The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 is to ensure that everyone who is at risk of homelessness, or who is homeless, is legally entitled to meaningful help from their local authority regardless of their current status. It does this by defining the service that local councils and other public bodies must provide to those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The law requires councils to provide that help at an earlier stage than previously, with the objective that this will decrease the likelihood that people will become homeless.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@B3PTL8MWomen's Equality3wks3W
They should be moved into a home with the knowledge that there will be consequences for sleeping or encamping in public property
No but there should be designated encampment areas with heaters for them to make it better but only if they have refused good help and are offered it asap
@9PSYS8R9mos9MO
Safe outdoor spaces should be provided for those that are homeless, where targeted support can be best utilised.
@9NN45PP10mos10MO
Depends, if its because they have a pet and the shelter won't allow the pets then no. I believe the shelters and housing and private rent all need to be more accommodating of pets.
@9N86Y7510mos10MO
They shouldn’t be allowed to but in order to put this in place the accommodation and help provided needs to be fit for purpose
Not in busy cities. This should be controlled in zones. Schemes should be provided to give them psychological assistance and rehabilitation as a mandatory alternative.
@9D7L5PN2yrs2Y
Other support should be given
@9FRFHMS1yr1Y
No, but we should treat them all fairly and react responsibly on a case by case basis, and while a free speech country they had the right to not be labels straight away as criminals so removing that from our talks will help
@97RLT3M2yrs2Y
to introduce a programme where homeless can gain skills to get back on a job to be able to rent a house for themselves.
@9CLYXD62yrs2Y
No, but more funding is needed to make the shelter/housing safe spaces first
no but they should be allowed certain areas in which they are allowed to that may not be in a shelter which allows them freedom
@93B4PKG3yrs3Y
tiny minority, silly question
@9CC5YNL2yrs2Y
Yes, but not if it causes problems for property owners
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
