A New Era for the Homeless: Rayner Pledges End to Criminalising Rough Sleeping

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The leading homeless charities don’t share your view.

 

But then why would they? They actually know what they are talking about.

They cannot build more cheap social housing, its empty promises. They don't have enough workers for their original failed promises, now they are making more empty promises. Quite disgusting really

 

UK 'doesn't have enough builders' for Labour's 1.5m homes

The UK does not have enough construction workers to build the 1.5 million homes the government has promised, industry leaders have warned.

Tens of thousands of new recruits are needed for bricklaying, groundworks and carpentry to get anywhere near the target, they told the BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg1471rwpo

 

 

[BritManToo]

21 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

They cannot build more cheap social housing, its empty promises. They don't have enough workers for their original failed promises, now they are making more empty promises. Quite disgusting really

 

UK 'doesn't have enough builders' for Labour's 1.5m homes

The UK does not have enough construction workers to build the 1.5 million homes the government has promised, industry leaders have warned.

Tens of thousands of new recruits are needed for bricklaying, groundworks and carpentry to get anywhere near the target, they told the BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg1471rwpo

 

 

Why not buy completely outfitted 'pod' homes from China?

Under $10,000 each, no builders required beyond connecting the electric, water and drains.

Plenty of available space in the fields under the solar farms.

[Yellowtail]

No one is going to solve the homeless problem by spending more money on them. 

[James105]

Wonder if Park Lane would still be the 2nd most expensive property if Monopoly was invented today.   

 

[baansgr]

Lovely...

[JonnyF]

11 minutes ago, James105 said:

Wonder if Park Lane would still be the 2nd most expensive property if Monopoly was invented today.   

 

 

There's a lovely spot outside Westminster that could fit a makeshift camp for thousands of immigrants.

 

I wonder why that hasn't happened. 

 

Oh what's that? You don't want it on YOUR front doorstep?

 

 

 

[Baht Simpson]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

You seem to have misunderstood Rayner's initiative.

 

Deliberately, I suspect. 

Pathetic response. Instead of answering a question that only required a yes or no answer you deflect by questioning my understanding of the initiative. 

 

Nice try but perhaps just answer the question. 

[Yellowtail]

Have you quit being a racist? 

[JonnyF]

12 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Pathetic response. Instead of answering a question that only required a yes or no answer you deflect by questioning my understanding of the initiative. 

 

Nice try but perhaps just answer the question. 

 

Rayner has legalized sleeping on the streets.

 

She has not solved any issue.

 

So what exactly is the initiative?

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Have you quit being a racist? 

 

Calling people a racist is SO 2024.

 

It's extreme right wing terrorist now. 😆

 

Just FYI...

[blaze master]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

No one is going to solve the homeless problem by spending more money on them. 

 

Exactly. Its a much bigger issue than left vs right.

 

But play on players. 

[Baht Simpson]

45 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Rayner has legalized sleeping on the streets.

 

She has not solved any issue.

 

So what exactly is the initiative?

Lol. Classic Jordan Peterson-type reply. Refusing to answer a simple yes or no question then saying what do you mean by initiative? 

 

You really need to learn how to debate properly. 

 

But since you won't I'll play your game for a bit.

 

Do you agree with de-criminalizing vagrancy?

 

Do you agree with this?

 

"In response to these figures, Labour has pledged an additional £233 million for homelessness services this financial year, with total investment for 2025–26 approaching £1 billion. Rayner's department stated the funding will help keep more families out of temporary accommodation and “tackle rough sleeping head-on.”

 

Do you agree with this?

 

"At the same time, new laws will be introduced to target behaviour linked to organised begging and criminal trespass. These new offences—facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime—are designed to close the gaps left by the Vagrancy Act’s repeal."

 

Those are the initiatives. Or as the Telegraph itself puts it

 

"As the UK prepares to take a new path on homelessness, Rayner’s announcement marks a deliberate effort to offer dignity and practical support rather than punishment to those sleeping rough—turning away from a punitive legacy that has endured for over 200 years."

 

So I ask again do you agree with these or not? 

 

P.S. Don't go down the 'this won't solve all the homelessness' route because that's not what they are saying.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Rayner has legalized sleeping on the streets.

 

She has not solved any issue.

 

So what exactly is the initiative?

Read the OP, especially the bit about funding.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Read the OP, especially the bit about funding.

You mean the part about all the leftist groups getting tons of money? 

 

If not that, what was it? 

[Yellowtail]

24 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Lol. Classic Jordan Peterson-type reply. Refusing to answer a simple yes or no question then saying what do you mean by initiative? 

 

You really need to learn how to debate properly. 

 

But since you won't I'll play your game for a bit.

 

Do you agree with de-criminalizing vagrancy?

 

Do you agree with this?

 

"In response to these figures, Labour has pledged an additional £233 million for homelessness services this financial year, with total investment for 2025–26 approaching £1 billion. Rayner's department stated the funding will help keep more families out of temporary accommodation and “tackle rough sleeping head-on.”

 

Do you agree with this?

 

"At the same time, new laws will be introduced to target behaviour linked to organised begging and criminal trespass. These new offences—facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime—are designed to close the gaps left by the Vagrancy Act’s repeal."

 

Those are the initiatives. Or as the Telegraph itself puts it

 

"As the UK prepares to take a new path on homelessness, Rayner’s announcement marks a deliberate effort to offer dignity and practical support rather than punishment to those sleeping rough—turning away from a punitive legacy that has endured for over 200 years."

 

So I ask again do you agree with these or not? 

 

P.S. Don't go down the 'this won't solve all the homelessness' route because that's not what they are saying.

 

To debate properly, you have to have a resolution, yes? What is yours? State it and we'll debate it. 

[Baht Simpson]

51 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

To debate properly, you have to have a resolution, yes? What is yours? State it and we'll debate it. 

You don't start a debate with a resolution you start with a premise. But full resolution of the problem of homelessness is not what the article was about, it was about taking steps to de-criminalize vagrancy and providing further money to address the root problems. I showed that in my previous post. 

 

Nobody has a magic wand to eradicate homelessness overnight because there are complex issues above and beyond people not having a roof over their head. At least this is a start and should be commended.

 

[James105]

32 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

You don't start a debate with a resolution you start with a premise. But full resolution of the problem of homelessness is not what the article was about, it was about taking steps to de-criminalize vagrancy and providing further money to address the root problems. I showed that in my previous post. 

 

Nobody has a magic wand to eradicate homelessness overnight because there are complex issues above and beyond people not having a roof over their head. At least this is a start and should be commended.

 

 

Housing is a supply and demand issue typically so the starting point would increase the available stock.   Since there is finite amount of houses that can be built (and in the case of Labour that is less than the average built during a Conservative government), then other approaches are needed, such as the following:

 

1.  Remove any foreign nationals from social housing.   If they cannot afford to live in the UK and pay market rent then they can go home.   

2.  Implement extremely punitive measures for landlords or employers who rent to or employ illegal immigrants.   If the illegal immigrants don't like this system, they can go home.  

3.  Remove any and all benefits for any foreign national living or working in the UK.   If they do not have a job that pays enough to live in the UK, they can go home.   

 

So the exact same system that Thailand uses really, which should free up lots of properties which will in turn reduce rents and virtually eradicate homelessness for those who prefer not to live on the streets.   

[Yellowtail]

25 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

You don't start a debate with a resolution you start with a premise. But full resolution of the problem of homelessness is not what the article was about, it was about taking steps to de-criminalize vagrancy and providing further money to address the root problems. I showed that in my previous post. 

 

Nobody has a magic wand to eradicate homelessness overnight because there are complex issues above and beyond people not having a roof over their head. At least this is a start and should be commended.

 

Is the premise not a resolution? Does the premise not start with right after "resolved"?

 

Resolved: Trump is a dictator that must be hung for treason. Then one team had made arguments for and the other team against.

 

Maybe it's different in the UK, but that's what remember. 

[Baht Simpson]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is the premise not a resolution? Does the premise not start with right after "resolved"?

 

Resolved: Trump is a dictator that must be hung for treason. Then one team had made arguments for and the other team against.

 

Maybe it's different in the UK, but that's what remember. 

O.K. I see what you mean now. I thought you meant resolution as in resolving a problem. It's customary to start a formal debate here with "this house believes", a proposition or premise. A resolution in U.K. Parliament is more to express an already debated issue that is then voted on. 

[Baht Simpson]

15 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Housing is a supply and demand issue typically so the starting point would increase the available stock.   Since there is finite amount of houses that can be built (and in the case of Labour that is less than the average built during a Conservative government), then other approaches are needed, such as the following:

 

1.  Remove any foreign nationals from social housing.   If they cannot afford to live in the UK and pay market rent then they can go home.   

2.  Implement extremely punitive measures for landlords or employers who rent or employ illegal immigrants.   If the illegal immigrants don't like this system, they can go home.  

3.  Remove any and all benefits for any foreign national living or working in the UK.   If they do not have a job that pays enough to live in the UK, they can go home.   

 

So the exact same system that Thailand uses really, which should free up lots of properties which will in turn reduce rents and virtually eradicate homelessness for those who prefer not to live on the streets.   

It's not just a housing issue. People on the streets are there because of lack of money, alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness etc.  I realise that immigration is your pet issue but turfing immigrants out of hotels and putting the homeless in there isn't solving the problem. 

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

O.K. I see what you mean now. I thought you meant resolution as in resolving a problem. It's customary to start a formal debate here with "this house believes", a proposition or premise. A resolution in U.K. Parliament is more to express an already debated issue that is then voted on. 

Actually, it would be nice to have a debate board with strict rules. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Baht Simpson said:

It's not just a housing issue. People on the streets are there because of lack of money, alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness etc.  I realise that immigration is your pet issue but turfing immigrants out of hotels and putting the homeless in there isn't solving the problem. 

You are correct, but there is no disputing more people needing housing puts upward pressure on housing costs. 

 

The easiest people to get off the streets are the people that are there solely for financial reasons. 

 

The people that are on the streets due to alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness etc., need to be moved off the streets forcibly, one way or another. Making them more comfortable is not going to help. 

 

[Baht Simpson]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Actually, it would be nice to have a debate board with strict rules. 

Maybe ground rules, but then it needs constant moderation and there are some on here who troll and wouldn't abide by the rules anyway. 

 

I often think that there are some people on here who clearly aren't stupid but allow their prejudices dictate the presentation of their arguments. It's a shame. 

[BritManToo]

45 minutes ago, James105 said:

So the exact same system that Thailand uses really, which should free up lots of properties which will in turn reduce rents and virtually eradicate homelessness for those who prefer not to live on the streets. 

I don't think there's anyone in any western government that wants to reduce rents or housing prices. They all have property portfolios.

 

I'd be more interested in redistributing land in the UK, away from the governments and charities, and into the hands of the general population, and revoking planning permission laws. After all, they're building big ugly solar and wind farms everywhere, so why not housing?

 

Forestry Commission, National trust, RSPB, Crown Estates, CofE, etc.

All need disbanding and redistributing to the people.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Maybe ground rules, but then it needs constant moderation and there are some on here who troll and wouldn't abide by the rules anyway. 

 

I often think that there are some people on here who clearly aren't stupid but allow their prejudices dictate the presentation of their arguments. It's a shame. 

It needs to be a separate board that with people can be banned from for a period of days. 

 

I do not think anyone like to put any time into formulating a nice argument, to see it disappear in a sea of back-and-forth insults.  

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't think there's anyone in any western government that wants to reduce rents or housing prices. They all have property portfolios.

I know that in the US, it is clearly the rich that benefit from mass migration, and the poor that suffer. 

 

That said, I would clearly not trade our illegals for yours...

[Baht Simpson]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It needs to be a separate board that with people can be banned from for a period of days. 

 

I do not think anyone like to put any time into formulating a nice argument, to see it disappear in a sea of back-and-forth insults.  

I'm afraid there are too many here ready for a fight rather than a debate. And too much tribalism.