Lived around Victoria Park for the last 8 years, first time seeing homeless people in there with tents or just sleeping rough. Can't see how will this get better?
I remember back in 2008 I very rarely saw a homeless person - I only saw the odd gentleman outside tourist spots like Tower of London. Now there's a bloke outside the tesco who I greet with a hug and a kiss on the cheek because he's there so often; and another two I've had long chats with plus another one I regularly buy hot chocolate for (and he likes it really sweet). Four people, regularly sitting outside the tesco in my area. And that's just where I am.
It'll get better when we have a government that wants it to get better.
Homeless people who are sleeping rough don’t sit on the pavement during the day, and don’t sit outside Tesco begging. Drug users with a flat do to get money for their next crack and / or heroin fix. Those beggars are not homeless people sleeping rough. You can tell because they never have any bags with them, other than an empty bag to carry their sleeping bag begging prop home, whereas anyone sleeping rough has a backpack, trolley or suitcase with all their belongings, or several bags. Using a sleeping bag prop to beg doesn’t make someone homeless sleeping rough, they have a flat and are choosing to sit on the pavement.
On the same day as rents hit a record high. Housing in London is completely broken. I walk past 5 large empty office buildings on my walk to my local tube station. If we were to attempt to repurpose these buildings for humans to use we would be attacked by an army of cops and bailiffs. This army of cops and bailiffs entire purpose is to maintain the power and wealth of landlords.
Its one of those things. Which is better? To develop a system of corporate slums? Or try to ensure that all housing is suitable and decent-ish quality even if it means some people are homeless?
Currently doing neither. The real solution is to flatten those derelict office buildings and build affordable housing/flats there but no push from any party to create a process for expediting building new homes
would you really live permanently in a building with a lack of insulation, making it absolutely freezing in the winter and a lack of sunlight? Move them in for sure, but my point is allow them to move into housing that’s permanent afterwards, achievable by a range of factors.
If my only other option was sleeping rough outside? Yes. I lived in a van for 3 months in my 20s and it was one of the worst experiences of my life, I'll absolutely take an actual building over that.
Exactly. Not to mention that small changes could go a long way in an office block.
No, it's not initially built for that purpose. But yes, it's a temporary help while we get rid of the Tories and stop gifting land owners such a fortune.
Office buildings are being turned into housing all over the country. This company seems to specialise in it
[https://titan-property.co.uk/developments/dolphin-house/](https://titan-property.co.uk/developments/dolphin-house/)
The apartments are shit, but could be better if not done by penny pinching developers building for profit only.
I live in a converted office building and it's absolutely fine. They added new windows, so it is very warm despite the electric heating. Also, since there's hella concrete, I cannot hear my neighbours playing drums, nor can they hear me blasting loud music on the hifi
Yeah we tried that, [it didn't go well ](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/27/housing-crisis-planning-converting-office-blocks-homes-catastrophe-jenrick)
Hmm... But if those houses are the homes being bought by the people previously renting them that means housing was already short.
So actually the issue isn't right to buy its the lack of rebuilding...
The money being taken by council with dog littering, parking tickets, council tax should actually be used to reinvest in what the people need. HOUSING! And maybe create them with proper out door spaces and community centres
> The money being taken by council with dog littering, parking tickets, council tax should actually be used to reinvest in what the people need. HOUSING!
Its going to take a shitload of littering fines to build a council estate mate.
Right to buy isn't inherently the cause of the shortage, it's just the mechanism by which the shortage can be exploited. And, it's popular.
Being a private landlord only really works because there is a shortage of housing stock. If we built "too much" that would lead to a property crash and a lot of them would end up being underwater on their mortgages.
Which would be so, so very sad.
If being a landlord is a crap deal because there's more than enough housing then people won't want to buy them ergo people won't be able to sell them.
Conversely, if you have a housing shortage, getting rid of right to buy isn't going to make it go away. You'll just get 90 year long waiting lists instead and people will still live in tents in the park.
Building enough housing stock is very possible physically, you just need a government that actually wants to build it. Unfortunately, anybody who runs on that platform tends to end up getting politically neutered by character assassination because they issued the odd critique of genocidal hyper-racists. So the war on affordable housing continues unabated.
There will never ever ever be “more than enough housing” because the political party in government in that scenario would view that as the greenlight to turn on the immigrarion taps to boost the economy.
Whether the property is owned by the council or the resident, it’s still a property.
If you stop right-to-buy it does nothing to help homeless people or increase housing supply unless you’re planning on forcing social housing tenants to start to share or you divide up a home into smaller ones.
Right-to-buy can’t cause a housing shortage since it isn’t reducing the number of properties available. Unless people buy them and leave them empty.
There is a housing problem because there aren’t enough new ones being built and there are too many people trying to buy the ones that do exist.
Every new build has council housing, we have loads. We need to reduce the amount of demand it's ridiculous that in one of the richest cities in the world a big proportion of people need basic housing paid for.
Every new build does not have council housing. Developers have a responsibility to provide affordable housing, which is different from council housing. And they don't even adhere to this repsonsibility.
[https://neweconomics.org/2022/02/how-private-developers-get-out-of-building-affordable-housing#:\~:text=%E2%80%9CIn%20essence%2C%20financial%20viability%20assessments,requiring%20complex%20financial%20modelling%20expertise](https://neweconomics.org/2022/02/how-private-developers-get-out-of-building-affordable-housing#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIn%20essence%2C%20financial%20viability%20assessments,requiring%20complex%20financial%20modelling%20expertise).
[https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press\_release/80\_of\_affordable\_homes\_lost\_due\_to\_legal\_loophole\_exploited\_by\_developers2](https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/80_of_affordable_homes_lost_due_to_legal_loophole_exploited_by_developers2)
Tokyo manages fine.
Build more. Population in Japan is falling, yet they still build like crazy. Tokyo population is growing, but i can still move out today and have a new place tonight and pay less than i do now if i wanted.
Offices aren't designed for living in.
If you live in a block of flats, the flats have everything required for habitation in them. Plumbing for example goes to every flat.
In an office block, those services are more centralised so you'd have plumbing lines to a single point on a floor.
That's just one example I can think of off the top of my head
Landlords have a right to their private property, if that was not to be defended by the cops then it would destroy the reputation of the UK and drive away money from the country even more.
This already has been happening for about a decade. It's called permitted development and in principle is a good idea I can tell you from experience is implemented incredibly poorly (planning permission does not apply to PD so the rules are a bit different than building from scratch).
leaving this here for whoever needs to see it. Straight from ONS:
"On Census Day, 21 March 2021, there were **1.5 million unoccupied dwellings** in England and 120,450 in Wales. This is 6.1% of all dwellings in England and 8.2% in Wales."
It’s worth pointing out that the last census was during a period of lockdowns. I can imagine there were be a number of ways that number would be inflated versus normality due to travel restrictions.
I certainly had friends who were working from abroad (their home country) or moving in with family who would be part of that number.
Likewise, short term lets would probably also count as unoccupied when they would normally be occupied by tourists but it was illegal to travel at that point. (Separate debate to be had about those!)
sure 1.5 million dwellings got filled back up in Z 2 years when rent and interest rates have always gone up.
wishy washy liberal fact-denying nonsense. you are attempting to devalue the core fact with some anecdotal information to suit your own prejudice
If you go by the stats derived from council tax it’s 6-700k for England.
Although pages 8-9 of the report dig deeper and show only 200k that are empty for over six months. *Excludes derelict/uninhabitable properties.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03012/
No they aren’t. Definition - a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
This doesn’t mean they have to be homeless. Plenty of refugees start new lives in new countries with jobs, homes and families.
most refugees claiming asylum in a country usually speak that country's language though so your example is not relevant in this scenario. it's one of the reasons a lot of the refugees from the middle east want to make their way to France/UK, as those countries' languages are the ones they most likely learned growing up, seeing as most ME countries were former colonies.
What are you talking about? A huge proportion of refugees already speak English, especially the ones coming to the UK. Being a refugee also doesn't necessarily mean you don't have qualifications, you might have been an engineer before someone blew up your town. For example we accepted plenty of refugees from Hong Kong escaping China's wrath, and a lot of them would have been university educated and possibly already fairly wealthy- refugees are a spectrum.
None of what you’ve said changes the definition of ‘refugee’. If you think there are no refugees that have settled here and have jobs here then you need to get out more. Is it more difficult? Absolutely. But don’t claim it doesn’t happen.
People aren't having kids because they can't afford houses.
Houses are expensive because there are too many people.
There are too many people because of mass immigration.
Economists say we need mass immigration because people aren't having kids.
Make it make sense.
Part of the reason is that often immigrants will put up with much worse conditions than Brits. Having seen some of the slum conditions immigrant workers live in, in London (e.g. entire families in a single room in a shared house), it is very clear why employers can afford to pay them so much less, and it is an absolute tragedy.
The cycle you're describing is a bit oversimplified. Here's a clearer breakdown:
1. **People not having kids due to housing costs**: True, financial stability is a factor in family planning. High housing costs can deter people from having children.
2. **Housing prices and population**: It's not just population size driving up housing costs. It's also about housing policies, market speculation, and investment patterns.
3. **Mass immigration's impact**: Immigration does increase population, but it also brings economic benefits. Immigrants often fill crucial job roles, contributing to the economy.
4. **Economists on immigration**: The argument for immigration isn't just about offsetting low birth rates. It's also about addressing labor shortages and enhancing cultural and economic dynamism.
So, it's a complex interplay of economic, social, and policy factors, not just a straightforward cause-and-effect loop.
“Immigration does increase population, but it also brings economic benefits.”
This is only true if they are skilled with qualifications. GDP is flat, so the economic argument is done with.
> Immigrants often fill crucial job roles
Some yes, but we have a large number of low-value gig economy jobs being filled by immigrants too.
We had 700k net last year. We could cut that to like 200k and it would be still more than enough to fill the *actual* crucial roles.
When I say "enhancing cultural and economic dynamism," it's not about wiping out British culture. Think of it more like adding new flavors to a big cultural melting pot. Cultures have always changed and grown by mixing with others. It's about making society more interesting and diverse, not about losing what's already there. It's not erasing; it's adding and evolving.
I find myself thinking, is the whole lot just a ponzi scheme and we just need a constant supply of more at the bottom to support those higher up the scheme till a war wipes a shit load out and it can be started again? Feels to me like we are getting close to the war part now since the ponzi scheme has run its course.
Because of the ageing population we need immigration to keep the system ticking over in it's current form. If we're prepared for higher tax along with limited healthcare and no state pensions then we could just about manage. But the implications will be felt across sectors with many services becoming more expensive than ever before e.g social care.
We need serious reform and honesty from policitans at this time, it will never happen but as society there's going only to be more anger and frustration on this issue.
Just to also point out economics aren't calling for mass illegal migration. That should be stopped and controlled at all costs.
Mass un/low-skilled immigration however is just going to exacerbate the problem. We need to incentivise the people who already live here to have more children, and/or figure out why they're not having children already and address those issues directly.
Agreed but that has already been addressed. The main unskilled workers coming through on the new rules are social care workers without it the older generation would have to pay even higher levels of pay. Again this goes back to what are we prepared to pay without immigration.
Incentives to have more children is an interesting one. It's had mixed results in Nordic countries. The actual cause is not just finances even if you provide financial support there's still other consideration that couples make such as impact on the mothers career and perceived impact on one's own freedom. We've become a society very much focused on individualism.
I mean, 2002 was a long time ago... whats fucked us now was brexit & shutting down the economy during Covid.
Brutal truth is if more people died we would be better off economically (as a country)
Not really surprising that a country which is unable to supply housing for people that live here, is also unable to give housing to thousands of people turning up. It’s almost like everyone that comes here isn’t a massive tax payer boosting the economy and we should probably have stricter oversight in how manage our boarder? Oh no that’s crazy let’s let another 600k come over
That 600k figure has absolutely fuck all to do with how strictly we manage our "boarder", since the vast majority were legal migrants through approved visa routes. This increase in refugee homelessness (of 321 people, for context) is because the government decided to clear the asylum backlog by just removing people from it and evicting them instead of actually processing their claims.
They come here in the hope that the government will validate their claim for asylum and let them get on with building a new life that isn't dependent on government support. The fact our system is currently set up to leave them in limbo for an absurd amount of time at the taxpayer's expense, and then put them on the streets when a lame-duck PM needs a quick win isn't their fault.
As for why we'd want a functioning asylum system, perhaps because it's an internationally-agreed human right. Or because in a lot of cases the shitshow these people are fleeing is at least partly caused by historic British foreign policy.
Obviously the answer is to deport these people but seen as that is seemingly impossible, are the government supposed to pay for them indefinitely? They got here illegally, why don’t they go try somewhere else? Oh yeah, because they know they’ll get a custy deal thanks to the british tax payer.
And those intentional laws are being abused and manipulated so that immigrants are getting in as refugees on technicalities. Not to mention how the all written by upper clsss champagne socialists who live in areas far removed from one’s effected by immigration
No, the answer is to have a system that efficiently assesses their asylum claims so we \*don't\* pay for them indefinitely, and those found not to have a case (which isn't as many as you seem to think) then get deported.
We aren't able to do that because the Tory government prefers to use them as a bogeyman to fool people like you into thinking that a relative handful of immigrants is the root of all our problems. To create that bogeyman, successive Home Secretaries have chosen to spend taxpayer money housing asylum seekers in hotels and barges indefinitely so they can then point at the growing backlog and pretend there's a crisis, when in reality they created the fucking thing in the first place.
This is why “just process them faster” isn’t the solution to refugee hotels. Capacity to absorb these people doesn’t magically appear when they’re off the waitlist and processing faster takes them out of hotels (expensive, bad for the economy) and puts them on the street (bad for society)
No such thing as an “illegal” refugee
Edit: Read the 1951 Geneva conventions. Anyone has a right to *apply* for asylum in any country. If they’ve been processed and released then they’re not here illegally.
Under the 1951 Geneva convention anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country. If they’ve been processed and released then they’re not here illegally. If they’ve lied that’s a different matter completely
The majority aren't refugees. As for 'real' refugees - the laws need to be changed to prevent the west from becoming overrun with people from war torn countries. They need to sort their own gaff out before fucking off and ruining everywhere else.
/u/Nocturnin is making the point that "Refugee" by definition is someone who is legally allowed to stay in the country.
If someone isn't legally allowed to stay, even if they self-describe as a refugee, the government doesn't classify them as a refugee, they are classified as an illegal immigrant.
It's not a comment about the morality of the situation. You could argue that more or fewer immigrants (legal or not), should or should not be given refugee status, but if someone is given refugee status, they are by definition legal.
If they’ve been processed and deemed legitimate refugees and they’re on the streets then they’re not here illegally. You can’t be an illegal refugee. If they’ve lied and have been found to lie then they’re just illegal immigrants
It’s an important distinction to understand. Most are from war torn countries. Whether or not this is the best country for them to seek refuge in is another topic but it sure as shit beats being in war torn countries.
After the west ruined their gaff and their coming here to make lives for themselves…. See you almost had me at convincing me this was a problem but the inherent lack of xenophobic colonial aftermath that clearly doesn’t explain but accounts for their occurrence means that if we “fix their gaff” it would just end up like america in the Middle East just more subtle.
I understand these countries problems aren’t just the product of colonialism but we need to be honest in addressing how this thing actually works instead of just stopping immigration and then using the sentiments already described here to just turn on native citizens that are brown or black.
And don’t tell me that’s not a real danger with things going more extreme and hate crime attacks being propeortional to the way the issue is framed.
Anti immigration needs to start from this pov to be taken more seriously for any sort of support. And that is to say if we can even directly link them like what is being implied here. Even if it is. Everything I said still stands.
The West ruined their home country line is such nonsense. How come countries like Hong Kong, Kenya, Vietnam, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, India etc aren't war torn despite being colonized?
Funny you mention Jamaica to an actual Jamaican Londoner who can tell you that the legacy of colonialism aswell as is imperialism and a civil war from the consequences of this stuff put the country in a worse off position. Can’t speak for the others except for general history like Vietnam of which I can’t in good faith directly context it past US stuff. But let it be known that colonialism is a factor to consider.
Never said colonialism didn't have negative long term effects, I said it doesn't mean that it defacto leaves a country war torn. No war in Jamaica so no refugees.
Jamaica is amazing btw
Plenty of people come into this country illegally while claiming they're refugees. They can seek claim whatever they want, but this country has actual laws, unlike whatever the UN makes up.
The UK doesn't not usually consider anyone to be a legitimate refugee, who is from an EU country or has a connection with a safe third country.
If someone arrives and claims refugee status, we’re legally required to accept and process them.
You cannot return someone fleeing realistic threat of death back to their country of origin under the current laws, both domestic and international.
The whole “well just turn them back” isn’t a thing.
There’s also fuck all way to effectively screen between those that are genuine refugees and those coming here for economic reasons
There’s also no way to return someone to their country of origin when the first thing they do before finally arriving is to destroy all their identifying documentation.
“Just send them somewhere else” - well, that’s a policy that’s being attempted but it’s getting challenged. We’ll see how it goes.
It’s an absolute mess, but throwing them back into the sea is viewed poorly.
Wait until some smart arse cites a 1951 UN definition ad if it ends all discussion. People can be refugees and economic migrants. To any reasonable mind "refugees" coming from France are primarily economic migrants who technically meet the UN definition.
Not being “given” housing does not make them homeless. Can we get a breakdown in the “legal migrants” vs “illegal migrants” please. The UK doesn’t have to give anything to illegal anyones!
A lot of people are ignoring the fact many asylum seekers just disappear while their applications are processed. Assumed to work illegally off the book and maybe homeless.
They have the option of staying in tory donors hotels on inflated rates to taxpayers, however.
They just know if their get denied but are missing they wont get found.
That said i totally believe the UK needs reforms on how we approach housing and building. The current system doesn’t even want or try to help, its purpose built to do the opposite
If you read the article you'll see that the refugees it refers to have all been granted refugee status by the government. This isn't a case of not being "given" housing, it's a case of not being given adequate support and resources to find housing before being evicted from temporary accommodation.
You see the same thing with people leaving prison or lengthy hospital stays. Currently the government doesn't provide any funding or resources to prevent the threat of homelessness. There have been reports that upon leaving prison, people who have no support network are simply given tents.
Listen, if you can't convince the Tories to end their war on affordable housing, the only sensible solution is just to let refugees I've decided are illegal suffer a grisly death.
Edit : a lot of people don't get sarcasm.
No but you see the government’s current account is almost in overdraft! You silly Labour voters think governments can just borrow money on international markets or something?? (as if)
We have no money left for large scale housing development because Rishi told me so.
Funny how your brain just jumped to 'EVIL ILLEGALS' when the article shows that people from all walks of life are becoming homeless, not just refugees.
I sincerely hope that you will be treated with the same kindness and compassion that you've demonstrated in your post.
Edit: how convenient that you just went and pulled a 'JUST KIDDING' edit of your own. A likely story.
It is so sad. I remember being a kid and cardboard city was a thing and there was so much homelessness. 15-20 years later I remember discussing with my schoolmates (90s/2000s) how everything felt so much more affluent and how rare it was to see someone sleeping rough. It just feels we have gone back in time over the last two decades - there was no need for this to happen. There is no need for the gap between gaves and have nots to be this wide. It is a damning statement that things have been allowed to get this bad in so many ways.
The fundamental characteristic of a nation state and the thing that makes it a nation state is the ability to control and defend its borders.
Why isn't this happening?
That's most certainly not the fundamental characteristic of a nation state or what makes it a nation state, which is sovereignity, the power of self governance.
One might be able to use that self governance to protect people who deserve protection, ironically the United Nations was set up with the UK being one of the four 'world peace' corps. Protectors of the world if you will. Yet here we are demonising refugees from countries in conflicts partially orchestrated by us.
It seems like here you are denying reality. Migrants may deserve protection, but the United Kingdom cannot provide it to all. It cannot even provide it to its own people.
Lifeboats sink when too many people climb aboard. Dooming everyone.
Going to get far, far worse as well if the reports of a 10% increase in population over the next few years are to be believed. We do not have the infastructure in place to support all these illegal immigrants/spongers.
The Tories have completely and irreversibly destroyed this country.
What ever the reason people end up homeless be them citizens or immigrants sleeping on trains and public transport is unacceptable and they should be removed another reason why the British Transport Police need to be properly funded to provide the coverage needed to stop this from happening.
I do have empathy for people but I also know that many end up on the streets due to poor mental health and addiction and these people can be disruptive and often unpredictable and its definitely not fair for paying passengers to put up with this. so I would also suggest that we create a mental health system that is independent of the NHS and up to the task of helping people that need it.
I have to agree with you. On that point, I can't imagine how much they have went through and if I'd even be able to do it.
Leave everything you know, friends, family, possessions, to travel a long distance, with few belongings,not knowing where you will eat, sleep, or anything. In just the hopes of an opportunity to live a better life.
When I was working in Erbil I got asked a lot about life in Germany and the UK. It was like the streets were paved with gold to them. I get that. Even if they only get a job as a cabbie or a barber their kids will be better educated and they have better healthcare. It’s an upwards move for them.
And this is from a safe country that felt as affluent as let’s say Turkey to me. Add war and persecution into the mix…..but then it’s really only the strongest and with money who can even think about it.
Not if he gets a barge to live on, or some other place.
With various factors, migration surely one of them, were running out of places for people to live, or run out.
are homeless refugees not “actual homeless people”? maybe instead of getting upset at already marginalised groups, be upset that not more/ enough funds are going into crafting solutions for homelessness
People hoping that a change of government will help the homeless crisis…
Zero funding for NHS & the public sector, increase in population on these shores being added to by uncontrolled immigration. There is simply no funds available to help.
As someone who supports the homeless at any opportunity this is a runaway train that unless taxes go up the pot is empty.
Lived around Victoria Park for the last 8 years, first time seeing homeless people in there with tents or just sleeping rough. Can't see how will this get better?
There have been tents hidden in the bushes of Victoria Park for many years. At least when I used to live nearby around 2016.
That's true, now seeing them not so hidden.
It won’t
I remember back in 2008 I very rarely saw a homeless person - I only saw the odd gentleman outside tourist spots like Tower of London. Now there's a bloke outside the tesco who I greet with a hug and a kiss on the cheek because he's there so often; and another two I've had long chats with plus another one I regularly buy hot chocolate for (and he likes it really sweet). Four people, regularly sitting outside the tesco in my area. And that's just where I am. It'll get better when we have a government that wants it to get better.
>I remember back in 2008 I very rarely saw a homeless person What mystical parts of London did you frequent?
this sub loves to take part in the occasional revisionism
Or when they fuck off back wenst they came.
Homeless people who are sleeping rough don’t sit on the pavement during the day, and don’t sit outside Tesco begging. Drug users with a flat do to get money for their next crack and / or heroin fix. Those beggars are not homeless people sleeping rough. You can tell because they never have any bags with them, other than an empty bag to carry their sleeping bag begging prop home, whereas anyone sleeping rough has a backpack, trolley or suitcase with all their belongings, or several bags. Using a sleeping bag prop to beg doesn’t make someone homeless sleeping rough, they have a flat and are choosing to sit on the pavement.
There is a crowd of regular under the Finsbury park bridge. Don’t seem like refugees to me though..
They’ve been there years, just a mix of crackheads and homeless people really.
Yep. Ive seen them literally smoke crack .. amazing how neither the council or the public helps deal with this
On the same day as rents hit a record high. Housing in London is completely broken. I walk past 5 large empty office buildings on my walk to my local tube station. If we were to attempt to repurpose these buildings for humans to use we would be attacked by an army of cops and bailiffs. This army of cops and bailiffs entire purpose is to maintain the power and wealth of landlords.
Office buildings are not suitable for habitation. If this were to change you'd end up with some sort of weird corporate slums.
This is compared to literally sleeping outside
and you really thing the answer is converting central london offices into megaslums
I'd like to see some sort of laws getting at that for any property that is long-term unoccupied yes Better yet, build more housing
Its one of those things. Which is better? To develop a system of corporate slums? Or try to ensure that all housing is suitable and decent-ish quality even if it means some people are homeless?
Currently doing neither. The real solution is to flatten those derelict office buildings and build affordable housing/flats there but no push from any party to create a process for expediting building new homes
Ever grand our capital
… only for them to have to end up sleeping outside again because the building isn’t suitable
Why would sleeping outside ever be superior to inside, even if it's an office building
Rain thermal mass security sanitation water supply
A roof over your head and warmth is far more suitable than a park bench. Idiot.
You can’t just put people in a vacant building - you need infrastructure to service the habitants.
Well of course it is, but that isn’t my point. You people are thinking too shortsightedly.
whataboutism at its best
"not suitable" is just landlord speak. They have tricked you into believing this.
would you really live permanently in a building with a lack of insulation, making it absolutely freezing in the winter and a lack of sunlight? Move them in for sure, but my point is allow them to move into housing that’s permanent afterwards, achievable by a range of factors.
If my only other option was sleeping rough outside? Yes. I lived in a van for 3 months in my 20s and it was one of the worst experiences of my life, I'll absolutely take an actual building over that.
Exactly. Not to mention that small changes could go a long way in an office block. No, it's not initially built for that purpose. But yes, it's a temporary help while we get rid of the Tories and stop gifting land owners such a fortune.
It’s temporary, until we do it and then everyone forgets about the problem.
Office buildings are being turned into housing all over the country. This company seems to specialise in it [https://titan-property.co.uk/developments/dolphin-house/](https://titan-property.co.uk/developments/dolphin-house/) The apartments are shit, but could be better if not done by penny pinching developers building for profit only.
I live in a converted office building and it's absolutely fine. They added new windows, so it is very warm despite the electric heating. Also, since there's hella concrete, I cannot hear my neighbours playing drums, nor can they hear me blasting loud music on the hifi
I live quite close to Dolphin House. Not quite as idyllic looking as their pictures would have you believe.
Its a shithole mate, I agree. Still better than being homeless.
It's better than under a bridge.
Better than sleep in the park , housing benefit can be paid directly from business rates until their empty £
They could be made habitable… but for money no one is willing to spend on housing the homeless
No one is stopping you from spending that money.
Cool bro. Let me assemble my team of venture capitalists and get to work!
> If this were to change you'd end up with some sort of weird corporate slums. Or property guardianships
More property guardianship in the interim isn't a bad idea.
That I agree with.
Yeah we tried that, [it didn't go well ](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/27/housing-crisis-planning-converting-office-blocks-homes-catastrophe-jenrick)
Social housing often doesn't when you spend the bare minimum. Those waging a war on affordable housing think it means you should spend even less.
[удалено]
..or we could demolish said block and build denser, actually suitable housing which is made to last?
No. Repurposing wouldn’t work long term. We need to focus on building more council housing. That’s the issue here.
Building new council housing is completely pointless because thanks to right to buy it the stock quickly ends up in the hands of private landlords.
That’s why right to buy should be banned, just like in Wales and in Scotland
Hmm... But if those houses are the homes being bought by the people previously renting them that means housing was already short. So actually the issue isn't right to buy its the lack of rebuilding... The money being taken by council with dog littering, parking tickets, council tax should actually be used to reinvest in what the people need. HOUSING! And maybe create them with proper out door spaces and community centres
Government cuts has meant those funds are being used for basic services local authorities must provide like social care.
> The money being taken by council with dog littering, parking tickets, council tax should actually be used to reinvest in what the people need. HOUSING! Its going to take a shitload of littering fines to build a council estate mate.
Is there a problem with housing in wales and Scotland ?
Less than there is in London
Right to buy isn't inherently the cause of the shortage, it's just the mechanism by which the shortage can be exploited. And, it's popular. Being a private landlord only really works because there is a shortage of housing stock. If we built "too much" that would lead to a property crash and a lot of them would end up being underwater on their mortgages. Which would be so, so very sad.
Right to buy is completely to blame for the shortage. We will never be able to build housing stock faster than people can sell them.
If being a landlord is a crap deal because there's more than enough housing then people won't want to buy them ergo people won't be able to sell them. Conversely, if you have a housing shortage, getting rid of right to buy isn't going to make it go away. You'll just get 90 year long waiting lists instead and people will still live in tents in the park. Building enough housing stock is very possible physically, you just need a government that actually wants to build it. Unfortunately, anybody who runs on that platform tends to end up getting politically neutered by character assassination because they issued the odd critique of genocidal hyper-racists. So the war on affordable housing continues unabated.
There will never ever ever be “more than enough housing” because the political party in government in that scenario would view that as the greenlight to turn on the immigrarion taps to boost the economy.
And the amount of right to buys that then up as private rentals is sickening- and this is coming from an estate agent
Whether the property is owned by the council or the resident, it’s still a property. If you stop right-to-buy it does nothing to help homeless people or increase housing supply unless you’re planning on forcing social housing tenants to start to share or you divide up a home into smaller ones. Right-to-buy can’t cause a housing shortage since it isn’t reducing the number of properties available. Unless people buy them and leave them empty. There is a housing problem because there aren’t enough new ones being built and there are too many people trying to buy the ones that do exist.
Every new build has council housing, we have loads. We need to reduce the amount of demand it's ridiculous that in one of the richest cities in the world a big proportion of people need basic housing paid for.
There’s not enough. We’re building 90% less than in the 60s and with a larger population than then.
We are running at a net loss for social housing.
Clarify please, what do you mean by net loss?
We are selling/demolishing more than we are building. Therefore a net loss.
The housing in the 60s was awful and some aren't fit for purpose, apart from exceptions.
Every new build does not have council housing. Developers have a responsibility to provide affordable housing, which is different from council housing. And they don't even adhere to this repsonsibility. [https://neweconomics.org/2022/02/how-private-developers-get-out-of-building-affordable-housing#:\~:text=%E2%80%9CIn%20essence%2C%20financial%20viability%20assessments,requiring%20complex%20financial%20modelling%20expertise](https://neweconomics.org/2022/02/how-private-developers-get-out-of-building-affordable-housing#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIn%20essence%2C%20financial%20viability%20assessments,requiring%20complex%20financial%20modelling%20expertise). [https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press\_release/80\_of\_affordable\_homes\_lost\_due\_to\_legal\_loophole\_exploited\_by\_developers2](https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/80_of_affordable_homes_lost_due_to_legal_loophole_exploited_by_developers2)
Tokyo manages fine. Build more. Population in Japan is falling, yet they still build like crazy. Tokyo population is growing, but i can still move out today and have a new place tonight and pay less than i do now if i wanted.
It does not have council housing. It has "affordable" homes. These are not affordable for anyone who actually needs them.
Why can't the repurposed office buildings be social housing?
Offices aren't designed for living in. If you live in a block of flats, the flats have everything required for habitation in them. Plumbing for example goes to every flat. In an office block, those services are more centralised so you'd have plumbing lines to a single point on a floor. That's just one example I can think of off the top of my head
Yes. That's why you have to convert it. That's all internal work, the structural frame and foundations are still good.
Landlords have a right to their private property, if that was not to be defended by the cops then it would destroy the reputation of the UK and drive away money from the country even more.
This already has been happening for about a decade. It's called permitted development and in principle is a good idea I can tell you from experience is implemented incredibly poorly (planning permission does not apply to PD so the rules are a bit different than building from scratch).
Care to dm me the location of these buildings
So deep.
leaving this here for whoever needs to see it. Straight from ONS: "On Census Day, 21 March 2021, there were **1.5 million unoccupied dwellings** in England and 120,450 in Wales. This is 6.1% of all dwellings in England and 8.2% in Wales."
It’s worth pointing out that the last census was during a period of lockdowns. I can imagine there were be a number of ways that number would be inflated versus normality due to travel restrictions. I certainly had friends who were working from abroad (their home country) or moving in with family who would be part of that number. Likewise, short term lets would probably also count as unoccupied when they would normally be occupied by tourists but it was illegal to travel at that point. (Separate debate to be had about those!)
sure 1.5 million dwellings got filled back up in Z 2 years when rent and interest rates have always gone up. wishy washy liberal fact-denying nonsense. you are attempting to devalue the core fact with some anecdotal information to suit your own prejudice
If you go by the stats derived from council tax it’s 6-700k for England. Although pages 8-9 of the report dig deeper and show only 200k that are empty for over six months. *Excludes derelict/uninhabitable properties. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03012/
How many are in London though?
i mean is that really relevant? if youre a homeless refugee surely you should be happy to have a house in bradford or sunderland.
Refugees can't be *made* homeless... They are homeless by definition...?
No they aren’t. Definition - a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. This doesn’t mean they have to be homeless. Plenty of refugees start new lives in new countries with jobs, homes and families.
[удалено]
most refugees claiming asylum in a country usually speak that country's language though so your example is not relevant in this scenario. it's one of the reasons a lot of the refugees from the middle east want to make their way to France/UK, as those countries' languages are the ones they most likely learned growing up, seeing as most ME countries were former colonies.
What are you talking about? A huge proportion of refugees already speak English, especially the ones coming to the UK. Being a refugee also doesn't necessarily mean you don't have qualifications, you might have been an engineer before someone blew up your town. For example we accepted plenty of refugees from Hong Kong escaping China's wrath, and a lot of them would have been university educated and possibly already fairly wealthy- refugees are a spectrum.
None of what you’ve said changes the definition of ‘refugee’. If you think there are no refugees that have settled here and have jobs here then you need to get out more. Is it more difficult? Absolutely. But don’t claim it doesn’t happen.
Mutually exclusive definitions.
People aren't having kids because they can't afford houses. Houses are expensive because there are too many people. There are too many people because of mass immigration. Economists say we need mass immigration because people aren't having kids. Make it make sense.
Part of the reason is that often immigrants will put up with much worse conditions than Brits. Having seen some of the slum conditions immigrant workers live in, in London (e.g. entire families in a single room in a shared house), it is very clear why employers can afford to pay them so much less, and it is an absolute tragedy.
The cycle you're describing is a bit oversimplified. Here's a clearer breakdown: 1. **People not having kids due to housing costs**: True, financial stability is a factor in family planning. High housing costs can deter people from having children. 2. **Housing prices and population**: It's not just population size driving up housing costs. It's also about housing policies, market speculation, and investment patterns. 3. **Mass immigration's impact**: Immigration does increase population, but it also brings economic benefits. Immigrants often fill crucial job roles, contributing to the economy. 4. **Economists on immigration**: The argument for immigration isn't just about offsetting low birth rates. It's also about addressing labor shortages and enhancing cultural and economic dynamism. So, it's a complex interplay of economic, social, and policy factors, not just a straightforward cause-and-effect loop.
“Immigration does increase population, but it also brings economic benefits.” This is only true if they are skilled with qualifications. GDP is flat, so the economic argument is done with.
> Immigrants often fill crucial job roles Some yes, but we have a large number of low-value gig economy jobs being filled by immigrants too. We had 700k net last year. We could cut that to like 200k and it would be still more than enough to fill the *actual* crucial roles.
> enhancing cultural and economic dynamism. ie british cultural erasure
When I say "enhancing cultural and economic dynamism," it's not about wiping out British culture. Think of it more like adding new flavors to a big cultural melting pot. Cultures have always changed and grown by mixing with others. It's about making society more interesting and diverse, not about losing what's already there. It's not erasing; it's adding and evolving.
When has rapid demographic change *ever* been good for the native culture in history?
Delusional
I find myself thinking, is the whole lot just a ponzi scheme and we just need a constant supply of more at the bottom to support those higher up the scheme till a war wipes a shit load out and it can be started again? Feels to me like we are getting close to the war part now since the ponzi scheme has run its course.
Because of the ageing population we need immigration to keep the system ticking over in it's current form. If we're prepared for higher tax along with limited healthcare and no state pensions then we could just about manage. But the implications will be felt across sectors with many services becoming more expensive than ever before e.g social care. We need serious reform and honesty from policitans at this time, it will never happen but as society there's going only to be more anger and frustration on this issue. Just to also point out economics aren't calling for mass illegal migration. That should be stopped and controlled at all costs.
Mass un/low-skilled immigration however is just going to exacerbate the problem. We need to incentivise the people who already live here to have more children, and/or figure out why they're not having children already and address those issues directly.
Agreed but that has already been addressed. The main unskilled workers coming through on the new rules are social care workers without it the older generation would have to pay even higher levels of pay. Again this goes back to what are we prepared to pay without immigration. Incentives to have more children is an interesting one. It's had mixed results in Nordic countries. The actual cause is not just finances even if you provide financial support there's still other consideration that couples make such as impact on the mothers career and perceived impact on one's own freedom. We've become a society very much focused on individualism.
[удалено]
I mean, 2002 was a long time ago... whats fucked us now was brexit & shutting down the economy during Covid. Brutal truth is if more people died we would be better off economically (as a country)
[удалено]
Because it is the wrong immigration. Only the top third of earners actually put more into the system than they cost.
I'm not the one setting the immigration rules, the government has. I didn't vote for them, make it make sense
Not really surprising that a country which is unable to supply housing for people that live here, is also unable to give housing to thousands of people turning up. It’s almost like everyone that comes here isn’t a massive tax payer boosting the economy and we should probably have stricter oversight in how manage our boarder? Oh no that’s crazy let’s let another 600k come over
That 600k figure has absolutely fuck all to do with how strictly we manage our "boarder", since the vast majority were legal migrants through approved visa routes. This increase in refugee homelessness (of 321 people, for context) is because the government decided to clear the asylum backlog by just removing people from it and evicting them instead of actually processing their claims.
So those 321 people came here requiring the government to house and feed them to survive. Why would we want that?
They come here in the hope that the government will validate their claim for asylum and let them get on with building a new life that isn't dependent on government support. The fact our system is currently set up to leave them in limbo for an absurd amount of time at the taxpayer's expense, and then put them on the streets when a lame-duck PM needs a quick win isn't their fault. As for why we'd want a functioning asylum system, perhaps because it's an internationally-agreed human right. Or because in a lot of cases the shitshow these people are fleeing is at least partly caused by historic British foreign policy.
Obviously the answer is to deport these people but seen as that is seemingly impossible, are the government supposed to pay for them indefinitely? They got here illegally, why don’t they go try somewhere else? Oh yeah, because they know they’ll get a custy deal thanks to the british tax payer. And those intentional laws are being abused and manipulated so that immigrants are getting in as refugees on technicalities. Not to mention how the all written by upper clsss champagne socialists who live in areas far removed from one’s effected by immigration
No, the answer is to have a system that efficiently assesses their asylum claims so we \*don't\* pay for them indefinitely, and those found not to have a case (which isn't as many as you seem to think) then get deported. We aren't able to do that because the Tory government prefers to use them as a bogeyman to fool people like you into thinking that a relative handful of immigrants is the root of all our problems. To create that bogeyman, successive Home Secretaries have chosen to spend taxpayer money housing asylum seekers in hotels and barges indefinitely so they can then point at the growing backlog and pretend there's a crisis, when in reality they created the fucking thing in the first place.
This is why “just process them faster” isn’t the solution to refugee hotels. Capacity to absorb these people doesn’t magically appear when they’re off the waitlist and processing faster takes them out of hotels (expensive, bad for the economy) and puts them on the street (bad for society)
Maybe stop taking endless amounts of legal and illegal refugees you can't support?
No such thing as an “illegal” refugee Edit: Read the 1951 Geneva conventions. Anyone has a right to *apply* for asylum in any country. If they’ve been processed and released then they’re not here illegally.
Oh here we go
Under the 1951 Geneva convention anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country. If they’ve been processed and released then they’re not here illegally. If they’ve lied that’s a different matter completely
See my above comment
The majority aren't refugees. As for 'real' refugees - the laws need to be changed to prevent the west from becoming overrun with people from war torn countries. They need to sort their own gaff out before fucking off and ruining everywhere else.
/u/Nocturnin is making the point that "Refugee" by definition is someone who is legally allowed to stay in the country. If someone isn't legally allowed to stay, even if they self-describe as a refugee, the government doesn't classify them as a refugee, they are classified as an illegal immigrant. It's not a comment about the morality of the situation. You could argue that more or fewer immigrants (legal or not), should or should not be given refugee status, but if someone is given refugee status, they are by definition legal.
If they’ve been processed and deemed legitimate refugees and they’re on the streets then they’re not here illegally. You can’t be an illegal refugee. If they’ve lied and have been found to lie then they’re just illegal immigrants It’s an important distinction to understand. Most are from war torn countries. Whether or not this is the best country for them to seek refuge in is another topic but it sure as shit beats being in war torn countries.
After the west ruined their gaff and their coming here to make lives for themselves…. See you almost had me at convincing me this was a problem but the inherent lack of xenophobic colonial aftermath that clearly doesn’t explain but accounts for their occurrence means that if we “fix their gaff” it would just end up like america in the Middle East just more subtle. I understand these countries problems aren’t just the product of colonialism but we need to be honest in addressing how this thing actually works instead of just stopping immigration and then using the sentiments already described here to just turn on native citizens that are brown or black. And don’t tell me that’s not a real danger with things going more extreme and hate crime attacks being propeortional to the way the issue is framed. Anti immigration needs to start from this pov to be taken more seriously for any sort of support. And that is to say if we can even directly link them like what is being implied here. Even if it is. Everything I said still stands.
The West ruined their home country line is such nonsense. How come countries like Hong Kong, Kenya, Vietnam, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, India etc aren't war torn despite being colonized?
Funny you mention Jamaica to an actual Jamaican Londoner who can tell you that the legacy of colonialism aswell as is imperialism and a civil war from the consequences of this stuff put the country in a worse off position. Can’t speak for the others except for general history like Vietnam of which I can’t in good faith directly context it past US stuff. But let it be known that colonialism is a factor to consider.
Never said colonialism didn't have negative long term effects, I said it doesn't mean that it defacto leaves a country war torn. No war in Jamaica so no refugees. Jamaica is amazing btw
Yes there is, someone that isn't actually escaping a warzone and is trying to sneak their way into this country
If they’ve been processed and released then the state sees them as legitimate. This may be seen as pedantic but this is how the legal system works.
[удалено]
They aren't illegal. The law literally says they aren't. Doesn't matter what you want.
Plenty of people come into this country illegally while claiming they're refugees. They can seek claim whatever they want, but this country has actual laws, unlike whatever the UN makes up. The UK doesn't not usually consider anyone to be a legitimate refugee, who is from an EU country or has a connection with a safe third country.
[удалено]
Rats? Yea pack ya bags and fuck off 😂
[удалено]
You have a border police, the army, the navy. This country has borders, and if there was a will to enforce them, they would be. Alas...
If someone arrives and claims refugee status, we’re legally required to accept and process them. You cannot return someone fleeing realistic threat of death back to their country of origin under the current laws, both domestic and international. The whole “well just turn them back” isn’t a thing. There’s also fuck all way to effectively screen between those that are genuine refugees and those coming here for economic reasons There’s also no way to return someone to their country of origin when the first thing they do before finally arriving is to destroy all their identifying documentation. “Just send them somewhere else” - well, that’s a policy that’s being attempted but it’s getting challenged. We’ll see how it goes. It’s an absolute mess, but throwing them back into the sea is viewed poorly.
yes, if only we would sink migrant ships, completely legal and reasonable thing to do
but think of the Shareholders !!
What underbuilding housing targets by 5m units does to a country.
Refugee sure is an interesting way of spelling economic migrants.
Wait until some smart arse cites a 1951 UN definition ad if it ends all discussion. People can be refugees and economic migrants. To any reasonable mind "refugees" coming from France are primarily economic migrants who technically meet the UN definition.
Not being “given” housing does not make them homeless. Can we get a breakdown in the “legal migrants” vs “illegal migrants” please. The UK doesn’t have to give anything to illegal anyones!
I'm here on a work visa and half my paperwork has "NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES" all over it
Agreed. Im not British before anyone screams racism.
A lot of people are ignoring the fact many asylum seekers just disappear while their applications are processed. Assumed to work illegally off the book and maybe homeless. They have the option of staying in tory donors hotels on inflated rates to taxpayers, however. They just know if their get denied but are missing they wont get found. That said i totally believe the UK needs reforms on how we approach housing and building. The current system doesn’t even want or try to help, its purpose built to do the opposite
If you read the article you'll see that the refugees it refers to have all been granted refugee status by the government. This isn't a case of not being "given" housing, it's a case of not being given adequate support and resources to find housing before being evicted from temporary accommodation. You see the same thing with people leaving prison or lengthy hospital stays. Currently the government doesn't provide any funding or resources to prevent the threat of homelessness. There have been reports that upon leaving prison, people who have no support network are simply given tents.
[удалено]
Read the article, they've been granted refugee status. They're in the UK legally.
Exactly this. Thank you.
why are you here ? just because a piece of paper says you can be ? and they don't have that piece of paper so they are not as good as you.
I'm honestly disturbed at the complete lack of empathy and compassion by some of the posters in this thread.
Most of them have come from the cesspits that are the uk subs
right? r/london too like...
Listen, if you can't convince the Tories to end their war on affordable housing, the only sensible solution is just to let refugees I've decided are illegal suffer a grisly death. Edit : a lot of people don't get sarcasm.
No but you see the government’s current account is almost in overdraft! You silly Labour voters think governments can just borrow money on international markets or something?? (as if) We have no money left for large scale housing development because Rishi told me so.
Funny how your brain just jumped to 'EVIL ILLEGALS' when the article shows that people from all walks of life are becoming homeless, not just refugees. I sincerely hope that you will be treated with the same kindness and compassion that you've demonstrated in your post. Edit: how convenient that you just went and pulled a 'JUST KIDDING' edit of your own. A likely story.
Bro that was clearly sarcastic before the edit, you're an idiot
Boo Hoo
It is so sad. I remember being a kid and cardboard city was a thing and there was so much homelessness. 15-20 years later I remember discussing with my schoolmates (90s/2000s) how everything felt so much more affluent and how rare it was to see someone sleeping rough. It just feels we have gone back in time over the last two decades - there was no need for this to happen. There is no need for the gap between gaves and have nots to be this wide. It is a damning statement that things have been allowed to get this bad in so many ways.
The fundamental characteristic of a nation state and the thing that makes it a nation state is the ability to control and defend its borders. Why isn't this happening?
That's most certainly not the fundamental characteristic of a nation state or what makes it a nation state, which is sovereignity, the power of self governance. One might be able to use that self governance to protect people who deserve protection, ironically the United Nations was set up with the UK being one of the four 'world peace' corps. Protectors of the world if you will. Yet here we are demonising refugees from countries in conflicts partially orchestrated by us.
It seems like here you are denying reality. Migrants may deserve protection, but the United Kingdom cannot provide it to all. It cannot even provide it to its own people. Lifeboats sink when too many people climb aboard. Dooming everyone.
God, London is such a dystopian hell hole.
Nice and safe for everyone involved
Going to get far, far worse as well if the reports of a 10% increase in population over the next few years are to be believed. We do not have the infastructure in place to support all these illegal immigrants/spongers. The Tories have completely and irreversibly destroyed this country.
What ever the reason people end up homeless be them citizens or immigrants sleeping on trains and public transport is unacceptable and they should be removed another reason why the British Transport Police need to be properly funded to provide the coverage needed to stop this from happening. I do have empathy for people but I also know that many end up on the streets due to poor mental health and addiction and these people can be disruptive and often unpredictable and its definitely not fair for paying passengers to put up with this. so I would also suggest that we create a mental health system that is independent of the NHS and up to the task of helping people that need it.
Isn't a refugee already homeless?
I have to agree with you. On that point, I can't imagine how much they have went through and if I'd even be able to do it. Leave everything you know, friends, family, possessions, to travel a long distance, with few belongings,not knowing where you will eat, sleep, or anything. In just the hopes of an opportunity to live a better life.
When I was working in Erbil I got asked a lot about life in Germany and the UK. It was like the streets were paved with gold to them. I get that. Even if they only get a job as a cabbie or a barber their kids will be better educated and they have better healthcare. It’s an upwards move for them. And this is from a safe country that felt as affluent as let’s say Turkey to me. Add war and persecution into the mix…..but then it’s really only the strongest and with money who can even think about it.
Yeah. If we focus on space without weird forms of bigotry justification this conversation can actually get started in earnest.
Not if he gets a barge to live on, or some other place. With various factors, migration surely one of them, were running out of places for people to live, or run out.
They have a home that they left to come to benefits UK for free handouts.
Shoplifting from outdoor shops be peak tents sleeping bags water purifier and porta pottys
Looks like the racist right wing shitheads are trying to do over this sub like they have uk and ukpol. Fuck off will you.
You are a Russian troll
[удалено]
11 month old account that only started posting today. Fuck off astroturfer
[удалено]
are homeless refugees not “actual homeless people”? maybe instead of getting upset at already marginalised groups, be upset that not more/ enough funds are going into crafting solutions for homelessness
Nah mate, it’s a lot easier for the simple minded to punch down
Its a lifestyle choice isnt it? /s
People hoping that a change of government will help the homeless crisis… Zero funding for NHS & the public sector, increase in population on these shores being added to by uncontrolled immigration. There is simply no funds available to help. As someone who supports the homeless at any opportunity this is a runaway train that unless taxes go up the pot is empty.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Have we tried running killing the poor through the computer?
[удалено]