A reminder that when the government spends our money, it always creates winners and losers.
When it comes to the housing queue for homeless people, how would you prefer Lewisham Council allocates your money?
0 voters
It’s like all the people protesting in London about Trump but nothing on the over 1.2 million kids on the poverty line in the UK.
I guess Trump and Syria are more on trend than poor kids and homeless veterans.
@anon5422159 did you take the photo of the veteran’s sign?
nope - it’s from the tweet linked above. I’ve just asked the tweeter to let us know where the photo was taken.
I even tried a reverse image search on Google to make sure it hadn’t been lifted from another source - appears original.
Well then shame on the twit who did take it and the use it for some political point making. And frankly shame on you for doing the same.
“Troy” is obviously in need of help as are thousands of other veterans in the UK. The reasons they are on the street and homeless are many and often complicated. Many have PTSD or other psychological issues which have led to breakdown of family and more often then not drug and alcohol addiction.
So rather than try to play some game why doesn’t this twit proactively do something to help “Troy” and contact one of the veteran charities in London who can offer help now. Who rely on good people to connect them to vets in crisis. For instance Help4Heroes offers an outreach service.
I see you’ve edited your post to say you’ve asked for a location. Good. But shame on you. SHAME ON YOU for using this man in this manner. Frankly I find it disgusting.
Do you feel similarly angry at the millions of photos of middle-eastern refugees used to make political points on a daily basis?
I’m interested in your response. Is it only British servicemen who you think we should ignore on social media? Or are there other categories of homeless people that we shouldn’t be allowed to mention?
Oh, and yes - this is very much a political point. Our politicians are forced to make choices due to finite supply of council housing.
I’m interested in all opinions and I will not shout down anyone for expressing their honest opinion on this site.
This is neither an issue of the left or right though your point is obviously to make one here. Leftist Lewisham loves Syrians more than vets. Well I work in right-controlled Westminster which has the highest concentration of homeless vets in the country.
Why not also lay responsibility at the MOD, or the governments (both Labour and Conservatives) that have failed Britain’s vets in their duty of care. Oh no. Here’s an opportunity to make a frivolous point.
If you really want a poll which does justice why don’t you ask members to rank in order who should receive housing first. Here let me start.
Homeless veterans.
Homeless single men
Victims of domestic violence
Victims of domestic violence with children
Refugees from Syria
EU citizens
Disabled persons with expensive housing needs.
Unemployable disabled persons
Unemployed people
Elderly single people.
Why not go all out and create a proper priority list cause you’ve already started.
By all means, create a poll of your own if you’d like to broaden the discussion.
Let’s give him a name since he gave it in his sign. There is a distinct difference between using Tony’s sign to highlight the very real plight of homeless vets (or homeless anyone) and their needs… and using Tony as some political ammunition. Particularly without even knowing Tony’s full story. Is Tonly “resident” homeless in Lewisham? What efforts have been made to house or help?
Perhaps the more valid discussion is who should bear the responsibility for Tony. By your post do you absolve his former employer the MOD? Or Veteran’s UK? Or is your vision so myopic these days?
No thanks. Cause the existing poll is vile enough and shows little respect for our fellow men and women.
His name is Troy actually. Show a little respect to our fellow men and women please.
I’ll apologise for that error and blame my lack of varifocals today. My respect for Troy is sky high, unlike your own.
Did your vote in the poll reflect that? My vote reflected my utmost respect for the brave men and women who serve our country.
Just a simple Google using the words “Lewisham and Veteran” threw up a post on the Lewisham website back in 2013, further back showed a post on how to assist with the cost of a funeral for a veteran.
A Google search for “Lewisham and Syria” threw up one or two more.
Google is not the do all and end all of searches but it does lay out what is “in the Ether” as it were.
Not sure where Chris is trying to make a left/right political point. His issue is with Lewisham Council promoting Syrian refugee resettlement whilst there are many in the UK who are unsettled or homeless, veterans or not.
Who do we give preference to, Syrian refugees or those homeless who are already in the UK?
Frankly I doubt that is what your poll was intended to do. I won’t participate it because it is intentionally divisive. But since you offered, here is my own poll.
Homelessness is a tragic occurrence in the UK particularly in urban areas. Homelessness among British veterans is particularly high and estimated by some to account for one in ten homeless people. There are many organisations which offer services to homeless vets, but with a crisis in need of leadership, who should take the lead responsibility?
0 voters
Asking employers to pay for the care of their former staff, should they become homeless for any reason in the future? That sounds like a rather dangerous precedent to set. Local authorities have the buildings, have the specialist staff, and they already have our money to spend.
Try Lewisham and homeless as a more relevant search. And let’s not be naive about Chris’ post as his lens he brings to Politicos is pretty much only in a right/left dynamic.
A better questions. So do we? And is there any evidence that these Syrian refugees have displaced homeless veterans in Lewisham?
I have to say, you sign up for Queen and Country then Queen and Country should look after you. Having said that I am a “veteran” so feel quite strongly about it. I also feel strongly about charity starting at home.
We were discussing veterans so not sure why we should change tangent. I also want you to explain why Chris has a left wing slant on this?
You seem quite up on the subject, are then any homeless veterans on the streets of Lewisham, However, to assist you can I point you here
Then by that argument are Veterans who are homeless more worthy of care after their employment then anyone else, particularly homeless? Or should the UK military and government not take any responsibility for physical and mental disability resulting from that employment including if that disability leads to homelessness?
No. We were discussing homeless veterans. The emphasis on homeless and access to housing.
Both good questions. Hopefully a combination of my poll and your poll will provide some insight.
I suppose we could go on point scoring or attempting to but the fact remains that there are already homeless people in Lewisham so who gets precedence?
I’m not going to fall into the trap of ranking need is a complicated matter such as this. To do so belittles the issue which has been my position from the start and I think obviously so.
I am not trying to trap you or ask you to rank, my question was rhetorical. However, I feel strongly that we should look to those already in the UK before we look outside. Once we have cleared up our own mess then of course, let us look outside of the UK for those who need help.
I disagree. This topic is also about ranking. Trying to determine who has more need and therefore should have priority access. This is a slippery slope which I illustrated with my sarcastic list of other needy categories.
This surprises me. Are you suggesting that the UK should shut its borders to any and all refugees until such a time we have addressed our own internal problems, homelessness being one?
We can agree to disagree n the ranking.
Re the closure of borders, difficult one but yes, I would close them in all but the most exceptional cases. We already have a large homeless population, adding people from outside would only add to the issue. This goes back to your ranking, do we rank a refugee as a priority over a UK homeless person? Difficult in the extreme. Hence my suggestion to look after those already here.
Interesting. While I am usually loathe to credit six year old articles this one does show as I thought that local authority policy on homelessness and/or veterans is not particularly biased by the colour (red or blue) of the Council. The article notes there are nine LAs in London which DO prioritise veterans including Lewisham.
More interesting though is if you follow the link to the report, it is in fact a December 2016 version which is available which agains names Lewisham as an example of best practice.
By the way, the Royal British Legion has also produced a insightful report on UK Veterans and Homelessness which would suggest that “there is little evidence to support the notion that military life, or institutionalisation, is a cause of veterans’ homelessness.” in which case the notion of homeless veterans vs homeless people in general is moot.
I’ve printed off both to read at my leisure so I can be better informed on this matter.
Cheers @starman The issue is a contentious one and something that not many people want to discuss for fear of upsetting one group or another. Re the red and blue, I think all parties regardless of affiliation recognise the place that veterans occupy as a result of their service. It also shows that all parties acknowledge ALL homelessness is unacceptable.
As for the RBL, I am surprised at that report (but I only skim read it, will look in depth later). My own experience suggests that leaving military life where people have an acknowledge place in “life” does make it difficult to adjust to civvy life. Add to that PTSD and you have a mixture which does not end well.
With the benefit of some minimal research, I also want to question the relevancy of comparing the housing needs of homeless veterans (generally single men) with that of the Syrian refugees subversively accused of taking housing away from our heroes. Last year and as part of a national effort led by the Tory government agreed to take up to ten Syrian households… families in fact with quite different housing requirements from homeless single men. Accommodations have been offered by the local voluntary, faith and community sector.
So does Lewisham bear the cost? NOPE! This comes from the Government who will contribute to the cost of ten families’ resettlement for five years from the international aid budget. The Home Office selected the families that will be housed in the borough, as well as carrying out the necessary medical and security checks. As the money originates from the international aid budget Lewisham would be completely unable to divert this to housing for homeless vets.
You may question whether the Tory-led central government should spend tax payer money in this way… but it makes this question[quote=“ChrisBeach, post:1, topic:3218”]
When it comes to the housing queue for homeless people, how would you prefer Lewisham Council allocates your money?
[/quote]
completely irrelevant and really just exposes it for what it was meant to do.
Given the distinct lack of post-service support given by the Government under either colour I would suggest they do not.
The UK gets a hell of a lot more support than I did.
Whilst my OP really wasn’t about Council vs central govt, I’m delighted that you have credited the caring Tory government with this initiative. Reading the Council tweets and literature had given me the impression it was their idea:
https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/community-support/Pages/Supporting-Syrian-refugees.aspx
Why wouldn’t I?
Well the Council had to agree to it. And then manage it. But are we reading the same document?
First para: We are working with a range of partner organisations including central government
Second para: The ongoing conflict in Syria has led to one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent times. The Government has pledged to help by resettling up to 20,000 refugees in the country by 2020. We want to play our part and aim to accept the first Syrian refugee households between January and March 2017.
Gives me the distinct impression this was a Government-led initiative that they are supporting. Seem you are the only one trying to find criticism in the Labour-led Lewisham Council… again.
No. It was to suggest that Lewisham Council were spending our taxes on helping unworthy Syrian refugees over needy homeless veterans, right?
You’ve clarified that the Tory govt drove the decision to spend our taxes on Syrian refugees in Lewisham. Thanks for that.
My point remains the same, and I would prioritise homeless UK veterans. I didn’t say Syrian refugees were “unworthy” so please don’t put words in my mouth (as you’ve done throughout this topic). Let’s not make this personal.
@starman What would you do BTW?
One doesn’t need to say something specifically for their words and opinions to give a distinct impression of their belief. I’m just calling a spade a spade. And with like any source one has to question the intent behind the topic. In this case your position on immigrants and in particular those from Muslim countries such as Syria has been laid bare over many other topics. Your myopic views on Labour (under any leadership) or the left is hardly a secret to anyone who reads your posts.
This is not personal. This is just an informed opinion based on past experience. If I missed the point and your OP was not intended to form an attack on spending by this Labour-led council like you did here for instance in the guise of supporting Troy’s crisis then please say so and I will apologise and stand down.
A note to those that might be thinking of contributing to Politicos but are worried about personal attacks from people who disagree with them - do not worry - @moderators have your back. Ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments are against our guidelines.
Moderators allow ad-hominems directed toward me (due to my position running the site)
But personal attacks on others will not be tolerated So please do not be afraid to express your opinions whatever they are and whoever disagrees with them.
In fact, we positively encourage attacks on Chris!
Only kidding, we don’t, much 
If you feel my argument was ad hominem then I apologise. My comments were intended to show the lack of substance in your position and question the credibility of your initial post. If can be difficult to avoid some ad hominem when the counter argument is fallacious to start with as I think you have accepted.
As site owner I dont understand why you feel you have to accept behaviour differently from anyone else. If I’ve overstepped the mark then I’d expect @Londondrz to moderate as appropriate as I would expect him to do to any contributor. Franky i don’t think I have but will bow to the opinions of others.
Most recently I asked you to perhaps clarify your position in this matter particularly in regard to your motive lest I’ve had the wrong end of the stick.
To be honest it’s not a biggie as I don’t take it personally, and I accept that a) owning the site means more scrutiny of my positions and b) being a political minority in this area will make me a target.
I just don’t want other people in the same minority to be scared of voicing their opinions.
As someone involved in the discussion it would be wrong of me to moderate unless it got really out of hand. Time for a politicos moderator Chris?
Did the SchizoPodcaster ever respond about location of the homeless man?
The Army is no ordinary employer. Its employees get put through stressful situations no corporate sales director will ever understand. Those stresses create illnesses - PTSD, alcoholism - that need post-service support and the MoD should be taking the lead responsibility for that. Which I don’t think is the same as saying they should be responsible for every case of ex-Army homelessness. Rather, it’s merely recognising that homelessness amongst ex-military personnel often has particular military-related causes.
As for the Syrians, their homes are being bombed to smithereens.
