeping rough)
houselessness (with a place to sleep but temporary in institutions or shelter)
living in insecure housing (threatened with severe exclusion due to insecure tenancies, eviction, domestic violence)
living in inadequate housing (in caravans on illegal campsites, in unfit housing, in extreme overcrowding)
It goes into much more detail but can’t post a link here.
And to clarify, it’s not simply a case of move out of London as a means to solve things, that’s a rather uninformed viewpoint.
London accounts for 14.7% of the population of Britain but 53% of the homeless. The South east is very expensive and not counted in that London. The majority of the problem is clear focussed on the south east. "
London is unusual, yes - and the borough system facilitates issues too. The systemic and policy issues which lead to homelessness are across the country though - which is why there are issues across the country. Get to the root problems - the system/policy issues - don’t just concentrate on it where it’s affected most due to high costs (I’m not saying it’s not an issue just saying moving everyone out of London is not the cure all) - as I said solely looking at that misses a huge amount. Have a read of The Plan to End Homelessness published by Crisis this year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
Rough sleeping is, that's about 9,100 people in the UK. Being 'homeless' is mainly about expecting to live in London / South east on a minimum wage job topped up with benefits.
Why shouldn't people that do menial jobs still be able to live in London? Where they have probably lived their whole lives! How many on minimum wage can afford to commute?!? And why the bloody hell should they? Just because their local authority decides a little social cleansing is in order?! Always wondered wtf is gonna happen when only the rich can afford to live theren it returns to being considered a shit hole
Why should middle class people have to make tough decisions about where we live, how long we commute and how many kids we have, but the working class feel entitled to be free from any such constraints? It's as simple as, you don't have a birth right to live in London.
Fair point. "
All I can say is the middle and upper class will be scrubbing their own toilets and cleaning up their own rubbish from the streets and do every thing because the working class can't afford to commute and lost the right to live there because of greed.
I've lived with this thought all my life. "In any business you have the big wigs at the top who get the most wage, then it goes down tiered. The ones who do the most work get less wages than those above them. Without the janitors and the cleaners who get minimum wage and clean up after everyone above them in wage brackets, without them the business will turn to shit because no one else will deal with the shit because it's beneath them" without the working class, middle-class and upper-class wouldn't be where they are. Society built on the backs of others.
So who has the right to live there? The person who works 2 and 3 jobs so they can afford to live there but they live to work with little to show for it or those who can afford the commute comfortably but choose to live there? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
London is unusual, yes - and the borough system facilitates issues too. The systemic and policy issues which lead to homelessness are across the country though - which is why there are issues across the country. Get to the root problems - the system/policy issues - don’t just concentrate on it where it’s affected most due to high costs (I’m not saying it’s not an issue just saying moving everyone out of London is not the cure all) - as I said solely looking at that misses a huge amount. Have a read of The Plan to End Homelessness published by Crisis this year. "
Do you agree that with my statement that people don't have a birth right to live in London?
I am middle class and I don't live where I grew up or my family are. I chose to move 100 miles because there are no real job opportunities where I'm from. I'd love to live back where I'm from but financially it doesn't stack up. I miss out an several benefits such as 'free' childcare from grandparents. I don't see why I, as a net tax contributor, should make these sacrifices and net tax beneficiaries feel they should not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
Rough sleeping is, that's about 9,100 people in the UK. Being 'homeless' is mainly about expecting to live in London / South east on a minimum wage job topped up with benefits.
Why shouldn't people that do menial jobs still be able to live in London? Where they have probably lived their whole lives! How many on minimum wage can afford to commute?!? And why the bloody hell should they? Just because their local authority decides a little social cleansing is in order?! Always wondered wtf is gonna happen when only the rich can afford to live theren it returns to being considered a shit hole
Why should middle class people have to make tough decisions about where we live, how long we commute and how many kids we have, but the working class feel entitled to be free from any such constraints? It's as simple as, you don't have a birth right to live in London.
Fair point.
All I can say is the middle and upper class will be scrubbing their own toilets and cleaning up their own rubbish from the streets and do every thing because the working class can't afford to commute and lost the right to live there because of greed.
I've lived with this thought all my life. "In any business you have the big wigs at the top who get the most wage, then it goes down tiered. The ones who do the most work get less wages than those above them. Without the janitors and the cleaners who get minimum wage and clean up after everyone above them in wage brackets, without them the business will turn to shit because no one else will deal with the shit because it's beneath them" without the working class, middle-class and upper-class wouldn't be where they are. Society built on the backs of others.
So who has the right to live there? The person who works 2 and 3 jobs so they can afford to live there but they live to work with little to show for it or those who can afford the commute comfortably but choose to live there?"
Happy to have that problem. The toilet cleaners and rubbish collectors are already on the verge of being obsolete due to AI. I don't need to fund other people's lifestyle choices just to get my toilet scrubbed.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
London is unusual, yes - and the borough system facilitates issues too. The systemic and policy issues which lead to homelessness are across the country though - which is why there are issues across the country. Get to the root problems - the system/policy issues - don’t just concentrate on it where it’s affected most due to high costs (I’m not saying it’s not an issue just saying moving everyone out of London is not the cure all) - as I said solely looking at that misses a huge amount. Have a read of The Plan to End Homelessness published by Crisis this year.
Do you agree that with my statement that people don't have a birth right to live in London?
I am middle class and I don't live where I grew up or my family are. I chose to move 100 miles because there are no real job opportunities where I'm from. I'd love to live back where I'm from but financially it doesn't stack up. I miss out an several benefits such as 'free' childcare from grandparents. I don't see why I, as a net tax contributor, should make these sacrifices and net tax beneficiaries feel they should not. "
The premise of the question is irrelevant to the point I’m making about ending homelessness though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
London is unusual, yes - and the borough system facilitates issues too. The systemic and policy issues which lead to homelessness are across the country though - which is why there are issues across the country. Get to the root problems - the system/policy issues - don’t just concentrate on it where it’s affected most due to high costs (I’m not saying it’s not an issue just saying moving everyone out of London is not the cure all) - as I said solely looking at that misses a huge amount. Have a read of The Plan to End Homelessness published by Crisis this year.
Do you agree that with my statement that people don't have a birth right to live in London?
I am middle class and I don't live where I grew up or my family are. I chose to move 100 miles because there are no real job opportunities where I'm from. I'd love to live back where I'm from but financially it doesn't stack up. I miss out an several benefits such as 'free' childcare from grandparents. I don't see why I, as a net tax contributor, should make these sacrifices and net tax beneficiaries feel they should not.
The premise of the question is irrelevant to the point I’m making about ending homelessness though. "
The plan basically says 'shake the money tree'.
Or specifically:
"Lift the benefit cap in specified circumstances"
"Ensure that sufficient funding is available for all the necessary prevention measures"
"Abolish priority need"
So essentially a charity writes a document that, if followed, would grant them more money. Well nice try but not something I find convincing as a piece of analysis.
Fyi: the word London appears 954 times in that plan or 3.8 times per page. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not? "
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
Rough sleeping is, that's about 9,100 people in the UK. Being 'homeless' is mainly about expecting to live in London / South east on a minimum wage job topped up with benefits.
Why shouldn't people that do menial jobs still be able to live in London? Where they have probably lived their whole lives! How many on minimum wage can afford to commute?!? And why the bloody hell should they? Just because their local authority decides a little social cleansing is in order?! Always wondered wtf is gonna happen when only the rich can afford to live theren it returns to being considered a shit hole
Why should middle class people have to make tough decisions about where we live, how long we commute and how many kids we have, but the working class feel entitled to be free from any such constraints? It's as simple as, you don't have a birth right to live in London. "
Why should anyone decide where someone else can or can't live?! And that doesn't really explain how employers that don't pay enough to live on, expect people to be able to afford to get to work, even if their rents are slightly less than living nearer. Everyone has a quick fix idea for making money but don't care about long term consequences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords."
They do but there's a problem that the claimant can demand, at any time, to switch the payment back to them. This is why no sane landlord would have DSS tenants and the public imagination hate the landlords that are crazy enough to take them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
London is unusual, yes - and the borough system facilitates issues too. The systemic and policy issues which lead to homelessness are across the country though - which is why there are issues across the country. Get to the root problems - the system/policy issues - don’t just concentrate on it where it’s affected most due to high costs (I’m not saying it’s not an issue just saying moving everyone out of London is not the cure all) - as I said solely looking at that misses a huge amount. Have a read of The Plan to End Homelessness published by Crisis this year.
Do you agree that with my statement that people don't have a birth right to live in London?
I am middle class and I don't live where I grew up or my family are. I chose to move 100 miles because there are no real job opportunities where I'm from. I'd love to live back where I'm from but financially it doesn't stack up. I miss out an several benefits such as 'free' childcare from grandparents. I don't see why I, as a net tax contributor, should make these sacrifices and net tax beneficiaries feel they should not.
The premise of the question is irrelevant to the point I’m making about ending homelessness though.
The plan basically says 'shake the money tree'.
Or specifically:
"Lift the benefit cap in specified circumstances"
"Ensure that sufficient funding is available for all the necessary prevention measures"
"Abolish priority need"
So essentially a charity writes a document that, if followed, would grant them more money. Well nice try but not something I find convincing as a piece of analysis.
Fyi: the word London appears 954 times in that plan or 3.8 times per page."
You’ve definitely not read it then. That’s fine, no point discussing if you’re not going to do so properly. Keep perpetuating your ‘expertise’. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords."
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords."
They are now paying it direct to tenants so that if any money is paid incorrectly it has to come back from the tennant and not the landlord. So the landlord still gets the money and as the tennant is claiming benefits it can be taken out of that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
Rough sleeping is, that's about 9,100 people in the UK. Being 'homeless' is mainly about expecting to live in London / South east on a minimum wage job topped up with benefits.
Why shouldn't people that do menial jobs still be able to live in London? Where they have probably lived their whole lives! How many on minimum wage can afford to commute?!? And why the bloody hell should they? Just because their local authority decides a little social cleansing is in order?! Always wondered wtf is gonna happen when only the rich can afford to live theren it returns to being considered a shit hole
Why should middle class people have to make tough decisions about where we live, how long we commute and how many kids we have, but the working class feel entitled to be free from any such constraints? It's as simple as, you don't have a birth right to live in London.
Why should anyone decide where someone else can or can't live?! And that doesn't really explain how employers that don't pay enough to live on, expect people to be able to afford to get to work, even if their rents are slightly less than living nearer. Everyone has a quick fix idea for making money but don't care about long term consequences. "
Ok so your position is that neither me nor the working class should be forced to move. Ok, i don't mind the sound of that but could you add a bit more detail about how that would work and specifically how it would be funded? If I fancy moving to a more expensive area like Kensington then how does that get funded? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too. "
But not in LEEDS |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
London is unusual, yes - and the borough system facilitates issues too. The systemic and policy issues which lead to homelessness are across the country though - which is why there are issues across the country. Get to the root problems - the system/policy issues - don’t just concentrate on it where it’s affected most due to high costs (I’m not saying it’s not an issue just saying moving everyone out of London is not the cure all) - as I said solely looking at that misses a huge amount. Have a read of The Plan to End Homelessness published by Crisis this year.
Do you agree that with my statement that people don't have a birth right to live in London?
I am middle class and I don't live where I grew up or my family are. I chose to move 100 miles because there are no real job opportunities where I'm from. I'd love to live back where I'm from but financially it doesn't stack up. I miss out an several benefits such as 'free' childcare from grandparents. I don't see why I, as a net tax contributor, should make these sacrifices and net tax beneficiaries feel they should not.
The premise of the question is irrelevant to the point I’m making about ending homelessness though.
The plan basically says 'shake the money tree'.
Or specifically:
"Lift the benefit cap in specified circumstances"
"Ensure that sufficient funding is available for all the necessary prevention measures"
"Abolish priority need"
So essentially a charity writes a document that, if followed, would grant them more money. Well nice try but not something I find convincing as a piece of analysis.
Fyi: the word London appears 954 times in that plan or 3.8 times per page.
You’ve definitely not read it then. That’s fine, no point discussing if you’re not going to do so properly. Keep perpetuating your ‘expertise’."
I've read it enough to know they want £19.3 billion. No i don't get paid to read such publications as you do so I'm not reading every word of every page. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too.
But not in LEEDS"
True, but Kendal or Carlisle would work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits. "
Am I? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I? "
Yes, it can be changed as requested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too.
But not in LEEDS"
Or Bournemouth.Its nice here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too.
But not in LEEDS
Or Bournemouth.Its nice here. "
Yeah I like Bournemouth. I'm there every Tuesday |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etLikeMan
over a year ago
most fundamental aspects |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
"
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place. "
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place.
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord. "
How do you mean? So if the tenant fails to pay from the money they've been given, the council should pay the landlord themselves? Wouldn't that essentially be giving tenants more benefits? What time frame would you expect the council to do this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place.
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord.
How do you mean? So if the tenant fails to pay from the money they've been given, the council should pay the landlord themselves? Wouldn't that essentially be giving tenants more benefits? What time frame would you expect the council to do this? "
No, that’s not what I mean.
I mean the “control” the landlord has comes in through their rights to evict if not paid. They should never have “control” over the claimants monies. In cases where the claimant has monies paid directly to the landlord rather than to them first, it is still not the landlord having “control”. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ok if the claimants pay the landlords the rent. What if a homeless current or ex drug user gets private accommodation? Their priorities are not rent. Landlords should have money paid direct to them. You see so many private lettings that say no dss it's because of this situation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place.
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord.
How do you mean? So if the tenant fails to pay from the money they've been given, the council should pay the landlord themselves? Wouldn't that essentially be giving tenants more benefits? What time frame would you expect the council to do this?
No, that’s not what I mean.
I mean the “control” the landlord has comes in through their rights to evict if not paid. They should never have “control” over the claimants monies. In cases where the claimant has monies paid directly to the landlord rather than to them first, it is still not the landlord having “control”. "
Not housing benefit. That is a benefit meant solely for rent. So why not give it straight too landlords? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place.
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord.
How do you mean? So if the tenant fails to pay from the money they've been given, the council should pay the landlord themselves? Wouldn't that essentially be giving tenants more benefits? What time frame would you expect the council to do this?
No, that’s not what I mean.
I mean the “control” the landlord has comes in through their rights to evict if not paid. They should never have “control” over the claimants monies. In cases where the claimant has monies paid directly to the landlord rather than to them first, it is still not the landlord having “control”. "
You're welcome to your opinion but you really do want it both ways and therefore your ideas are unrealistic. On the one hand, people complain about the poor quality of landlords, expensive rents for poor quality housing and getting screwed out of deposits etc. On the other hand, you want the landlords to take all the risk on a business model that essential does not work, with ever increasing regulation that increases the costs but doesn't increase the income.
This is a subject I know very very well and I wouldn't expect you to have studied and executed landlord business models. I have and do. The DSS model simply does not work unless you cut corners. I tell any landlord to their face that they are a fool for accepting DSS and they simply haven't understood the risk profile of their business. By all means come at it with your ideological viewpoint but the net result is obvious, dwindling supply of people who want to house the people you care about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok if the claimants pay the landlords the rent. What if a homeless current or ex drug user gets private accommodation? Their priorities are not rent. Landlords should have money paid direct to them. You see so many private lettings that say no dss it's because of this situation. "
Again, I don’t accept the premise of your statement, sorry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place.
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord.
How do you mean? So if the tenant fails to pay from the money they've been given, the council should pay the landlord themselves? Wouldn't that essentially be giving tenants more benefits? What time frame would you expect the council to do this?
No, that’s not what I mean.
I mean the “control” the landlord has comes in through their rights to evict if not paid. They should never have “control” over the claimants monies. In cases where the claimant has monies paid directly to the landlord rather than to them first, it is still not the landlord having “control”.
Not housing benefit. That is a benefit meant solely for rent. So why not give it straight too landlords? "
Let’s extrapolate that premise... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place.
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord.
How do you mean? So if the tenant fails to pay from the money they've been given, the council should pay the landlord themselves? Wouldn't that essentially be giving tenants more benefits? What time frame would you expect the council to do this?
No, that’s not what I mean.
I mean the “control” the landlord has comes in through their rights to evict if not paid. They should never have “control” over the claimants monies. In cases where the claimant has monies paid directly to the landlord rather than to them first, it is still not the landlord having “control”.
You're welcome to your opinion but you really do want it both ways and therefore your ideas are unrealistic. On the one hand, people complain about the poor quality of landlords, expensive rents for poor quality housing and getting screwed out of deposits etc. On the other hand, you want the landlords to take all the risk on a business model that essential does not work, with ever increasing regulation that increases the costs but doesn't increase the income.
This is a subject I know very very well and I wouldn't expect you to have studied and executed landlord business models. I have and do. The DSS model simply does not work unless you cut corners. I tell any landlord to their face that they are a fool for accepting DSS and they simply haven't understood the risk profile of their business. By all means come at it with your ideological viewpoint but the net result is obvious, dwindling supply of people who want to house the people you care about. "
I’ll step away as you’ve started that assumptive thing about telling me what I know or have read - it’s rather unhelpful and works if you just want to talk in your own soundchamber, so I’ll let you do that and keep happy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok if the claimants pay the landlords the rent. What if a homeless current or ex drug user gets private accommodation? Their priorities are not rent. Landlords should have money paid direct to them. You see so many private lettings that say no dss it's because of this situation. "
And you can expect to see many more. I have a 98% occupancy, 100% payment, ~99% deposit returned (biggest deduction was about £30!). Why the fuck would anyone deal with that end of the market for smaller profits that I make - absolute insanity!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok if the claimants pay the landlords the rent. What if a homeless current or ex drug user gets private accommodation? Their priorities are not rent. Landlords should have money paid direct to them. You see so many private lettings that say no dss it's because of this situation. "
The Housing Element of Universal Credit can be paid directly if the need is there for that. The whole premise is supposed to be that claimants take responsibility for their own money. There are lots of support agencies who can help with budgeting and challenging situations. Whether the idealology will work, it will for some and it set others up to fail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place.
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord.
How do you mean? So if the tenant fails to pay from the money they've been given, the council should pay the landlord themselves? Wouldn't that essentially be giving tenants more benefits? What time frame would you expect the council to do this?
No, that’s not what I mean.
I mean the “control” the landlord has comes in through their rights to evict if not paid. They should never have “control” over the claimants monies. In cases where the claimant has monies paid directly to the landlord rather than to them first, it is still not the landlord having “control”.
You're welcome to your opinion but you really do want it both ways and therefore your ideas are unrealistic. On the one hand, people complain about the poor quality of landlords, expensive rents for poor quality housing and getting screwed out of deposits etc. On the other hand, you want the landlords to take all the risk on a business model that essential does not work, with ever increasing regulation that increases the costs but doesn't increase the income.
This is a subject I know very very well and I wouldn't expect you to have studied and executed landlord business models. I have and do. The DSS model simply does not work unless you cut corners. I tell any landlord to their face that they are a fool for accepting DSS and they simply haven't understood the risk profile of their business. By all means come at it with your ideological viewpoint but the net result is obvious, dwindling supply of people who want to house the people you care about.
I’ll step away as you’ve started that assumptive thing about telling me what I know or have read - it’s rather unhelpful and works if you just want to talk in your own soundchamber, so I’ll let you do that and keep happy. "
Do as you please but in my opinion you join a lot of sensitive discussions but then are very reluctant to ever explain your views. The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that you are on the side of change, I'm perfectly happy to keep things as they are. The advocate for change is the person that needs to change hearts and minds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place.
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord.
How do you mean? So if the tenant fails to pay from the money they've been given, the council should pay the landlord themselves? Wouldn't that essentially be giving tenants more benefits? What time frame would you expect the council to do this?
No, that’s not what I mean.
I mean the “control” the landlord has comes in through their rights to evict if not paid. They should never have “control” over the claimants monies. In cases where the claimant has monies paid directly to the landlord rather than to them first, it is still not the landlord having “control”.
You're welcome to your opinion but you really do want it both ways and therefore your ideas are unrealistic. On the one hand, people complain about the poor quality of landlords, expensive rents for poor quality housing and getting screwed out of deposits etc. On the other hand, you want the landlords to take all the risk on a business model that essential does not work, with ever increasing regulation that increases the costs but doesn't increase the income.
This is a subject I know very very well and I wouldn't expect you to have studied and executed landlord business models. I have and do. The DSS model simply does not work unless you cut corners. I tell any landlord to their face that they are a fool for accepting DSS and they simply haven't understood the risk profile of their business. By all means come at it with your ideological viewpoint but the net result is obvious, dwindling supply of people who want to house the people you care about.
I’ll step away as you’ve started that assumptive thing about telling me what I know or have read - it’s rather unhelpful and works if you just want to talk in your own soundchamber, so I’ll let you do that and keep happy.
Do as you please but in my opinion you join a lot of sensitive discussions but then are very reluctant to ever explain your views. The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that you are on the side of change, I'm perfectly happy to keep things as they are. The advocate for change is the person that needs to change hearts and minds. "
You’re welcome to your opinion. My experience of you, is that you like to tell other people what they already know, have read and think. Perhaps there’s a lesson in there for you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok if the claimants pay the landlords the rent. What if a homeless current or ex drug user gets private accommodation? Their priorities are not rent. Landlords should have money paid direct to them. You see so many private lettings that say no dss it's because of this situation.
The Housing Element of Universal Credit can be paid directly if the need is there for that. The whole premise is supposed to be that claimants take responsibility for their own money. There are lots of support agencies who can help with budgeting and challenging situations. Whether the idealology will work, it will for some and it set others up to fail. "
It's a very flawed premise. What we know from psychology is that people in that condition are largely unable to budget properly. Not that they are intellectually unable, but their circumstances drive them towards impulsive behaviour, just as they would drive me that way if I was in their position. It really is rather cruel to set them up for failure that way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place.
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord.
How do you mean? So if the tenant fails to pay from the money they've been given, the council should pay the landlord themselves? Wouldn't that essentially be giving tenants more benefits? What time frame would you expect the council to do this?
No, that’s not what I mean.
I mean the “control” the landlord has comes in through their rights to evict if not paid. They should never have “control” over the claimants monies. In cases where the claimant has monies paid directly to the landlord rather than to them first, it is still not the landlord having “control”.
You're welcome to your opinion but you really do want it both ways and therefore your ideas are unrealistic. On the one hand, people complain about the poor quality of landlords, expensive rents for poor quality housing and getting screwed out of deposits etc. On the other hand, you want the landlords to take all the risk on a business model that essential does not work, with ever increasing regulation that increases the costs but doesn't increase the income.
This is a subject I know very very well and I wouldn't expect you to have studied and executed landlord business models. I have and do. The DSS model simply does not work unless you cut corners. I tell any landlord to their face that they are a fool for accepting DSS and they simply haven't understood the risk profile of their business. By all means come at it with your ideological viewpoint but the net result is obvious, dwindling supply of people who want to house the people you care about.
I’ll step away as you’ve started that assumptive thing about telling me what I know or have read - it’s rather unhelpful and works if you just want to talk in your own soundchamber, so I’ll let you do that and keep happy.
Do as you please but in my opinion you join a lot of sensitive discussions but then are very reluctant to ever explain your views. The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that you are on the side of change, I'm perfectly happy to keep things as they are. The advocate for change is the person that needs to change hearts and minds.
You’re welcome to your opinion. My experience of you, is that you like to tell other people what they already know, have read and think. Perhaps there’s a lesson in there for you. "
I probably do and you're almost right. But as I say, the status quo suits me and doesn't suit you so I'm not really the one who needs to up their game. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etLikeMan
over a year ago
most fundamental aspects |
For those landlords that *are* willing to accept tenants on benefits but are themselves on buy to let mortgages, often the mortgage company (and or insurers) stipulate no tenants on benefits.
Of course the “No DSS” part of adverts has been successfully challenged in the courts, as it disproportionately affects women; therefore making it illegal.
If I were in receipt of benefits, then I would want to challenge the concept of DSS as that department no longer exists. If I paid for a BT bill with a cheque made out to “The GPO” then it wouldn’t be acceptable. Why are we still referring to superseded terms? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hace a lot of experience in this subject. The issue with honelessness is mostly due to drug and alcohol abuse. Also stop paying housing benefit to claimants. There are people who are homeless and not abusing drugs but not many.
This is not an accurate picture actually.
And are you suggesting to stop paying housing benefit to anyone that currently has a right to claim it? Or just excluding anyone with a drug or alcohol issue? Or are you going to police why someone may have ended up with such an issue, perhaps having suffered abuse and used these as a coping strategy initially, or the trafficked woman who has been forcibly drugged - are they allowed housing benefit, so they might get support but someone else using purely recreationally might not?
Sorry. I meant stop paying it directly to claimants and pay it direct to landlords.
You seem to be behind the times with welfare benefits.
Am I?
Yes, it can be changed as requested.
Which is essentially the same thing. If the claimant has the ability to determine where the money goes and the landlord has zero control, then any prudent landlord would treat the tenant exactly how they would if the payment was going direct to them in the first place.
The landlord should always have zero control but for rights if not paid. It’s not about the landlord.
How do you mean? So if the tenant fails to pay from the money they've been given, the council should pay the landlord themselves? Wouldn't that essentially be giving tenants more benefits? What time frame would you expect the council to do this?
No, that’s not what I mean.
I mean the “control” the landlord has comes in through their rights to evict if not paid. They should never have “control” over the claimants monies. In cases where the claimant has monies paid directly to the landlord rather than to them first, it is still not the landlord having “control”.
You're welcome to your opinion but you really do want it both ways and therefore your ideas are unrealistic. On the one hand, people complain about the poor quality of landlords, expensive rents for poor quality housing and getting screwed out of deposits etc. On the other hand, you want the landlords to take all the risk on a business model that essential does not work, with ever increasing regulation that increases the costs but doesn't increase the income.
This is a subject I know very very well and I wouldn't expect you to have studied and executed landlord business models. I have and do. The DSS model simply does not work unless you cut corners. I tell any landlord to their face that they are a fool for accepting DSS and they simply haven't understood the risk profile of their business. By all means come at it with your ideological viewpoint but the net result is obvious, dwindling supply of people who want to house the people you care about.
I’ll step away as you’ve started that assumptive thing about telling me what I know or have read - it’s rather unhelpful and works if you just want to talk in your own soundchamber, so I’ll let you do that and keep happy.
Do as you please but in my opinion you join a lot of sensitive discussions but then are very reluctant to ever explain your views. The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that you are on the side of change, I'm perfectly happy to keep things as they are. The advocate for change is the person that needs to change hearts and minds.
You’re welcome to your opinion. My experience of you, is that you like to tell other people what they already know, have read and think. Perhaps there’s a lesson in there for you.
I probably do and you're almost right. But as I say, the status quo suits me and doesn't suit you so I'm not really the one who needs to up their game. "
I’ve left you something to read. You usually ask for people to do that, I did. You agreed that you wouldn’t read it. I risk assessed and decided it wasn’t worthwhile continuing, sorry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Since left school some forty years ago the population in the uk has gone up from 55 million to 66 million . In the same period the world population has almost doubled .
It’s any wonder there are more homeless now .
It’s a simple case of survival of the fittest really , and the circle of life and all that really .
No government could have prevented it . Shit happens . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those landlords that *are* willing to accept tenants on benefits but are themselves on buy to let mortgages, often the mortgage company (and or insurers) stipulate no tenants on benefits.
Of course the “No DSS” part of adverts has been successfully challenged in the courts, as it disproportionately affects women; therefore making it illegal.
If I were in receipt of benefits, then I would want to challenge the concept of DSS as that department no longer exists. If I paid for a BT bill with a cheque made out to “The GPO” then it wouldn’t be acceptable. Why are we still referring to superseded terms?"
That case was interesting, but the ruling is largely irrelevant. It's one of those things where we can achieve the exact same 'discrimination' by using different language and processes.
What I find sad is that, there is a business model whereby that woman would have been a dream tenant. But because of some arbitrary and ideological choices, risk is forced onto landlords which either makes the business model unprofitable or makes the ren't unaffordable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Since left school some forty years ago the population in the uk has gone up from 55 million to 66 million . In the same period the world population has almost doubled .
It’s any wonder there are more homeless now .
It’s a simple case of survival of the fittest really , and the circle of life and all that really .
No government could have prevented it . Shit happens ."
They could have built more homes that people can afford. They did it once. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Since left school some forty years ago the population in the uk has gone up from 55 million to 66 million . In the same period the world population has almost doubled .
It’s any wonder there are more homeless now .
It’s a simple case of survival of the fittest really , and the circle of life and all that really .
No government could have prevented it . Shit happens .
They could have built more homes that people can afford. They did it once."
Any government will quickly find that it has no serious interest in cheaper housing. From memory, property is around our 5th largest industry and is bigger than all the manufacturing combined. That's a huge source of jobs, tax, GVA and GDP. You might also ask yourself what % of voters are trying to get on the property ladder vrs the % already on and hoping to ride a wave of capital gains... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I
Here’s a solution
The middle class
Even they are getting pissed off, as they can't afford to buy in London either.
Well they can live up Liverpool
That would piss off the Liverpool working class because property prices , being in high demand, would sky rocket and they would have less money to spend on football and ferrying across the Mersey."
That has already happened, back in the 90's an estate was built near my home. The majority of the houses were bought by people from down south, that is nice they can afford the houses. Sadly not good for the locals, who couldn't afford the houses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As a prospective first time buyer, I find myself having to look into work transfers and moving to the north east where my current wage might just about get some kind of mortgage.
Bearing in mind I've lived in the area I do for my whole life, moving so so far away is a terrifying concept.
Looking into it, the house prices in the north east are just over half of what they are here, so needs must and all that, just frustrating that such a move is necessary to achieve what I've wanted since my early teens.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Up north here and we dont give a fuck about london and as for the middle class and the right to live there well should be plenty of room as they are all stabbing each other..the population is dwindling rapidly |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orny PTMan
over a year ago
Peterborough |
"At least the tories have stopped talking about trickle down economics and have now clearly given up on the poorest in society, they've even dismissed a UN report in to poverty.
And in to what Tame has alreay mentioned, the huge rise on zero hours contracts, the fact that people working need benefits on top of their salary to survive and the amount of people dependant on good banks, as a society we have competely lost our way.
Meanwhile the richest in this country have seen their wealth multiply under tory rule.
"
Watch the film: Cathy come home. Some things never change. Housing is a problem, that can only be tackled with joined up thinking. Sadly this is in very short supply. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course 53% of those "homeless" are in London. Sorry but people don't have some birth right to live in London, if they can't afford it then they should move. London is a shit hole anyway, their lungs would be happier up north too. "
I couldn't agree more. Quite few terraced houses for sale in Co Durham for between £15-30k. Easy commute to Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough for work.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
