We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Benefits Street
Comments
-
outofmoney wrote: »Then they should be keeping their clothes fully on until such time that IF an accident occur they could better deal with it.
It must be lovely in your fantasy world where everybody does what they should do. :cool:“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
I worked in homeless projects for over 15 years and worked with many young women, some who were pregnant, being pregnant did not give anyone a fast track to a house, they did not get extra points for pregnancy. A lot of the young people I worked with were deemed vulnerable for many reasons and some were offered houses within 6 months but the average wait for a house was a year, some waited up to two years. Pregnancy didnt give any of them extra housing points. Priority points are not given out easily, Ive been at meetings with young people who qualified for priority points (not due to pregnancy) and we very much had to argue that they deserved them and in a lot of cases had to provide letters from GPs as well. The get pregnant and get straight to the top of the housing queue is not what happens in reality from my experience of working with single young homeless people or those who had a partner.
Im in Scotland and it might be different up here, but its been the case for a long time now that being pregnant does not fast track anyone up the council house waiting list.
It is certainly different in my neck of the woods too. Having a baby; having the father absent (preferrably!); parents of young woman unable or unwilling to provide housing - it guarantees social housing almost immediately and I know of several young woman who have successfully gone down this road.
Even my ex-tenant - she acquired a council flat within a month of asking, just because she was alone, struggling to pay the rent and had a young child.
On the other hand ...... having the father around puts a completely different light on things. My daughter's pregnant friend and her partner had to live apart in two separate b&b's for 15 months before being awarded social housing.0 -
outofmoney wrote: »Hmm, If only we only had to wait 6 months, or even two years. Silly us made the mistake of getting married and then having children. Now been on the waiting list for 14 years!
My niece on the other hand, who was 3 when we went on the list, now has two children by different (absent by her doing) fathers and has a lovely council house to live in.
But thats the real world.:(
I prefer the fantasy world of the other posters, where people don't have kids they can't afford, Dads can always be traced, and they have the money to pay for their kids:)“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »It must be lovely in your fantasy world where everybody does what they should do. :cool:
It's no problem if people choose to do crazy things as long as they take *full* responsibility for their mistakes.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
I worked in homeless projects for over 15 years and worked with many young women, some who were pregnant, being pregnant did not give anyone a fast track to a house, they did not get extra points for pregnancy. A lot of the young people I worked with were deemed vulnerable for many reasons and some were offered houses within 6 months but the average wait for a house was a year, some waited up to two years. Pregnancy didnt give any of them extra housing points. Priority points are not given out easily, Ive been at meetings with young people who qualified for priority points (not due to pregnancy) and we very much had to argue that they deserved them and in a lot of cases had to provide letters from GPs as well. The get pregnant and get straight to the top of the housing queue is not what happens in reality from my experience of working with single young homeless people or those who had a partner.
Im in Scotland and it might be different up here, but its been the case for a long time now that being pregnant does not fast track anyone up the council house waiting list.
If getting pregnant did not guarantee a home we would see children living on the street.
(Shelter claims 80,000 'homeless' children in London, but their definition of homeless includes such places as council provided bed and breakfast accommodation. We don't know how many people there are sleeping rough. In a recent trawl of London they found 6 children sleeping rough on the streets, all of whom were taken off immediately. There were about 3,300 single men, and a few single women. But thats only the ones they saw and counted.)“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »It's no problem if people choose to do crazy things as long as they take *full* responsibility for their mistakes.
But they don't take *full* (or indeed any) responsibility for their mistakes, and we who live in the real world have to deal with things the way they are.
Single person turns up at the social homeless, and they can stay homeless.
But young woman turns up pregnant and says she doesn't know who the father is. Or a couple turn up with kids. What do you do?
Why do you think the likes of Mick Philpott have 12 kids?
Whats the use of you trying to tell him to take *full* responsibility for his 'mistakes'?
Are you going to send Mick Philpott a bill?“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »I feel very fortunate to have a well paid job I like doing. So as a taxpayer I don't mind paying reasonable benefits to the unemployed.
But the Royal Family are just taking the p*ss :mad:
Get rid of them!0 -
Not read the whole thread and no doubt i will get flammed for this, but im quite shocked by the ignorant comments that are coming out here.
You do realise that shows like Benefits Street are just poverty !!!!!!, they are sensationlist TV meant to draw in viewers with a very narrow view on people on benefits.
Shows like this serve nothing more than to feed a baying mob of angry people looking to blame someone for the UK economic misfortune.
Now some on this show are lazy and chose to have the benefits lifestyle, however this show just poors scourn onto those genuine people on benefits (who are the vast majority). This show just feeds into the conservatives right wing agenda.
Seriously people that go so worked up and angry "literally shouting at the TV screen" need to get out and see what it's like for genuine people on benefits it's not all flat screen TV's and fags.
I would love to see a show highlighting the billions lost in tax evasion (primarily commited by the super rich). The £1 trillion+ that the banks needed to be bailed out - but this doesn't make good TV does it, easier to blame and attack those in a less fortunate position isn't it, those who are 'weaker than you'.
Yes get angry at those paying the system, but get angry at all those playing the system, the rich and poor.
Final thought, 0.7% of the benefits bills is lost through fraud, not sure of the exact figure but it's less than £2bn - over £20 billion is lost through tax evasion, do the math then put the Daily Mail down for a bit.11K Challenge
5,785/11k
0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »What do you do?
Lethal injection.0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »But they don't take *full* (or indeed any) responsibility for their mistakes
Because they know they don't have to under the current system. Get rid of the nanny state (other than as a short term safety net) and people would be forced to adapt.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards