Is this right?

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

No I'm saying thier should be housing available for them

Do you know whats being talked about here?

Housing was provided. But children kept on popping out, making the housing provided overcrowded.

I don't think you are implying that people should just keep popping kids as they see fit, and keep getting given bigger and bigger houses at wholely tax payer expense. I'm not going to put those words in your mouth as you were trying to do to me, but do correct me if I am wrong.

A line has to be drawn. Have as many kids as you like if you can afford to feed and house them all. But if you can't, and have been given housing adequate for your needs, I think popping out kid after kid, with no fathers to be seen apart from for one of them (who incidentally didn't live there)...surely it's reasonable to suggest its taking the micky to be complaing that the council are doing nothing about your situation.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nope. It doesn't at all.

As willy won't answer the question, she was overcrowded due to having several children, in a 3 bed house. Several children AFTER being awarded a 3 bed house. (Can't remember if it was 7 or 8 children now).

The two lads who slept on the sofas, appeared not to work. Indeed, when another thread on the housing forum did some facebook searching it was pretty much fact that they didn't work. (hence this has nothing to do with minimum wages) but were old enough to work and had left school. The two of them combined could have worked and rented a house. They did nothing to help the situation they were in.

As I said, nothing to do with minimum wages.

But your talking about one specific case and the fact that they were unemployed didn’t make any difference to whether they were re housed or not.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

But your talking about one specific case and the fact that they were unemployed didn’t make any difference to whether they were re housed or not.

What has unemployment got to do with it? It's willy that started the unemployment thing, by using a false accusation. Not myself. I'm not talking specifically about unemployment.

I'm talking about overcrowded situations in council housing, and the cause of said overcrowding.

If were going to ignore this case now, because this one too is a specific case, everyone else wins. As any case you bring up to prove the point you are making appears to get dismissed as "an individual case".

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

But your talking about one specific case and the fact that they were unemployed didn’t make any difference to whether they were re housed or not.

That one specific case is an example, there are thousands upon thousands of useless spongers clogging up council houses.

Thats what we dont want.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

That one specific case is an example, there are thousands upon thousands of useless spongers clogging up council houses.

Thats what we dont want.

You seem obsessed about useless scroungers and I agree it is a problem but your solution is much to simplistic. But you also wouldn’t give the person on minimum wage social housing and if they had a one bedroom flat you would deny them the right to have children.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What has unemployment got to do with it? It's willy that started the unemployment thing, by using a false accusation. Not myself. I'm not talking specifically about unemployment.

I'm talking about overcrowded situations in council housing, and the cause of said overcrowding.

If were going to ignore this case now, because this one too is a specific case, everyone else wins. As any case you bring up to prove the point you are making appears to get dismissed as "an individual case".

The way I see it was Jimmy who started the unemployment thing and employment is not a bar to getting social housing.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do you know whats being talked about here?

Housing was provided. But children kept on popping out, making the housing provided overcrowded.

I don't think you are implying that people should just keep popping kids as they see fit, and keep getting given bigger and bigger houses at wholely tax payer expense. I'm not going to put those words in your mouth as you were trying to do to me, but do correct me if I am wrong.

A line has to be drawn. Have as many kids as you like if you can afford to feed and house them all. But if you can't, and have been given housing adequate for your needs, I think popping out kid after kid, with no fathers to be seen apart from for one of them (who incidentally didn't live there)...surely it's reasonable to suggest its taking the micky to be complaing that the council are doing nothing about your situation.

So a couple on minimum wage is living in a studio flat and have a child should they be giving a two bed social flat or not.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

You seem obsessed about useless scroungers and I agree it is a problem but your solution is much to simplistic. But you also wouldn’t give the person on minimum wage social housing and if they had a one bedroom flat you would deny them the right to have children.

Where have i said a person on minimum wage cant have a council house, if you read what i have said you will see that i would rather a working person have the council house than a layabout have it.

To be honest if i could only afford to rent a one bedroom flat then the last thing i would be doing would be having a child.

I currently dont have any children, i dont have any children because i cant afford to have any children.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

The way I see it was Jimmy who started the unemployment thing and employment is not a bar to getting social housing.

Not officialy no.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

You seem obsessed about useless scroungers and I agree it is a problem but your solution is much to simplistic. But you also wouldn’t give the person on minimum wage social housing and if they had a one bedroom flat you would deny them the right to have children.

Oh carper, come on.

Jimmy, or anyone else for that matter, is not denying ANYONE the right to have children.

Families all over the country hold back from having more children because they either cannot afford them, or do not have the space needed to house them. This is because many families all over the country do not have access to the social housing system for a variety of reasons.

All Jimmy is saying is that for those that do have access to the social housing system, and are using the social housing system, and have been given an adequate sized home for their situation on receipt of access to the social housing system....maybe, just maybe, they should think twice before creating new lives that they, just like thousands of other families all over the country, cannot house adequately. It was their choice to do so, just like it's my choice to do so. SOME of them then cry overcrowding, and how terrible it is they are not being looked after, whereas other people do not have that option and simply have to get on with it and deal with their decision.

There is absolutely no love lost, and no crying for people who have their own homes, whether privately rented, mortgaged, or owned, who have, through their own doing, outgrown and overcrowded their home. No one gives a damn, apart from to say "their own fault".

I simply cannot get my head around why someone would actually argue the case that people should just have as many children as they like, whether or not they can actually provide for them.

We all have responsibilities, and many people HAVE to exercise them as there is no help whatsoever due to circumstances. If they become overcrowded it is simply tough as they are not in social housing. They have to deal with the choices they made to the best of their own abilities. Whether that's delaying children, not having them at all, delaying further children, or dealing with their own overcrowding situation.

Why it should be different for those who ARE in social housing I really do not know. No one is saying people should not be given an adequately sized house upon application, whether thats 2, 3, 4 or 5 beds. What people are saying, is respsonibility after that, should be down to the individuals.

If you could kindly explain why you think it should be different for those in social housing compared to those not in social housing, it would really help me understand where you are coming from.