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

Jimmy_31

lemonjelly wrote: »

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.

Get a job that involves dealing with council tenants day in day out or move to an area that mostly consists of council estates and the evidence that you require will be very plain to see.

You may be surprised to hear that the majority of council tenants I have met during my work actually find it quite funny that they get a free house and free money, I and my workmates have had plenty of these tenants call us mugs or names to that effect because we work for a living. This is after they have told you how much benefits they get per week, you think people would want to keep it quiet about how much they get but that isn't the case for a lot of the tenants I have met, they are generally the younger ones that display this type of behaviour so if this is how the latest generation conduct themselves then the country is pretty much done for.

Yes I do meet tenants who do work and are trying to get themselves into a better life but sadly they are a small minority.

People generally don't believe me or my workmates when we tell people about how some council tenants tell us how much benefits they are getting so I don't expect that everybody on here will believe me either.

In regards to the part were you mention young girls getting pregnant to receive a council flat, well round my way there are hundreds of single mothers who keep having children when they are not capable of looking after the ones they have already got, walking to the shops in your pyjamas whilst you have a baby in a pram wearing just a nappy is a common sight were I live so I think it's safe to say these type of people don't have children because they want to care and provide for them, it's just to get a bigger free house or more free money.

The old chat up line of (alright darling wanna go halves on a council flat). Didn't just appear for no reason.

lemonjelly

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Read back through the thread Graham.

I didn't bring workhouses into the debate.

FWIW, chucky did. In a not very veiled attempt at sarcasm at the way other posters had missed the poitn of the thread, as well as having not thought their points through very well.

nomoreboomandbust

My question is- how did that bent copper get a council tenancy in the first place ? He must have inherited it I would assume or maybe he bought it off that other sleazebag who advertised them for sale on the internet

lemonjelly

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Get a job that involves dealing with council tenants day in day out or move to an area that mostly consists of council estates and the evidence that you require will be very plain to see.

You may be surprised to hear that the majority of council tenants I have met during my work actually find it quite funny that they get a free house and free money, I and my workmates have had plenty of these tenants call us mugs or names to that effect because we work for a living. This is after they have told you how much benefits they get per week, you think people would want to keep it quiet about how much they get but that isn't the case for a lot of the tenants I have met, they are generally the younger ones that display this type of behaviour so if this is how the latest generation conduct themselves then the country is pretty much done for.

Yes I do meet tenants who do work and are trying to get themselves into a better life but sadly they are a small minority.

People generally don't believe me or my workmates when we tell people about how some council tenants tell us how much benefits they are getting so I don't expect that everybody on here will believe me either.

In regards to the part were you mention young girls getting pregnant to receive a council flat, well round my way there are hundreds of single mothers who keep having children when they are not capable of looking after the ones they have already got, walking to the shops in your pyjamas whilst you have a baby in a pram wearing just a nappy is a common sight were I live so I think it's safe to say these type of people don't have children because they want to care and provide for them, it's just to get a bigger free house or more free money.

The old chat up line of (alright darling wanna go halves on a council flat). Didn't just appear for no reason.

Preaching to the converted fella. I worked for 1 HA for 2 years, and work for another one for the past 6 years.

I have spent 14 years working in social enterprises. I know, like you do that not every tenant is as painted on this thread.

Chuckys point stands, address the root cause of the problem. Are these young girls lying down thinking "great, this'll get me out of this flat into a 3 bed house!" I do not believe that is the case.

Address the reasons why these people are not employed, have limited life skills, egt pregnant early, descend into addictive behaviours etc.

Simply kicking them out is not a solution.

chucky

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

In regards to the part were you mention young girls getting pregnant to receive a council flat, well round my way there are hundreds of single mothers who keep having children

hundreds?? well that blows the hostel argument out of the water then...

this hostel provides for 10 single mothers.

tartanterra wrote: »

http://www.westlondonymca.org/what_we_do/accommodation/northoltgrange_hostel.htm

people are asking for thousands of these hostels to built across the country to accommodate single mothers but then complain that the government has no money and councils don't spend money correctly... it's not even close to logical.

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

hundreds for 1 one council?? well that blows the hostel argument out of the water...

this hostel provides for 10 single mothers.

people are asking for thousands of these hostels to built across the country to accommodate single mothers but then complain that the government has no money and councils don't spend money correctly... it's not even close to logical.

...nor is way too much of this thread chuckster... (rolleyes smiley)

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

hundreds for 1 one council?? well that blows the hostel argument out of the water...

this hostel provides for 10 single mothers.

people are asking for thousands of these hostels to built across the country to accommodate single mothers but then complain that the government has no money and councils don't spend money correctly... it's not even close to logical.

Of course it's close to logical.

Flats are built because they are cheaper than houses.

In the same way that hostels are cheaper to run than individual houses, with individual benefits, with individual maintenance, working with individual partnerships and individual HA's and individual landlords.

Come on chucks. I'm sure even you can see it would be far cheaper in the medium term. What's more, it would offer much much better socail inclusion and help to those that need it...i.e. those lemon pointed out earlier in the thread.

Percy1983

So 1 hostel per 10 mothers or 10 houses/flats per 10 mothers.

I vote hostels.

shortchanged_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Chuckys point stands, address the root cause of the problem. Are these young girls lying down thinking "great, this'll get me out of this flat into a 3 bed house!" I do not believe that is the case.

I think you'll probably will find this is the case in some instances.

It is no good turning a blind eye to this problem lemonjelly because it does occur.

Graham_Devon

There was an idea going round a while ago I quite liked.

A hostel type situation for the first year or two. This would immediately help people in need. It would provide counsellors, education, training and other types of services alongside a chunk of childcare for restbite type situations. More childcare was offered in return for education and job training. Help people get on their feet.

After that initial period, IF they are progressing forward, (and this wasn't just single parents, was long term unemployed too), they would then be rehoused. However, they had to prove they were willing to try and further themselves for themselves and for the children involved.

Wouldn't have been that much cheaper. But WOULD have offered all those services, some of which many people would be damn grateful for, and wouldn't have cost anymore than just giving people individual houses and then left to their own devices.

It was also believed to put people off in the first place, or make people think twice about relationships and easy come easy go situations.

Was based on a system I think which is run in Denmark? Could be wrong on the denmark part, but somewhere around there. Statistically, their problems are far, far less than ours.