Is this right?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It means this...conviniently directly above your post.

Am I wee willy

Wee_Willy_Harris

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.

I don't think it's an affordability issue, Jimmy.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

Can you not see the problem.

If people do not intend to save for a house of their own then at some point there will be no council, or private rent homes left. so what then ?

Is it not better to change the way council houses are currently used, and to also stop people who have no means to support x amount of children from having them.

Do you want to see more and more massive tower blocks appearing so that people can keep having children and have a place to home them, you do realise we live on an island dont you and at some point there wont even be any space left for tower blocks.

By the way what you saw in that tv program is very typical of the area i live in, and they didnt show anything that i have not seen before on my own doorstep, if they did show what actually goes on in these estates then the general public would be up in arms. Trust me it will never be shown on tv.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Are you suggesting that families in social housing should be prevented from having more children than they already have and that those who marry anyone in social housing must give up any existing children?

I think they should use some common sense and look at the housing situation in their area, and if it looks like they wont be able to get a property big enough to house them then its pretty obvious that having another child is a bad idea.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Can you not see the problem.

If people do not intend to save for a house of their own then at some point there will be no council, or private rent homes left. so what then ?

Is it not better to change the way council houses are currently used, and to also stop people who have no means to support x amount of children from having them.

Do you want to see more and more massive tower blocks appearing so that people can keep having children and have a place to home them, you do realise we live on an island dont you and at some point there wont even be any space left for tower blocks.

By the way what you saw in that tv program is very typical of the area i live in, and they didnt show anything that i have not seen before on my own doorstep, if they did show what actually goes on in these estates then the general public would be up in arms. Trust me it will never be shown on tv.

How can you save £175k on £15000 a year and pay rent even if it is subsided. I agree something needs to be done about the situations you are talking about but if the solution were simple it would have already been done.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Well, no. It's the law. That's what legislation is. And it over-rides your friends gossip.

Does it over ride the council employees gossip from the tv program.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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".

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.

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.

But it isn't different. The overcrowding rules are NOT tenure specific. The UNDER occupancy rules may well be, but NOT the overcrowding rules.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I don't think it's an affordability issue, Jimmy.

alright handsome behave yourself.

Wee_Willy_Harris

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.

It'll never happen.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

How can you save £175k on £15000 a year and pay rent even if it is subsided. I agree something needs to be done about the situations you are talking about but if the solution were simple it would have already been done.

So you agree that there is a problem and this problem is only going to get worse.