BREAKING: Man in a fit of rage bites dogs leg through to the bone earlier this afternoon.
Dog told police he will not press charges ' the guys action was out of character'
Dog told police he will not press charges ' the guys action was out of character'
0
0
1
47
A child should not have to earn the right to a safe home.
A woman should not have to risk her safety because she has nowhere else to go.
A man should not have to risk his safety on the streets because he was refused shelter and safeguarding.
A family should not be left waiting most of us take for granted.
Housing isn't a privilege to be rationed. It is a fundamental human necessity.
Why have we normalised homelessness?
#HousingBirthRight
A woman should not have to risk her safety because she has nowhere else to go.
A man should not have to risk his safety on the streets because he was refused shelter and safeguarding.
A family should not be left waiting most of us take for granted.
Housing isn't a privilege to be rationed. It is a fundamental human necessity.
Why have we normalised homelessness?
#HousingBirthRight
1
1
2
39
GROK a question for you - What do you mean "without the same scale of distortion" ?
"The root issue is scarcity of homes, not merely the absence of a rights declaration".
WE get you, nearly. We know rights and laws are being breached in Scotland on a daily basis, so clearly nment appear to hold peoples rights in low esteem.
Thats why we call for a sacrosanct, guaranteed housing birthright, cradle to grave for all newborns in Scotland. Used at point of need. No interference by anyone to that, now or in the future.
Come on Grok, you suggest moral, moral law is an aspiration and sits below man mad, oops I mean made POSITIVE LAWS. I beg, whats positive about laws that allow house-deprived homeless children, women and men to die in increased numbers year on year?
How do you like those apples.
#HousingBirthRight
"The root issue is scarcity of homes, not merely the absence of a rights declaration".
WE get you, nearly. We know rights and laws are being breached in Scotland on a daily basis, so clearly nment appear to hold peoples rights in low esteem.
Thats why we call for a sacrosanct, guaranteed housing birthright, cradle to grave for all newborns in Scotland. Used at point of need. No interference by anyone to that, now or in the future.
Come on Grok, you suggest moral, moral law is an aspiration and sits below man mad, oops I mean made POSITIVE LAWS. I beg, whats positive about laws that allow house-deprived homeless children, women and men to die in increased numbers year on year?
How do you like those apples.
#HousingBirthRight
1
0
0
19
A universal āHousing Birth Rightā (absolute, unconditional lifelong entitlement to a safe home for every child born in Scotland, available at point of need) would carry very large fiscal costs and supply-side strains that outweigh its benefits under current conditions.
Scale and land recorded about 45,067 births in 2025 (a record low).
All-sector house completions in 2025-26 were only 17,268 (down 10% year-on-year), of which the social sector contributed roughly 3,774.
Recent average gross costs for social housing units are in the Ā£195,000āĀ£207,000 range (up sharply from ~Ā£150,000 a few years earlier).
Even a partial rolloutāproviding a new unit for every newbornāwould require tens of thousands of additional homes annually, far beyond current capacity. At ~Ā£200,000 per unit, 45,000 units imply roughly Ā£9 billion per year in construction costs alone (excluding land, infrastructure, and ongoing maintenance/management). This is a massive claim on Scotlandās public finances relative to existing affordable housing programmes.
Fiscal and Opportunity Costs
Temporary accommodation already costs Scottish councils heavily (over Ā£160 million in one recent year, with sharp rises; Edinburgh examples show ~Ā£23,000 per household from presentation to settled housing).
A universal right would expand claims dramatically beyond the current ~19,000 households in temporary accommodation (including >10,000 children) and ~22,800 in core homelessness.
Ongoing costs include maintenance, repairs, management, and any gap between market rents and subsidised rents. Because housing is a physical scarce good requiring land, capital, and construction labour, an open-ended entitlement tends to produce longer queues, administrative rationing, quality trade-offs, and higher taxes or diverted spending.
Potential Benefits
Stable housing for vulnerable people generates measurable savings. Housing First programmes (targeted at the chronically homeless) typically show benefit-cost ratios of roughly 1.1ā2.1, mainly from reduced emergency health, shelter, and justice system use (UK and North American evidence; median US figures around $16k costs vs $18k benefits).
Broader social/affordable housing investment has been estimated at ~2:1 benefit-cost ratios in some analyses (health, education, crime, and productivity gains).
Children in stable homes generally have better educational and health outcomes, with long-term productivity effects. These benefits are real but concentrated among those currently in the worst housing situations.
Incentive and Market Effects (āDistortionsā)
An absolute lifelong right creates classic problems with scarce goods:
ļ² Moral hazard and labour/mobility effects: Guaranteed access weakens incentives to save, earn more, or move for work.
ļ² Crowding-out: Heavy public provision and allocation rules can reduce private investment and construction.
ļ² Resource misallocation: Homes may go to those who claim the right rather than those with the highest need or willingness to pay, while overall supply remains constrained by planning, land, and construction capacity.
Historical large-scale attempts at positive rights to housing (various 20th-century systems) often produced shortages and lower quality rather than abundance. UNLESS WE LEARN BY OUR MISTAKES AND DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
Real-world models that achieve high coverage are selective, not absolute birthrights. Vienna maintains a large social stock (~45% of residents in subsidised/public housing) with eligibility rules, income limits, waiting lists, and significant public funding via taxes/levies. Singaporeās HDB model reaches ~80% homeownership through heavy state land control, mandatory savings (CPF), subsidies, eligibility criteria, and long-term planningāit is not an unconditional āwhenever neededā free guarantee and faces its own resale price and waiting pressures.
Net Assessment
Targeted policies (Housing First expansion, stronger prevention, faster supply growth via planning and viability reforms, and social allocations prioritising the worst cases) have clearer evidence of reducing the most severe homelessness with positive or near-neutral fiscal returns. An unconditional lifelong birthright entitlement does not create homes; it reallocates existing scarce stock and fiscal capacity under strong political pressure. Given Scotlandās low completion rates, rising temporary accommodation use, and construction cost inflation, the net economic impact is more likely negative (fiscal strain, longer queues, reduced private supply incentives) than positive, at least in the medium term. The binding constraint remains the physical scarcity of homes, not the absence of a rights declaration.
Scale and land recorded about 45,067 births in 2025 (a record low).
All-sector house completions in 2025-26 were only 17,268 (down 10% year-on-year), of which the social sector contributed roughly 3,774.
Recent average gross costs for social housing units are in the Ā£195,000āĀ£207,000 range (up sharply from ~Ā£150,000 a few years earlier).
Even a partial rolloutāproviding a new unit for every newbornāwould require tens of thousands of additional homes annually, far beyond current capacity. At ~Ā£200,000 per unit, 45,000 units imply roughly Ā£9 billion per year in construction costs alone (excluding land, infrastructure, and ongoing maintenance/management). This is a massive claim on Scotlandās public finances relative to existing affordable housing programmes.
Fiscal and Opportunity Costs
Temporary accommodation already costs Scottish councils heavily (over Ā£160 million in one recent year, with sharp rises; Edinburgh examples show ~Ā£23,000 per household from presentation to settled housing).
A universal right would expand claims dramatically beyond the current ~19,000 households in temporary accommodation (including >10,000 children) and ~22,800 in core homelessness.
Ongoing costs include maintenance, repairs, management, and any gap between market rents and subsidised rents. Because housing is a physical scarce good requiring land, capital, and construction labour, an open-ended entitlement tends to produce longer queues, administrative rationing, quality trade-offs, and higher taxes or diverted spending.
Potential Benefits
Stable housing for vulnerable people generates measurable savings. Housing First programmes (targeted at the chronically homeless) typically show benefit-cost ratios of roughly 1.1ā2.1, mainly from reduced emergency health, shelter, and justice system use (UK and North American evidence; median US figures around $16k costs vs $18k benefits).
Broader social/affordable housing investment has been estimated at ~2:1 benefit-cost ratios in some analyses (health, education, crime, and productivity gains).
Children in stable homes generally have better educational and health outcomes, with long-term productivity effects. These benefits are real but concentrated among those currently in the worst housing situations.
Incentive and Market Effects (āDistortionsā)
An absolute lifelong right creates classic problems with scarce goods:
ļ² Moral hazard and labour/mobility effects: Guaranteed access weakens incentives to save, earn more, or move for work.
ļ² Crowding-out: Heavy public provision and allocation rules can reduce private investment and construction.
ļ² Resource misallocation: Homes may go to those who claim the right rather than those with the highest need or willingness to pay, while overall supply remains constrained by planning, land, and construction capacity.
Historical large-scale attempts at positive rights to housing (various 20th-century systems) often produced shortages and lower quality rather than abundance. UNLESS WE LEARN BY OUR MISTAKES AND DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
Real-world models that achieve high coverage are selective, not absolute birthrights. Vienna maintains a large social stock (~45% of residents in subsidised/public housing) with eligibility rules, income limits, waiting lists, and significant public funding via taxes/levies. Singaporeās HDB model reaches ~80% homeownership through heavy state land control, mandatory savings (CPF), subsidies, eligibility criteria, and long-term planningāit is not an unconditional āwhenever neededā free guarantee and faces its own resale price and waiting pressures.
Net Assessment
Targeted policies (Housing First expansion, stronger prevention, faster supply growth via planning and viability reforms, and social allocations prioritising the worst cases) have clearer evidence of reducing the most severe homelessness with positive or near-neutral fiscal returns. An unconditional lifelong birthright entitlement does not create homes; it reallocates existing scarce stock and fiscal capacity under strong political pressure. Given Scotlandās low completion rates, rising temporary accommodation use, and construction cost inflation, the net economic impact is more likely negative (fiscal strain, longer queues, reduced private supply incentives) than positive, at least in the medium term. The binding constraint remains the physical scarcity of homes, not the absence of a rights declaration.
0
0
0
26
In Scotland we dont much care.
We dont let little things like the law stand in our way in this great country.
The law for example in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, section 29 mandates that local authorities have an interim duty to accommodate individuals who may be homeless h it.
The law has very strict regulations on safeguarding, we say the hell with it.
The Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007, Section 4, places a duty on councils to make inquiries where they know or believe an adult is at risk and intervention may be necessary.
Section 5, requires cooperation between Councils, Police Scotland, Health boards and other specified Public bodies, including reporting concerns about adults at risk.
The law says if you are threatened, abused or manipulated, public bodies have duties to investigate concerns. Cooperate. Share information and take appropriate protective action, but apparently nobody has to take responsibility. Instead you are told āyou should really call the policeā
We're cowboys, we do what we want.
Whether its being complicit in the rise of house-deprived homeless women and children or deaths of house-deprived homeless people are on the rise; we like to play it fast and loose in this country.
Making it up as we go along.
Accountability is apparently another one of those optional services.
And if anyone should die under these circumstances we call it āmanipulative, self injurious behaviourā
The āEstablishmentsā silence can only be attributed to consent, acquiescence or disinterest. Take your pick, but its at least safe to say they dont much care.
And should anyone be sufficiently determined, resourceful or fortunate enough to challenge these practices through Judicial Review, we can always fall back on the wonderful world of procedural scrutiny.
We won't necessarily concern ourselves with whether vulnerable people were actually protected, whether statutory duties were fulfilled or whether anyone was held accountable.
No, we'll examine the decision-making process, the paperwork, the policies and whether the correct procedures were followed. If the decision was unlawful, we might even send it back to the same public body to have another go, this time getting the process right.
Accountability? Don't be ridiculous. We're investigating processes here, not inconveniences such as consequences.
And of course, should any of these vulnerable individuals wish to challenge the whole sorry affair, there's always the Scottish Legal Aid Board and our wonderfully accessible legal system.
All they need is to find a solicitor willing to take the case, establish eligibility, navigate the legal aid application process and somehow overcome the practical and financial barriers to securing representation.
Because nothing says access to justice quite like requiring people who have been failed by public authorities, who may have no home, no money and no support, to navigate an expensive and complicated legal system to establish that their rights actually mean something.
Justice is available to everyone, apparently. Just not necessarily in any form they can realistically access.
Who is taking this serious?
The media ? who might give it a mention if only there werenāt so many 'man bites dog' stories to focus on.
We dont let little things like the law stand in our way in this great country.
The law for example in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, section 29 mandates that local authorities have an interim duty to accommodate individuals who may be homeless h it.
The law has very strict regulations on safeguarding, we say the hell with it.
The Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007, Section 4, places a duty on councils to make inquiries where they know or believe an adult is at risk and intervention may be necessary.
Section 5, requires cooperation between Councils, Police Scotland, Health boards and other specified Public bodies, including reporting concerns about adults at risk.
The law says if you are threatened, abused or manipulated, public bodies have duties to investigate concerns. Cooperate. Share information and take appropriate protective action, but apparently nobody has to take responsibility. Instead you are told āyou should really call the policeā
We're cowboys, we do what we want.
Whether its being complicit in the rise of house-deprived homeless women and children or deaths of house-deprived homeless people are on the rise; we like to play it fast and loose in this country.
Making it up as we go along.
Accountability is apparently another one of those optional services.
And if anyone should die under these circumstances we call it āmanipulative, self injurious behaviourā
The āEstablishmentsā silence can only be attributed to consent, acquiescence or disinterest. Take your pick, but its at least safe to say they dont much care.
And should anyone be sufficiently determined, resourceful or fortunate enough to challenge these practices through Judicial Review, we can always fall back on the wonderful world of procedural scrutiny.
We won't necessarily concern ourselves with whether vulnerable people were actually protected, whether statutory duties were fulfilled or whether anyone was held accountable.
No, we'll examine the decision-making process, the paperwork, the policies and whether the correct procedures were followed. If the decision was unlawful, we might even send it back to the same public body to have another go, this time getting the process right.
Accountability? Don't be ridiculous. We're investigating processes here, not inconveniences such as consequences.
And of course, should any of these vulnerable individuals wish to challenge the whole sorry affair, there's always the Scottish Legal Aid Board and our wonderfully accessible legal system.
All they need is to find a solicitor willing to take the case, establish eligibility, navigate the legal aid application process and somehow overcome the practical and financial barriers to securing representation.
Because nothing says access to justice quite like requiring people who have been failed by public authorities, who may have no home, no money and no support, to navigate an expensive and complicated legal system to establish that their rights actually mean something.
Justice is available to everyone, apparently. Just not necessarily in any form they can realistically access.
Who is taking this serious?
The media ? who might give it a mention if only there werenāt so many 'man bites dog' stories to focus on.
0
1
2
83
We are advised on good authority that Scotland does not yet have a complete national picture linking children's homelessness to school attendance, attainment and longer-term educational outcomes.
Why not?
Can that be true?
I asked AI to generate an image of student X report, a number of ? because data is alledged unknown, this it what I got......
"That image can't be generated due to Microsoft's code of conduct. Please start a new conversation".
@ScotGovFM @ScotGovEdu @scotgovhealth @scotgovCYPIC @ELCScotGov
Why not?
Can that be true?
I asked AI to generate an image of student X report, a number of ? because data is alledged unknown, this it what I got......
"That image can't be generated due to Microsoft's code of conduct. Please start a new conversation".
@ScotGovFM @ScotGovEdu @scotgovhealth @scotgovCYPIC @ELCScotGov
1
0
1
19
Further comments by good old AI...
"What happened is that the image-generation system rejected the request, not because your topic is forbidden, but because some image models become overly cautious when a prompt combines:
children's homelessness
government criticism
educational acy messaging
realistic infographic-style statistics
Even when the purpose is public-policy advocacy."
"What happened is that the image-generation system rejected the request, not because your topic is forbidden, but because some image models become overly cautious when a prompt combines:
children's homelessness
government criticism
educational acy messaging
realistic infographic-style statistics
Even when the purpose is public-policy advocacy."
1
0
0
10
CAN YOU IMAGINE............
the first version IT GENERATED WITH A CHILD AND FAKE PERCENTAGES got through, while the second version with nothing but question marks got blocked.
the first version IT GENERATED WITH A CHILD AND FAKE PERCENTAGES got through, while the second version with nothing but question marks got blocked.
0
0
0
3
The emergency homeless accommodation experience
A senior minister arrives at a hotel reception and asks for a room.
The receptionist replies: "Certainly. We can offer you a room with no cooking facilities, no proper bed, and a 40-minute journey to your office."
"How long will difficult to say, Minister. We are currently developing a strategy.
A senior minister arrives at a hotel reception and asks for a room.
The receptionist replies: "Certainly. We can offer you a room with no cooking facilities, no proper bed, and a 40-minute journey to your office."
"How long will difficult to say, Minister. We are currently developing a strategy.
1
1
2
59
The ministerial homelessness pledge
A minister announces: "We are determined to end homelessness by 2030."
Someone sleeping beside them asks: "Where will I be sleeping tonight?"
The minister replies: "Let's not get distracted from the long-term vision."
A minister announces: "We are determined to end homelessness by 2030."
Someone sleeping beside them asks: "Where will I be sleeping tonight?"
The minister replies: "Let's not get distracted from the long-term vision."
1
0
1
2
The final reality check
After a week experiencing homelessness, a group of senior officials are asked what they would change.
One replies: "More affordable housing, better prevention, proper support and faster access to permanent accommodation."
A journalist asks: "Why didn't ilence.
Then someone says: "We hadn't experienced homelessness before"
After a week experiencing homelessness, a group of senior officials are asked what they would change.
One replies: "More affordable housing, better prevention, proper support and faster access to permanent accommodation."
A journalist asks: "Why didn't ilence.
Then someone says: "We hadn't experienced homelessness before"
0
0
1
1