This is how they gerrymander homeless children


11:40 am - October 3rd 2011

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Nathaniel Matthews

Henrietta left her council flat when her husband got a job abroad in Las Vegas. It seemed like a logical choice at the time. They were both going to make it big.

For a while everything was good. Her husband had a dream job, they were going to have a baby.

But when the child came along their relationship crumbled. When her husband stopped paying for housekeeping for his kid, when she didn’t have diapers or food, she realised that this man was no good for her or her baby, so she went home to the UK.

She stayed with a friend in Westminster, poshest of boroughs. After six months of ignoring her when she came asking for help and advice, Westminster booked her in to one of the two hotels that they have bought in Hackney.

Then Westminster told her that it was her fault that she had not hired a US lawyer to protect her interests, told her that it was her fault that her marriage broke down, that she was homeless. Told her that it was unacceptable that she should come home and ask for help for her and her baby.

And then Westminster evicted her.

And because the homeless child is now present in Hackney- where Westminster dumped the family- it so happens that social services in a poor East London borough now have to pick up the tab, try to work out how to stop Henrietta’s baby being put on the street, or taken into care.

We, from Legal Aid, got an injunction over the phone from a High Court Judge. Henrietta and her baby have an overpriced room in a hostel where the linen hasn’t been changed, and both of them are eaten alive by bed bugs. The case is ongoing.

Meanwhile Westminster continues to keep its rates low by shipping unemployed people into Hackney and the East End, dumping them on our social services, and getting away scot free, smelling of roses.

To me it smacks of gerrymandering.

This week Westminster trumpeted that it was going to give increased priority on its council flat waiting list to people with jobs because they want to reduce their Housing Benefit bill. So millionaire’s row will be sending its single parents and its disabled elsewhere.

Under the new dispensation it’s respectable to send people like Henrietta and her baby into poor boroughs to enable the rich boroughs to reduce their rates still further. I don’t know about you, but I find the naked cynicism predictable and disgusting.


Help save Legal Aid – support the Justice For All campaign

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Law

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


“She stayed with a friend in Westminster,”

Well, yes, that means she’s not homeless.

Perhaps the system shouldn’t work that way but it does.

2. Squirrel Nutkin

TW: Does that mean your friends are welcome to sleep on your sofa for an indefinite period?

Sigh. Note what I said :

“Perhaps the system shouldn’t work that way but it does.”

If you have space at a friends house then you are not statutorily homeless. You may well need rehousing, need better housing, but you’re not actually “homeless” as defined by the law.

4. Robin Levett

@Tim Worstall #3:

If you have space at a friends house then you are not statutorily homeless. You may well need rehousing, need better housing, but you’re not actually “homeless” as defined by the law.

Hmm. No; certainly not as baldly stated.

5. Luis Enrique
6. Chaise Guevara

@ 3 Tim Worstall

“If you have space at a friends house then you are not statutorily homeless.”

Firstly, see Luis @5. Either way, though, is it the statutory legal definition that actually matters, when we’re talking about people’s welfare? I do know that homeless charities are often at pains to point out that “homeless” means “no fixed address”, rather than “living on the street”.

7. Squirrel Nutkin

So, taking the OP as accurate:

“After six months of ignoring her when she came asking for help and advice, Westminster booked her in to one of the two hotels that they have bought in Hackney.

Then Westminster told her that it was her fault that she had not hired a US lawyer to protect her interests, told her that it was her fault that her marriage broke down, that she was homeless. Told her that it was unacceptable that she should come home and ask for help for her and her baby.

And then Westminster evicted her.”

She wasn’t homeless on the strict definition, then Westminster accepted some responsibility, and then they made her (and her child) homeless. And managed thereby to shuffle responsibility from a richer borough to a poorer borough.

I think that was the point being raised. Or do you wish to move it on to the topic of “if an individual has once behaved charitably towards a friend, they are obliged to carry on being charitable at whatever cost/inconvenience forever thereafter”?

you certainly can be homeless if you are sofa surfing .. the Housing Act is clear on that. As for Westminster deporting it’s homeless to Hackney or anywhere else all Hackney has to do when doing a homeless assessment is to declare that there is no local connection and refer the family back to westminster. Of course, housing officers with a concience, and knowing the westminster set up, might be unwilling to do that.
As for reducing the HB bill,95% is reimbursed by government subsidy therefore the savings will be minimal anyway.
Westminster have obviously learnt nothing from their scandalous housing policies of the 1980’s and the fines and surcharges that followed …

Luis’ link.

Licence to occupy: if your friend says, “Sure, you’re down on your luck. I’ve a spare bedroom, come and stay with me”. That’s a licence to occupy wouldn’t you think?

“Either way, though, is it the statutory legal definition that actually matters, when we’re talking about people’s welfare?”

Always? No, of course not.

When a lawyer is using the story in support of Legal Aid, then yes, I think we rather should look at what the law is, don’t you?

“Or do you wish to move it on to the topic of “if an individual has once behaved charitably towards a friend, they are obliged to carry on being charitable at whatever cost/inconvenience forever thereafter”?”

As at Luis’ link. Friend could give her 28 days notice (distressing for all I’m sure but) and then friend would be at risk of homelessness, as with non-payment of rent or mortgage.

“She wasn’t homeless on the strict definition, then Westminster accepted some responsibility, and then they made her (and her child) homeless. And managed thereby to shuffle responsibility from a richer borough to a poorer borough.”

From what we know so far I think Westminster was pretty scummy, yes. But as above, we’ve a lawyer using thisw as a boost to the keeping of Legal Aid. It’s thus the law we should be caring about then.

10. Luis Enrique

“But in England and Wales … a person is considered to be legally homeless if it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy the accommodation”

If I was letting a friend sleep on my sofa, I would not regard it as reasonable that they continue to occupy the accommodation. Presumably “continue to” suggests in perpetuity or “there is no need to leave” … there would be a need to leave: I’d want my sofa back.

11. Donut Hinge Party

Licence to occupy: if your friend says, “Sure, you’re down on your luck. I’ve a spare bedroom, come and stay with me”. That’s a licence to occupy wouldn’t you think?

No, it’s not. A license to occupy means that when everyone else hates you or has turned frm you you still have a place you can return to which is supported by the law of the land. That could be a rental contract, a mortgage or deeds to owned property. It does not, legally, include friends or relatives who could withdraw their offer at any time.

No, it’s not. A license to occupy means that when everyone else hates you or has turned frm you you still have a place you can return to which is supported by the law of the land. That could be a rental contract, a mortgage or deeds to owned property. It does not, legally, include friends or relatives who could withdraw their offer at any time.

More or less the opposite actually (and certainly none of the documents you list are licences to occupy). A licence to occupy is a short term arrangement whereby a tenant gets some limited rights to a property without ever getting security of tenure – the whole point of it is that it can be withdrawn at will (it’s also known as… ‘tenancy at will’).

They’re quite common with commercial properties where someone wants to use a vacant property while the landlord tries to find a long term tenant.

@9

A person is homeless if:
– There is no accommodation that they are entitled to occupy; or
– They have accommodation but it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy this accommodation.

I’d stay currently staying with a friend would fall into the latter catagory in 95% of cases.

Staying with a friend certainly does not mean that “she’s not homeless”.

The problem isn’t with the law – it’s with the appalling behaviour of Westminster Council. As councils go, if their appearances in the news are anything to go on, Westminster Council is the worst council in the country, and full of selfish, greedy, right-wing scum.

14. Chaise Guevara

@ 13 Cairan

“As councils go, if their appearances in the news are anything to go on, Westminster Council is the worst council in the country”

True dat.

It’s Westminster Council – they have form as long as your arm.

We’re missing some information here –

Henrietta left her council flat when her husband got a job abroad in Las Vegas

and this council flat was where exactly?

I mean I might be in a council flat in Worcester, move to the US then back to the UK and stay with relatives in Islington. Would that mean it’s Islington’s responsibility to house me because that’s where I am currently situated?

17. Planeshift

For the record Tim, sleeping on a friend’s sofa makes you homeless under the law. I know of no local authority or housing law specialists that treats this differently, but I guess a UKIPer with no legal training or professional experience in the housing sector like yourself knows the law better.

Obviously as a classical liberal who thinks lefties are making all the problems up, you’d rather refer to homelessness as simply ‘rough sleeping’ meaning people who sleep on top of the park bench rather than underneath it. But if you want to make headway amongst the vast majority of the electorate you need to start explaining why classical liberal/libertarian policies are the best solutions to social problems, rather than pretending the problems don’t exist.

“For the record Tim, sleeping on a friend’s sofa makes you homeless under the law.”

Sleeping on a sofa and staying with friends are not in fact the same thing. One is, if you like, a subset of the other.

One woman I know, her ex-husband was a Sainsbury (no, dunno which one). Years after the marriage ended she was down on her luck and ended up staying with the ex-in laws. No, clearly, not on a sofa. For some months while she got herself sorted out, new job, new flat etc. Got help financially as well.

Was she “homeless”? Neither in any common usage of the language nor by the law she wasn’t no. Certainly not to the point that the local council had a legal duty to house her.

Is someone on the sofa in hte front room of the next door neighbour? Quite possibly yes. But sofa surfing and staying with friends aren’t the same thing though, are they?

19. Robin Levett

@TimJ #12:

More or less the opposite actually (and certainly none of the documents you list are licences to occupy). A licence to occupy is a short term arrangement whereby a tenant gets some limited rights to a property without ever getting security of tenure – the whole point of it is that it can be withdrawn at will (it’s also known as… ‘tenancy at will’)

(my emphasis)

Oh, dear. I suppose you have to have learnt your housing law way back when the lease/licence distinction was being exploited for all it was worth by landlords who didn’t like having protected tenants to appreciate quite how much of a blunder this is; but blunder it is.

On homelessness; you’re wrong, or at least the position is not as unqualified as you seek to suggest. Nat knows the facts in more detail than he has set out here; but he knows the law (as he should), and I would imagine that the stay was only ever intended to be a short term arrangement until his client found somewhere else to stay. I’m guessing that WCC kept refusing to accept an application until such time as the friend actually threw her out, rendering her what we in the trade call “street homeless”. That WCC eventually accepted her as homeless is pretty clear – if not, intentionality wouldn’t have been an issue.

20. Robin Levett

@Donut Hinge Party #11:

…although, to be fair, I also have to join Tim in shaking my head at this:

license to occupy means that when everyone else hates you or has turned frm you you still have a place you can return to which is supported by the law of the land. That could be a rental contract, a mortgage or deeds to owned property. It does not, legally, include friends or relatives who could withdraw their offer at any time.

21. Planeshift

” Years after the marriage ended she was down on her luck and ended up staying with the ex-in laws”

If she was not entitled to legally occupy the property, or there were reasons why it would not be resonable for her to occupy the property (overcrowding, a health condition made worse by poor quality housing etc) then she was homeless under the legal definition.

But the local authority probably wouldn’t have had an obligation to offer more than advice as other factors such as intentionality, priority need etc come into play. You’d need more details to form a proper judgement as to the exact duties the LA would have, and I guess a key factor would be whether she slept on a sofa or a spare room. Plus whether the in laws declared her as living there for council tax purposes 😉

But note also this: ” she was down on her luck ”

In other words you accept there was an issue. So which do you think is the better response for the classical liberal/libertarian? Say that there is no problem here and lefties are making it up? Or admit there is an issue, but that it is better for the state to stay out of it and wait for the women to find her own solution. Going for the former isn’t going to persuade anybody.

Oh, dear. I suppose you have to have learnt your housing law way back when the lease/licence distinction was being exploited for all it was worth by landlords who didn’t like having protected tenants to appreciate quite how much of a blunder this is; but blunder it is.

Where’s the blunder? ”Licence to Occupy” and “Tenancy at Will” are interchangeable terms. And a licence isn’t a lease, a piece of property law that certainly hasn’t changed in the last few years.

On homelessness; you’re wrong.

Which must have been a good effort on my part, as I wasn’t talking about homelessness, only Donut Hinge Party’s definition of a Licence to Occupy.

Woah!

“In other words you accept there was an issue. So which do you think is the better response for the classical liberal/libertarian? Say that there is no problem here and lefties are making it up? Or admit there is an issue, but that it is better for the state to stay out of it and wait for the women to find her own solution. ”

Dial it back a bit.

As I’ve said many a time I’m just fine with there being a safety net. This extends to be quite happy for the LA to have a legal duty to house those who are homeless.

I was commenting only on the way in which she might not have been, in the specific situation she was in, “homeless”.

Now it’s also true that I have lots and lots of problems with the safety net as we have it (and even more with those who want to make it not a safety net, but a series of entitlements and rights, like the “right to good housing” rather than the right to being taken in when homeless) but those are all very different arguments from the existence of one in hte first place.

24. Robin Levett

@TimJ #22:

Where’s the blunder? ”Licence to Occupy” and “Tenancy at Will” are interchangeable terms.

No, they’re not. A tenancy at will is a proprietary interest in the premises; a licence is a mere contractual right.

The distinction between lease and licence, and the landlord’s attempt to argue that the tenancy he had granted was in fact a licence, was the whole point of Street v Mountford – look it up (2005 case in the House of Lords).

And a licence isn’t a lease, a piece of property law that certainly hasn’t changed in the last few years.

Indeed – but a tenancy is a leasehold interest.

Which must have been a good effort on my part, as I wasn’t talking about homelessness, only Donut Hinge Party’s definition of a Licence to Occupy.

Oops; too many Tims. I apologise; it’s Tim W that my comment was aimed at.

25. Charlieman

@8. smithy:

Thank you for talking abut the topic, smithy.

“Of course, housing officers with a concience, and knowing the westminster set up, might be unwilling to do that.”

I suspect that there is sone truth in that. I also reckon that given the tenuous local links of so many homeless Londoners, housing officers are unlikely to pay much attention to local links except for the minority with distinct family history in the area.

“As for reducing the HB bill,95% is reimbursed by government subsidy therefore the savings will be minimal anyway.
Westminster have obviously learnt nothing from their scandalous housing policies of the 1980?s and the fines and surcharges that followed …”

Sadly there is some plausibility in this accusation. Given that the Conservatives are so far ahead in the council seats that they hold, election rigging would have minimal impact on political control. It seems rather more likely that this is about social cleansing, keeping the streets of Westminster free of poor people.

@OP: You can no more gerrymander a homeless child than you can breast feed the council Christmas tree.

26. Donut Hinge Party

From the 1996 Housing Act

A person is homeless if there is no accommodation they are entitled to occupy. Entitlement means having:

either an interest in it (i.e. they are the owner or the tenant); or
an express or implied licence to occupy (in Scotland, a right or permission, or an implied right or permission to occupy); or
some other enactment or rule of law giving the right to remain in occupation or restricting the right of another person to recover possession.

Now, how much Right do you have to remain in occupation of a friend’s spare room? If your friend wants their room back, say because an elderly relative needs to move in, how much Right do you have to stop them recovering possession? If the answer is none, then ipso facto, you are homeless.

A person is also considered to be legally homeless if they have accommodation but:

they cannot secure entry to it; or
(in the case of, for example, a caravan) they have nowhere they are entitled both to place it and live in it; or
(in Scotland and Northern Ireland) it is probable that occupation will lead to violence, or threats of violence which are likely to be carried out; or
(in Scotland), it is overcrowded and may endanger the health of the occupants; or
(in England and Wales) it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy the accommodation.

I’m no fancy lawyer, but I can at least use Google and OPSI.

27. Robin Levett

@Donut etc #26:

Now, how much Right do you have to remain in occupation of a friend’s spare room?

You have a licence for as long as your friend is willing to put you up.

If your friend wants their room back, say because an elderly relative needs to move in, how much Right do you have to stop them recovering possession?

You have none; but until that point, you do have a licence (see above).

28. Donut Hinge Party

27 Robin

That’s ridiculous.

Are you saying that if you go out and leave your back door open I have a license to stay in your house and watch TV until you tell me to leave?

If you write a contract with your friend which states that you’ll sleep on their sofa in exchange for rent, help with bills or just household chores then yes, that’s a license. However anything which offers you no security, no notice period, and no rights is not a license. You are not ENTITLED to anything because you have no TITLE on the property. Your name appears on no contract, no deeds, no court order. Your TITLE appears nowhere, so you are not ENTITLED.

Society of St James
– Classification of Homelessness
You don’t have to be sleeping on a park bench to be classed as homeless. You may be legally classed as homeless if you are staying in a hostel, sleeping on a friend’s sofa, or suffering from overcrowding or other poor conditions.

North Norfolk Council – Are you homeless?
You don’t have to be sleeping on the streets to be classed as homeless. You might also be entitled to help as a homeless person if you are:
temporarily staying with friends or family
staying in a hostel or bed and breakfast
living in very overcrowded conditions
at risk of violence or abuse in your home
living in poor conditions that affect your health
living somewhere that you have no legal right to stay in (e.g. a squat)
living somewhere that you can’t afford to pay for without depriving yourself of basic essentials
forced to live apart from your family or someone you would normally live with because your accommodation isn’t suitable

CLIC (Some Welsh homeless charity)
– Being homeless can be a frightening and lonely experience. Being homeless does not necessarily mean you are sleeping on the streets, it means you have no home. For example, you could be classed as homeless if you are:
Staying with friends or family on a temporary basis
Staying at a bed and breakfast temporarily
Living in unsuitable or dangerous accommodation
Living somewhere where you have no legal right to stay (squatting)
If you are homeless, you must contact your local authority to seek help and advice as soon as possible and get in touch with Shelter Cymru for further support

Channel Mogo (Youth in Hertfordshire – council website)
Homelessness affects a wide variety of people. You don’t have to be just sleeping on the streets to be classed as homeless. You might also be legally homeless if you are temporarily staying with friends or family, staying in a hostel or bed and breakfast, living in very overcrowded conditions, at risk of violence or abuse in your home or living in poor conditions that affect your health.
Other conditions that can mean you are described as homeless include living somewhere that you have no legal right to stay in (e.g. a squat), living somewhere that you can’t afford to pay for without depriving yourself of basic essentials, or being forced to live apart from your family or from someone you would normally live with because your accommodation isn’t suitable.

Shelter
My accommodation is very temporary
The council should consider you to be homeless if:
you only have basic shelter or accommodation of a very temporary nature such as a hostel or women’s refuge
you are staying with friends or family temporarily but they can only put you up for a short time.

I mean, that’s just the first five hits I’ve found. Scanning the first five pages of hits from councils and charities it’s pretty much the same thing.

This isn’t even about the woman’s case; the way I see that, she left her council house, she should go to the back of the queue – if Hackney didn’t want people evicted in their area they shouldn’t have let Westminster buy hostels in their council area.

29. Robin Levett

@Donut #28:

Are you saying that if you go out and leave your back door open I have a license to stay in your house and watch TV until you tell me to leave?

No.

If you write a contract with your friend which states that you’ll sleep on their sofa in exchange for rent, help with bills or just household chores then yes, that’s a license.

Correct.

However anything which offers you no security, no notice period, and no rights is not a license.

Incorrect.

You are not ENTITLED to anything because you have no TITLE on the property.

A licence gives you no title to property; merely a non-proprietary right to use it. That is the distinction between a lease and a licence; a licence gives no proprietary right.

Your name appears on no contract, no deeds, no court order. Your TITLE appears nowhere, so you are not ENTITLED.

Irrelevant.

Look, I hate to argue from authority, but I do think that if I’d got something as fundamental as this wrong someone might have pointed it out to me over my 30 years in practice as a solicitor specialising in (inter alia) housing law.

30. Robin Levett

@me:

Sorry, 28 years – it just feels like 30+…

31. Donut Hinge Party

Hrmf, well case law trumps legislation in this country, so touche, sir; touche – I will concede.

Although apparently you’re eligible to pay council tax from the second your head touches the cushion, so if you’re staying with someone with a single occupancy discount that goes out the window.

32. So Much For Subtlety

6. Chaise Guevara

I do know that homeless charities are often at pains to point out that “homeless” means “no fixed address”, rather than “living on the street”.

I am sure it is a total coincidence that this enables them to increase the number of potential clients and hence get more money from the government.

7. Squirrel Nutkin

She wasn’t homeless on the strict definition, then Westminster accepted some responsibility, and then they made her (and her child) homeless. And managed thereby to shuffle responsibility from a richer borough to a poorer borough.

Sorry but what responsibility? Does someone have the right to a council house wherever they are? Where was she living previously? Where did she have ties? Westminster occupies valuable real estate. Does the council have to right to insist that people on its housing list have some ties to the local community? We are not told if this woman does. But if Westminster won, it is likely that she does not in Westminster but does in Hackney, no?

8. smithy

As for Westminster deporting it’s homeless to Hackney or anywhere else all Hackney has to do when doing a homeless assessment is to declare that there is no local connection and refer the family back to westminster.

Just as someone turning up in Westminster is subject to a Homeless assessment there and if there is no local connection, Westminster can refer her back to wherever she does have ties. Hackney for instance. No?

We are not told enough but this looks perfectly reasonable to me – given it looks as if she did not have ties in Westminster and she did in Hackney.

33. Robin Levett

One question to Nat, though; what were the timings? How do WCC avoid s198(4)?

34. Robin Levett

@Donut etc #29:

This isn’t even about the woman’s case; the way I see that, she left her council house, she should go to the back of the queue

She will; but we’re not talking about Part VI duties here, but Part VII.

35. Flowerpower

Natthaniel

Westminster told her that it was her fault that she had not hired a US lawyer to protect her interests, told her that it was her fault that her marriage broke down, that she was homeless. Told her that it was unacceptable that she should come home and ask for help for her and her baby.

I’m not accusing you of fibbing, exactly. But I do think you should be put to strict proof that this was really what Westminster said.

36. Margin4error

Won’t need to worry about this for long. Westminster will be dumping its poor in the olympic village soon so that Newham has to pick up the bill. (Yes, Newham already has the largest housing crisis in London – but the Olympic village might actually make it worse).

37. Chaise Guevara

@ SMFS

“I am sure it is a total coincidence that this enables them to increase the number of potential clients and hence get more money from the government.”

Actually, sources provided on this thread suggest they’re being legally accurate. And you’re ignoring the point that you can’t define a problem into nonexistence – whether or not we define “homelessness” in such a way that includes person X has no effect on whether person X needs help.

38. Charlieman

28. Donut Hinge Party: “…if Hackney didn’t want people evicted in their area they shouldn’t have let Westminster buy hostels in their council area.”

The suggestion from this is that hostels for homeless single people and families are bought and sold on a market. Hostels are not bought but built. Thankfully, there are no adverts for properties such as: “Edwardian villa converted into shared accommodation for homeless people. Ideal for re-conversion into executive apartments.”

Another way of looking at it is that Hackney Council (and other councils in a similar situation) should not have given planning permission for a hostel owned by another council. If Hackney Council acted in a shirty way, they could have denied planning permission for a while, stalling the process in the hope that Westminster Council relented. It appears that Hackney Council concluded that acting shirtily was not acting responsibly or humanely.

39. Leon Wolfson

@38 – So you think it’s reasonable that councils should be able to involuntarily transfer responsibility for people between each other? Without the person having a say?

40. Charlieman

@39. Leon Wolfson

To me: “So you think it’s reasonable that councils should be able to involuntarily transfer responsibility for people between each other? Without the person having a say?”

I do not think that any words from me at post 38 support that suggestion.

41. Leon Wolfson

@40 – Ahh, okay. Well, when you start thinking again, get back to me.

42. So Much For Subtlety

37. Chaise Guevara

Actually, sources provided on this thread suggest they’re being legally accurate. And you’re ignoring the point that you can’t define a problem into nonexistence – whether or not we define “homelessness” in such a way that includes person X has no effect on whether person X needs help.

I am sure they are. As the government has been captured by special interests and so the legal definition was probably written by a rent seeking NGO like this one.

Of course you can define a problem into non-existence. That is precisely what we did with abortion for instance. The Left does it all the time by labeling pretty much any issue they don’t like as racism. We have done so with homelessness too – we call it Care in the Community now instead of what it is – a criminal lack of hospital beds for the mentally ill.

Needs help is such a nebulous concept. Who needs help? Perhaps if this woman was not aware that she would get a free house for next to nothing, she might have worked harder to make her marriage work? We will always have at least as much demand for welfare as we are willing to pay for.

43. Leon Wolfson

@42 – No, you just want to do a lot of things which are rightly classed as racist.

And right, people should stay in unhappy and abuse relationships, because otherwise they’ll have to starve in the streets if they’re not rich and able to walk into a cushy job.

And rich, you just stated that homelessness is by definition a mental illness. Lock up the people who dare to get evicted or are desperately poor and lose their house!

All very National Socialistic of you. Social Darwinism in action!

44. Chaise Guevara

@ 42 SMFS

“Of course you can define a problem into non-existence. That is precisely what we did with abortion for instance. The Left does it all the time by labeling pretty much any issue they don’t like as racism. ”

What, so because other people use invalid arguments you’re going to as well? Did the moral lowground look that comfortable?

And you still can’t define a problem into non-existence. The fact that people try to do it doesn’t make it possible. If, for example, we were facing an influx of immigrants that our infrastructure couldn’t handle, shouting “racist” at people who pointed this out would not actually bring the infrastructure into existence by magic.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. A.N.Other Twit

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children http://t.co/CEmpGE2l

  2. Alfie startup

    “@sunny_hundal: This is how Conservative councils gerrymander homeless children http://t.co/hWstbVMs” #legalaid #housing #Westminster

  3. Broken OfBritain

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YWkNTRMh

  4. Kyron Hodgetts

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YWkNTRMh

  5. k

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YWkNTRMh

  6. Emma

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YWkNTRMh

  7. Gary Ransome

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YWkNTRMh

  8. Angela Pateman

    RT @sunny_hundal: This is how Conservative councils gerrymander homeless children http://t.co/ojUz4uJf

  9. Ebony Dawn Marsh

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YWkNTRMh

  10. Catherine Brunton

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YWkNTRMh

  11. John Havery Samuel

    RT @libcon: This is how they gerrymander homeless children http://t.co/UDjML62V

  12. Robert Cook

    This is how Conservative councils gerrymander homeless children http://t.co/mXfk6j53

  13. liane gomersall

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/2zoZLMPQ via @libcon

  14. Steve Trow

    This is how Conservative councils gerrymander homeless children http://t.co/mXfk6j53

  15. Jez MacDonald

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children http://t.co/9ZuC3Yja via @libcon

  16. JezM

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children http://t.co/vCpYhQkR via @libcon

  17. Joyce Jeffries

    RT @sunny_hundal: This is how Conservative councils gerrymander homeless children http://t.co/gnw5HO2a

  18. E Azicate

    This is how Conservative councils gerrymander homeless children http://t.co/mXfk6j53

  19. shaunandelly

    This is how they gerrymander homeless children | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/mNQOQDWD via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.