So you think you've seen some bad parenting?

[monster]

Check this out!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...delighted.html

[classicman]

"Once the new baby comes the council will have to find us a place with four or five bedrooms.

Does that mean they are on the equivalent of welfare?

"I'm sure she'll make a wonderful mum and will teach her children discipline like I have."

Wai ... wha??? OMG. whew.

[monster]

yes to welfare.

[Clodfobble]

Our three-bedroom place was already overcrowded with [Soya's] sisters Coco and Ritzy, her brother Tarot...

Sweet Jesus, bad parenting indeed!




Wait, was there more?

[SamIam]

Is The Sun one of those sensationalist rags like our National Enquirer? At any rate, they've found a family to write about and a way of presenting their situation which will make members of the entire political spectrum see red (red as in rage - not red as in commies).

Question for our Brit friends: Are the "council" places over there nice spots to live or do they tend to turn into places like our crime ridden, run down "projects"? If they are decent dwelling places for a family, there's a level on which this is a report on "good" parenting. After all, a good parent tries to find the best possible home for her offspring.

Does the UK really provide a comfortable life style for "welfare" recipients? And if it's that pleasant, why isn't EVERYONE in the UK living like the people in this article?

Just curious.

[Gravdigr]

Coco, Ritzy, & Tarot??? Are these kids, or chihuahuas?

[monster]

Sam, the Sun is a "Tabloid" but nowhere near the Enquirer and that ilk. It's a daily newspaper and reports the news and sports too. But it does/did have nude tits on page 3. The UK just doesn't have publications like the Globe etc. If there were a US equivalent of the Sun, it would be USA Today redneck edition.....

Council places vary, but the estates are generally project-ish. Without the racial divides they have here. Kinda.

After council estates got nasty (=projects), the councils started looking to acquire already-bulit properties in regular neighborhoods (estates) to "spread the joy". And that's when you started getting council houses with more than three bedrooms, and people started having "pride" in their council houses. because they got moves to nice places in nice neighborhoods without having to do a thing for it except producing bables.

Sorry, Dana.

[SamIam]

Thanks for the explanation, Mon. I guess I don't think people should have to live in miserable places just because they're poor, but I don't think they should in effect be rewarded for having children out of wedlock and just getting to sit around. What happens when the last child turns 18? Does the Mom have to go find a job then or is she just set for life?

[monster]

Extended family is OK, but I guess the needs assesment passes to the oldest child still living there? Dana or Sundae could proabably answer that more accurately. Sorry, never had the need, so never learned about it. But I know it changed from when I was growing up to when i went to Uni. When i grew up, council estates were OK, but I was semi-privileged and encouraged not to go there. They got better for a bit (at least in reputation -I was allowed to go there) and then deteriorated rapidly, resulting in councils looking more towards owning houses dotted round the community rather than dumping everyone in a specially built neighborhood. Nice in theory, but I think that led to people with parasitic tendancies to work the system......

[Trilby]

Where IS Dana??

haven't seen her around.

now - back to the original story...

[GunMaster357]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

Coco, Ritzy, & Tarot??? Are these kids, or chihuahuas?

Funny how we think alike.

[Trilby]

Coco, Ritzy and Tarot seem like perfectly good redneck names to me.

Right up there with Pixie and Trixie.

[DanaC]

Stupid fucking names *shakes head*

It's really not as simple as people having kids to get a council house. For a start that's not how it works now. Or rather it does and it doesn't *smiles* The people controlling the housing stock are not the same as the people dealing with child welfare.

In theory all councils bear 'corporate parenthood' towards all children within their boundaries. This means offering support to families and in the event of family breakdown, where necessary stepping into the breach. The councils are legally obliged to ensure the safety and security of children. That means ensuring they have a roof over their head. In theory, the presence of a young child in a homeless family should be enough to gurantee housing, but in reality that's not quite how it works.

Lots of families who are technically 'homeless' are actually living in guest houses and hostels, and that includes families with youngsters. Housing advice centres and housing charities are overwhelmed by need and facing sharp cuts to budgets. Council/social housing is entirely inadequate to current levels of need. My own council has a housing shortage of somewhere in the region of 4000 homes.

Like many councils we don;t own the housing stock, it is owned and managed by an arms length not for profit company (not for profit but expanding to encompass whole regions of previously council owned housing stock), who supposedly work in partnership with the council to deliver local agendas.

Rather than the old system whereby when you got to the head o fthe list you were contacted and offered a couple of housing options, now you have to bid for houses on the housing system. Each bidder is assigned a priority band, with each priority made up of a points scale. If you're bidding with a bronze priority you might be bidding for years and not get anything. If you're bidding with a gold priority then you'll probably find something in a few weeks or months. Some housing is specifically open to only one or two bands, other stuff can be bid on by anybody.

The points system takes account of a number of factors including health issues or the presence of young children in a homeless family, or levels of overcrowding in a family already living in one of the association houses.

There's not an automatic guarantee that someone who's had another child will then get a bigger house, nor that a young single mum won't get stuck in some entirely innappropriate bed and breakfast hotel.

It varies from council to council. But I doubt there are many who can guarantee a council house to a girl just because she has a bairn.

There have always been a handful of girls who took that attitude. Somehow most of them seem to end up in the Sun or the Daily Mail to bolster the latest economic assault on lone parents. The vast majority of young single mums, in my experience as a councillor, working with this particular demographic as part of the Children and Young People's services directorate, are either flailing about in panic and need help and direction, or even more likely are single-mindedly focused on building a life for their little one.

This kind of shite really muddies the water. This becomes the picture most people have of young single mums and it's really, really, not representative.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The points system takes account of a number of factors including health issues or the presence of young children in a homeless family, or levels of overcrowding in a family already living in one of the association houses.

Who authenticates this data to ensure that it is accurate and people are not lying on their applications? How is it updated accurately as their situation changes to ensure that they are not getting something they really don't need?

[Sundae]

We have Bands A-D in Bucks.
I am in Band D "No housing need" because I live with my parents, in my own bedroom and have no dependents.

I keep applying, as it's my only hope of not living with my parents. Market rates for a studio flat (basically a bedroom with a kitchen in it) are more than my full months wage, let alone bills or living expenses.

I'm applying for other work of course, but I just can't see how I can keep up with the housing market.

The people who live in the houses opposite us (which are still technically council houses) are not living the life of Reilly by any means. They all work and/ or are looking after young children, so I don't begrudge them housing. Not that I'd be competing with them anyway, as our close is made up of 3-4 bedroom family houses.

Sam the reason not everyone lives their lives on benefits is because it's a miserable life. You have no self-esteem, you are bored, you can never better yourself (ie work harder for a couple of months to get something special) and the majority of people are simply not born that way.

A safety net doesn't make people lazy. It allows a minority to fall to the bottom without actually killing themselves. Most people want to be up on the high-wire or the trapeze.