Whats a million quid or two matter.

[Anna B]

Of course we do, but the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham, she could sell one of those to pay for the work. 120,000 children in the UK will be homeless this Christmas, in temporary accommodation, while millions of our money is being spent on rich people who have multiple homes, it's wrong.

 

120,000 is a disgrace, but then so is the entire system that lets this happen while the rich get richer.

[harvey19]

Where are the parents and relatives of these 120,000 children ?

[ECCOnoob]

Acutally, I have just seen the source which inevitably has been hammed up by the Daily Mirror and Independant.

 

That factual source is "Shelter says estimated figure is....."

 

I think the key word is in the quote.

 

Furthermore, these are people who DO actually have a roof over their head and are in taxpayer funded hostels and temporary accommodation schemes. Not a great situation. Very sad for the people concerned but not exactly cardboard box under a railway bridge is it.

Edited November 20, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[tinfoilhat]

Source or it didn't happen

 

Saw it on advert for Shelter I think on the telly. It's a smidge over 1% of every child under 16. I'm not convinced of those numbers if I'm honest.

[apelike]

ECCOnoob.

 

Although I don't support Royalty and believe it should be abolished I think in this case you are correct. The proposed £4bn renovation of Parliament that could rise over the 6 years to £7bn is more of a concern as that does come out of taxpayers money.

[ECCOnoob]

ECCOnoob.

 

Although I don't support Royalty and believe it should be abolished I think in this case you are correct. The proposed £4bn renovation of Parliament that could rise over the 6 years to £7bn is more of a concern as that does come out of taxpayers money.

 

I woud certainly agree with you. That is a Government Department which I think needs some fat trimming. Whilst I would maintain that the Monarch and Head of State Functions should be at the Palace, do we really need every single civil servant and parlimentary function being based within lavish historical buildings around Whitehall.

 

Even more so when that, as you say, IS actually coming direct out of our pockets. Westminster buildings dont generate income to the Treasury. The Royal Estates do. That is a big difference.

 

Just same old story really. Media minipulation and the Queen being an easy target.

[harvey19]

Sensationalism sells papers and not news.

[Bob Arctor]

Where are the parents and relatives of these 120,000 children ?

 

Living with them in the same temporary accommodation.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2016 at 18:04 ----------

 

Saw it on advert for Shelter I think on the telly. It's a smidge over 1% of every child under 16. I'm not convinced of those numbers if I'm honest.

 

Any particular reason tin?

[Marx]

It's a big tourist attraction bringing in billions to the country. Saying that im a republican and would do away with royal subsidy. They can fund themselves.

 

The Palace of Versaille is also a big tourist attraction with one key difference. Lizzie is the richest woman in the world and the media have you all swallowing the same story about royalty being good for tourism. They are unelected parasites; the lot of them and have no place in a free society. Wait till Lizzie finally shuffles and you get a dose of Charles.

[tinfoilhat]

Living with them in the same temporary accommodation.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2016 at 18:04 ----------

 

 

Any particular reason tin?

 

Because its a large number. Its a large percentage. Its a large percentage given we have a pretty comprehensive social care programme. Had it been in america I'd had believed the percentage quite easily - the gaps you can fall through if fall on hard times are large. Can we really have 120,000 homeless kids? How? And how are we defining homeless?