FROM THE “THINGS THAT MAKE YOU HMM!!” files – 382,000 brits are homeless whilst 108,000 asylum seekers were ‘housed’ in hotels and HMO’s
All about priorities – ignore homeless Brits and house illegal immigrants/overstayers with unknown criminal histories!
From brave AI:
Over 100,000 asylum seekers in taxpayer funded accommodation.
“As of September 2025, approximately 35,000 asylum seekers were housed in hotels across the UK, while an additional 66,000 were accommodated in taxpayer-funded dispersal housing, which predominantly consists of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).
In total, this means roughly 101,000 people in the asylum system were housed in hotels and HMOs combined at that time.
Hotel Accommodation: There were 35,000 individuals in hotels, with about 4,300 of them being families.
Dispersal (HMO) Accommodation: Approximately 66,000 asylum seekers were housed in dispersal accommodation, including HMOs.
Total Asylum Accommodation: The combined total for asylum seekers in these forms of housing was approximately 101,000.
It is important to note that these figures specifically refer to asylum seekers within the government-supported accommodation system. They do not account for the broader population of non-asylum seekers living in HMOs, such as students, young workers, or other renters, for whom specific aggregate national totals are not provided in the current context.
More than 300,000 homeless people across the UK:
“here is no single national figure for the total number of homeless people in the UK, as homelessness is recorded differently across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and many individuals are not captured in official statistics.
However, recent data indicates the following scale:
England: At least 382,000 people are estimated to be homeless, with 242,000 households recorded as statutorily homeless.
Core Homelessness: Crisis UK estimates that more than 300,000 people are homeless on any given night across Britain, including those rough sleeping, sofa surfing, or living in temporary accommodation.
Rough Sleeping: Rough sleeping is the most visible form, with deaths among this group rising by 9% in a recent year.
Homelessness in the UK is primarily driven by a chronic shortage of social housing, rising private rents, and insufficient welfare support, compounded by life events such as relationship breakdowns, job loss, or domestic abuse.
To qualify as statutorily homeless and trigger the main homelessness duty for accommodation, an applicant must satisfy the following conditions:
Homelessness Status: The applicant has no accommodation available for occupation in the UK, or they have accommodation but cannot secure entry to it, or it is not reasonable for them to continue occupying it (e.g., due to violence, abuse, or severe disrepair).
Priority Need: The applicant falls into a priority need group, such as having dependent children, being pregnant, or being vulnerable due to old age, mental illness, physical disability, or a history of care, custody, or armed forces service.
Unintentional Homelessness: The applicant did not deliberately lose their accommodation (e.g., through voluntary action or misconduct).
Eligibility: The applicant is eligible for public funds and has not been excluded due to immigration status.
Local Connection: The applicant has a local connection with the area where they are applying, unless it is likely they would suffer violence or threats in that area.
If an applicant is homeless and in priority need but is found to be intentionally homeless, the local authority is not obliged to secure accommodation but must still provide advice and assistance to help them find housing. The duty to secure accommodation continues until a settled housing solution is found or other circumstances bring the duty to an end.
I suggest that illegal immigrats and those that have breached their visa conditions are NOT statutorily homeless and should be treated as vagrants.
**Vagrancy is not a standalone crime in the UK today, but specific behaviors associated with it remain criminal offenses under the Vagrancy Act 1824. This legislation makes it a criminal offense to sleep rough or beg in England and Wales. While the law is widely criticized as outdated and harmful, it has not been fully repealed, although the government has announced plans to repeal it.
Current Legal Status
Offenses: The Act criminalizes begging (Section 3) and sleeping rough or wandering without visible means of subsistence (Section 4).
Penalties: Convictions can result in fines of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for up to one month for first-time offenders (idle and disorderly persons) or three months for repeat offenders (rogues and vagabonds).
Repeal Status: The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 included provisions to repeal the Act, but these have not yet been brought into force. In June 2025, the UK government announced plans to repeal the Act within one year, and following the 2024 General Election, it stated repeal would proceed regardless of replacement legislation.
Historical Context
The Vagrancy Act 1824 was passed to address homelessness and poverty following the Napoleonic Wars and the Industrial Revolution. It criminalized destitution based on the assumption that homelessness was caused by idleness. Although parts of the act have been amended or repealed in Scotland and Ireland, it remains fully in force in England and Wales. Critics argue that criminalizing homelessness pushes vulnerable people away from support services and into cycles of debt and criminality.
Please take a (paid or unpaid) subscription or forward this article to those you think might be interested.
You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here:
Here’s the deal. Key authors—Arendt, Scott, Łobaczewski, Orlov, Scheidel, Le Bon, Toynbee, Graeber, and Jung—converge on a clear-eyed diagnosis of the current Canadian situation. Arendt sees in it the banality of bureaucratic evil: civil servants applying procedures without genuine moral judgment, as in the handling of complaints at the Bar or the expansion of MAiD. Scott recognizes in it the logic of high modernity: the state reduces human complexity (attachment to one's home, deep convictions, freedom of conscience) to simple administrative categories, producing an uncorrectable visibility. Łobaczewski speaks of a soft pathocracy, where the system naturally selects those who adapt to the coldness of procedure. Orlov sees in it the first signs of political and social closure, while Scheidel sees a rigidification of the elites that blocks mobility and accumulates tensions. Toynbee would diagnose a petrification of the creative elites who have become dominant: instead of responding creatively to challenges, they protect themselves with administrative and ideological routines, accelerating the internal decline of a civilization. Graeber would emphasize the absurd and violent bureaucratic dimension: the system imposes useless and restrictive rules that stifle human imagination and creativity, transforming citizens into mere subjects. Jung, with his concept of enantiodromia (the swing of the pendulum), would add that any tendency pushed to extremes eventually generates its opposite: the more technocratic and administrative closure intensifies, the more it generates existential fatigue and resistance that, at some point, will tip in the other direction. Le Bon would finally remind us that people tolerate this closure for a long time as long as the discourse remains coherent, but that a saturation point can be suddenly crossed, leading to a brutal and emotional reversal. In Canada, we are not experiencing violent persecution, but rather a profound and insidious transformation: a legal, administrative, and cultural closure that wears us down slowly rather than striking us directly, while simultaneously creating the conditions for its own future rejection. We are not returning to the world as it was before; we are moving toward a new configuration where the tension between technocratic control and human resistance will remain permanent. In Quebec and Canada, we are not (yet) in a situation of “civil war” in the classical sense of the term, like the one some European analysts fear for the United Kingdom or France. Rather, we are in an advanced stage of societal fracture and institutional closure, which already exhibits several precursors of a gradual balkanization. The most visible division is regional and cultural: Alberta and parts of the Prairies feel increasingly alienated from Ottawa, perceived as a centralizing elite that imposes policies (carbon tax, energy restrictions, mass immigration) contrary to their economic interests and their identity. In Quebec, the tension is twofold: on one side, a historical resistance to federal centralisation (Legault and Quebec nationalism), on the other, a growing divide between rural/traditional regions and large urban centres (Montreal especially), where the demographics are changing rapidly and where debates on identity, secularism, and reasonable accommodation remain lively. This divide is not yet violent, but it is deep and is being expressed.
I see preferential treatment everywhere--from GP and Dental lists to waiting lists for nursery schools and secondary schools.
Surely we look after our own first and then our own will willingly look after those in need?