As ever, if you like my stuff, please do sign up for my Substack: monkdebunks.substack.com It's free 👍🏻 However, paid subscriptions and coffee (or tea in my case!) donations (buymeacoffee.com/MonkDebunks) really help 😜 20/20

The headlines are not only misleading to push their current anti-poor and anti-disabled agenda, but I worry that headlines like: "Benefits claimants told to ignore hose pipe ban" actually risk non-eligible benefits claimants thinking they're exempt and then being fined Hugely irresponsible!

<8% of households in the country are on this tariff And I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd swap my hosepipe ban for being on a low income AND suffering from these conditions👇 Maybe those who whine about this 27-year-old policy should have to try living with a family who is...🤷‍♀️

Of course, the Tories couldn't help themselves either - pretending this is available to everyone claiming welfare benefits. ...and conveniently forgetting these rules existed when they were in power, too! 13/

You can even use a paddling pool!! You just need to use a bucket or watering can instead - a fun way to keep the kids entertained! 💦

So with all that in mind, these comments from Braverman are pretty unhinged! “How ridiculous has this country become when you have to be on benefits to use water?" FFS 🤦‍♀️ Everyone can still use water! You just have to use a bucket instead of a hose outside.

There are other exemptions to the hosepipe ban: Elderly or can't reasonably use a watering can Newly planted lawn seed of turf (1st 28 days) Newly planted trees if you can't get there with a bucket Washing or providing water for pets Maintaining Fish pond min safe levels 9/

And for the avoidance of doubt - you have to PROVE why you have higher water needs to be on that tariff. Water companies aren't dishing them out for fun! And it is absolutely NOT for using hoses to water the garden or refilling pools etc! 8/

Most of their WaterTariff customers are also on the Priority Services Register, and many are also Blue badge holders. There's a big overlap. 7/

So, in order to avoid an insanely costly logistics process to assess every individual on their books, the water companies have basically said that their de facto vulnerable customers: Blue Badge Holders Priority Services Register WaterSure tariff users are exempt from the ban.

It was brought in to protect those on low incomes WITH HIGH WATER NEEDS from financial hardship by capping their water bills. And just to be clear, WaterSure was brought in 27 years ago! Remember those "two-tier" claims in 1999? Or in any of the last quarter-century? No, me neither 🙄 5/

There are 3 criteria for being on a WaterSure tariff: You have a water meter (or equivalent) You are on certain means-tested benefits AND You have a high essential use for water due to: Certain medical conditions that require higher-than-normal water use 3+ <19yo children in ft education 4/

Parts of England are currently under a Hosepipe ban. People living there are not allowed to use their hose due to multiple heatwaves and water shortages in those areas. Using water from the tap is fine. You just can't use a hosepipe. 2/

Unsurprisingly, a number of people asked me to look at this story doing the rounds on all the right-wing media 🧐 So let's take a look at who is exempt from the ban and why, and when this "two-tier" situation came about (spoiler - it's nothing new!) 1/20

For more details and links to all the sources: open.substack.com/pub/monkdeb... It's free 👍🏻 However, paid subscriptions and coffee (or ice cream!) donations (buymeacoffee.com/MonkDebunks) really help 😜 23/23

Back to the original claim Of the 12,938 people sleeping rough in London, only 266 are known asylum seekers. The 1/5th number refers to the 1,037 of the 4,978 new rough sleepers with a known last stable address, who had been in asylum accommodation. 920 of them had been granted Refugee status

OK, detour over. Back to the report... Of the rough sleepers: 49% UK nationals (vs 81% of pop) 18% European (vs 6% of pop) 31% non-European (vs 13% of pop) 21% of the non-UK nationals, the largest group by far, are those with Refugee status Only 4.7% are asylum seekers 18/

We have over 380,000 homeless people in the UK. 350,000 of those are in temporary accommodation such as hotels and B&Bs - a record high There are currently 20,000 asylum seekers in hotel accommodation, and falling Two distinct vulnerable groups, neither responsible for the other.

And just to cover it off before the inevitable comments. Asylum seekers being accommodated in hotels (or anywhere else, for that matter) isn't the reason why we have rough sleepers. The majority of the homeless in the UK are housed in hotels and B&Bs - that's not a "luxury" provided only for AS

In fact, the Royal British Legion published a report in 2014, myth-busting the claim that "lots of veterans are sleeping rough". And they called for people to stop making those and other claims, as they hurt attitudes toward military leavers They found 5-6% of rough sleepers were veterans

It's not an either/or, and it never has been. We don't have homeless army veterans BECAUSE asylum seekers are housed. And don't forget we housed asylum seekers in accommodation deemed unsuitable for our military 🤷‍♀️ 14/

People sleeping rough on the streets of London with an armed forces background is pretty low and thankfully falling UK nationals with an armed forces background is even lower - 107 Compared to the 920 new rough sleepers who became homeless as a direct result of gaining refugee status

I covered a similar claim last year open.substack.com/pub/monkdeb... 12/

There was a pilot scheme to allow a 56-day move-on period (up from 28), but that ended, with the government settling on 42 Could YOU find work and a new home with no employment history in this country, with no money and no solid references in 42 days?? 8/

Not the vast majority of them, no 🤷‍♀️ 920 of those 1037 had been granted refugee status by the Home Office So they are no longer asylum seekers, but are now legally recognised REFUGEES 5/

So let's look at the specific asylum seeker claims mentioned in the headline. Of the 4978 people with a known last settled base, 1037 (20.8%) had been in asylum support accommodation. Does that mean they are asylum seekers? 4/

This was the first fall in rough sleeper numbers in London since 2017/18, excluding the Covid years, when "additional resources that were put into addressing rough sleeping during the Covid-19 pandemic under the government’s Everyone In initiative." Which is good news! 3/

The article is covering the latest Combined Homelessness And Information Network (CHAIN) report on rough sleeping in London In 2025/26: There were 12,938 people seen sleeping rough in London The majority (8078) were new rough sleepers, of whom 6431 were identified, with some details identified

That’s quite a take! Farage is still somehow the victim of the thing he himself decided to do! 😂😂😂

Substack write up of the 16-year-old Drivers on benefits Debunk 👇🏼 open.substack.com/pub/monkdebu...