Boat illegals up under Labour.

[motorbiking]

“Regular handovers”

No there aren’t

It’s a matter of public record. All vessels broadcast their location if they have AIS, which is the vast majority of boats.

Obviously the illegals don’t.

 

[motorbiking]

Yea, more spin, of course you'd think that.

Public AIS data is spin? Give your head a shake.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

So you are happy to protect millionaires at the expense of people living in doorways.

Would you perhaps be happy, with the country going broke, for lack of investment? That would be the result of taxing the millionaires who invest in the UK. It's a tricky balancing act, where removing the £200 from them, makes absolutely no difference.

 

[denso13]

That would be the result of taxing the millionaires who invest in the UK.

No it wouldn't.

The point I'm making, which I thought was obvious, is that millionaire tax breaks and people sleeping in doorways isn't linked. Neither is treating migrants humanly and the homelessness issue. We could, and should, sort both, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

The point I'm making, which I thought was obvious, is that millionaire tax breaks and people sleeping in doorways isn't linked.!

OK!

Neither is treating migrants humanly and the homelessness issue. We could, and should, sort both, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

Apart from via funding, and the government having the money available to fund. The UK government, has a limited amount of money available to it, to fund things. Anything which takes money out of that pot, means something else which may need funding, has to have less, or do without. The millions being absorbed dealing with illegal migrants, has to come from somewhere.

 

[denso13]

The millions being absorbed dealing with illegal migrants, has to come from somewhere.

Yes, but the homelessness problem has been going on a lot longer than asylum seeker arrivals. I don't think it's an either or choice.

Even if it were, boat people will still arrive and need dealt with, and I think it should be humanly. And, as I've said a few times, make the whole process much quicker so that we aren't liable for housing people in the first place, or at least in much lower numbers.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Yes, but the homelessness problem has been going on a lot longer than asylum seeker arrivals. I don't think it's an either or choice.

For some, it's a lifestyle choice, for others it's a necessity, but these days it is far, far worse.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

So we'd actually make more money if we paid them more than £200? Complete and utter nonsense.

Pay them more then.

Someone has found the answer to the economic conundrum.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Well, why do we?

Because those with the power want lower taxes than benefits and infrastructure.

The rich, but you want to pay them more, because you think it benefits us all. And then complain when it doesnt

 

[Sunshine32]

.

 

[noseall]

I would readdress the entire way we handle homelessness in this country

Really? How?

A lot of homeless people refuse to be saved. Their addictions are their downfall.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Really? How?

A lot of homeless people refuse to be saved. Their addictions are their downfall.

And the addictions are often because of limited life choices. Sort of an easy way out.

Not accepting it, or saying it's the reason for all either.

But offer some food or a hot drink and it's not wanted. The genuine (in my eyes) really appreciate food and drink.

Homelessness isn't cured by putting all people in a hotel etc

 

[Sunshine32]

.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Not all homeless are addicts but it is true a proportion are.

I would ban homelessness. I would make it illegal to be homeless.

For those that are homeless, I would bring back the revised workhouse idea, but the key difference would be that they work to clean the streets, pick litter, mow the verges etc and we pay them. The money would not go into their hands, it would go into a bank account to build up until they had enough in it for a deposit on somewhere to rent and they had gone through a mandatory drug/drink rehabilitation programme where they are tested regularly. Failure to attend/complete the programme would get them banged up in an asylum and their earnings revoked. Then they'd get put back onto the programme.

And who pays these taxes to generate everything needed?

Utopia

 

[noseall]

Not all homeless are addicts but it is true a proportion are.

I would ban homelessness. I would make it illegal to be homeless.

For those that are homeless, I would bring back the revised workhouse idea, but the key difference would be that they work to clean the streets, pick litter, mow the verges etc and we pay them. The money would not go into their hands, it would go into a bank account to build up until they had enough in it for a deposit on somewhere to rent and they had gone through a mandatory drug/drink rehabilitation programme where they are tested regularly. Failure to attend/complete the programme would get them banged up in an asylum and their earnings revoked. Then they'd get put back onto the programme.

Fairy story right there. Threatening them with the law is pointless.