Is this right?

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

Yes , they are a working couple who pay their way so why not. I dont think they should be staying in the flat for their whole lives though because its not really fair on the other minimum wage earners coming along in the future who could also do with the help of cheaper housing.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

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.

You qualify it by saying they should save to buy a house I have pointed out they in parts of the country that is impossible. If you were unfortunate enough to live in Surrey and only able to earn minimum wage with the prospects of not earning much more would you be prepared never to have children. I think the purpose of social housing should be to house people in that situation.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

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.

No I don't think people should be giving housing beyond a certain size, I also think the same thing should apply to LHA. But I don't see why someone with 1 child should be restricted to that because they were only given a 2 bed house initially.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

You qualify it by saying they should save to buy a house I have pointed out they in parts of the country that is impossible. If you were unfortunate enough to live in Surrey and only able to earn minimum wage with the prospects of not earning much more would you be prepared never to have children. I think the purpose of social housing should be to house people in that situation.

Like i said, if i cant afford to put a roof over my head i wouldnt be bringing a child into the world. If i desperately wanted to start a family and the only way i could afford to house that family was to move to another part of the country then that is what i would do.

Ive always been told that when you have children you have to make sacrifices.

What happens when every single bit of land in surrey has been used up and there is no more space for council houses and the private rents are all used up. what then.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

No I don't think people should be giving housing beyond a certain size, I also think the same thing should apply to LHA. But I don't see why someone with 1 child should be restricted to that because they were only given a 2 bed house initially.

A person with 1 child wouldn't be restricted to having another. They have 2 bedrooms. The kids can share, and that is the policy.

What Jimmy is talking about is overcrowding. You and he are not (and I think purposely not) on the same level.

You appear to be suggesting that the person should have 2, 3, 4, however many more children and get re-homed every time.

Jimmy is saying that they shouldn't be given bigger homes than they have already succesfully received, or cry about overcrowding for having over and above the amount of children to hit the overcrowding rules.

In the middle of all of this, theres loads of stupid "are you implying, are you saying, are you suggesting" which is only serving to wind people up.

You now, after your last post, to be on the very same level as myself, and Jimmy. You are now just laying in to the "so you are suggesting they should only be able to have children if they buy a house" line, when its quite clear he simply meant pay their own way, be that buying or paying the rent out of their own earned money. Wasn't the best explanation, granted....but then when you have people all over you trying to tarnish you with anything they can and confuse matters with "are you implying", it's difficult to explain things anyway, as no matter what you say, it gets twisted, and thats what has happened.

You did it to me, I explained everything, and you haven't come back to me on any of the points I raised, rather moved on to suggesting Jimmy is saying stuff he hasn't said, because mayeb he hasn't fully explained to the enth degree what he means. But it's pretty clear what's meant. Whats meant is, you;ve got a house, if you cannot afford your own large house, whether that be renting or owning, why should you be any different to any other family in the country not using the social housing system.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Like i said, if i cant afford to put a roof over my head i wouldnt be bringing a child into the world. If i desperately wanted to start a family and the only way i could afford to house that family was to move to another part of the country then that is what i would do.

Ive always been told that when you have children you have to make sacrifices.

What happens when every single bit of land in surrey has been used up and there is no more space for council houses and the private rents are all used up. what then.

Provision has to be made for people earning low salaries to live in expensive areas and the way to do it is social housing the other alternative is LHA which is more expensive. It would be impossible for everybody on a low wage in southern England to up sticks and move to cheaper parts of the country and find jobs when they get there.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A person with 1 child wouldn't be restricted to having another. They have 2 bedrooms. The kids can share, and that is the policy.

What Jimmy is talking about is overcrowding. You and he are not (and I think purposely not) on the same level.

You appear to be suggesting that the person should have 2, 3, 4, however many more children and get re-homed every time.

Jimmy is saying that they shouldn't be given bigger homes than they have already succesfully received, or cry about overcrowding for having over and above the amount of children to hit the overcrowding rules.

In the middle of all of this, theres loads of stupid "are you implying, are you saying, are you suggesting" which is only serving to wind people up.

You now, after your last post, to be on the very same level as myself, and Jimmy. You are now just laying in to the "so you are suggesting they should only be able to have children if they buy a house" line, when its quite clear he simply meant pay their own way, be that buying or paying the rent out of their own earned money. Wasn't the best explanation, granted....but then when you have people all over you trying to tarnish you with anything they can and confuse matters with "are you implying", it's difficult to explain things anyway, as no matter what you say, it gets twisted, and thats what has happened.

You did it to me, I explained everything, and you haven't come back to me on any of the points I raised, rather moved on to suggesting Jimmy is saying stuff he hasn't said, because mayeb he hasn't fully explained to the enth degree what he means. But it's pretty clear what's meant. Whats meant is, you;ve got a house, if you cannot afford your own large house, whether that be renting or owning, why should you be any different to any other family in the country not using the social housing system.

Mixed sex children cannot share beyond a certain age.

Did you not read beyond a certain size

On second thought have you been drinking, as I can’t make any sense out of your last couple of paragraphs?

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Mixed sex children cannot share beyond a certain age.

Did you not read beyond a certain size

And? It still isn't taking someones right away not to have children.

When 2 children of mixed sex hit that age, they may be allocated a larger house. In the meantime, they have 5-6 years to do the best they can for themselves.

Were talking about EXTRA children. 3, 4, 5 children. Why on earth do you keep on ignoring this? We are talking about a specifici TV programme (completely different to the OP), which I'm not sure you have watched, but seem to be adamant to have you say on and accuse others of saying stuff they haven't said.

If you had watched the programme, you'd understand what's actually being talked about (although I have already explained it in length to you which appeared to be ignored). If you did watch the programme, then you will know full well whats actually being talked about and are only serving to be obnoxious and accuse posters of suggesting, implying, or saying stuff, while stripping the context from what they are talking about.

I wish Sky Player was working tonight. Wouldn't be sat here reading this utter drivel.

ukcarper wrote: »

On second thought have you been drinking, as I can’t make any sense out of your last couple of paragraphs?

Dont worry about it. Even if you could, it appears you'd completely ignore it.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

Provision has to be made for people earning low salaries to live in expensive areas and the way to do it is social housing the other alternative is LHA which is more expensive. It would be impossible for everybody on a low wage in southern England to up sticks and move to cheaper parts of the country and find jobs when they get there.

So are you suggesting that people in surrey should stop having children if they cant buy a house of their own because the north will not be able to support them all in regards to having work available to them, that is a good idea if you are thinking about the future of this country because at some point the population is going to be to much for the country to sustain.

I think its china that limits how many children people can have because there are not enough resources to go around. At some point in the future an MP is going to be saying that the country is to small and people need to stop having children because there will be no work or homes available to them.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And? It still isn't taking someones right away not to have children.

When 2 children of mixed sex hit that age, they may be allocated a larger house. In the meantime, they have 5-6 years to do the best they can for themselves.

Were talking about EXTRA children. 3, 4, 5 children. Why on earth do you keep on ignoring this? We are talking about a specifici TV programme (completely different to the OP), which I'm not sure you have watched, but seem to be adamant to have you say on and accuse others of saying stuff they haven't said.

If you had watched the programme, you'd understand what's actually being talked about (although I have already explained it in length to you which appeared to be ignored). If you did watch the programme, then you will know full well whats actually being talked about and are only serving to be obnoxious and accuse posters of suggesting, implying, or saying stuff, while stripping the context from what they are talking about.

I wish Sky Player was working tonight. Wouldn't be sat here reading this utter drivel.

I watched the TV program and I don’t think it is typical and I personally can’t understand why the two older boys didn’t go and get a room in a shared house and claim LHA. My gripe with Jimmy is that he seems to think that no one should be given a council house unless they intend to save for a house of their own and he is not arguing for them to not be given bigger house he is arguing for them to be chucked out on the street.