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

mirry

There were 4 adults in that house who could work ,
Those two lads could work nights and then have the bedrooms in the day.
They could buy the property between the 4 of them, and stick an extension on it for extra bedrooms or go up on the loft.

Why did she go on to have another baby when they were already cramped ?
They could afford a wide screen tv , why not use that money for a future mortgage deposit ?

so many whys ?

ILW

chucky wrote: »

hostel type arrangements aren't what is needed - addressing the fundamental problems are the what is needed.

.

What are the fundamental problems (that are not in part CAUSED by the fact that having children that you cannot support is very profitable)?

lemonjelly

Something wierd has happened!:eek:

chucky is the voice of reason on the thread!:D

You're bang on chucky btw. Amazing that we get over 40 posts of anti single mums ranting before anyone mentions the notion of the other absent parent.

That and the fact that the proposed "solutions" are merely headline attempts to solve a problem but actually get nowhere near addressing root causes.

chewmylegoff

mirry wrote: »

They could afford a wide screen tv , why not use that money for a future mortgage deposit?

probably because a widescreen TV costs peanuts, you can get them in sainsbury's for a couple of hundred quid these days. they are not any more a sign of wealth than a rotting ford mondeo sitting on bricks on the drive.

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.

vigilaire

Why not stick all these single mothers in redundant army barracks which are all over the country. Soldiers are people so conditions would by definition be acceptable. A creche could be provided and the residents given productive work on site to help them contribute to society and pay for their keep.

This system would provide a safety net as well as allowing behaviour and visitors be monitored to prevent abuse of the taxpayers largesse. Should they wish to leave they would be free to do so at anytime they could either afford to support themselves or return to their families.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

addressing the fundamental problems are the what is needed.

So how do you address them?

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

You're bang on chucky btw. Amazing that we get over 40 posts of anti single mums ranting before anyone mentions the notion of the other absent parent.

No one is anti single mum. Not that I can see anyway.

What people are anti is the benefits increasing with every child. People already unemployed and in taxpayer funded housing having yet more kids and sitting back, moaning that they are not given a bigger house.

It's far too easy for you to simply tarnish everyone speaking about this as "anti single mum". And to be honest, pretty darn annoying when throughout the thread, people have detailed what their issues actually are, which you have completely ignored and gone for the easy line.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So how do you address them?

me? i'm not prime minister. i don't need to address anything.

but if you had bothered to read the thread you might have seen some suggestions.

Percy1983

There are many babies born to people who can't support them and there is many who could support them but can't have them... I see a solution...

lemonjelly

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No one is anti single mum. Not that I can see anyway.

What people are anti is the benefits increasing with every child. People already unemployed and in taxpayer funded housing having yet more kids and sitting back, moaning that they are not given a bigger house.

It's far too easy for you to simply tarnish everyone speaking about this as "anti single mum". And to be honest, pretty darn annoying when throughout the thread, people have detailed what their issues actually are, which you have completely ignored and gone for the easy line.

Far too easy too for everyone to tarnish all lone parents as inbred council house chasing filth who don't deserve proper support, but I note that chucky aside, no-one challenges that easily made assumption.

What about these lone parents who's husbands/partners are in Iraq/Afghanistan? What about the victims of domestic violence? What about rape victims or victims of other heinous forms of sexual abuse and incest which resulted in childbirth? According to this thread, we should shove em in the workhouse.

FWIW I spent a recent afternoon in a hospital talking with the partner of a soldier who is lying in a burns unit with horrible injuries. She visits him daily, takes the kids. She spends the majority of the year away from her partner. She lives in a HA property. We talked for quite a while. The kind of abuse being posted on here is something she experiences almost daily. To have to deal with that, along with keeping the kids and the partner strong is hard, no doubt. She is young (so is he). I do wonder how their life, & that of the kids will pan out...

Do not respond by saying "she's an exception". If she is, and our own singlesue are, how many more are exceptions? One or 2? or a whole lot more than your generalisations want to believe?

Where have all of you posting that these young girls are merely getting pregnant for free council housing got your evidence? Please, back it up.

Chucky is quite correct, these people (& remember that is what they are) are in the situation they are in for a reason. We have to deal with the reasons they are there now, not with the where they are. What you lot are advocating is akin to borrowing more to clear the deficit - false economy & won't happen.