Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:51:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:14:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 04:42:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 02:13:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>https://www.facebook.com/tarekjbazley/videos/10154203821356259/ >>>>>>>>>Is there a point you are failing to make?
It is appalling that anybody should be in this position but there are >>>>>>>>>clearly
not thousands, and almost certainly not hundreds unl;ess you can >>>>>>>>>provide
evidence to the contrary. Note - I said nevidence; not opinion! >>>>>>>>>Tony

According to the video, the University of Otago now estimates that >>>>>>>>there ar over 40,000 people homeless in New Zealand. Not all of the >>>>>>>>people covered in the video will be regarded as homeless by the >>>>>>>>government departments. You say there are clearly not thousands and >>>>>>>>almost certainly not hundreds, where is your evidence?

I agree that evidence would be useful, instead of your ersonal opinion >>>>>>>>. . .

The ball is in your court, Tony

No t is not. It is in their court. Where is their evidence that thousands
living in garages and cars?
Tony

They claimed there is a survey by the University of Otago - which does >>>>>>prima facie have more credibility than a single unsupported personal >>>>>>assertion that "there are clearly not thousands and almost certainly >>>>>>not hundreds."

A quick check showed: >>>>>>http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago613529.html
and >>>>>>http://nzccss.org.nz/work/poverty/the-real-housing-affordability-issues/homelessness-the-invisible-housing-problem/
and >>>>>>https://www.unicef.org.nz/learn/our-work-in-new-zealand/Child-Poverty-in-New-Zealand
and >>>>>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11650103 >>>>>>and last a report from parliament >>>>>>https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLEcoRP14021/homelessness-in-new-zealand
with that last reference saying:
2009 Housing Shareholders Advisory Group:
Urban homeless (those sleeping rough or in improvised dwellings) >>>>>>likely to number less than 300 with 500-1,000 in rural improvised >>>>>>housing.
8,000 to 20,000 in temporary accommodation unsuited for long-term >>>>>>habitation (caravans, campgrounds, substandard housing and boarding >>>>>>houses). [24]

from all of which we can say that while estimates and what is being >>>>>>counted differ between reports, the number subject to the sort of >>>>>>problems covered in the video are "clearly thousands".

Your grasp of mathematics is worse than your grasp of truthfulness. >>>>>There are many people living in housing that you and I might not think is >>>>>ideal, that does not translate to thousands
are living in garages and cars! And "they claim" there is a study - where >>>>>is
it?
It is utter bullshit and you know it.
If on the other hand you were to do your best to put in place a solution >>>>>for
the comparatively small number of people that are living in garages and >>>>>cars
then I would support you but no - you have to make the plights of that >>>>>small
number a major political issue by using patently absurd claims.
Tony

The first reference above: >>>>http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago613529.html
Severe housing deprivation (homelessness) 2001-2013

2001 2006 2013
Table 1 Count and proportion of the census subject population >>>>identified as severely housing deprived, not severely housing
deprived, and housing deprivation status cannot be determined, >>>>2001-2013(1)
Category Count % Count % Count %
Severely housing deprived 28,649 0.8 33,295 0.8 41,705
1.0
Not severely housing deprived 3,639,845 97.2 3,942,626 97.1 >>>>4,109,534 96.6
Housing deprivation status cannot be determined 76,038 2.0 83,953 >>>>2.1 103,356 2.4
Total 3,744,534(2) 100.0 4,059,876 100.0 4,254,594 >>>>100.0
Notes:
(1) According to Statistics NZ confidentiality protocols, figures
in this table have been random rounded to base three, then unallocated >>>>children in non-private dwellings have been proportionally added to >>>>each category (see methodology in Amore et al. (2013)). The resulting >>>>figures are not rounded because the latter component represents >>>>proportions, rather than counts of individuals.
(2) The total for census subject population for 2001 was
misprinted in Amore et al. (2013).
Data source: Statistics New Zealand

Living situation No. people % of severely housing deprived >>>>population Prevalence per 10,000 people
Table 2 Severe housing deprivation by living situation (excluding >>>>emergency accommodation) – count, proportion, and prevalence, 2013(1)
1 Living without habitable accommodation due to a lack of access
to minimally adequate housing, such as on the street, in a car, or >>>>other improvised dwelling 4,197 10.1 9.9
2 Living in a commercial dwelling (e.g. hotel, motel, boarding
house) or marae due to a lack of access to minimally adequate housing >>>>7,901 18.9 18.6
3 Living as a temporary resident in a severely crowded,
permanent private dwelling due to a lack of access to minimally >>>>adequate housing 29,610 71.0 69.8
Total 41,705 100.0
98.3

Now you can decide for yourself whether the video was talking about >>>>people with severe housing deprivation (up from 33,295 in 2006 to
41705 in 2013), or "Living without habitable accommodation due to a >>>>lack of access to minimally adequate housing, such as on the street,
in a car, or other improvised dwelling" - 4,197 in 2013. either way, >>>>"thousands" is certainly supported.

What was your source for "there are clearly not thousands and almost >>>>certainly not hundreds."?

Oh obviously I have misjudged you. The problem you have is lack of >>>comprehension.
At all times in this thread I have referred to the false claim that there are
"thousands living in garages and cars" but you have tried and failed to >>>change
the subject. I was not referring to other people living in houses that are >>>less
than perfect only to the quote from the article - as you very well know. >>>There
is no evidence provided for this obvious lie.
Tony

Your shallow attempt to dismiss the article demeans you, Tony. I
posted a link to a video that identified a serious issue in New
Zealand, that is getting international attention. The video gave a >>reference to the University of Otago, who had identified that there
were 41.705 with seriously deprived housing, compared with 33,295 in
2006.

You implied in relation to the claimed number of people with severe
housing issues that "there are clearly not thousands and almost
certainly not hundreds.". I do not know why you did not look up the >>reference yourself, but in your attempt to minimise the issue you made
a claim that was in itself wrong, and unsupported.

Of those in the position of the mother shown in the video, she may
well have been among the 29,610 "Living as a temporary resident in a >>severely crowded, permanent private dwelling due to a lack of access
to minimally adequate housing.", and certainly she was worried att he >>prospect of being in the group ""Living without habitable
accommodation due to a lack of access to minimally adequate housing,
such as on the street, in a car, or other improvised dwelling."

Either way you were wrong, and it is reasonable for you to be asked
the same question that you asked - where is your evidence?

That is your staatement that you are now trying to avoid justifying -
the ball_is_ in your court, Tony.

No - you posted an article that stated that "thousands living in garages and >cars" in this country and I stated that was wrong. There is no evidence to >support it.
You can wriggle and squirm and attempt to get on your mythical high horse but >that is the fact. The article is without any evidence - I do not need tp >provide anything to refute it until you or someone else provides evidence of a >self-evident falsehood. You changed to subject not me. You are lying again. Put
up or shut up!
Tony

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 19:25:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:51:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:14:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 04:42:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 02:13:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.facebook.com/tarekjbazley/videos/10154203821356259/ >>>>>>>>>>>Is there a point you are failing to make?
It is appalling that anybody should be in this position but there are
clearly
not thousands, and almost certainly not hundreds unl;ess you can >>>>>>>>>>>provide
evidence to the contrary. Note - I said nevidence; not opinion! >>>>>>>>>>>Tony

According to the video, the University of Otago now estimates that >>>>>>>>>>there ar over 40,000 people homeless in New Zealand. Not all of the >>>>>>>>>>people covered in the video will be regarded as homeless by the >>>>>>>>>>government departments. You say there are clearly not thousands and >>>>>>>>>>almost certainly not hundreds, where is your evidence?

I agree that evidence would be useful, instead of your ersonal opinion
. . .

The ball is in your court, Tony

No t is not. It is in their court. Where is their evidence that >>>>>>>>>thousands
living in garages and cars?
Tony

They claimed there is a survey by the University of Otago - which does >>>>>>>>prima facie have more credibility than a single unsupported personal >>>>>>>>assertion that "there are clearly not thousands and almost certainly >>>>>>>>not hundreds."

A quick check showed: >>>>>>>>http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago613529.html
and >>>>>>>>http://nzccss.org.nz/work/poverty/the-real-housing-affordability-issues/homelessness-the-invisible-housing-problem/
and >>>>>>>>https://www.unicef.org.nz/learn/our-work-in-new-zealand/Child-Poverty-in-New-Zealand
and >>>>>>>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11650103 >>>>>>>>and last a report from parliament >>>>>>>>https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLEcoRP14021/homelessness-in-new-zealand
with that last reference saying:
2009 Housing Shareholders Advisory Group:
Urban homeless (those sleeping rough or in improvised dwellings) >>>>>>>>likely to number less than 300 with 500-1,000 in rural improvised >>>>>>>>housing.
8,000 to 20,000 in temporary accommodation unsuited for long-term >>>>>>>>habitation (caravans, campgrounds, substandard housing and boarding >>>>>>>>houses). [24]

from all of which we can say that while estimates and what is being >>>>>>>>counted differ between reports, the number subject to the sort of >>>>>>>>problems covered in the video are "clearly thousands".

Your grasp of mathematics is worse than your grasp of truthfulness. >>>>>>>There are many people living in housing that you and I might not think is
ideal, that does not translate to thousands
are living in garages and cars! And "they claim" there is a study - where
is
it?
It is utter bullshit and you know it.
If on the other hand you were to do your best to put in place a solution >>>>>>>for
the comparatively small number of people that are living in garages and >>>>>>>cars
then I would support you but no - you have to make the plights of that >>>>>>>small
number a major political issue by using patently absurd claims. >>>>>>>Tony

The first reference above: >>>>>>http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago613529.html
Severe housing deprivation (homelessness) 2001-2013

2001 2006 2013
Table 1 Count and proportion of the census subject population >>>>>>identified as severely housing deprived, not severely housing >>>>>>deprived, and housing deprivation status cannot be determined, >>>>>>2001-2013(1)
Category Count % Count % Count %
Severely housing deprived 28,649 0.8 33,295 0.8 41,705 >>>>>>1.0
Not severely housing deprived 3,639,845 97.2 3,942,626 97.1 >>>>>>4,109,534 96.6
Housing deprivation status cannot be determined 76,038 2.0 83,953 >>>>>>2.1 103,356 2.4
Total 3,744,534(2) 100.0 4,059,876 100.0 4,254,594 >>>>>>100.0
Notes:
(1) According to Statistics NZ confidentiality protocols, figures >>>>>>in this table have been random rounded to base three, then unallocated >>>>>>children in non-private dwellings have been proportionally added to >>>>>>each category (see methodology in Amore et al. (2013)). The resulting >>>>>>figures are not rounded because the latter component represents >>>>>>proportions, rather than counts of individuals.
(2) The total for census subject population for 2001 was >>>>>>misprinted in Amore et al. (2013).
Data source: Statistics New Zealand

Living situation No. people % of severely housing deprived >>>>>>population Prevalence per 10,000 people
Table 2 Severe housing deprivation by living situation (excluding >>>>>>emergency accommodation) – count, proportion, and prevalence, 2013(1) >>>>>>1 Living without habitable accommodation due to a lack of access
to minimally adequate housing, such as on the street, in a car, or >>>>>>other improvised dwelling 4,197 10.1 9.9
2 Living in a commercial dwelling (e.g. hotel, motel, boarding >>>>>>house) or marae due to a lack of access to minimally adequate housing >>>>>>7,901 18.9 18.6
3 Living as a temporary resident in a severely crowded,
permanent private dwelling due to a lack of access to minimally >>>>>>adequate housing 29,610 71.0 69.8
Total 41,705 100.0
98.3

Now you can decide for yourself whether the video was talking about >>>>>>people with severe housing deprivation (up from 33,295 in 2006 to >>>>>>41705 in 2013), or "Living without habitable accommodation due to a >>>>>>lack of access to minimally adequate housing, such as on the street, >>>>>>in a car, or other improvised dwelling" - 4,197 in 2013. either way, >>>>>>"thousands" is certainly supported.

What was your source for "there are clearly not thousands and almost >>>>>>certainly not hundreds."?

Oh obviously I have misjudged you. The problem you have is lack of >>>>>comprehension.
At all times in this thread I have referred to the false claim that there >>>>>are
"thousands living in garages and cars" but you have tried and failed to >>>>>change
the subject. I was not referring to other people living in houses that are >>>>>less
than perfect only to the quote from the article - as you very well know. >>>>>There
is no evidence provided for this obvious lie.
Tony

Your shallow attempt to dismiss the article demeans you, Tony. I
posted a link to a video that identified a serious issue in New >>>>Zealand, that is getting international attention. The video gave a >>>>reference to the University of Otago, who had identified that there >>>>were 41.705 with seriously deprived housing, compared with 33,295 in >>>>2006.

You implied in relation to the claimed number of people with severe >>>>housing issues that "there are clearly not thousands and almost >>>>certainly not hundreds.". I do not know why you did not look up the >>>>reference yourself, but in your attempt to minimise the issue you made >>>>a claim that was in itself wrong, and unsupported.

Of those in the position of the mother shown in the video, she may
well have been among the 29,610 "Living as a temporary resident in a >>>>severely crowded, permanent private dwelling due to a lack of access
to minimally adequate housing.", and certainly she was worried att he >>>>prospect of being in the group ""Living without habitable
accommodation due to a lack of access to minimally adequate housing, >>>>such as on the street, in a car, or other improvised dwelling."

Either way you were wrong, and it is reasonable for you to be asked
the same question that you asked - where is your evidence?

That is your staatement that you are now trying to avoid justifying - >>>>the ball_is_ in your court, Tony.

No - you posted an article that stated that "thousands living in garages and >>>cars" in this country and I stated that was wrong. There is no evidence to >>>support it.
You can wriggle and squirm and attempt to get on your mythical high horse but
that is the fact. The article is without any evidence - I do not need tp >>>provide anything to refute it until you or someone else provides evidence of >>>a
self-evident falsehood. You changed to subject not me. You are lying again. >>>Put
up or shut up!
Tony

The heading you refer to was not part of the video - it was put there
by the persont hat posted it on facebook. That person was not me, but
hte heading does not invalidate the video report, which does include >>evidence.

While it is not my statement, I did provide you with sufficient
evidence to show where the heading probably originated, and that it
had some validity. Yes it would have been technically accurate if it
had said over 40,000 in severe housing deficiency, but it does not >>invalidate the Al Jazeera report.

But you made a statement that "there are clearly not thousands and
almost certainly not hundreds." You made that statement at the same
time you claimed a right to be provided with evidence. - I am asking

I cannot debate with someone who does not understand English syntax and who >clearly has a different first language to mine.
It is irrelevant whether the statement was in the heading or not - it was what >I took exception to and the only thing I debated. Everything since then is >meaningless and I owe you absolutely nothing in the way of evidence. It was >your choice to broadeb the discussion in your usual dishonest way.
I never said you added the heading.
In summary
The heading was posted without evidence - quod erat demonstrandum.
Tony

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 04:42:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 02:13:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/tarekjbazley/videos/10154203821356259/

Is there a point you are failing to make?
It is appalling that anybody should be in this position but there are clearly
not thousands, and almost certainly not hundreds unl;ess you can provide >>>> evidence to the contrary. Note - I said nevidence; not opinion!
Tony

According to the video, the University of Otago now estimates that
there ar over 40,000 people homeless in New Zealand. Not all of the
people covered in the video will be regarded as homeless by the
government departments. You say there are clearly not thousands and
almost certainly not hundreds, where is your evidence?

I agree that evidence would be useful, instead of your ersonal opinion
. . .

The ball is in your court, Tony

No t is not. It is in their court. Where is their evidence that thousands
living in garages and cars?
Tony

They claimed there is a survey by the University of Otago - which does
prima facie have more credibility than a single unsupported personal assertion that "there are clearly not thousands and almost certainly
not hundreds."

A quick check showed:
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago613529.html
and http://nzccss.org.nz/work/poverty/the-real-housing-affordability-issues/homelessness-the-invisible-housing-problem/
and https://www.unicef.org.nz/learn/our-work-in-new-zealand/Child-Poverty-in-New-Zealand
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11650103
and last a report from parliament https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLEcoRP14021/homelessness-in-new-zealand
with that last reference saying:
2009 Housing Shareholders Advisory Group:
Urban homeless (those sleeping rough or in improvised dwellings)
likely to number less than 300 with 500-1,000 in rural improvised
housing.
8,000 to 20,000 in temporary accommodation unsuited for long-term
habitation (caravans, campgrounds, substandard housing and boarding
houses). [24]

from all of which we can say that while estimates and what is being
counted differ between reports, the number subject tot he sort of
problems covered in the video are "clearly thousands".

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:14:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 04:42:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 02:13:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/tarekjbazley/videos/10154203821356259/

Is there a point you are failing to make?
It is appalling that anybody should be in this position but there are >>>>>> clearly
not thousands, and almost certainly not hundreds unl;ess you can provide >>>>>> evidence to the contrary. Note - I said nevidence; not opinion!
Tony

According to the video, the University of Otago now estimates that
there ar over 40,000 people homeless in New Zealand. Not all of the
people covered in the video will be regarded as homeless by the
government departments. You say there are clearly not thousands and
almost certainly not hundreds, where is your evidence?

I agree that evidence would be useful, instead of your ersonal opinion >>>>> . . .

The ball is in your court, Tony

No t is not. It is in their court. Where is their evidence that thousands >>>> living in garages and cars?
Tony

They claimed there is a survey by the University of Otago - which does
prima facie have more credibility than a single unsupported personal
assertion that "there are clearly not thousands and almost certainly
not hundreds."

A quick check showed:
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago613529.html
and
http://nzccss.org.nz/work/poverty/the-real-housing-affordability-issues/homelessness-the-invisible-housing-problem/
and
https://www.unicef.org.nz/learn/our-work-in-new-zealand/Child-Poverty-in-New-Zealand
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11650103
and last a report from parliament
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLEcoRP14021/homelessness-in-new-zealand
with that last reference saying:
2009 Housing Shareholders Advisory Group:
Urban homeless (those sleeping rough or in improvised dwellings)
likely to number less than 300 with 500-1,000 in rural improvised
housing.
8,000 to 20,000 in temporary accommodation unsuited for long-term
habitation (caravans, campgrounds, substandard housing and boarding
houses). [24]

from all of which we can say that while estimates and what is being
counted differ between reports, the number subject to the sort of
problems covered in the video are "clearly thousands".

Your grasp of mathematics is worse than your grasp of truthfulness.
There are many people living in housing that you and I might not think is
ideal, that does not translate to thousands
are living in garages and cars! And "they claim" there is a study - where is

It is utter bullshit and you know it.
If on the other hand you were to do your best to put in place a solution for >> the comparatively small number of people that are living in garages and cars >> then I would support you but no - you have to make the plights of that small >> number a major political issue by using patently absurd claims.
Tony

The first reference above:
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago613529.html
Severe housing deprivation (homelessness) 2001-2013

2001 2006 2013
Table 1 Count and proportion of the census subject population
identified as severely housing deprived, not severely housing
deprived, and housing deprivation status cannot be determined,
2001-2013(1)
Category Count % Count % Count %
Severely housing deprived 28,649 0.8 33,295 0.8 41,705
1.0
Not severely housing deprived 3,639,845 97.2 3,942,626 97.1 4,109,534 96.6
Housing deprivation status cannot be determined 76,038 2.0 83,953 2.1 103,356 2.4
Total 3,744,534(2) 100.0 4,059,876 100.0 4,254,594
100.0
Notes:
(1) According to Statistics NZ confidentiality protocols, figures
in this table have been random rounded to base three, then unallocated children in non-private dwellings have been proportionally added to
each category (see methodology in Amore et al. (2013)). The resulting
figures are not rounded because the latter component represents
proportions, rather than counts of individuals.
(2) The total for census subject population for 2001 was
misprinted in Amore et al. (2013).
Data source: Statistics New Zealand

Living situation No. people % of severely housing deprived population Prevalence per 10,000 people
Table 2 Severe housing deprivation by living situation (excluding
emergency accommodation) – count, proportion, and prevalence, 2013(1)
1 Living without habitable accommodation due to a lack of access
to minimally adequate housing, such as on the street, in a car, or
other improvised dwelling 4,197 10.1 9.9
2 Living in a commercial dwelling (e.g. hotel, motel, boarding
house) or marae due to a lack of access to minimally adequate housing
7,901 18.9 18.6
3 Living as a temporary resident in a severely crowded,
permanent private dwelling due to a lack of access to minimally
adequate housing 29,610 71.0 69.8
Total 41,705 100.0
98.3

Now you can decide for yourself whether the video was talking about
people with severe housing deprivation (up from 33,295 in 2006 to
41705 in 2013), or "Living without habitable accommodation due to a
lack of access to minimally adequate housing, such as on the street,
in a car, or other improvised dwelling" - 4,197 in 2013. either way, "thousands" is certainly supported.

What was your source for "there are clearly not thousands and almost certainly not hundreds."?

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 02:13:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/tarekjbazley/videos/10154203821356259/

Is there a point you are failing to make?
It is appalling that anybody should be in this position but there are clearly
not thousands, and almost certainly not hundreds unl;ess you can provide
evidence to the contrary. Note - I said nevidence; not opinion!
Tony

According to the video, the University of Otago now estimates that
there ar over 40,000 people homeless in New Zealand. Not all of the
people covered in the video will be regarded as homeless by the
government departments. You say there are clearly not thousands and
almost certainly not hundreds, where is your evidence?

I agree that evidence would be useful, instead of your ersonal opinion
. . .

The ball is in your court, Tony