Yesterday we were all talking about cheerful stuff - specifically, 1990s music - and I posted a video of The Shamen's Ebeneezer Goode from, 1992.
And I noticed something rather cool: at approximately 21 seconds in, there's a character using what appears to be a Psion Series 3. OGH was a real trailblazer here - he used a Series 3 and then a Series 5, and hooked them up over IR to his phone so as to get email.
Here's to pioneering British tech company Psion, and it's founder David Potter. And what a shame that it never achieved its potential.
I'm not sure we'd be less censorious of that today, and possibly more so.
It's essentially a (very catchy) 3-minute pop ode to ecstasy.
And an absolutely blatant one.
Could be worse: could be a catchy three minute pop ode to genocide and antisemitism.
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
Government officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the Observer.
I'm sure that HY will confirm that "underlining the country's institutions and values" can be defined by not voting Conservative. So it will soon become a criminal offence not to vote Tory.
I was just thinking that that would lead to the arrest of most of the cabinet.
Government officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the Observer.
I'm sure that HY will confirm that "underlining the country's institutions and values" can be defined by not voting Conservative. So it will soon become a criminal offence not to vote Tory.
I'm not sure I would even start with the word 'extremism'. Personally I would go with gross intolerance or support for political violence as being the basis for Prevent and its like.
"Labour are absolutely gunning for the seat, and will have no lack of activists in the area."
This would be a very silly thing for Labour to do. These activists should be spending their time in Tory-held seats.
Brighton has a lot of Labour activists, many of whom may not be able to travel away very often - and the other two Brighton seats are already Labour. It's fairly sensible if those people would otherwise not be out canvassing at all.
Ridding us of the scum that accretes around the Green Party will be one of the indisputable benefits of a Labour government. Ask anyone in Scotland how poisonous they can be.
Labour is Sauron, the Green Party is Morgoth.
Sauron is a despot, but Morgoth is a destroyer, so Sauron is preferable.
"Labour are absolutely gunning for the seat, and will have no lack of activists in the area."
This would be a very silly thing for Labour to do. These activists should be spending their time in Tory-held seats.
Brighton has a lot of Labour activists, many of whom may not be able to travel away very often - and the other two Brighton seats are already Labour. It's fairly sensible if those people would otherwise not be out canvassing at all.
Ridding us of the scum that accretes around the Green Party will be one of the indisputable benefits of a Labour government. Ask anyone in Scotland how poisonous they can be.
Labour is Sauron, the Green Party is Morgoth.
Sauron is a despot, but Morgoth is a destroyer, so Sauron is preferable.
I suppose you aren't inclined to write about the elections in my local area, Kirkland city council, Lake Washington School District board, and so forth. For which I don't blame you.
But, the city council elections In Seattle, across Lake Washington from me, are genuinely interesting, and the results will have national implications. (SS2 could fill all of us in.) Sadly, the Trotskyite on the city council, Kshama Sawant, is not running for re-election, but there are still entertaining races there.
Election day is this coming Tuesday -- which means that is the last day to put your ballot in a drop box, or in a mail box, in time to get it postmarked on Tuesday.
(Outsiders are often annoyed by that delay, because it means our election results are not final until -- at best -- several days after the election.)
The Union Flag was taken down from the Cenotaph. Perhaps like the pictures of hostages it's seen as too provocative.
Only because all the flags are taken away this week every year to be cleaned before next week's ceremonies.
Mind you that's because I saw the Metropolitan Police tweet rather than the right wing muppet's post that got 400,000 views compare to the Met Police's 10,000 views.
Are you sure it's true?
Still sad that it's surrounded by fencing.
Yes because I'm not an idiot taken in by false news that happens to match my prejudices..
Is it prejudiced to think public monuments might be defaced? Or just common sense since it happens quite often.
The protesters are planning to avoid the Cenotaph by marching from Trafalgar Square to the US Embassy. They are also deliberately starting in the afternoon so as to not disturb any 1100 silence observances.
This is not an anti-British protest however much you want it to be for Culture War reasons.
LOL at your use of 'culture wars'. If you go on that march, remember that a large number of the people you are with, who you are chanting with, who you are encouraging, want the end of the state of Israel, and worse.
You are giving them your voice.
Hmm, this reads very much like the posts attacking @Cyclefree for her carefully considered views on women’s rights and trans rights a few months ago. At the time people criticised her for enabling and supporting far right anti-trans campaigners as she was a ‘fellow-traveler’.
The argument was wrong-headed then just as it is now. Anyone who goes on the march is responsible for their own views, not those around them.
No, it really doesn't. For one thing, Ms Free was not talking about going on a march with people who have those views.
What is this march for? Apparently, to call for a ceasefire and to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza - according to the PSC tweet below. Not about (say) releasing all the hostages back to Israel, stopping rocket attacks on Israel, or indeed for general peace.
And why the US Embassy? Why not (as an example) the Egyptian one, for the Egyptian government also has rather a lot of power over the situation, especially wrt the crossing and aid getting in. It all feeds into Iran's Little and Great Satan rhetoric, doesn't it?
The whole thing stinks.
Well, ultimately if some people are too dim to understand the most basic principles of free speech, that's their problem, not anyone else's.
I may have to publish my emergency thread which is
'Why the next Scottish independence referendum be conducted under the alternative vote system.'
A binary question on AV?
That would be more pointless than the England cricket team.
A bit more nuanced than that.
The multi option? More powers, independence, status quo or all MSPs to be pelted with turnips?
That would save Malc an awkward dilemma!
There's several options including if Yes loses that settles it for 50 years, and an option to abolish Scotland and go for full Anschluß with the England.
Would that make England Nazi Germany and PM Braverman Hitler?
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Despite the fact that many of those who do know about it, are either horrendously racist or totally ambivalent to the horrendous racism all around.
Government officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the Observer.
I'm sure that HY will confirm that "underlining the country's institutions and values" can be defined by not voting Conservative. So it will soon become a criminal offence not to vote Tory.
I was just thinking that that would lead to the arrest of most of the cabinet.
The Tories have form in falling foul of their own laws of course.
The Union Flag was taken down from the Cenotaph. Perhaps like the pictures of hostages it's seen as too provocative.
Only because all the flags are taken away this week every year to be cleaned before next week's ceremonies.
Mind you that's because I saw the Metropolitan Police tweet rather than the right wing muppet's post that got 400,000 views compare to the Met Police's 10,000 views.
Are you sure it's true?
Still sad that it's surrounded by fencing.
Yes because I'm not an idiot taken in by false news that happens to match my prejudices..
Is it prejudiced to think public monuments might be defaced? Or just common sense since it happens quite often.
The protesters are planning to avoid the Cenotaph by marching from Trafalgar Square to the US Embassy. They are also deliberately starting in the afternoon so as to not disturb any 1100 silence observances.
This is not an anti-British protest however much you want it to be for Culture War reasons.
LOL at your use of 'culture wars'. If you go on that march, remember that a large number of the people you are with, who you are chanting with, who you are encouraging, want the end of the state of Israel, and worse.
You are giving them your voice.
Hmm, this reads very much like the posts attacking @Cyclefree for her carefully considered views on women’s rights and trans rights a few months ago. At the time people criticised her for enabling and supporting far right anti-trans campaigners as she was a ‘fellow-traveler’.
The argument was wrong-headed then just as it is now. Anyone who goes on the march is responsible for their own views, not those around them.
No, it really doesn't. For one thing, Ms Free was not talking about going on a march with people who have those views.
What is this march for? Apparently, to call for a ceasefire and to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza - according to the PSC tweet below. Not about (say) releasing all the hostages back to Israel, stopping rocket attacks on Israel, or indeed for general peace.
And why the US Embassy? Why not (as an example) the Egyptian one, for the Egyptian government also has rather a lot of power over the situation, especially wrt the crossing and aid getting in. It all feeds into Iran's Little and Great Satan rhetoric, doesn't it?
The whole thing stinks.
Well, ultimately if some people are too dim to understand the most basic principles of free speech, that's their problem, not anyone else's.
Free speech has limits, does it not?
And those limits increasingly appear to be set by the likelihood that members of that speaking group will blow up a pop concert or not.
Personally, I err on the free speech side. Wonder what the Unherd/RCP Tory crew make of it?
They're all for it. They aren't in favour of free speech, they're in favour of British free speech, thus:
"BRITISH FREE SPEECH, noun: the ability of the elite to defend speech that they agree with or say, and suppress the speech that they disagree with or other people say. It is used to suppress the poor and the other side in an argument and has nothing to do with free speech per se. See also DOUBLETHINK"
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
I'm baffled by it because there's no clear division between good and evil in the conflict as far as I can see. There are much clearer issues if you want to take a stand on something.
And it's not like the Irish government has offered strong support to Israel for people to protest against.
"Labour are absolutely gunning for the seat, and will have no lack of activists in the area."
This would be a very silly thing for Labour to do. These activists should be spending their time in Tory-held seats.
Brighton has a lot of Labour activists, many of whom may not be able to travel away very often - and the other two Brighton seats are already Labour. It's fairly sensible if those people would otherwise not be out canvassing at all.
Ridding us of the scum that accretes around the Green Party will be one of the indisputable benefits of a Labour government. Ask anyone in Scotland how poisonous they can be.
Labour is Sauron, the Green Party is Morgoth.
Sauron is a despot, but Morgoth is a destroyer, so Sauron is preferable.
what's that make the tories then Lotho bleeding Sackville-Baggins?
Personally, I err on the free speech side. Wonder what the Unherd/RCP Tory crew make of it?
Indeed if undermining Parliament and its institutions is labelled as extremism then calling for the House of Lords to be abolished would fall under the definition.
Tories should consider that they also might want to protest in the future, particularly as they are likely to be in opposition for some time.
Personally, I err on the free speech side. Wonder what the Unherd/RCP Tory crew make of it?
Indeed if undermining Parliament and its institutions is labelled as extremism then calling for the House of Lords to be abolished would fall under the definition.
Tories should consider that they also might want to protest in the future, particularly as they are likely to be in opposition for some time.
Hmm. Just remembering which party last tried to shut down Parliament, illegally.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
... Anyone who goes on the march is responsible for their own views, not those around them.
"present but not involved"?
I vividly remember in my enthusiastic youth attending an anti capitalist demo in London. I was thoroughly surprised to see this very organised group of people, almost all men, flying black and red flags and with faces hidden. I had no idea I had bumbled across the really quite violent black bloc.
Being on the same march as them did not make me an anarchist, nor a criminal when they started smashing in bank windows.
Any big political statement will be broad brush and contain contradictions throughout.
We might as well argue that anyone who stays away from the protest is enabling genocide against Gazan children. It’s transparent nonsense.
Fair point, but stated baldly it shows the strain. Let's reify it to a doctrine: the "MaxH doctrine" or the "The individual responsibility doctrine" thus:
"The individual responsibility doctrine:any individual in an activity cannot be held responsible for any other individuals in that activity, nor for the group or groups in that activity, and vice versa"
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Despite the fact that many of those who do know about it, are either horrendously racist or totally ambivalent to the horrendous racism all around.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Remember, last year, Rishi brought her back just days after she resigned for breaching the Ministerial Code!
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Government officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the Observer.
I'm sure that HY will confirm that "underlining the country's institutions and values" can be defined by not voting Conservative. So it will soon become a criminal offence not to vote Tory.
Thus very concerning. Are those of us who belive that much of the rubbish jn the Tate Modern is not proper art or that the NHS is often inefficient to be branded as criminals?
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Despite the fact that many of those who do know about it, are either horrendously racist or totally ambivalent to the horrendous racism all around.
It's the right kind of racism, though.
9,488 Palestinians killed by the IDF in Gaza, including 3,900 children, since October 7th.
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
I'm baffled by it because there's no clear division between good and evil in the conflict as far as I can see. There are much clearer issues if you want to take a stand on something.
And it's not like the Irish government has offered strong support to Israel for people to protest against.
You and me both.
The fact that people are so ready to believe what the Hamas authorities say, and the very worst of Israel - many without even asking for the release of the hostages and surrender of the guilty on their way to demanding a "ceasefire" - leads me to conclude that, sadly, anti-semitism is far more widespread than I'd thought to still be the case.
Government officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the Observer.
I'm sure that HY will confirm that "underlining the country's institutions and values" can be defined by not voting Conservative. So it will soon become a criminal offence not to vote Tory.
Thus very concerning. Are those of us who belive that much of the rubbish jn the Tate Modern is not proper art or that the NHS is often inefficient to be branded as criminals?
Or those who think the National Trust is a Woke Conspiracy?
Straitjacket possibly needed, but not criminal charges...
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
I tend to agree - certainly in my part of London some I see are from Eastern Europe. Many are older men, in their 40s or 50s. That's not to say there aren't British people among the homeless as well - some have, I suspect, quite acute mental health, alcohol and other addiction problems.
That said, to suggest, as Braverman does, it's a "lifestyle choice" seems inaccurate. The choice, if there is one, is influened by the state of mental health as much as an economic reality.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
"Labour are absolutely gunning for the seat, and will have no lack of activists in the area."
This would be a very silly thing for Labour to do. These activists should be spending their time in Tory-held seats.
Brighton has a lot of Labour activists, many of whom may not be able to travel away very often - and the other two Brighton seats are already Labour. It's fairly sensible if those people would otherwise not be out canvassing at all.
Ridding us of the scum that accretes around the Green Party will be one of the indisputable benefits of a Labour government. Ask anyone in Scotland how poisonous they can be.
Labour is Sauron, the Green Party is Morgoth.
Sauron is a despot, but Morgoth is a destroyer, so Sauron is preferable.
what's that make the tories then Lotho bleeding Sackville-Baggins?
The Tories are Noldorin elves. People who fucked up time and again.
Personally, I err on the free speech side. Wonder what the Unherd/RCP Tory crew make of it?
Indeed if undermining Parliament and its institutions is labelled as extremism then calling for the House of Lords to be abolished would fall under the definition.
Tories should consider that they also might want to protest in the future, particularly as they are likely to be in opposition for some time.
Not to mention 'the blob', 'the wokerati', the 'dead hand' of the civil service, the courts etc.
It would be a sweet delight if the first victims of the plans were Suella & JRM.
"Labour are absolutely gunning for the seat, and will have no lack of activists in the area."
This would be a very silly thing for Labour to do. These activists should be spending their time in Tory-held seats.
Brighton has a lot of Labour activists, many of whom may not be able to travel away very often - and the other two Brighton seats are already Labour. It's fairly sensible if those people would otherwise not be out canvassing at all.
I agree with this but I'd also add that even if it wasn't sensible Labour would probably still gun for Brighton Pavilion. As I learned when I briefly worked for the Lib Dems in a Lib/Lab marginal, the narcissism of small differences is real in politics and many Labour activists hate Lib Dems more than the Tories (and that's definitely true in reverse for Lib Dem activists hating Labour). In Brighton it's felt by Labour that the Greens have stolen 'their' seat, and the satisfaction of knocking them back into their box will justify plenty of effort I suspect.
Plus there's just only so far you can tell activists where to campaign. A lot of people will go to their nearest winnable seat and you can't really stop them.
Oh there's definitely a bit of that. But there's a way - provided you do marshal most of your resources against the Tories and can afford it - it makes a certain amount of strategic sense too in that the stronger the Greens are nationally, the worse that is for Labour as a 'left-wing alternative' in more seats. Seeing off Berry and holding Bristol Central would all but guarantee no serious small party General Election challenger from the party's far left for at least a decade.
Similar goes for the Lib Dems, I think one reason Lab went so hard for the win in Mid Beds was to prove to people it's the anti-Tory alternative beyond the obvious Lab-Con marginals. Back in 2019, one reason the Lib Dems never quite broke through despite polling level with Labour for parts of the year was that it simply wasn't the clear and obvious 'anti-Tory' vote in lots of places it might have been and was coming from so far back. If the LDs had been starting from 50 or so MPs and looked like a plausible balance of power holder Labour might have gone into meltdown. So it's useful to keep the smaller parties in their box for Lab - even if secondary to winning Tory seats.
In addition to that, Lab versus Green is something of a continuation of Labour's Civil War - given lots of Corbynistas have decamped there. So it's more than the narcissism of small differences - there's a huge divide there on some issues. Kind of in reverse of 2019 - when the Corbynites spent stupid amounts of time and effort trying to ensure ex-Labour MPs who'd left due to Corbyn and joined the Lib Dems lost, for little electoral advantage, was because it would have been pretty dreadful for their project if those who were implacable critics were winning seats they'd earmarked to keep or win.
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
In a place like Skibbereen, it will be “The Jews Killed Christ.”
Sample: "The electorate is narrowly and deeply divided. As a result, U.S. politics are anything but stable. For nearly two decades, voters have produced one change election after another. The House changed hands in 2006, 2010, 2018 and 2022. The Senate changed hands in 2014 and 2020. The White House changed hands in 2008, 2016 and 2020.
Analysis: House and Senate elections could provide historic, reverse results
Will 2024 continue the pattern? Given the narrow margins that currently exist in both chambers, the Senate (now in Democratic hands) and the House (now in Republican hands) could shift again next year. As could the occupant of the White House."
I was watching the Met Office forecast earlier and could see big animated explosions off the coast on the weather map. For a second I was thinking 'WHAT THE F....." then "... oh, gotcha."
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
Yesterday we were all talking about cheerful stuff - specifically, 1990s music - and I posted a video of The Shamen's Ebeneezer Goode from, 1992.
And I noticed something rather cool: at approximately 21 seconds in, there's a character using what appears to be a Psion Series 3. OGH was a real trailblazer here - he used a Series 3 and then a Series 5, and hooked them up over IR to his phone so as to get email.
Here's to pioneering British tech company Psion, and it's founder David Potter. And what a shame that it never achieved its potential.
Reminds me of walking into an office some years ago and seeing two "tech bro's" attempting to touch the tip of their Palm Pilots together to make they sync. I said "This looks quite homoerotic."
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
I tend to agree - certainly in my part of London some I see are from Eastern Europe. Many are older men, in their 40s or 50s. That's not to say there aren't British people among the homeless as well - some have, I suspect, quite acute mental health, alcohol and other addiction problems.
That said, to suggest, as Braverman does, it's a "lifestyle choice" seems inaccurate. The choice, if there is one, is influened by the state of mental health as much as an economic reality.
Also, dependent on the individual's residency status, those from abroad may well be ineligible for benefits or housing support.
Round here, the people living in tents are Brits, at least the ones I have tried to help are. Negotiating the council's homelessness and housing registers is a nightmare and the bottom line is there is just not sufficient housing to go round. Anyone with mental health or addiction problems has little hope unless family or friends can help them out.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
My church had a collection to buy sleeping bags for homeless refugees. Not tents as far as I know, but according to the British Red Cross forecasts 50,000 or so homeless refugees will be on the streets shortly. Note these are the ones who have successfully claimed asylum.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
There are detailed and reliable data available on the scale and trends of EEA nationals who have slept rough in London. There are also indications from other data sources for the rest of the country. In 2016/17, 39 per cent of people seen sleeping rough in London were EEA nationals – a total of 3,038 people. This has decreased over the past two years, from 46 per cent in 2015/16 (3,669 people) to 45 per cent in 2014/15 (3,359 people).
Denis is not alone. He is one of more than 3,500 migrant people who are street homeless in London, 64% of whom are from Europe, according to CHAIN data on rough sleeping from 2021.
In London, over half of the people estimated to be sleeping rough on a single night in autumn were from outside the UK in 2022. In total, 279 people were from the UK (33% of the total), 328 people (38% of the total) were EU nationals and 108 people (13% of the total) were from outside the EU and the UK. The nationality of 143 people (17% of the total) was ‘Not known’.
Across the Rest of England, 1,687 people estimated to be sleeping rough on a single night in autumn were from the UK (76% of the total), 304 people were EU nationals (14% of total), 71 people were from outside the EU and the UK (3% of total) and for 149 people (7% of the total) nationality was ‘Not known’.
So likely a significant issue in central London and perhaps other cities but the people outside supermarkets further north appear to be almost all white British males.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
It’s time we require everyone to house homeless individuals in their spare bedrooms. While it may seem like an infringement on personal freedom, it's essential to recognise the moral responsibility we have as a community to help those less fortunate. By sharing our resources and providing shelter to those in need, we can work towards a more equitable and compassionate society for all.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
Anecdotally, I once found someone not in a tent but living in my businesses boiler room. The boiler room was accessible from outside the building, but locked, the lock had been forced and he was living there at the time, he'd been there a few days when I found him. He didn't speak a word of English, but coincidentally a colleague of mine from Poland spoke his language - apparently he'd come to England by bus from Poland [pre-Brexit] hoping to make his fortune here but had struggled to find a job or somewhere to live so he was homeless.
The scariest thing about it was that he was using the boiler (a giant commercial one dating back to the 1980s) as an ashtray. There were no smoking signs and danger: gas signs everywhere but he'd been living and smoking in there for a few days and stamping out his butts literally on top of the gas boiler that serviced the entire building.
I've no idea what happened to the guy, we gave him some food and water and my colleague told him in his own language it wasn't safe for him to be there and we never saw him again.
Not making any political point, just since anecdotes were being traded I thought I'd share mine. I feel awful for him that he had come so hopeful and felt that desperate that is how he was living.
The Union Flag was taken down from the Cenotaph. Perhaps like the pictures of hostages it's seen as too provocative.
Only because all the flags are taken away this week every year to be cleaned before next week's ceremonies.
Mind you that's because I saw the Metropolitan Police tweet rather than the right wing muppet's post that got 400,000 views compare to the Met Police's 10,000 views.
Are you sure it's true?
Still sad that it's surrounded by fencing.
Yes because I'm not an idiot taken in by false news that happens to match my prejudices..
Is it prejudiced to think public monuments might be defaced? Or just common sense since it happens quite often.
The protesters are planning to avoid the Cenotaph by marching from Trafalgar Square to the US Embassy. They are also deliberately starting in the afternoon so as to not disturb any 1100 silence observances.
This is not an anti-British protest however much you want it to be for Culture War reasons.
It's interesting that they have decided to avoid the clash with the Remembrance Day service but let's not dignify the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Please listen to Nick Ferrari's interview with director of PSC Ben Jamal, who is asked 5 times 'where are the Israelis meant to go?' and he completely avoids the question.
I don't know whether they have revised their views in light of the savagery that was to be exposed or if they refuse to believe such savagery took place.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Despite the fact that many of those who do know about it, are either horrendously racist or totally ambivalent to the horrendous racism all around.
It's the right kind of racism, though.
9,488 Palestinians killed by the IDF in Gaza, including 3,900 children, since October 7th.
So, you take the figures issued by the Hamas run authorities in Gaza at face value, then?
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
It’s time we require everyone to house homeless individuals in their spare bedrooms. While it may seem like an infringement on personal freedom, it's essential to recognise the moral responsibility we have as a community to help those less fortunate. By sharing our resources and providing shelter to those in need, we can work towards a more equitable and compassionate society for all.
We recognise that moral responsibility through taxation.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
It’s more vacuous than that I think. It’s about showing voters you want to hurt the homeless, thinking that’ll gain votes. Braverman just assumes everyone thinks the way she does.
The priorities of this government at the moment seem all over the place. They seem keener on picking little fights over things people don’t care much about than they are on addressing big challenges.
It’s even true of foreign policy on Israel-Hamas. More focus on kicking up a fuss over “hate marches” than doing anything remotely to help influence the actual conduct of the conflict. Strangely parochial approach to everything. Except AI, oddly.
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Despite the fact that many of those who do know about it, are either horrendously racist or totally ambivalent to the horrendous racism all around.
It's the right kind of racism, though.
9,488 Palestinians killed by the IDF in Gaza, including 3,900 children, since October 7th.
So, you take the figures issued by the Hamas run authorities in Gaza at face value, then?
In the absence of other data, yes.
Unless the Hampshire Tory Association have better data?
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
She is correct, and you've just been torn a new one by several other regulars who've posted real data before I could.
I look forward to your next post being a humble and grovelling apology.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
The 'lifestyle choice' is at least as prickish, part of the deserving and undeserving tests beloved by Tories through the decades. If they tell themselves that the homeless, beggars, refugees, addicts and other damaged sorts are there due to their own failings they assuage the shrivelled remnants of their conscience and can squeeze funding to shore up the economy they've done such a good job of shafting. Result!
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on very low pay and facing very high rents. Sometimes working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Despite the fact that many of those who do know about it, are either horrendously racist or totally ambivalent to the horrendous racism all around.
It's the right kind of racism, though.
9,488 Palestinians killed by the IDF in Gaza, including 3,900 children, since October 7th.
So, you take the figures issued by the Hamas run authorities in Gaza at face value, then?
In the absence of other data, yes.
Unless the Hampshire Tory Association have better data?
Why? Wouldn't it just be better to say we have no reliable data?
And how many have been killed by Hamas?
As an aside I'm surprised the Israelis don't provide their own figures.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
The 'lifestyle choice' is at least as prickish, part of the deserving and undeserving tests beloved by Tories through the decades. If they tell themselves that the homeless, beggars, refugees, addicts and other damaged sorts are there due to their own failings they assuage the shrivelled remnants of their conscience and can squeeze funding to shore up the economy they've done such a good job of shafting. Result!
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
It depends. If the aspiration is to clear the street of tents and move them into shelters, then I agree. It does no-one any good to sleep rough.
If it's just to move them on without any alternative solution, then I'd question it.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
Being brutally/cynically/wearily realistic there are always going to be people who fall through the safety nets and helping them follows the law of diminishing returns.
So it comes down to how many are allowed to struggle because resources are deemed to be better used elsewhere.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Despite the fact that many of those who do know about it, are either horrendously racist or totally ambivalent to the horrendous racism all around.
It's the right kind of racism, though.
9,488 Palestinians killed by the IDF in Gaza, including 3,900 children, since October 7th.
So, you take the figures issued by the Hamas run authorities in Gaza at face value, then?
In the absence of other data, yes.
Unless the Hampshire Tory Association have better data?
Why? Wouldn't it just be better to say we have no reliable data?
And how many have been killed by Hamas?
1,447 (according to Israel) is a lower number than 9,488.
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Despite the fact that many of those who do know about it, are either horrendously racist or totally ambivalent to the horrendous racism all around.
It's the right kind of racism, though.
9,488 Palestinians killed by the IDF in Gaza, including 3,900 children, since October 7th.
So, you take the figures issued by the Hamas run authorities in Gaza at face value, then?
In the absence of other data, yes.
Unless the Hampshire Tory Association have better data?
Then, you're a fool and deserve to be engaged with on that basis.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
It was a crap system (Speenhamland) in the mid-C19 English countryside, albeit subsidising big landowners with lots of farm labourers. No better today.
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Despite the fact that many of those who do know about it, are either horrendously racist or totally ambivalent to the horrendous racism all around.
It's the right kind of racism, though.
9,488 Palestinians killed by the IDF in Gaza, including 3,900 children, since October 7th.
So, you take the figures issued by the Hamas run authorities in Gaza at face value, then?
In the absence of other data, yes.
Unless the Hampshire Tory Association have better data?
Why? Wouldn't it just be better to say we have no reliable data?
And how many have been killed by Hamas?
1,447 (according to Israel) is a lower number than 9,488.
I meant the number of Gazans killed by Hamas either accidentally or otherwise.
... Anyone who goes on the march is responsible for their own views, not those around them.
"present but not involved"?
I vividly remember in my enthusiastic youth attending an anti capitalist demo in London. I was thoroughly surprised to see this very organised group of people, almost all men, flying black and red flags and with faces hidden. I had no idea I had bumbled across the really quite violent black bloc.
Being on the same march as them did not make me an anarchist, nor a criminal when they started smashing in bank windows.
Any big political statement will be broad brush and contain contradictions throughout.
We might as well argue that anyone who stays away from the protest is enabling genocide against Gazan children. It’s transparent nonsense.
Fair point, but stated baldly it shows the strain. Let's reify it to a doctrine: the "MaxH doctrine" or the "The individual responsibility doctrine" thus:
"The individual responsibility doctrine:any individual in an activity cannot be held responsible for any other individuals in that activity, nor for the group or groups in that activity, and vice versa"
Sorry for the slow reply - yeah I think the joint enterprise point is instructive in trying to get beyond sweeping judgements on this.
From your link: intended to encourage or assist them to commit the offence. This is a key point for me. Full disclosure-I went to the protest in central Bristol earlier today (with a healthy dose of trepidation but also with a quote from a Palestinian journalist in my ears that turning on the TV and seeing protest marches across the world made them feel less alone).
At the protest almost the first thing we heard was a solitary member of the crowd with a microphone trying to start a chant of ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’. The heartening thing was that no one joined in. Nevertheless I didn’t challenge his antisemitism (which I regret, also that I didn’t film it to send to the police) nor did others around me.
I think anyone joining in a chant like that is then responsible for the reprehensible views that statement encodes, as they are ‘encouraging’ the offender as per joint enterprise. But someone who is nearby but chooses not to participate in that chant is not responsible for the views of that protestor. (I do think it is incumbent on people nearby to challenge it, but that’s a different moral point in my view).
Apparently there was a march in solidarity with Palestine in Skibbereen today (population: 3,000). It's no wonder SF are pushing to expel the Israeli Ambassador with so many people so exercised by the issue, leaving the government struggling to keep up without doing anything that would cause too much long-term diplomatic damage.
I must say I'm astonished that so many are (nominally) exercised by the issue in so many places.
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
Despite the fact that many of those who do know about it, are either horrendously racist or totally ambivalent to the horrendous racism all around.
It's the right kind of racism, though.
9,488 Palestinians killed by the IDF in Gaza, including 3,900 children, since October 7th.
So, you take the figures issued by the Hamas run authorities in Gaza at face value, then?
In the absence of other data, yes.
Unless the Hampshire Tory Association have better data?
Then, you're a fool and deserve to be engaged with on that basis.
So the Hampshire Tories don't have any more accurate data? OKaaay...
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
She is correct, and you've just been torn a new one by several other regulars who've posted real data before I could.
I look forward to your next post being a humble and grovelling apology.
But what was the point of her "many of them from abroad" aside, except as a dog-whistle to xenophobes? What difference does it make where they are from? Is she suggesting it's ok for Brits to live in tents on the street or does she want to take all rough-sleepers' tents away?
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
Being brutally/cynically/wearily realistic there are always going to be people who fall through the safety nets and helping them follows the law of diminishing returns.
So it comes down to how many are allowed to struggle because resources are deemed to be better used elsewhere.
In bribing your selected section of society to make sure they vote for you?
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
It depends. If the aspiration is to clear the street of tents and move them into shelters, then I agree. It does no-one any good to sleep rough.
If it's just to move them on without any alternative solution, then I'd question it.
Are they funding the shelters / alternative accommodation to cope with the increase?
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
She is correct, and you've just been torn a new one by several other regulars who've posted real data before I could.
I look forward to your next post being a humble and grovelling apology.
But what was the point of her "many of them from abroad" aside, except as a dog-whistle to xenophobes?
Or indeed depriving all of them of tents, including UK service veterans? Collective punishment for being homeless?
At least the bill aimed at, inter alia, the RNLI wanted to prosecute RNLI crews, etc., only if they fished out illegal immigrants. Not for fishing *everyone* out of the drink.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
It is even more ludicrous when it is merely one arm of government subsidising another department to not pay its staff properly.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
The big complication then is housing costs as they can vary so much in different areas and for different people.
Have fireworks got louder or do I just have more sensitive hearing than I used to? It’s properly war zone-like out there this evening.
Actually, and I definitely don't mean this in a confrontational manner, I was just thinking the exact opposite. We had a few neighbours round for a firework party this evening and timed it to coincide with the big display up the road so as to limit disturbance. I was really surprised at how limp the fireworks were this year - both ours and the bigger display.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
She is correct, and you've just been torn a new one by several other regulars who've posted real data before I could.
I look forward to your next post being a humble and grovelling apology.
But what was the point of her "many of them from abroad" aside, except as a dog-whistle to xenophobes?
Or indeed depriving all of them of tents, including UK service veterans? Collective punishment for being homeless?
At least the bill aimed at, inter alia, the RNLI wanted to prosecute RNLI crews, etc., only if they fished out illegal immigrants. Not for fishing *everyone* out of the drink.
Now where else in the world are we also seeing Collective Punishment?
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
Being brutally/cynically/wearily realistic there are always going to be people who fall through the safety nets and helping them follows the law of diminishing returns.
So it comes down to how many are allowed to struggle because resources are deemed to be better used elsewhere.
In bribing your selected section of society to make sure they vote for you?
Helping hard working families through difficulties which started in other countries
On the "many of them foreign" bit. She's clearly right. But. In what world is choosing to live in a tent in a major city "a lifestyle choice?" Who? Apart from the severely mentally ill would choose to do that? Why would they? Once again. Focusing on the wrong part of the speech.
Have fireworks got louder or do I just have more sensitive hearing than I used to? It’s properly war zone-like out there this evening.
Actually, and I definitely don't mean this in a confrontational manner, I was just thinking the exact opposite. We had a few neighbours round for a firework party this evening and timed it to coincide with the big display up the road so as to limit disturbance. I was really surprised at how limp the fireworks were this year - both ours and the bigger display.
ASDA at least have been saying they've deliberately got quieter fireworks this year, to be less upsetting to dogs etc.
OT. I think the Greens are more likely to lose Pavilion than gain anything.
BUT. Keep an eye on Suffolk. They seem to have achieved some critical mass there, in part at least, by being vigorous opponents of Sizewell C. So you can be in the happy virtuous position of being a NIMBY while also saving the planet. (Spot the problem.)
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
The big complication then is housing costs as they can vary so much in different areas and for different people.
One of the issues I've been noticing is HA's. They've been bumping the rents up to the maximum covered by the housing component of UC. It's now far more expensive to live in HA property up here than privately. (I live in one of the cheapest areas of the UK).
Have fireworks got louder or do I just have more sensitive hearing than I used to? It’s properly war zone-like out there this evening.
Actually, and I definitely don't mean this in a confrontational manner, I was just thinking the exact opposite. We had a few neighbours round for a firework party this evening and timed it to coincide with the big display up the road so as to limit disturbance. I was really surprised at how limp the fireworks were this year - both ours and the bigger display.
There does seem to be a range. The ones across the street are so loud the ground shakes with each bang.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
The big complication then is housing costs as they can vary so much in different areas and for different people.
One of the issues I've been noticing is HA's. They've been bumping the rents up to the maximum covered by the housing component of UC. It's now far more expensive to live in HA property up here than privately. (I live in one of the cheapest areas of the UK).
The housing component of UC is a bung to landlords. Whether they be private landlords, or HA landlords.
That people can use UC to pay for rent and someone else's mortgage, but not their own, is utter madness. Especially when their own would be normally cheaper.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
Broadly true but a full-time working couple on minimum wage with two children and in rented accommodation do qualify for some UC. Which is pretty ridiculous - not that I doubt they need it, I just find it ridiculous they should need it.
Comments
I suppose you aren't inclined to write about the elections in my local area, Kirkland city council, Lake Washington School District board, and so forth. For which I don't blame you.
But, the city council elections In Seattle, across Lake Washington from me, are genuinely interesting, and the results will have national implications. (SS2 could fill all of us in.) Sadly, the Trotskyite on the city council, Kshama Sawant, is not running for re-election, but there are still entertaining races there.
Election day is this coming Tuesday -- which means that is the last day to put your ballot in a drop box, or in a mail box, in time to get it postmarked on Tuesday.
(Outsiders are often annoyed by that delay, because it means our election results are not final until -- at best -- several days after the election.)
My thesis is that it's, of course, very shallow and is largely because it's seen to be the latest Big Thing but most simply don't know very much about it: it's just a catch all anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and "anti-racist" thing.
No2AV 68%
Yes2AV 32%
EDIT: Phew, it's just the fireworks
"BRITISH FREE SPEECH, noun: the ability of the elite to defend speech that they agree with or say, and suppress the speech that they disagree with or other people say. It is used to suppress the poor and the other side in an argument and has nothing to do with free speech per se. See also DOUBLETHINK"
And it's not like the Irish government has offered strong support to Israel for people to protest against.
Gone to a huge majority and back again....
Tories should consider that they also might want to protest in the future, particularly as they are likely to be in opposition for some time.
We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice.
Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
"The individual responsibility doctrine: any individual in an activity cannot be held responsible for any other individuals in that activity, nor for the group or groups in that activity, and vice versa"
Incidentally you are probably aware of the "joint enterprise" principle: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-joint-enterprise/
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
The fact that people are so ready to believe what the Hamas authorities say, and the very worst of Israel - many without even asking for the release of the hostages and surrender of the guilty on their way to demanding a "ceasefire" - leads me to conclude that, sadly, anti-semitism is far more widespread than I'd thought to still be the case.
Straitjacket possibly needed, but not criminal charges...
I mean, how many shire Tories will vote to make providing a tent to a homeless person an offence?
That said, to suggest, as Braverman does, it's a "lifestyle choice" seems inaccurate. The choice, if there is one, is influened by the state of mental health as much as an economic reality.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
It would be a sweet delight if the first victims of the plans were Suella & JRM.
Similar goes for the Lib Dems, I think one reason Lab went so hard for the win in Mid Beds was to prove to people it's the anti-Tory alternative beyond the obvious Lab-Con marginals. Back in 2019, one reason the Lib Dems never quite broke through despite polling level with Labour for parts of the year was that it simply wasn't the clear and obvious 'anti-Tory' vote in lots of places it might have been and was coming from so far back. If the LDs had been starting from 50 or so MPs and looked like a plausible balance of power holder Labour might have gone into meltdown. So it's useful to keep the smaller parties in their box for Lab - even if secondary to winning Tory seats.
In addition to that, Lab versus Green is something of a continuation of Labour's Civil War - given lots of Corbynistas have decamped there. So it's more than the narcissism of small differences - there's a huge divide there on some issues. Kind of in reverse of 2019 - when the Corbynites spent stupid amounts of time and effort trying to ensure ex-Labour MPs who'd left due to Corbyn and joined the Lib Dems lost, for little electoral advantage, was because it would have been pretty dreadful for their project if those who were implacable critics were winning seats they'd earmarked to keep or win.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/04/2024-election-biden-trump/
Sample: "The electorate is narrowly and deeply divided. As a result, U.S. politics are anything but stable. For nearly two decades, voters have produced one change election after another. The House changed hands in 2006, 2010, 2018 and 2022. The Senate changed hands in 2014 and 2020. The White House changed hands in 2008, 2016 and 2020.
Analysis: House and Senate elections could provide historic, reverse results
Will 2024 continue the pattern? Given the narrow margins that currently exist in both chambers, the Senate (now in Democratic hands) and the House (now in Republican hands) could shift again next year. As could the occupant of the White House."
Looks like about 60% UK, 40% Foreign, in London.
Of course, most of the Romanians, Poles etc. will have (ironically) settled status, so are not quite "Foreign", depending on your definition.
The people to fear are the Berias, Himmlers, Ta Moks, meek yet terrifyingly efficient.
I don't think they ever spoke to me again.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/rough-sleeping-snapshot-in-england-autumn-2022/rough-sleeping-snapshot-in-england-autumn-2022
Round here, the people living in tents are Brits, at least the ones I have tried to help are. Negotiating the council's homelessness and housing registers is a nightmare and the bottom line is there is just not sufficient housing to go round. Anyone with mental health or addiction problems has little hope unless family or friends can help them out.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/05/more-than-50000-refugees-could-be-made-homeless-in-asylum-backlog-clearance
So I think there are a fair number of foreign citizens sleeping rough, albeit ones legally here.
https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/the-plan-to-end-homelessness-full-version/solutions/chapter-12-ending-migrant-homelessness/
Denis is not alone. He is one of more than 3,500 migrant people who are street homeless in London, 64% of whom are from Europe, according to CHAIN data on rough sleeping from 2021.
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/01/19/falling-through-the-cracks-migrant-people-at-risk-of-homelessness/
In London, over half of the people estimated to be sleeping rough on a single night in autumn were from outside the UK in 2022. In total, 279 people were from the UK (33% of the total), 328 people (38% of the total) were EU nationals and 108 people (13% of the total) were from outside the EU and the UK. The nationality of 143 people (17% of the total) was ‘Not known’.
Across the Rest of England, 1,687 people estimated to be sleeping rough on a single night in autumn were from the UK (76% of the total), 304 people were EU nationals (14% of total), 71 people were from outside the EU and the UK (3% of total) and for 149 people (7% of the total) nationality was ‘Not known’.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/rough-sleeping-snapshot-in-england-autumn-2022/rough-sleeping-snapshot-in-england-autumn-2022#demographics
So likely a significant issue in central London and perhaps other cities but the people outside supermarkets further north appear to be almost all white British males.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
The scariest thing about it was that he was using the boiler (a giant commercial one dating back to the 1980s) as an ashtray. There were no smoking signs and danger: gas signs everywhere but he'd been living and smoking in there for a few days and stamping out his butts literally on top of the gas boiler that serviced the entire building.
I've no idea what happened to the guy, we gave him some food and water and my colleague told him in his own language it wasn't safe for him to be there and we never saw him again.
Not making any political point, just since anecdotes were being traded I thought I'd share mine. I feel awful for him that he had come so hopeful and felt that desperate that is how he was living.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35C-YGOKdqg
David Collier has done some digging and found a video of the head of the Scotland branch Mick Napier praising the resistance of the 7 October attacks.
The Manchester branch also published a statement in praise of the attacks.
https://twitter.com/mishtal/status/1717456166538871193
I don't know whether they have revised their views in light of the savagery that was to be exposed or if they refuse to believe such savagery took place.
Mikel Arteta - October 2023
https://twitter.com/stehoare/status/1720899268267938019
showing voters you want to hurt the homeless, thinking that’ll gain votes. Braverman just assumes everyone thinks the way she does.
The priorities of this government at the moment seem all over the place. They seem keener on picking little fights over things people don’t care much about than they are on addressing big challenges.
It’s even true of foreign policy on Israel-Hamas. More focus on kicking up a fuss over “hate marches” than doing anything remotely to help influence the actual conduct of the conflict. Strangely parochial approach to everything. Except AI, oddly.
Unless the Hampshire Tory Association have better data?
I look forward to your next post being a humble and grovelling apology.
Sometimes working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
And how many have been killed by Hamas?
As an aside I'm surprised the Israelis don't provide their own figures.
If it's just to move them on without any alternative solution, then I'd question it.
So it comes down to how many are allowed to struggle because resources are deemed to be better used elsewhere.
From your link: intended to encourage or assist them to commit the offence. This is a key point for me. Full disclosure-I went to the protest in central Bristol earlier today (with a healthy dose of trepidation but also with a quote from a Palestinian journalist in my ears that turning on the TV and seeing protest marches across the world made them feel less alone).
At the protest almost the first thing we heard was a solitary member of the crowd with a microphone trying to start a chant of ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’. The heartening thing was that no one joined
in. Nevertheless I didn’t challenge his antisemitism (which I regret, also that I didn’t film it to send to the police) nor did others around me.
I think anyone joining in a chant like that is then responsible for the reprehensible views that statement encodes, as they are ‘encouraging’ the offender as per joint enterprise. But someone who is nearby but chooses not to participate in that chant is not responsible for the views of that protestor. (I do think it is incumbent on people nearby to challenge it, but that’s a different moral point in my view).
At least the bill aimed at, inter alia, the RNLI wanted to prosecute RNLI crews, etc., only if they fished out illegal immigrants. Not for fishing *everyone* out of the drink.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
But. In what world is choosing to live in a tent in a major city "a lifestyle choice?"
Who? Apart from the severely mentally ill would choose to do that? Why would they?
Once again. Focusing on the wrong part of the speech.
How many people see tents on streets as a major issue atm, compared with paying their mortgage, heating their homes etc.?
And how many think forcing people out of tents and into cardboard boxes is the right thing to do?
BUT. Keep an eye on Suffolk. They seem to have achieved some critical mass there, in part at least, by being vigorous opponents of Sizewell C. So you can be in the happy virtuous position of being a NIMBY while also saving the planet. (Spot the problem.)
It's now far more expensive to live in HA property up here than privately. (I live in one of the cheapest areas of the UK).
That people can use UC to pay for rent and someone else's mortgage, but not their own, is utter madness. Especially when their own would be normally cheaper.
The system is subsidising low paying companies.