It'll be anonymous and don't know is an option.
Beggers in Leeds
- Thread starter Guest2
- Start date
It just seems a bit dishonest to quote a post over thirty minutes after it was edited to correct spellings and figures .....
I don't think the post I corrected is wrong unless you would like to say how maybe?
Your point about conservative spending is nonsence anyway....
The shear ridiculousness and level of idiocy that is required to complain about tory cuts on one hand but then moan that about tory deficits on the other is quite astounding.
Govement spending is often based on the situation the find themsleves in when they take power. This isnt always totally down to the previous administration alone but they obviously do play a part.
Thatcher took over from labour in 1979 after a decade of industrial strive, IMF bailouts and with an economy described as the 'sick man of Europe'.
Blair on the other hand took over from the Tories in 1997 with a relatively healthy economy that was producing a surplus for a few years before labours profulgate spending ensured that changed.
The tories again took over in 2010 when the country was still reeling from the global economic crash and the massive expansion in public borrowing that was requiring....
So when you say the tories have had to borrow more, on average, it is as much a reflection of the dire situations they have inherited from labour goverments as much as it is a tendency for the conservatives to borrow more generally.
Last edited:
Whether you agree the cuts were justified and necessary is irrelevant. The fact that the number of people on the street are people with mental issues and is rising massively has got to be directly proportional to the systems we have in place for dealing with mentally ill people.
So if you are in favour of the cuts and see them as necessary then an increase in the homeless and beggers is just a consequence you will have to accept.
So if you are in favour of the cuts and see them as necessary then an increase in the homeless and beggers is just a consequence you will have to accept.
And yet the overall number of homeless increased by that same percentage in that same period so it definitely hasnt been down to a disproportionate increase in EU ones.
4,134 to 4,677 from 2016 to 2018 for the overall figures is a far smaller increase then the EU contingent so I'm not sure where you are getting that? The increse in EU rough sleepers in that period alone was 334 of the 543 overall increase?
There has been a disaporportionate increase in EU rough sleepers though?
In the early 2000`s it reasonable to think that the amount of central Eastern European beggars in the UK was relatively low.
After freedom of movement was expanded their numbers have massively increased....
Go walk about London and may other cities and places in the south east and listen to what the beggars and big issue sellers and you will find a very disproportionate amount don't appear to an accent derived from an UK region.
The current figures show that central/ Eastern European rough sleepers make up a disproportionate amount of all eu rough sleepers in the UK.
Last edited:
surprised you can see any beggars from your ivory tower.
Because the 165% increase wasn't down to EU nationals. So you're wrong. They're a result of government cuts.
That doesn't cover every single Tory government though does it? What you're just described in covered in the link I sent. Did you even read it? The Tory cuts haven't helped one bit, they stagnated public spending.
Whatever, clearly wasting my time here.
B@
Empathy is present in more places than just ivory towers.
That's a figures from 2010 and we don't have reliable figures for the percentage of EU migtants rough sleeping then for England (only from 2016 onwards)
But given that most EU rough sleepers in the UK are from relatively recently admitted countries its not at all unreasonable to think that since their admissions that the number of rough sleepers from these ountries in the UK has increased massively.
Before the 1970's (after ww2) government's were generally handing over economies with surpluses to incoming parties.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 8,806
- Location
- *̡̡ı ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡
haha, well played, I completely missed that reference
Possibly one of the funniest shows in a long time.
A thing called Neo-Keynesian economics came in... if you didn't recall. (or really a mishmash between Keynes and Friedman's dichotomy of policies).
A surplus was understood to be pilfering money from the economy and rightly so, as long as growth is secured and inflation is under control, you can run a percent deficit relative to it, it's called "investment".
Both Keynes and Friedman's economic models failed, you can't let the market regulate itself as it inherently can't, but you can't rule over it as then it's not free enough to function. Do you believe that philanthropy is sufficient for the worlds ill's?
Last edited:
Empathy kinda disappears when you see the same people over and over again, not over days either, years.
Most of them don't want help, for them, it's a profession/lifestyle to fund a very expensive drug habit, The local shop owner near me takes in their change, they earn more than some of us.
It's a shame because many are legitimately homeless and need help but there's no way to tell who is real and whos faking unless you stay out at night and see which ones don't go home.
Got any evidence for that? Because that's a bit harsh. I can gladly ignore the Roma beggars as they're obvious, but there are a fair few beggars that aren't junkies. I imagine a good percentage actually become junkies after being forced into it.
Ultimately a failed drugs policy that needs Portuguese'd.
You don't need the statistics from 2010 - There literally aren't enough E.U migrants sleeping rough NOW to account for a 165% increase, even if there were ZERO in 2010 and all 1700~ rough sleepers at the time were British. Jesus wept, how many different ways do you need me to say it?
I'm ignoring your Tory stuff because you haven't read the link properly so what's the point.
B@
Last edited:
That ought to be pretty apparent to people living in big cities such as London, especially if they spend any time in the central areas. I'm not discounting general increases from other factors but there has been a very noticeable sharp increase in EU beggars and rough sleepers over the years.
It was quite blatant a few years back re: Bulgaria and Romania - there was a patch of grass by marble arch that got taken over by one gang (they were both beggars and rough sleepers), various London bridges got taken over by Romanians as did various other areas of London, like around Trafalgar square.
Something like 1/3 of Big Issue sellers were Romanian by about 2012 - it got taken over by Romanian gangs in some areas - the reason... well before they were more fully integrated into the EU and could come here to get a job (unlike with previous Eastern/Central Europe the government did restrict things) they could move if they were self employed... obviously this was intended for small business owners etc.. but also resulted in prostitutes and big issue sellers.
It does somewhat undermine the magazine - it was supposed to be there to help people who'd fallen on hard times and were genuinely homeless, it ended up getting used/abuses by people travelling over to the UK in order to become deliberately "homeless" - though they didn't seem to stay homeless after initially camping in and trashing various grassy areas of central London/garden squares etc... (those gangs have since moved on) but you'll still see plenty of Romanians selling the magazine. There are certainly regular begging pitches in London controlled by these gangs too.
While I've generally not been too fussed about EU immigration I can see why that sort of thing contributed to getting people's backs up/prompted a bit of a backlash.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the vast majority of homeless people we see are the type with meth teeth and always carrying around a 6-pack. Plus they drop their waste all over the place and make many nice country walks no-go areas because people are too scared to use them now.
Maybe 1/100 is a "down on his luck" type. The rest are all "24/7 off their face" types. There's lots down here, btw.
Along with the substance abuse often comes aggression, btw. Why do you think people are afraid. Hint: it's not just prejudice
in the 2011 Census it was reported that 37% of people living in london were not british:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London
Hardly surprising that 63% of those sleeping rough in london aren't British i suppose.
B@
Most of them are, or it's the cause. There are exceptions but most of it is drugs or alcohol-related.
Yes, it is a disproportionate amount in general. Though the comment was more about the sudden influx from a particular country, they were a very noticeable presence very quickly.