(1515) And so into the evening, heavy rain, low temps. (2013)

 

23. Last for the evening

From a Veterans’ a/c on X:

“Should Every British Soldier Who Serves Over 5 Years Be Guaranteed a Council House? Across the United Kingdom, thousands of servicemen and women dedicate years of their lives to defending the country, often sacrificing time with family, personal freedoms, and long-term financial stability in the process. Yet when many leave the armed forces, they face one of the most difficult challenges in modern Britain — finding secure and affordable housing.

The question being asked more frequently is simple: Should every British soldier who serves over five years be guaranteed a council house, no questions asked? Supporters of the idea argue that military personnel earn that right through service alone. Unlike many professions, soldiers can spend years moving from base to base, living in military accommodation, and being unable to establish permanent homes or get onto local housing lists.

By the time they leave the forces, many veterans are starting from scratch. For some, the transition to civilian life is smooth. For others, it can be deeply challenging. Veterans can struggle with employment, mental health, family breakdown, or adapting to civilian systems that often do not recognise the realities of military life. Housing insecurity only adds to those pressures.

Advocates believe guaranteeing council housing after five years of service would:

* Reward commitment and sacrifice. * Reduce homelessness among veterans. * Provide stability for military families. * Help former soldiers reintegrate into civilian life. * Demonstrate national gratitude in a meaningful way.

Many also argue that politicians regularly praise the armed forces publicly, yet practical support after service often falls short. Ceremonies, medals, and remembrance events are important, but stable housing can have a far greater long-term impact on a veteran’s life.

Critics, however, raise concerns about fairness and pressure on already stretched council housing systems. Millions of civilians also face long waiting lists, rising rents, and housing insecurity. Some argue that prioritising one group automatically means others wait longer.

Others suggest a compromise approach — such as giving veterans enhanced priority rather than automatic entitlement, or creating dedicated housing schemes specifically for ex-service personnel.

The debate ultimately comes down to a broader national question: How should a country repay those willing to risk their lives in its defence? For many people, ensuring that no veteran leaves service without a safe place to live feels less like a privilege and more like a duty. What do you think? Should military service guarantee housing security after years of commitment to the nation?

22. Novato CA

Glad to see an issue not specifically ours … makes it easier to concentrate somehow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novato,_California

The Novato city government is trying to take this fixed-income senior community's homes from them and sell the land to someone else, months before the seniors will finish paying off the 30-year loan for it.

We're helping them to put a stop to it and keep their homes. pic.twitter.com/OH30adam8B

— Spike Cohen (@RealSpikeCohen) May 12, 2026

Reader Hal: “This is my hometown and I am 100% not surprised. Novato was a cow town. Money moved in and the city lost themselves.”

Reader Marc James: “We always ask why do local govt’s mess with their own citizens???? And it’s usually cause they are bought and paid for grifters selected via election stealing protocols.”

Reader Nor-Cal Occupied Territory: “Marin county is the NIMBY capital of CA. They don’t want trailer people living there.”

Reader Spam Ranger: “Santa Clara County in California also steals homes from seniors. How they do it is to wait until there is a problem with the septic system. Then they red tag (condemn) the property to force the owner out.”

The connection with us and right across the west is not just party political but generational. I keep coming back to that news item I saw many decades ago, where a Gen X journo asked what they were going to do with all these Boomers paying their dues. These people would do the right thing on a promise by the govt at that time and pay all their working lives.

Just before the payback, they’re robbed on a pretext. Now I do see the Zoomer view that there are not many of them and the massed invaders don’t plan to pay any … so those Zoomers, minus jobs, are in for trouble. But so are those from a different time who religiously paid in.

Who’s at fault? Was it the govt in more productive times thinking the party would go on? Is it current govts looking at their own mess and saying … we just don’t have that sort of money. Not for the little people anyway.

21. Today’s rubbish in parlmt

The starmer theatre is one thing. Quite another is getting the king to announce digital ID. It’s just one thing after another after another, ad nauseam.

20. Moo corner

19. Two of the banned “far right”, lol

18. The pressures upon the ordinary person today

17. The demise of London

16. When combined, they’re more interesting

You saw Wed 7, now this: