Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Just saw Steve Coogan with Catherine West at Wood Green
Oddly, it really seemed like he was in character. He kind of plays himself.
Lost my vote anyway.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
Yes! This is why I am against raising the tax free threshold (or perhaps even having a tax free threshold at all). I think everyone should pay income tax. We just need to pay them enough that they can afford to do so. It's important for people to feel they are contributing.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I agree Michael. I have never understood why we don't have local income tax.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Probably the same reason we don't have a true incremental tax system. Those with more will be taxed more, those with less, less. Not much of a middle class vote winner!
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon T on
-
According to this, we do, to some extent:
"For the purpose of the offence guidelines, a fine is based on one of three bands (A, B or C). The selection of the relevant fine band, and the position of the individual offence within that band, is determined by the seriousness of the offence.
Starting point Range
Fine Band A 50% of relevant weekly income 25 – 75% of relevant weekly income
Fine Band B 100% of relevant weekly income 75 – 125% of relevant weekly income
Fine Band C 150% of relevant weekly income 125 – 175% of relevant weekly income"From 'Magistrates Courts Sentencing Guidelines', page 148 onwards.
-
-
Sigh. Housing is such a mess in this country. I've lived here eight years and the only way I've managed to afford it is to live in ex council flats - 7+ years flat sharing in overcrowded flats where the living room was used as a bedroom, and the past six months owning. Yet I am completely against right to buy.
I talk to people I know who live (or grew up) in social housing and they have never had the experience of flat sharing. When it was 14 years of my life I find it so strange! And I've learned not to say "I don't think I could ever afford to have a child" because someone with a council flat in central London will pipe up and say "if you really wanted it you'd make it work".
It really does create two very different worlds with completely different reference points. But very real struggles on both sides. With a mortgage to pay, I feel like council tenants with secure tenancies and below-market rent have a lot more security than I do, even with the bedroom tax (which I should point out I disagree with - but I don't know the solution!)
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Yes, that would be interesting. Especially as this report today in The Independent suggests the opposite. Admittedly it's the view of one organisation.
Have you any links to current numbers/reports which confirm your post? I couldn't find a link on the London Councils website. And as I recall, last summer the numbers of homeless young people were still rising. (I'll try to dig out an article I read then.)
If you haven't seen it, you might also be interested in the idea of "defensive architecture". Aimed at deliberately preventing the use of our streets by rough sleepers.
-
-
Not sure about this FPR. Being accepted as homeless and found other accommodation is a defined duty under law. Someone just leaving their parents' home wouldn't be automatically picked up as homeless and therefore have a right to rehousing, unless
You have children who live with you
You're under the age of 16 (you'd be picked up by Social Services and not rehoused)
You're 19 and in full-time education
You're pregnant
You're a care leaver aged 18 to 21
You have a disability that makes you vulnerable
You are placed in temporary accommodation, often for a very long time due to the shortage of social housing, and this is often a hostel. It's not a particularly tempting alternative to staying with your parents unless you absolutely have no choice but to leave. I would think any reduction in the number of young homeless cases would be more to do with a stricter application of the law rather than there being fewer young people without a home.
-
-
Well, isn't this what we want ? Homeless off the streets. Accommodation being used efficiently ?
-
-
FPR, Decisions about services should be made on the basis of reliable information. Whether or not anyone wants the information to be accurate.
I appreciate that in many workplaces there may be a climate of fear with people reluctant to speak out and perhaps put their job at risk - especially to tell outsiders what's going on. Even so, I hope your source-of-a-source is able to take up Liz's invitation - even if it's strictly off the record. If they're on to something, it could be important.
Incidentally, I couldn't find the article I had in mind. But the Guardian has run a number of stories about homelessness. This is one from May 2014 about homeless hostels. There are other links at the bottom of the page.
Apologies if all this material is already familiar to you.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Also depends on your definition of teenager.
16 and 17 year olds will be cared for by social services.
Over 18s (unless they used to be in care) will be assessed as any single person by a number of different criteria to find out if they are in priority need. Even is they are found to be in need, as you say Michael, they will be offered temporary accommodation before being given the option of settled accommodation - this is unlikely to be a flat (ah the mysterious goal of the "council flat") since LHA only allows benefit to be claimed for a room in shared accommodation.
This type of housing is often in the private sector and if turned down ends the council's duty to house you. Council flats, at least here in Haringey, are usually occupied by families whose wait for a 3 bed house is currently 12 years.
Given that over 5,000 children are classed as homeless in Haringey at this time, it is likely that an 18 yr old presenting as homeless is going to be unlucky (unless they are pregnant or disabled) which may mean that they are either going under the radar and onto the streets, or they are staying put, sometimes in situations that they would prefer to escape (and in the past could have done into a cheap room or a flat share but given the high rate of youth unemployment now seems like a bit of a pipe dream to any young person without a wealthy family to support them).
Anyway, when your trusted source from a trusted source can let us have the figures, I'd like to see them so do post a link when they are published.
-
-
Pathways services have a very particular client group. 16-17 year olds, care leavers and vulnerable young people. Most homeless young people would not be able to access their services so it would be wrong to extrapolate from any reduction in the number of young people using their services. Also, in line with many public services, Pathways have had funding cuts. For example Oxford Pathways had a 38% cut in their funding which may have an impact on their ability to do outreach work and actually get 16-17 year olds/vulnerable people into they system. Because of their vulnerability homeless people in the Pathways remit are also those who may be less likely to trust services like this (perhaps after their experiences in care or with the Police) so making outreach vital to getting in contact. This might be more to do with the reduction in the numbers going through the Pathways system.
-
-
Could it be the families of teenagers have moved out of Camden? And so there are fewer teens in that target group in the area? Are the teens in the target who stay in the families in Camden contacted to find out why they aren't leaving.
Think it needs a wider research base before we make the jump from bedroom tax = less teens presenting as homeless. We could do with seeing the research and the figures.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
