*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

The delays are longer now than they were before Brexit.

---

This might be true but we're not talking about normal delays here, we're talking about six hour delays caused by non-political circumstances.

I don't give a toss if it takes an hour longer to cross a border, or even six hours, that is not worth sovereignty. I'm ok with free movement of people, it's probably the greatest loss we have, but we don't want it at any cost, do we? The question then is what cost you are willing to pay for it. We differ in opinions here.

But blaming six hour delays on Brexit when the article you're linking actually states it's down to logistics is insincere as fuck, assuming you're actually reading what you're linking.

I should clarify, it doesn't say in the article you link that it's down to logistics because you chose to link a report about bored families instead of a report about why it's happening, there is a link in the article you posted though that does take you to the actual news report. Something about a technical fault in the Chunnel.

But nah let's not read news, let's read what a bored Karen has to say.

To be fair, I didn't read that entire article. I just did and the claim that there was a technical fault on the Chunnel is disputed, though I must add it's disputed by the French. There's probably a large amount of Dover port officials trying to pass the buck on, there might well be incompetence on our side of the border too, but this is clearly a French problem caused by French staff shortages.

If you're arguing that the French have not employed enough extra staff to cover the added workload of Brexit, and that is resulting in these delays, then you must also be wondering why there aren't always six hour delays at Dover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If you're arguing that the French have not employed enough extra staff to cover the added workload of Brexit, and that is resulting in these delays, then you must also be wondering why there aren't always six hour delays at Dover.

---

Because there's not always a large number of people trying to get through at once, 24/7, 365 days a year?

Fair enough, so you're actually arguing that when the French don't mitigate for British political decisions, resulting in border delays, that's the fault of the British for daring to make a sovereign political decision?

You're saying that the French position of "why should we hire more people" is reasonable?

I imagine you'll be fucking outraged if Scotland leave the UK and then have the audacity to expect the English to take on their fair share of border duties.

I do wonder how much of your Brexit judgements you apply to Scotland in the eventuality of the leaving them UK. I mean, it's a big deal for them, right? To leave a stable global economy, leave a stable currency, put up border controls with their most important trading partner... all in the name of sovereignty, which of course is a dirty word to you. These Scottish nationalists, yes actual nationalists who identify as belonging to a nation, want to run their own affairs instead of being told what to do by what they perceive as an outside party, maybe even a mini-superstate, the ruling government in Westminster.

That's fucking nuts, right? You'll surely be dead against them doing this because it's stupid.

If Scotland do leave the UK, what happens? A border becomes operational, and suddenly lots of people who regularly commute across the border are expected to show some ID at a checkpoint. Scotland did that just by daring to leave the UK. People have to fuck about instead of just cross the border without even stopping. So if England say "bollocks to this, we'll just run the border checkpoints on a skeleton staff", that's the fault of Scotland? The reason for this is because Scotland left the UK. Waa fucking waa.

No, it would be England's fault. We have a legal obligation to manage our borders, both land and sea, with neighbouring countries. Just like France do. So if they're understaffed as a consequence of them not hiring enough staff to manage the extra workload of Brexit, the fault is with the French for their incompetence, not the British for exercising their sovereign rights.

Taking back control of our borders means no checks on imports from the EU. That'll teach them.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...h-time-reports

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I do wonder how much of your Brexit judgements you apply to Scotland in the eventuality of the leaving them UK. You'll surely be dead against them doing this because it's stupid.

---

It would be economically harmful to them assuming they did a hard Scotxit, so yes I'd consider it stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If Scotland do leave the UK, what happens? A border becomes operational, and suddenly lots of people who regularly commute across the border are expected to show some ID at a checkpoint. Scotland did that just by daring to leave the UK. People have to fuck about instead of just cross the border without even stopping. So if England say "bollocks to this, we'll just run the border checkpoints on a skeleton staff", that's the fault of Scotland? The reason for this is because Scotland left the UK. Waa fucking waa.

No, it would be England's fault. We have a legal obligation to manage our borders, both land and sea, with neighbouring countries. Just like France do. So if they're understaffed as a consequence of them not hiring enough staff to manage the extra workload of Brexit, the fault is with the French for their incompetence, not the British for exercising their sovereign rights.

---

You're absolutely right. France should implement a system whereby people can have their passports checked, stamped, and questions asked all while they're walking towards the ferry, so they don't have to lose any steps. Fucking Frenchies.

Umm, how many extra workers do you want them to hire to process all the special Brexit border-crossers?

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-b...-idUSKBN1FB28H

In fact, afaik a hard Scotxit would be even worse for their economy than Brexit is for ours. That's why I think they won't do it. Latest polls are 54-46 in favour of staying in the UK.

If Scotland parts from the UK, can they join the EU?

Is it all bad if they do so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

It would be economically harmful to them assuming they did a hard Scotxit, so yes I'd consider it stupid.

---

So presumably you'd be posting regular updates in this thread, or perhaps a new thread, constantly showing us how stupid they are for putting sovereignty above economics? Every time some Karen moans about having to wait in traffic at the new checkpoint on the M6, you'll be sure to let us know, right?

Quote:

---

You're absolutely right. France should implement a system whereby people can have their passports checked, stamped, and questions asked all while they're walking towards the ferry, so they don't have to lose any steps. Fucking Frenchies.

---

Or they could just hire more people. We're talking about a critical port here. The French government have a responsibility to ensure it runs smoothly. If we aren't hiring enough staff, same applies to us, whether that be the port of Dover, or a hypothetical border control post on the Scottish border. It's no good blaming Scotland for wanting a border, is it? It's their sovereign right, we have no choice but to respect it. Even if some people think it's stupid to not consider economics the absolute number one priority. Well, number two after climate change, obviously. Climate change, economics, sovereignty, that's the order of importance, right? Anyone who disagrees is stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

If Scotland parts from the UK, can they join the EU?

Is it all bad if they do so?

---

They can but they won't get guarantees. It requires every member state to agree. It probably happens, but they will all want to see what a post-UK Scotland looks like. Will they try to keep the pound until they join the EU, or will they have to have their own currency? Will they be an economic drain on EU resources, or will they be a net contributor? Will they maintain strong economic ties to the remains of the UK? Will there be a hard border or soft border? Will they even vote for it? Probably, but it's never a guarantee.

There's a lot of uncertainty.

The only real problem with an independent Scotland joining the EU is the border with England. We see how difficult the UK/Ireland border is, but it becomes even more problematic when you have a EU/UK border on the Great Britain mainland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So presumably you'd be posting regular updates in this thread, or perhaps a new thread, constantly showing us how stupid they are for putting sovereignty above economics? Every time some Karen moans about having to wait in traffic at the new checkpoint on the M6, you'll be sure to let us know, right?

---

I'll absolutely be doing that. Though I'd have to start a new thread. #MSGA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Or they could just hire more people. We're talking about a critical port here. The French government have a responsibility to ensure it runs smoothly.

---

lol, who's the Karen now?

No-one is forcing these people to holiday in the EU. The French have zero responsiblity for making it easy for us to enter France. It's up to them how long they're happy to let us stand in line. It's their country. Sovereignty baby!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The only real problem with an independent Scotland joining the EU is the border with England. We see how difficult the UK/Ireland border is, but it becomes even more problematic when you have a EU/UK border on the Great Britain mainland.

---

The UK/Ireland border is only a problem because of the Good Friday Agreement, which says there can be no hard border between NI and Ireland. Brexit says there can. That's the tension.

Apart from the lols of having Scotland leave the UK to join the EU, it would be an economic disaster for them. They wouldn't be able to trade with the rest of the UK as easily, and they export about 4x as much to the UK as they do to the EU.

Right now, Northern Ireland is basically a giant duty free shop. It can trade with both the EU and UK easily . But that's only because it has a special arrangement with Ireland, which is guaranteed by the EU.

Scotland would not be getting any such cozy deals if they left us to join the EU, mainly because they'd have left us whereas NI hasn't.

The Karen is a reference to the whinging cow you gleefully linked us to who was stuck at Dover or Calais or wherever the fuck she was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

No-one is forcing these people to holiday in the EU. The French have zero responsiblity for making it easy for us to enter France. It's up to them how long they're happy to let us stand in line. It's their country. Sovereignty baby!

---

I mean you appear to here be suggesting that sovereignty is sticking two fingers up to everyone and just being a shitty neighbour.

Sure, they could take this tone. But it's a pain in the ass for both of us. They presumably don't want agitated people in queues any more than we do.

You make it sound like it's all one way traffic. Nobody is forcing European people to come here, either. That doesn't give us the green light to understaff ports, does it?

Quote:

---

The UK/Ireland border is only a problem because of the Good Friday Agreement, which says there can be no hard border between NI and Ireland. Brexit says there can. That's the tension.

---

Well I don't think there's many people who actually want a hard border between England and Scotland. It'll certainly be a problem because the EU might insist on it if Scotland are to join.

They are obviously not identical situations, the fact NI is isolated from the rest of the UK makes it somewhat easier to maintain a soft border on the EU/UK border.

I of course agree with you that Scotland leaving the UK would be a very risky economic move. But I'd also have to respect their desire to not be politically dominated by the wanker English. If they make a democratic statement saying they consider sovereignty of greater importance than economics, good for them. I'd just find it hilarious if they did then go on to join the EU. Is that what you do with your sovereignty? Give it to someone else?

I don't think it's worth it for Scotland if the EU is their ultimate goal. If they just want to be independent, well that's very different. That comes at a far bigger cost than economics, to some countries, including Scotland historically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I mean you appear to here be suggesting that sovereignty is sticking two fingers up to everyone and just being a shitty neighbour.

---

For a British person to complain about having shitty neighbors must mean irony is dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You make it sound like it's all one way traffic. Nobody is forcing European people to come here, either. That doesn't give us the green light to understaff ports, does it?

---

You make it sound like people crossing an international border have a basic human right to not wait in line.

Again, it's up to each country how they process people at their border. If a neighbor country leaves your customs union and makes it more work to process their citizens crossing your border, you have no obligation to make those crossings as easy as possible. In fact, in any other way of thinking besides Brexitlogic, it would be a surprise if France didn't take the attitude of 'you created this problem where none existed before, don't expect us to fall over ourselves trying to fix it.'

You can make an argument that it's in France's best interests to make tourist crossings easier, in terms of not wanting to dissaude holiday makers who are spending money in France. You cannot make an argument that they somehow owe it to us to give British tourists the VIP treatment.

You really should be more concerned with the fact we're still not inspecting any goods imported from the EU two years after leaving it, which is like putting up a set of giant green flashing lights to smugglers, not to mention illegal immigrants.

It's generally a bad economic policy to let your neighbors export to you with no problems at all, while it's harder for you to export to them.

Quote:

---

You make it sound like people crossing an international border have a basic human right to not wait in line.

---

This is fucking hilarious, seeing as it was you who got us talking about Brexit again by linking an article about a woman waiting to get into Dover. Like, when you can blame Brexit, then waiting in line at a border is a problem.

Quote:

---

If a neighbor country leaves your customs union and makes it more work to process their citizens crossing your border, you have no obligation to make those crossings as easy as possible.

---

There's a mutual benefit aspect to ensuring that ports runs efficiently at both ends of critical routes.

Quote:

---

You cannot make an argument that they somehow owe it to us to give British tourists the VIP treatment.

---

Who said anything about VIP treatment? All I'm talking about is efficiency. And it's not a legal obligation for France, or indeed the UK, to operate ports in efficient ways, but it's certainly in both of our economic interests, and indeed our diplomatic interests.

Quote:

---

You really should be more concerned with the fact we're still not inspecting any goods imported from the EU two years after leaving it, which is like putting up a set of giant green flashing lights to smugglers, not to mention illegal immigrants.

---

I'm surprised you see this as a bad thing, I mean surely hiding in the back on an unchecked lorry is safer than a dinghy? Not perfectly safe of course, but I'd take those chances ahead of a sea route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is fucking hilarious, seeing as it was you who got us talking about Brexit again by linking an article about a woman waiting to get into Dover. Like, when you can blame Brexit, then waiting in line at a border is a problem.

---

It's obvious Brexit makes it harder to visit the EU. If you can't see that it takes longer to have your passport examined and stamped than it does to just walk through, then I can't help you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There's a mutual benefit aspect to ensuring that ports runs efficiently at both ends of critical routes.

Who said anything about VIP treatment? All I'm talking about is efficiency. And it's not a legal obligation for France, or indeed the UK, to operate ports in efficient ways, but it's certainly in both of our economic interests, and indeed our diplomatic interests.

---

So you agree with me it's up to France how they handle border crossings into France? Great, glad we see eye to eye on at least one obvious thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm surprised you see this as a bad thing, I mean surely hiding in the back on an unchecked lorry is safer than a dinghy? Not perfectly safe of course, but I'd take those chances ahead of a sea route.

---

"Taking back control of our borders" means making it easy for criminals to enter and/or smuggle things here. Ok then, I guess I misunderstood how Brexit was sold to people.

Quote:

---

It's obvious Brexit makes it harder to visit the EU.

---

So? It's not a human right to blah blah blah.

It's also obvious that literally nobody who voted for Brexit gives a toss if it's harder to visit the EU. Saving an hour at the port is not really high on peoples' list of priorities. Even the remainers weren't using this as a political pawn. Hey guys, vote remain or you might have to spend more time in Dover on the rare occasion you actually leave the country. Yeah, that's not swinging it. So who cares, other than Karen, the Guardian, and their readers?

Quote:

---

"Taking back control of our borders" means making it easy for criminals to enter and/or smuggle things here. Ok then, I guess I misunderstood how Brexit was sold to people.

---

I can't speak for anyone else, but Brexit wasn't sold to me. I wanted out long before it was a public debate moving towards a referendum. It was gifted to me.

How do you feel about this barge in Weymouth poop? People are throwing the word "inhumane" around, seemingly with no actual idea what that word means.

All I'd say on the matter is if it's safe to operate at the capacity they're talking about, then it's not a problem. Doubling the capacity of a barge is obviously something that needs a proper risk assessment, but considering the boat isn't going to sail, it's not quite the same as doubling the capacity of a working ferry.

The asylum seekers it will house will be free to come and go as they please, access the local amenities. They're not prisoners. So that does have me questioning if the word "inhumane" is really appropriate. Many countries around the world will house asylum seekers in secure compounds. They are effectively prisoners. Having two men share a room on a boat is no more inhumane than a family of three sharing one hotel room for six months, which is happening where I work. We've got one guy who's been living there longer than I've been working there.

This seems like a pretty good solution to me, if it's safe (huge caveat, and needs a truly independent risk assessment).

I'd think it's simple economics. People with money to spend who want to spend it in your country are lined up at the border.
Hire enough workers to get them in as quickly as possible while retaining safety.

It's fucking win win win win win. It's printing money to encourage tourism in your nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'd think it's simple economics. People with money to spend who want to spend it in your country are lined up at the border.
Hire enough workers to get them in as quickly as possible while retaining safety.

It's fucking win win win win win. It's printing money to encourage tourism in your nation.

---

Indeed. It's not just tourism either, it's trade. Things are more expensive if they take longer to move from producer to supplier to consumer.

If France want to exercise their sovereign right to understaff their border ports, well good for them I guess. If it's really that important to them, good luck.

Jesus Christ.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyhCYbQOTOw


***starts calculating the fastest route to retirement and moving abroad...***

Not gonna watch that, but LGBT+ people can be just as bigoted as anyone. They'll fit right in.

I'm not a professional speechwriter, but ah wtf was that?

(Cliffs for non-UKers: This is one of the contenders to take over as leader of the Tories after Fishi Sunak gets his ass handed to him at the next election.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKkx8LCCCNY

This is what we get when you hound Boris out of a job. They're all as incompetent and corrupt as each other, and it's not even a real job, so basically let's have the funniest least boring one in office. I want Boris back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is what we get when you hound Boris out of a job.

---

To be fair, he pretty much cost himself the job by his shamelessly shit behavior. And he wasn't hounded out, his own party decided he had to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

They're all as incompetent and corrupt as each other,

---

This is nowhere even close the truth, just lazy thinking. Unless you're talking specifically about the Tories, where it does seem to be correct, at least lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

and it's not even a real job,

---

Being the monarch and doing fuck all for millions a year is not a real job. Being PM of the country and deciding all kinds of policies is definitely a real job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

so basically let's have the funniest least boring one in office. I want Boris back.

---

Populist thinking at its finest. It's not a TV show mate. It matters who's in charge of your country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

It's not a TV show mate.

---

This is where you're wrong. I think I understand politics more than you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is where you're wrong. I think I understand politics more than you do.

---

I wish it was, but my mortgage renewal quote says otherwise.

That said, there'd be nothing I'd rather see than a game show hosted by Boris Johnson.

The problem you have poop is that you think politics is actual politics. You think the PM is actually running the country, that he's in control of his party, that his party are in control of government.

I don't have that level of faith in the system. It's funny, when I voted to leave the EU, I was actually surprised we were allowed to vote to leave, that it wasn't fixed. And it pinged my paranoia radar. Why did they let us leave? Why did they want it? In the end I just concluded they thought they could manipulate us into voting to remain on the basis that it's racist to want to leave, but that moral guilt trip didn't work. They thought they could tie us up for another generation and it backfired. I guess I have enough faith then to believe we don't outright fix election results. But when it comes to voting between Labour and Tory, it's like choosing between a slap across the face or a punch in the stomach. Either way, the same corrupt cunts are running the show, we just have a difference face and sometimes a different brand for the government.

Politics in the UK is precisely a TV show. It's how the government interacts with the masses. And the way we do it is basically theatre, it's a bunch of actors playing the role of people who make decisions and have our best interests at heart when really it's all an act. It's like wrestling, where the dumbasses think it's real. Only, there's a lot of dumbasses when it comes to politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Politics in the UK is precisely a TV show. It's how the government interacts with the masses. And the way we do it is basically theatre, it's a bunch of actors playing the role of people who make decisions and have our best interests at heart when really it's all an act. It's like wrestling, where the dumbasses think it's real. Only, there's a lot of dumbasses when it comes to politics.

---

Of course they are putting on a show, trying to make a good impression on the public, because that's who elects them. It's like how people try to impress their employer at work. And yes, just like people who work for a company there are varying levels of competence and yes, some of them are stealing from the company. That doesn't mean everyone is shit and corrupt at their job though.

The evidence this isn't the case in politics everywhere. You don't have to look far to find a country that is much less corrupt than our current gov't, where public money goes to public services and not to line the pockets of donors (or at least not to extent it has been happening here in recent years).

To say "politicians are all equally corrupt and incompetent" is just a lazy copout for people who can't be bothered to pay attention to what's going on. It's like saying 'women are all bitches so it doesn't matter which one I marry, I'll be just as miserable either way.'


More generally, if you can't see the difference between Labour and the Tories you really haven't been paying attention. Tories are there to protect the interests of the wealthy, whereas Labour are there to protect the interests of those who aren't wealthy. The reason the Tories often win is because the media is run by wealthy people who naturally want the party in that will help them become more wealthy, and they use tricks like pointing at dinghies to scare people into thinking they need the Tories to protect them from the lefties.

When Labour were last in power, just before they got voted out, the NHS was rated the number one health service in the world in terms of patient satisfaction. Now there are people sitting outside the hospital in ambulances for 24 hrs + because the Tories don't give a shit about people who can't afford private insurance. That's just one example, but it's the most stark one. But yeah, "they're all the same," right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

when I voted to leave the EU, I was actually surprised we were allowed to vote to leave, that it wasn't fixed. And it pinged my paranoia radar. Why did they let us leave? Why did they want it?

---

You start out by asking the right questions here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

In the end I just concluded they thought they could manipulate us into voting to remain on the basis that it's racist to want to leave, but that moral guilt trip didn't work. They thought they could tie us up for another generation and it backfired. I guess I have enough faith then to believe we don't outright fix election results.

---

...and then you go on to conclude that because you got what YOU wanted, the system works after all.

No offense, but you are really not good at critical thinking sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

when I voted to leave the EU, I was actually surprised we were allowed to vote to leave, that it wasn't fixed. And it pinged my paranoia radar. Why did they let us leave? Why did they want it?

---

You start out by asking the right questions here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

In the end I just concluded they thought they could manipulate us into voting to remain on the basis that it's racist to want to leave, but that moral guilt trip didn't work. They thought they could tie us up for another generation and it backfired. I guess I have enough faith then to believe we don't outright fix election results.

---

...and then you go on to conclude that because you got what YOU wanted, the system works after all.

No offense, but you are really not good at critical thinking sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

...and then you go on to conclude that because you got what YOU wanted, the system works after all.

---

You're making an assumption here, and an incorrect one. I assume the system works because the result was not what I expected if the system was rigged. It has nothing to do with what I wanted. I thought the system was corrupt enough that they wouldn't accept a vote to leave, but they did, so I was wrong. It's either because democracy is fair, or because those who are capable of fixing elections wanted us to leave. I lean towards the former, because the way the media presented the debate had me thinking those who influence their editorial policy didn't want us to leave. Or maybe it's just the simple fact that referenda are not easy to fix without someone noticing, unlike a FPTP election which is rigged by design rather than by direct manipulation.

idk, but what I wanted is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I assume the system works because the result was not what I expected if the system was rigged.

---

Exactly. You assume the system is rigged against you - all politicians are criminals, voting is rigged against what you want, etc.. And when it comes out differently you're pleasantly surprised.

Tinfoil hat mode is your default .

You're right about only one thing - that tinfoil is my default. But it's not that I think the system is rigged against ME or my ideology. It just happens that my ideology tends to be anti-establishment.

It is possible to think the system is rigged in favour of your own ideology. It's not common for people to feel that way, people do usually think that the system is rigged against them, but that's because if the system is rigged, those who benefit either don't notice or don't care.

And I'm demonstrating ability to consider the system being rigged in my favour, because I ask the question why they might have wanted us and allowed us to leave. That implies that I think it's possible they fixed it as such, even though that's what I voted for. I don't believe it, but I don't disregard it as impossible either.

As a citizen in a system rigged in my favor, it's not necessarily that those benefiting don't care. It's mostly that they don't notice. The system is designed to make the privileges look perfectly normal for those who receive them.

A draconic rule exists
rule enforcer to privileged class: Well, this is against the rules, but it's a bad rule, and just FYI, don't do this again, OK?
rule enforcer to non-privileged class: Well, this is against the rules, and you broke the rules so you're going to face the consequences.


The privileged person is treated fairly, and given a nice warning. Their perception is that this is how it's always handled. Their perception is that they are a good person who got a nice warning, so if you didn't get a nice warning, then you must not be a good person.

This is made up, but iconic of the typical things I deal with trying to explain what white privilege is in the US. White people get "normal" treatment under the rules which includes a sense of understanding of the circumstances. Whereas non-white people tend to get "normal" treatment under the rules which lacks that human knowledge and brutally applies black-and-white consequences.

Both sides see their normal, and can't understand what the other side is fucking talking about.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...4063208757.png

Well...

https://media.tenor.com/s3OwiUcK3lkAAAAC/liz-truss.gif

Speaking of disgraces, can someone please put Cruella on a plane to Rwanda asap?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2445408.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Speaking of disgraces, can someone please put Cruella on a plane to Rwanda asap?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2445408.html

---

We might agree on something here, I share the utter disgust at destroying the tents of homeless people.

It'll be interesting to find out who actually sanctioned this. Camden Council (Labour) deny involvement, but Streets Kitchen (a charity) claim they were involved. idk about their political leaning but usually social justice charities are very anti-Tory and it would be a surprise for them to make unfounded accusations against a Labour council.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if this is Tory business, and it would surprise me if Labour councillors sanctioned this.

The Met is taking responsibility, after a complaint from UC Hospital London.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...-away-31411734


Cruella's sacking today is literally the best thing to happen to British politics since Nigel Farage lost an election to a dolphin.


Describing homelessness as "a lifestyle choice," not exactly a shining moment.


It also seems her plan to set the right wing loony football hooligan mob with the swastika tattoos against the lefty wokey cokey peace marchers (sorry I mean "hate marchers") on the weekend didn't work out.

The Daily Fail obviously did it's best to keep things calm, by reporting that poppy-sellers were under threat from the left. 'Cause the left all hate Britain so much they want to beat up people who are selling poppies to commemorate our war dead. "Goddamn people giving their lives for our freedom! Arrrgggghh! Let's dig 'em up and kill 'em again." FML, who buys this shit?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-poppy-sellers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Describing homelessness as "a lifestyle choice," not exactly a shining moment.

---

Her comments were dumb, but she said "some" and in that she's right. Of course it's a very small percentage of those who find themselves homeless and not something one should be allowing to influence policy.

I've known people who have drifted through life, sometimes homeless, sometimes sofa surfing, sometimes in hostels, and yes it's a lifestyle choice for some. This small demographic reject what we call civilised society, they don't want to live in a house with the responsibilities that entails, they don't want to be tied to one place, I guess the word "choice" is still questionable because we don't tend to choose our character, most of us are a product of our experiences so it's likely that their childhood was traumatic in some way that caused them to lose faith in the system. But there are people on the street who don't want to be helped.

You do, however, have to be very careful how you go about having this discussion, if you're a politician.

Those who are on the street by choice, it's also worth noting that these people aren't undeserving of sympathy and respect. Sleeping rough should never be a crime. We should be helping off the street those who want to be helped, which is surely the vast majority of homeless people, and offer effective support for those who don't, so they have access to resources that will get them back on their feet if and when they choose to rejoin society.

Again, you seem to be getting your facts from somewhere else.

Her actual words were:

Quote:

---

We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."

---

How many people are choosing homelessness as the lesser of two evils? Like, I feel safer on the street in front of Tesco than I do in a hostel? Like, I'd rather be on the street than at home getting the shit beaten out of me by whomever? Like, I can't hold a job and I have mental illnesses that prevent me from functioning in a house with people so I "choose" to be homeless rather than deal with "civilized" life? Like, I've experienced financial distress that caused me to lose my home <cough, Liz Truss, cough, mini-budget, cough> and I have nowhere else to go?

The number of people whose life ambition is to grow up and live on a pavement somewhere is, if I were to hazard a guess, vanishingly close to zero.



The irony of this statement is stark:

Quote:

---

"British cities will go the way of places in the US like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where weak policies have led to an explosion of crime, drug taking and squalor."

---

Basically, homelessness is a result of governments not providing a proper safety net for people, it's not from them being "soft" on homeless people.

Fun fact: The UK, with a population ~68m, has ~270k homeless, or about one out of 250 people. In Finland, with 5.5m people, there's 3k homeless, or one out of 1800. Guess which country is a lefty libtard democracy and which is run by a party that put Cruella Braverman in charge of the Home Office, fired her for gross negligence on the job, then hired her again at the same job a few days later.

Oh, she said "many", not "some", which means the same thing. Would you like to argue about the difference between those two subjective terms?

Comparing two countries where one is an order of magnitude larger in population isn't really a healthy debate.

The UK has had a homelessness problem for a lot longer than any one government has been in power, or even any one party. And surely that figure includes people who are not on the street but are in temporary accommodation, such as hotels and hostels. Of course we shouldn't forget those who are not on the streets, it's not a case of whack them in a hotel problem solved. But those who are in hotels are examples of a system that is at least doing something. We regularly have people in the hotel I work at who would be legally recognised as "homeless".

Quote:

---

Basically, homelessness is a result of governments not providing a proper safety net for people, it's not from them being "soft" on homeless people.

---

This is absolutely 100% accurate.

Funny. St Louis did a shockingly similar thing in the past month.

We had a "tent city" of homeless people living near city hall downtown for a long time. Months?
And then one day, cops came in and forced them all to leave.

It was a clusterfuck.
3 bills have been proposed and sent back to committee in the immediate aftermath under a broad label of "Homeless Bill of Rights."
There's strong push to do something, but not consensus on what.

Probably evaporate once the sting of the recent event fades, but I can at least hope for something nice.

Ong, you're really struggling with comprehension today.

She said "many are them from abroad." That's got nothing to do with how many of the homeless population as a whole she thinks are there by choice. She didn't qualify that term one way or the other, which suggests she is making a blanket statement.

Quote:

---

Comparing two countries where one is an order of magnitude larger in population isn't really a healthy debate.

---

Which is why I said it was 1 in 250 in the UK and 1 in 1800 in Finland, because proportions allow you to compare populations of different sizes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Funny. St Louis did a shockingly similar thing in the past month.

We had a "tent city" of homeless people living near city hall downtown for a long time. Months?
And then one day, cops came in and forced them all to leave.

---

Makes you wonder where they all went to then. It's not like that solves the problem of homelessness, unless you think the problem is having them where a lot of people will see them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

She said "many are them from abroad."

---

Ok so she's referring to people who would prefer to live on British streets than live in a poor country. That's arguably a "lifestyle choice", in the sense that they are economic migrants, they have chosen to seek a better life in another country. And living on the streets of the UK is a better life than living in Somalia. I'm not sure how many economic migrants live on the streets and reject help to get off the streets, I can't imagine it's enough to cry about. It certainly is a problem for migrants to make the choice to live on British streets, and it's pretty hard to hold the government to account for this demographic. The circumstances that led to their homelessness originates elsewhere, outside of the UK. And while it's easy to say we can do more for them, the priority should be for the people who are homeless as a direct result of British government policy.

But referring to it in a public forum does smack of whipping up fears with the moronic right.

Quote:

---

Which is why I said it was 1 in 250 in the UK and 1 in 1800 in Finland, because proportions allow you to compare populations of different sizes.

---

You can't actually believe what you're saying here. Proportions might give the illusion of comparison, but a larger population means bigger challenges for the government, and that relationship isn't necessarily linear. You must surely be aware that the population density in the UK is much higher than in Finland. You must surely be aware that population density is an important metric in this discussion. You must also be aware that the UK is more ethnically and culturally diverse, which brings about other challenges.

There are a ton of reasons why Finland is a better place to live than the UK. A small population with low population density is one of those reasons, it's much easier for the people to hold bad governments to account. You can't just say "waa waa per capita" and think that wins that round.

TIL there's a place in the UK called Goblin Combe.
Except you madlads pronounce it Gobblin' Coom.

Respect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You can't actually believe what you're saying here.

---

Yes I can. That's why I said it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Proportions might give the illusion of comparison, but a larger population means bigger challenges for the government, and that relationship isn't necessarily linear. You must surely be aware that the population density in the UK is much higher than in Finland. You must surely be aware that population density is an important metric in this discussion. You must also be aware that the UK is more ethnically and culturally diverse, which brings about other challenges.

There are a ton of reasons why Finland is a better place to live than the UK. A small population with low population density is one of those reasons, it's much easier for the people to hold bad governments to account. You can't just say "waa waa per capita" and think that wins that round.

---

You point out some differences but don't explain how they result in more homelessness. How does population density affect homelessness? You think we don't have enough land to build houses on? Or, is it that we don't build enough houses and so they're unaffordable for a lot of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Ok so she's referring to people who would prefer to live on British streets than live in a poor country. That's arguably a "lifestyle choice",

---

I was going to let this go but the teacher in me says fuck it, let's try to help here.

Read her words again:

Quote:

---

We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."

---

The commas separate clauses. The comma after "from abroad" separates that clause from the first clause, which refers to "people," and the final clause, which refers to a "lifestyle choice."

When a sentence is constructed this way, the final clause refers to the subject of the first clause (i.e, "people,"), not the adjective in the second clause "from abroad."

In other words, the meaning of the sentence can be understood as being equivalent to saying: "We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of these people (in tents) are from abroad."

Instead, you are reading it as "We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people. Many of these people (in tents) are from abroad, and it is the people from abroad who are living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."


Granted, it's Cruella who wrote those words and it's easy to imagine her hating on foreigners. But given she's a lawyer and was writing the words rather than speaking them (where it's much easier to make errors), I would expect her to have a better grasp of semantics than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

TIL there's a place in the UK called Goblin Combe.
Except you madlads pronounce it Gobblin' Coom.

Respect

---

What's funny here is I read Goblin Combe and Gobblin' Coom exactly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

You point out some differences but don't explain how they result in more homelessness. How does population density affect homelessness? You think we don't have enough land to build houses on? Or, is it that we don't build enough houses and so they're unaffordable for a lot of people.

---

Does it really require an explanation? There are a ton of reasons and you could easily find a more informed opinion than mine by simply googling the matter.

I will make the obvious point that higher population density puts pressure on existing infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, especially if the population has increased since that infrastructure was built. More people means more social pressure too, resulting in increased depression and anxiety, which can lead to greater tensions in the home, higher drug and alcohol use, resulting in lower social security, in turn resulting in higher homelessness.

And yes, building houses isn't so simple when there's local outrage every time a field gets identified as a potential site for development. The UK isn't that big, we're running out of space. Our focus is primarily on redevelopment of existing sites, rather than expanding towns and cities. Smaller countries (in terms of population density) have more options.

This is pretty fucking obvious, and there are many much less obvious factors to consider too.

Quote:

---

Instead, you are reading it as "We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people. Many of these people (in tents) are from abroad, and it is the people from abroad who are living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."

---

You seem to have a reading problem too then if this is how you're interpreting my comments.

I refer to people who have drifted through life rejecting society, these people are homeless "as a lifestyle choice", if that phrase is to mean to choose one viable option over another. That isn't a reference to people who fled Somalia.

There are people from home and abroad living on the streets "as a lifestyle choice". And in both cases that figure is tiny compared to those who live on the streets because it's the only option they have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You seem to have a reading problem too then if this is how you're interpreting my comments.

I refer to people who have drifted through life rejecting society, these people are homeless "as a lifestyle choice", if that phrase is to mean to choose one viable option over another. That isn't a reference to people who fled Somalia.

There are people from home and abroad living on the streets "as a lifestyle choice". And in both cases that figure is tiny compared to those who live on the streets because it's the only option they have.

---

nonononono, you said that the first time, then when i corrected you, you changed your argument to it being "economic migrants" from abroad coming here to live on the streets as a lifestyle choice.

Here you go poop

https://www.albert.io/blog/populatio...man%20services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

nonononono, you said that the first time, then when i corrected you, you changed your argument to it being "economic migrants" from abroad coming here to live on the streets as a lifestyle choice.

---

I didn't change my argument, I was acknowledging both exist. You chose to interpret it as changing my argument.

Here's a snip that states the obvious...

Quote:

---

How does Population Density Influence Political, Economic, and Social Processes?
In general, increases in population density equate to problems for a country. Urban areas with a high arithmetic density have an increased need for food, infrastructure, and health/human services.

---

You corrected me on what Cruella said, largely because you've paid a lot more attention to what she actually said than I have.

That doesn't mean that the people I initially referred to don't exist. I know they exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I will make the obvious point that higher population density puts pressure on existing infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, especially if the population has increased since that infrastructure was built.

---

How does it put pressure on schools and hospitals? You have more people, you build more schools and hospitals.

Population density doesn't just keep going up and up, like every new person goes to live in a big city. People sprawl out of the big cities into the suburbs. You build more suburbs, you build more hospitals and schools in those suburbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

More people means more social pressure too, resulting in increased depression and anxiety, which can lead to greater tensions in the home, higher drug and alcohol use, resulting in lower social security, in turn resulting in higher homelessness.

---

Sure, being crammed into a place with a lot of people increases stress. How do you suppose a gov't could manage that? Perhaps by building housing in other places?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And yes, building houses isn't so simple when there's local outrage every time a field gets identified as a potential site for development.

---

So there's nimbyism. The answer to this from the gov't is simple: "Too bad. we have a housing shortage so we're building houses on that empty field next to your house. "

Part of the reason homeowners don't want more houses is because they think the value of their home will fall if there's enough housing for everyone. And they're right. What they don't realise is that they're never going to benefit from the increase in equity in their house unless they sell that house and move somewhere cheaper. Or maybe they can make a lifestyle choice and become a wealthy homeless person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The UK isn't that big, we're running out of space.

---

Are we really? Or is just that combination of nimbyism and greed that's keeping us from building more houses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Our focus is primarily on redevelopment of existing sites, rather than expanding towns and cities. Smaller countries (in terms of population density) have more options.

---

So because Finland has lots of empty forests, they can just knock down a forest in the middle of nowhere and build houses there? As opposed to us where our empty forests are next to existing infrastrucutre, where it'd be easy to build houses and hook them up to the surrounding communities.

It's just such a lame argument to say we're running out of space. I live 30 minutes from one of the most densely populated cities in Europe (London), and there's plenty of empty space around me, including between me and London, where houses could be built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is pretty fucking obvious, and there are many much less obvious factors to consider too.

---

It's obvious that you want to assert things without backing them up with any reasoning. If these are your "obvious" factors, then I suspect the less obvious ones are even less valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You corrected me on what Cruella said, largely because you've paid a lot more attention to what she actually said than I have.

That doesn't mean that the people I initially referred to don't exist. I know they exist.

---

I suppose this is as close to an admission I'm going to get.

What's funny about this is it started out as you misremembering what she said (albeit in a way which fits into your own worldview, which is revealing I think).

Then when you were shown her words - her actual words - you went on to misintrepret them, not only by ignoring punctuation, but also by going so far as to assert that the word "many" is a synonym of the word "some" (it isn't).

Then, when your misinterpretation was patiently explained to you, you reductio ad bananumed yourself and claimed you were expressing your own thoughts rather than those of the person whose quote we were debating the meaning of.

There's gotta be a point at which you realise how ridiculous you can be some times, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

How does it put pressure on schools and hospitals? You have more people, you build more schools and hospitals.

---

Sure. Does this happen linearly? When a population doubles, does the number of schools double? Or does it depend on how much space and money the city has to build more schools?

Quote:

---

You build more suburbs, you build more hospitals and schools in those suburbs.

---

You say this like it's simple. Where? Please identify the locations where these new suburbs will be built, and please identify where the funds are coming from.

Quote:

---

Population density doesn't just keep going up and up

---

No it doesn't, but most cities and towns in the UK were built long ago, when the population was much lower. Most cities and towns have failed to expand at the same rate they have increased in population.

Quote:

---

Sure, being crammed into a place with a lot of people increases stress. How do you suppose a gov't could manage that? Perhaps by building housing in other places?

---

Are you starting to see a pattern yet?

We do build more houses. We just haven't done it fast enough to keep up with the increase in population. And so, increasing population density puts pressure on local amenities and infrastructure.

Quote:

---

So there's nimbyism. The answer to this from the gov't is simple: "Too bad. we have a housing shortage so we're building houses on that empty field next to your house. "

---

There's definitely an element of NIMBY when it comes to this subject, but that's not all there is to it. Every field that is developed into houses is one less field producing food.

Quote:

---

Are we really? Or is just that combination of nimbyism and greed that's keeping us from building more houses?

---

No. I mean you seem to have thrown out of the window any shits you give about environmental issues, just to keep on arguing with me. I admire this dedication to our discussions.

Quote:

---

So because Finland has lots of empty forests, they can just knock down a forest in the middle of nowhere and build houses there?

---

No. I mean, they could do that, but it seems more logical to just expand current towns and cities into the forests a little more.

Quote:

---

It's just such a lame argument to say we're running out of space.

---

I don't understand where you're coming from here. We're not literally running out of space. What the term "running out of space" tends to mean in this context is that the trade off between urban and rural that expansion demands is becoming more and more of a burden. We need fields and forests, we need moorlands and nature reserves. We've already sacrificed a lot of that for human development and we can't keep doing it forever. The people who say "we're running out of space" generally mean they believe we are approaching or have exceeded that ideal balance. I'd say it's pretty lame to dismiss the "running out of space" argument as not worthy of your consideration. We are running out of space, if the forests and fields we have left mean anything to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

There's gotta be a point at which you realise how ridiculous you can be some times, no?

---

I don't care. You're being ridiculous right now saying "just build more suburbs and schools", and basically mocking those who oppose sacrificing the remnants of our forests, and even failing to understand why developing a field into houses is a problem when repeated over time.

It's like you're more interested in arguing with me than you are expressing an opinion that aligns with your sense of morality.

I can't actually believe you're the kind of guy who really thinks we should just keep on building new shit in fields.

And you say I'm ridiculous because I can't be bothered to interpret a politicians comments properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're being ridiculous right now saying "just build more suburbs and schools",

---

Where do you want people to live then, in a dumpster somewhere? You can't house more people without more housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

and basically mocking those

---

What did I say that was mocking them? I said they don't understand that whatever house prices go up to, they still just own basically one house. It's like if inflation is 10% and they think they're doing well because they're getting 10% on their savings account. They're not making money, they're breaking even while everyone without savings suffers. But if some nimby is too thick to realise the same logic applies to house prices, maybe they deserve to be mocked. At the very least, they're being selfish cunts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

who oppose sacrificing the remnants of our forests,

---

Remants?

Quote:

---

The UK land area covered by woodland has increased from 9.0% in 1980 to 13.3% in 2022.

---

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envir...ccountsuk/2022

Also, do you know how much 13% of the land mass of the UK is? It's more than the 8% that is urban.

So, let's say there's 30 million houses in the uk right now. And they're using up 8% of the land. So building another 3 million would use up another .8% of the land. 3 million new houses, more if you build apartment buildings, and we're not talking about paving over the entire country here.

We dont' have to chop down every forest to build enough housing for everyone, ya know?

Quote:

---

and even failing to understand why developing a field into houses is a problem when repeated over time.

---

It's a problem if we aim to have a population of 500 million. Before that, no.

Quote:

---

It's like you're more interested in arguing with me than you are expressing an opinion that aligns with your sense of morality.

---

My sense of morality is that housing should be affordable for everyone. Right now it isn't. Building more houses would alleviate the problem. Saying there's no room to put them is wrong. There is room.

Quote:

---

I can't actually believe you're the kind of guy who really thinks we should just keep on building new shit in fields.

---

Where would you like those people to live then? You can't have a pristine country covered 100% with trees and squirrels and birds, and have buildings for humans to live in at the same time.

Quote:

---

And you say I'm ridiculous because I can't be bothered to interpret a politicians comments properly.

---

It's not just that, it's that you keep doubling down when you're plainly wrong and using reductio ad bananum ad nauseum to try to change the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Also, do you know how much 13% of the land mass of the UK is? It's more than the 8% that is urban.

---

Good. And yes, 13% qualifies as "remnants", considering the island was mostly forest before humans came along.

Quote:

---

Where do you want people to live then, in a dumpster somewhere? You can't house more people without more housing.

---

Of course we need more housing. And usually that housing is developed on the outskirts of existing cities and towns, that have existing infrastructure designed for a smaller population. A new development might have its own school, but rarely will it have its own hospital, or motorway junction, or landfill site, or police station, or fire station, or water treatment facility, or all the other countless things we need for people to live safe clean lives.

Quote:

---

It's a problem if we aim to have a population of 500 million. Before that, no.

---

We'll have serious problems long before we reach a population this large.

Quote:

---

My sense of morality is that housing should be affordable for everyone. Right now it isn't. Building more houses would alleviate the problem. Saying there's no room to put them is wrong. There is room.

---

Housing is free in the UK if you are on benefits.

I'm not saying there's literally no room. What I'm saying is that as a population increases, rarely does the infrastructure needed to support that increase in population keep pace. There are a multitude of reasons why that's the case, and the difficulty in developing on much of our land (due to NIMBY and legit environmental concerns) is just one of those reasons.

There are plenty of sites that could be used for housing, but do they have the necessary transport links? If not, that means building it. So the viable options for proper development are limited, when compared to a country with a lower population density. And that's why standard of living tends to decrease as population density increases.

Quote:

---

Where would you like those people to live then?

---

Not on Exmoor.

Quote:

---

...to try to change the argument.

---

Actually it's me trying to get back on track. We're talking about why population density is important when it comes to things like homelessness, and your focus is purely on housing like that's the only problem. It's not just housing. It's the entire infrastructure than comes with human civilisation, and another key reason why people become homeless is the root cause, the personal circumstances that led to their situation, and population density is highly likely to have significant psychological effects on people. I know I prefer living in a small town or, better still, the middle of fucking nowhere. Rarely do people who live in cities actually want it to become bigger with more people. It's a chaotic enough life as it is, nearly all cities and towns have significant traffic problems, that largely didn't exist as recently as 30 years ago. Cities are inherently depressing. More people means more problems for a government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Good. And yes, 13% qualifies as "remnants", considering the island was mostly forest before humans came along.

---

The problem here is a) you tried to argue we are running out of forest, to which I pointed out we have significantly more forests than we had 40 years ago. So, obviously that's not what's happening; b) most of the deforestation that has occurred in the past 1000 years or so was for purposes other than urbanization, so it's not as if urbanization is the sole or even the greatest threat to forests; and most importantly, c) no-one ever said the only option for building houses is to tear down a forest. It was just an example I gave that you wet your pants over as if you suddenly turned into some tree-hugger hippie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Of course we need more housing. And usually that housing is developed on the outskirts of existing cities and towns, that have existing infrastructure designed for a smaller population. A new development might have its own school, but rarely will it have its own hospital, or motorway junction, or landfill site, or police station, or fire station, or water treatment facility, or all the other countless things we need for people to live safe clean lives.

---

Yeah but every new development of (say) 100 houses doesn't need all those things for itself does it. So what's your point? As your population grows you need to build more hospitals, roads, schools, etc.? Well yeah, duh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

We'll have serious problems long before we reach a population this large.

---

Fine. But no-one's talking about growing us to 500 million or 300 million or anywhere near that. We're talking about having enough housing for the 67m that are here now. And if we're going to grow by 500k a year, then to plan to have enough housing for them too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So the viable options for proper development are limited, when compared to a country with a lower population density.

---

They're not limited by space, that's a myth. Goddamn, for someone who doesn't read the Daily Mail, you seem drawn to the same types of arguments. "No more immigrants! We're full!" Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And that's why standard of living tends to decrease as population density increases.

---

The solution to this would be to have fewer people in your country, not to make the ones already there homeless. I suppose the latter makes the former more likely. Just not in a good way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Not on Exmoor.

---

I don't know what Exmoor is, but sounds like your a closet nimby.

But ok seriously, let's not tear down New Forest and our other national parks to build houses. But we can build plenty more between where I live and London. And yes, I get it, you're also going to need more hospitals and roads and water treatment plants. So you build them too. Just like you built more before when London expanded. You don't just suddenly run out of "build a hospital" cards once you get to a certain population density.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Actually it's me trying to get back on track. We're talking about why population density is important when it comes to things like homelessness, and your focus is purely on housing like that's the only problem. It's not just housing. It's the entire infrastructure than comes with human civilisation, and another key reason why people become homeless is the root cause, the personal circumstances that led to their situation, and population density is highly likely to have significant psychological effects on people. I know I prefer living in a small town or, better still, the middle of fucking nowhere. Rarely do people who live in cities actually want it to become bigger with more people. It's a chaotic enough life as it is, nearly all cities and towns have significant traffic problems, that largely didn't exist as recently as 30 years ago. Cities are inherently depressing. More people means more problems for a government.

---

Like I said, if you think population density is the problem, then reducing or limiting the population is the answer. That still doesn't mean you don't try to build enough houses for the people who are already here. Yes I get it it's a challenge to make it all work. But you don't just not even try, the way the Tories are.

Goddamn woke supreme court justices, ruling that we not send asylume seekers to a dangerous third country. Arrrrrrgggghhhh!!


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...kers-to-rwanda


Odds of DM coming out with another "enemies of the people" front page? I'm giving it 2:1.