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

Graham_Devon

geri1965 wrote: »

That's fair enough, but we don't know if their baby was planned.

We don't know a lot of stuff.

All we do know is they were both unemployed. Both already in debt BEFORE the pregnancy. And are both now wanting a bigger house.

For everything anyone says, you will always be able to come along and state "but we dont know..." and thats all you are doing. Suggesting we don't know stuff while condemning everyone else for looking at the situation. They couldn't afford the house BEFORE the pregnancy, whether working or not. The responsibilities are not all falling at the governments feet for every situation thes epeople put themselves in.

We know they were out looking at brand new everything. We know she had loads of baby clothing and items, we know she was out shopping for brand new buggies. It was presented to us. We know she came home with stuff. Again, presented to us. It's not cheap stuff, I know from experience.

They are not helping their own situation. In debt, neither work, on benefits, so go and spend money on expensive brand new baby items.

No doubt you will just now say "we dont know where that money came from". No. We don't know. But that appears to be your answer to everything. How do YOU know any different to us? You don't. But it's not hard to put two and two together, otherwise we end up in a situation whereby we can't suggest a single thing.

geri1965_2

Percy1983 wrote: »

Its quite easy to plan how to not have children, we have managed perfectly well so far.

Well, bully for you. So have I as it goes, but I fully appreciate that accidents can happen and that not everyone is as perfect as me

shortchanged_2

lemonjelly, I don't think anyone is saying that all single mothers/fathers are spongers, wasters etc.

What people are saying is that there is definately an element of society who play the system to get into social housing which is ultimately to the detriment of others in genuine need.

Yes most of us are guilty of judging people without knowing all the facts but unfortunately that is human nature.

I am all in favour of a fair and appropriate social state which is there to support those who genuinely need it. However, I have no time for people who use the social state to be lazy, workshy layabouts. Why should taxpayers fund these peoples lifestyles?

Whilst I agree it can often be difficult to identify the genuine cases from the ones manipulating the system there needs to be some real drive to encourage some form of societal change to reduce this cultural belief/habit that exists in certain areas of society and until this is tackled at the grass roots then nothing will change.

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

I repeat, absolutely none of the above has anything whatsoever to do with lone parents, or welfare benefits. However people with their own agenda & perceptions appear to have brought these in & had a go about them, without considering their relevance or merits on the thread subject.

Yes, and you, and only you has bought up the workhouse and accused many of us of wanting such a situation. You were the one who accused us of being anti single mums.

It's alright now changing the tune and reverting back to the absolute definition of the opening post, but you certainly didn't help the benefits talk by ramming in and suggesting we wanted workhouses and therefore were anti single mums, when your the first person to bring workhouses to the discussion.

As I said, it was annoying...and now you are preaching about the merits of the thread subject after going totally down your own path descirbing everyone who has so far partaken in the thread with your own perceptions. One way to get my, and probably other peoples backs up, is to go down the "you nasty person, wanting workhouses, your anti single mums" road when we have spent time talking about the programme content and no one had actually mentioned any of your accusations.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

The suggestions you have made are just ideas with no specifics of how they could be done (except for the building more houses bit). I would suggest the hostel idea would reduce reliance on benefits in the medium term by decreasing the number of never worked households for starters.

let's think this one through...

• is the cost of these hostels going to be cheaper or more expensive than paying them benefits...
• how many hostels are we going to need for all of these single mums... thousands and thousands probably. we can't build enough houses yet you think we're going to be able to build hostels.
• what happens to the younger generation of girls. do we just provide hostels, let them have children and let them move in they become a single mum.

in all of this thread all you've wanted to do is address the problem now instead of wanting to think about the economic and social issues that put these girls in these positions in the first place.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

in all of this thread all you've wanted to do is address the problem now instead of wanting to think about the economic and social issues that put these girls in these positions in the first place.

But if you address the problem now future generations wil see how its handled and make there choices based on what is happening, now if having a baby means free house that sounds great, it means hostel, that doesn't sound so great.

*Kat*

With Right To buy, dont you have to have lived in the house for 5 years or something? I dont think people should have any right to buy council houses.

It actually made me so angry that the majority of the people on that show didn't have basic common sense to get a job and make their own money to pay rent on flats...share with your brother or something, JEEZ. And that policeman!! How shameful!

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

But if you address the problem now future generations wil see how its handled and make there choices based on what is happening, now if having a baby means free house that sounds great, it means hostel, that doesn't sound so great.

i see the point. it doesn't really work. society doesn't work like that.

if that logic was correct and worked, there would be no murders or nobody being killed because people know they will be going to prison.

it's knowing what's right or wrong coming from parents, teachers, peers even what's on TV etc... sticking single mums in a hostel won't correct all of that.

Jimmy_31

chucky wrote: »

here's a couple... that aren't as Victorian as a hostel for single mothers.

• reduce the dependency on benefits instead of working.
• make the qualifying level of benefits more strict.
• build more houses.
• create more incentive to invest for job creation in areas outside the south east.

Or tell the long term council house tenant who has never ever done a days work in their lives to go out and get a job and start saving a deposit for a house of their own, if they choose not to get a job then throw them out on the streets.

I live in an area that is mostly council estates and a lot of my working life has been spent refurbishing and maintaining council properties and in my opinion the only way to get the types of people I mention above to stand on their own two feet is to treat them the way they treat the taxpayer.

I do sometimes come across tenants who do work and are saving deposits for a home of their own so the current system does work but only if you are a decent human being.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

if that logic was correct and worked, there would be no murders or nobody being killed because people know they will be going to prison.

Compare the current situation to if there was no punishment for murder, I am sure there is a difference.

IE,

Before punishment was introduced, I hate them, shall I kill them, sure why not.

After punishment was introduced, I hate them, shall I kill them, I might get caught and go to prison, maybe not.

Yes there is still those who go to prison for murder as there would still be those who would end up in said hostels, but with a tougher conseqence rather than reward for having a baby how mnay teenage girls will want to have a baby then?