BBC show on council housing now - 21:00 4th May

gravitytolls

I've always maintained hostel accommodation for young mothers (say under 21), whether single or not, should be the norm. they should be available only to parents, they should be resident there for at least a year, midwives, HV's, parenting classes not only available, but compulsory, as a condition of being housed successfully when their time is up.

this would ensure that young parents are able to access good information and support, be taught how to care for their children, and also deter those who would have a baby to become housed.

I also believe that those who are working should be prioritised, particularly those with lower incomes, as private rents are so much higher. this encourages those awaiting housing to become employable and employed.

Those who are not deemed capable of caring for a family and home, due to drug/alcohol/other problems, should be housed within specialist sheltered housing, where SS, HV's etc. are able to visit all at once, rather than sporadically due to distance between them.

Those who do not care for their homes, should face eviction and know they will be. The same for hell neighbours, who cause fear, damage and criminal activities within communities.

Perhaps trailer housing could be supplied for such people, it's cheap and it protects communities and landlords from them.

asbokid

gravitytolls wrote: »

I've always maintained hostel accommodation for young mothers (say under 21), whether single or not, should be the norm. they should be available only to parents, they should be resident there for at least a year, midwives, HV's, parenting classes not only available, but compulsory, as a condition of being housed successfully when their time is up.

Well said! I'm inclining towards compulsory sterilisation, too.

ninky_2

talking of teen pregnancy i see there's yet another tory with a nice line in personal immorality (having an affair with her friend's husband) preaching about what others attitudes to sex should be......nadine dorries and her hair-brained scheme of abstinence based sex education for teenaged girls (not boys of course)

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/mp-teach-girls-virtues-of-virginity-2279002.html

sorry but the sex i had as a teenaged girl was fab and i don't regret any of it. personally to quote mr george michael i think a better line for sex education would be "if you're gonna do it do it right - right?"

ILW

I have no problem with teenagers having as much sex as they like, just not too pleased at having to pay towards the consequences.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

I have no problem with teenagers having as much sex as they like, just not too pleased at having to pay towards the consequences.

teen sex doesn't have to have any more 'consequences' than post teen sex though, does it?

perhaps nadine should nip over to iran she'd probably like their attitude to teen sex there. her extra marital shenanigans might not go down too well however.

marriage breakup can also have costly consequences for the taxpayer including needing to provide people with council housing.

wymondham

I've just watched the programme, having recorded it so a little late to the discussions..... A few observations:

Despite the severity of their housing problem, each case detailed all had quite expensive items such as large TV's/HiFi's etc.

Why did'nt the two boys use a fold out bed instead of sleeping on the sofa's - makes me suspicious this is not how they normally sleep - cheaper than a large TV and much more comfortable!

The fellow who buys tenancies - they said he was investigated for renting out his own flat, but nobody at the end when summing up mentioned he should also be investigated for blatant fraud, so if he isnt, he'll carry on?? I would personally not have gone through with it unless his partner was at least a little bit attractive??

How can a policeman have so much time to run a property scam - do they work short hours? He should be made to be a PCSO!

As said before, employed, articulate people also suffer in similar fashion, so why did the program concentrate solely on a certain class of people which enforced a steroetype they kept saying was not true??

I hope the landlords found renting our blatantly dangerous property as detailed in the program get procescuted, but the fact they don't bother maintaining the property makes me think no checks are done and it's not enforced in any way?

Interesting programme. Quite depressing how a brilliant idea from years ago has fallen into ruins and lost its way.....

catkins

Could they not find anyone who genuinely deserved to be housed? We get the family of 9!!! Who has that many children when living in a 3 bedroom house? Are we meant to feel sorry for them because I do not and don't suppose many people do.

Then we have the the girl living with her boyfriend who got pregnant. Well sorry love if you cannot afford the rent on the house then you make damn sure you don't get pregnant. Why should having a baby mean you are entitled to get a council place? Why can they not just stay renting?

The policeman made me sick. Also how come the rent on a nice modern, fairly large flat on the river in London is less than £100 a week? Can you imagine what private rents are in that area? Ok social housing should be less but that much less? Where I live in Essex the weekly rent on a flat is about £200 minimum.

I did feel sorry for the couple in the damp place with a river in the basement but the landlord should have been answerable to that.

I have friends who work and have 2 children, they rent a house privately. They both only earn minimum wage so things are tough for them - their rent is £800 a month. They have been told no point going on the council list because they are never going to be entitled to a council or housing association place BECAUSE THEY BOTH WORK!!!

catkins

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i didn't watch the program, but i am looking forward to catching up on iplayer as it appears that the BBC have deliberately searched high and wide for the most reprehensible parasites they can find and attempted to advance their stories as evidence that everyone who lives in social housing is unemployed with 78 children, most of whom are adult age and have never worked a day in their life.

to be honest, i am not an expert on the cross section of society which lives in social housing, but i find it hard to believe that it consists entirely of workshy benefit scroungers who have a spreadsheet on the shiny laptop that we bought for them with our taxes which informs them the optimal point to procreate further to get an extra bedroom.

My husband worked with variious housing associations in and around London for a number of years until he got sick of the whole setup. Most of the properties go to single mums, people on benefits and immigrants (most of who do not work, cannot speak english and have been in this country a very short time). He reckoned about 75% of the properties were given to immigrants.

All of the properties have very cheap rents regardless of how nice an area they are in - places in Chelsea for less than £200 a week rent! Still the tenants moan that the places are not big enough, not close enough to the shops, don't have nice enough kitchens - you name it they moan about it.

Husband used to be in charge of repairs etc - it's amazing what they get done for them. Want the living room decorated? No problem. New kitchens, new boilers, even washing machines, fridges etc. Hardly any of them want to pay for the slightest thing themselves.

Often when people were moving into a place they would demand new everything and every room decorated even when sometimes the previous tenant had lived there for maybe a year and everything had been new for them!

Also when they demanded new kitchen, washing machine or whatever the one already there (even if only a year or maybe less old) were thrown away! Is it any wonder he got sick of the job?

B'stard

The family of nine....the mum had a partner who came to stay over during the day. Where did he live, and I assume the youngest kids where his, so why doesn't he move in with his partner and he transfers his tenancy over to the two teenage lads?

Jimmy_31

catkins wrote: »

My husband worked with variious housing associations in and around London for a number of years until he got sick of the whole setup. Most of the properties go to single mums, people on benefits and immigrants (most of who do not work, cannot speak english and have been in this country a very short time). He reckoned about 75% of the properties were given to immigrants.

All of the properties have very cheap rents regardless of how nice an area they are in - places in Chelsea for less than £200 a week rent! Still the tenants moan that the places are not big enough, not close enough to the shops, don't have nice enough kitchens - you name it they moan about it.

Husband used to be in charge of repairs etc - it's amazing what they get done for them. Want the living room decorated? No problem. New kitchens, new boilers, even washing machines, fridges etc. Hardly any of them want to pay for the slightest thing themselves.

Often when people were moving into a place they would demand new everything and every room decorated even when sometimes the previous tenant had lived there for maybe a year and everything had been new for them!

Also when they demanded new kitchen, washing machine or whatever the one already there (even if only a year or maybe less old) were thrown away! Is it any wonder he got sick of the job?

Thats the same type of things i see when im working on the estates, new full house of furniture for free and then 3 years later they get it all replaced for free again. All tenants having work done on "their " houses also get paid for the inconvenience, its usually around a £100 and is paid to them because their daily routine has been disturbed.