cheryl33 Posted July 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 Sam, it was just a generalisation - I am pretty sure that some of the people involved in last month's attempted bombings lived in council houses. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I have known a few people from very big families - talking about double figures now. The youngest ones had a much happier childhood than the older ones. One friend was oldest of 15, and he just didn't get a childhood, he was looking after infants all the time and none of the older kids took any pleasure in the arrival of yet another baby each year or so. I've also met one or two mums who thought they had such a wonderful family that it was right and proper to increase it whenever they fancied and expect to be supported. They did indeed have great kids and were good mothers, but that wasn't the point. There were Patricia Hewitt's comments last year that people needed to have more children to ensure a workforce in the future. There are regular complaints from all and sundry about how my generation have caused a financial crisis by reducing the birthrate, although we were in fact pressurised by the government to do this to prevent future over-population. Do some people now feel they are doing the country a favour by having a child a year? I don't like the snobby comments either, and have no time for elders who can't tolerate children living in their street. If they want to live in geriatric ghettos, they should live in senior-only housing. The council is obliged to provide housing for a family with children under 16. It is probably cheaper to give them this house than pay for hostel or B&B accommodation for a family of this size. They would not have a council house big enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Jvv Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 What makes me laugh is Tony and I have good jobs. And between us we earn a decent amount. We have no kids (just the furry variety) and live a modest life. Yet we cannot afford to get our own place. If we did buy our own place and had kids the we cannot afford for one of us give up working to look after them or pay for childcare. We looked at the entitled to website and worked out the scenarios. As we are working full time...a house and kids are a distant dream. According to the benefits system, the best choice for us would be to stay in rented accommodation and if neither of us worked we would end up with more cash in our pockets (after most of our bills being paid for us) than we do now, a couple without a mortgage or kids. Clearly the system has no incentive for people to actually work when they are happy to give to all and sundry. I think it should be there for those who geniunely need it, elderly, disabled etc etc. But that it should be capped at a certain rate so if you choose to have more than 4 kids, its up to you to be able to pay for those kids. Where would we be if we all chose to live off benefits and pop out 12 kids?? Who'd pay for it then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Dobie Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 Just skipped through this thread and I am not going to judge the family concerned, but I think there is an argument for a decent standard of living in the UK, which it has become apparent that a lot of people cannot afford and by that I mean decent accomodation at a fair price with a council tax system that really does need updating. Nobody has questioned whether it is against the parent's religion to not use birth control methods - it is a possibility (but I doubt it), but he has shot himself in the foot about saying he is better off through NOT working - I'm pretty sure the Jobcentre would have 'phoned him by now. Just as a side note (and in my experience) this sort of thing does not happen abroad. Firstly, because the Welfare State (as it is pretty much unique in it's English guise) doesn't exist to the same extent and secondly because there appears to be more of an extended family unit abroad whereby there is (usually) someone close at hand to help should the going get a bit too tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtle Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I do believe that to have children is a privilege not a right. Unfortunately that is not the case and it is now deemed a right not a privilege Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libby Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I can understand neither of them working, what would be the point? But.........we do make it too easy for people. Those who live here and those who are refugees etc. We are in a position of earning too much to get help, but not earning enough that it is a struggle. We are 'just below' help for dental, opticians, prescriptions, etc. We pay our taxes, including road tax etc. are up to date with insurance, yet so MANY people don't bother. And we all know who they are. These people should contribute somehow, if the guy earns £350 a month at Asda, reduce his benefits by the same. It makes my blood boil that I like many others, work hard long hours, whilst lazy people like this get it all. There's no pride. Britain is losing it's pride. If I am patriotic I would get accused of being racist. Bring back National service. let everyone who lives here contribute to the country, unless they REALLY can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheplover Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I think that those on benefits who are capable of work and have not yet found any should do voluntary work - it will help them feel they are not just sitting back and thus some feel guilty, help boost their CV and will make many feel less resentful of those in receipt of benefits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 The problem is that his benefits were reduced by more than the 350 a week he was earning so he stopped working. If people didn't have to take a drop in income to go to work, more might do so. I have every sympathy with people who are really squeezed financially but just above the limit to qualify for any reductions. I was in that situation until I retired. If I had stopped working the minute I turned 60 I would have been much better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laura g Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 Just skipped through this thread and I am not going to judge the family concerned, but I think there is an argument for a decent standard of living in the UK, which it has become apparent that a lot of people cannot afford and by that I mean decent accomodation at a fair price with a council tax system that really does need updating. Nobody has questioned whether it is against the parent's religion to not use birth control methods - it is a possibility (but I doubt it), but he has shot himself in the foot about saying he is better off through NOT working - I'm pretty sure the Jobcentre would have 'phoned him by now. Just as a side note (and in my experience) this sort of thing does not happen abroad. Firstly, because the Welfare State (as it is pretty much unique in it's English guise) doesn't exist to the same extent and secondly because there appears to be more of an extended family unit abroad whereby there is (usually) someone close at hand to help should the going get a bit too tough. very well put. i done like the way this has been reported. whowever these people are and whatever they are done they have not been 'given' this house in the sense they are going to make any money out of it. It's not necessarily 'worth' £500k. Yes there are truths but they have been loaded to produce a real neg reaction. I dont agree with that when I cannot see what they are aiming to achieve, if that makes sense. I wonder what they told the family - bet they didnt say 'come on guys, we want your story and a pic and we are going to call you britains biggest scroungers!!' that's not to say I necessarily agree with the whole welfare system. I'm assuming all you guys who are up in arms about this don't vote labour then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 With all due respect to Cheryl and Libby, I have no worldly clue why this is becoming a race issue. The family in this story are quite clearly white and British. I don't see how comments about refugees, bombers living in council housing, etc has anything at all to do with the problem highlighted by this story, and I don't get the link to blaming anyone "foreign" for this problem. Might just be me though. For the record I'm pretty sure most doctors (of any origin) don't live in council housing. But hey ho, let's assume they do and that's the root cause of this family not being able to keep their bits in their pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingrid Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 very well put. they have not been 'given' this house in the sense they are going to make any money out of it. It's not necessarily 'worth' £500k. If I remember rightly the house was a hotel that the council bought for £350k, the other £150k was spent on converting it and furnishing it for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libby Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I wasn't trying to make it a race issue. The point I was trying to make, and poorly, is that there are many people who get something for nothing in this country, and I cannot blame this family for taking what they are given. There is no incentive for them to do different. But I stand by my comment that many people don't have pride anymore. At theend of the day, as long as they aren't allowed to buy this house at a ridicously low price and then be allowed to sell it in the future for much gain. Hopefully somebody else will gain the benifit eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheryl33 Posted July 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 Again Kathy it was a generalisation - I read that one of the bombers had lived in a council house. it didnt say if he was one of the doctors or not. I'm not pointing the blame at anyone, I'm just voicing my opinion. What I am trying to say is that is this country is a joke. You read all the time about people like this family who dont work yet expect everything handed to them on a plate. You get people coming into the country and they are given houses cos there is nowhere else to put them. In regards to this family, what can you do? you cant force a woman to stop having kids. They should stop any benefits for her husband and make the lazy sod get off his arse and support his children. it p*sses me off because i work 45 hours in my job in the week and I also work part time. This is usually shop work/pole dancing or working in a bar and despite this I still cant afford to get on the housing ladder on my own. I'm not entitled to a council flat either because i don't have a child/I dont have an illness and because I'm not working. Just my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I do get your frustration Cheryl, but at the end of the day you getting council housing won't change the fact you're not on the housing ladder, and social housing is *meant* to be for those that need it, not for everyone, and there has to be a cutoff point. I am in no way justifying the family in this story, but when it comes to council housing it's *meant* to be for those that need it (eg. refugees, low income families, disabled). If it was for everyone, it wouldn't be social housing . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheryl33 Posted July 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 Oh I know that Kathy and understand it. But I am a low earner, I struggle every month and i dont have the option of moving in with family. Half my wage goes on my rent and bills and if I had a council flat, my life would be a hell of a lot easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts