Talk

Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide, which can point you to expert advice and support.

Shame on you Iain Duncan Smith for causing stress to this vunerable DV victim

(130 Posts)
JamNan Wed 19-Nov-14 07:54:49

link here to story on BBC website

Long story short:
A woman known as 'A' has been raped, assaulted, harassed and stalked by an ex-partner. As part of what is called a Sanctuary Scheme, she and her son live in a three-bedroom home which has been specially adapted as a safe and secure space by the police.

Under new Housing Benefit rules, the woman and her son will only receive HB for a two-bedroom property; which means a reduction in income of 14%. Supported by Women's Aid she has challenged the decision in the High Court.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is defending the claim, no doubt at great expense to taxpayers having unsuccessfully argued at a hearing in June that it should be dismissed.

I am astonished at the callous attitude of the government, IDS and his ministers. Surely we should be helping this vulnerable woman until she can get on her feet again and not penalize her.

Please don't start a bunfight about scrounging benefit claimants.

CaptainAnkles Wed 19-Nov-14 07:58:07

Appalling, yet somehow not particularly surprising. This government is surprising me less and less with how vile it can be. sad

WildBillfemale Wed 19-Nov-14 08:09:43

Surely a Safehouse could also be in the form of a smaller cheaper property?
In fact wouldn't it be easier to make a smaller place secure - less points of entry etc.

There are a zillion special cases who all think they are entitled to a break in the rules. Bottom line is I want my taxes to be used efficiently and 2 people in a 3 bed house is excessive for any reason.

GratefulHead Wed 19-Nov-14 08:16:27

Wow WildBill, you are lovely aren't you?

Have you considered that lack of two be properties perhaps? In my local area there is a wait of years for two bed places so th council sometimes put people into three bed properties instead. I was in that exact situation five years ago....if I was still there I'd be hammered for Bedroom tax now as I am a Carer for my disabled child. Thankfully I am in a two bed now but nice to know there are people like you out there just overflowing with innate sensitivity and empathy.

This Govt is immoral for creating the spare room subsidy when there is a lack of smaller properties to move people. Most people affected are literally stuck ....the poorest in society being made poorer by a load of rich toffs who wouldn't know deprivation if it smacked them in the face.

Lottapianos Wed 19-Nov-14 08:18:13

Wild, I heard this woman's lawyer on the radio this morning. There has already been £100,000 spent on making this woman's home safe. How would it make any sense to move her and have to spend the same amount again on another property?

IDS is such a scumbag.

GratefulHead Wed 19-Nov-14 08:20:33

The Sanctuary scheme usually creates a "safe room" in a house too so likely the spare room has been adapted to allow this woman and her child to get to an additional secure space within the home if they are threatend by the abuser.

Hope IDS gets his arse kicked with this, he is totally without any empathy.

WildBillfemale Wed 19-Nov-14 08:25:52

Why attack me? I'm entitled to a different view to you.

People move areas for work ALL the time, People relocate to differant towns/cities even countries for work.

Why can't people who require a 2 bed property whilst on the safety net of benefits re-locate to where they are available? (and they are available)

WildBillfemale Wed 19-Nov-14 08:28:22

this woman's home

It's not her home though - Surely she isn't intended to stay there for her entire life? It's a safe house and maybe someone else will need it more in the future as a temporary stop gap until they get back on their feet.

davejudgement Wed 19-Nov-14 08:29:34

What I want to know is why her scumbag cunt of an ex isn't being sent the bill, and I'm assuming he's still running around town otherwise she wouldn't need the protection.

This is all wrong. The focus is all wrong. She should be safe in a normal house.

simontowers2 Wed 19-Nov-14 08:29:55

Totally agree wikdbill but obv you cant say that here cos it doesnt fit the OP's narrative (and also the general MN rule which is that anything at all that IDS says MUST be wrong).

WildBillfemale Wed 19-Nov-14 08:31:48

Incidentally where is this womans ex partner? surely if he is this much of a threat with proof of pasts attacks he's not roaming free?

simontowers2 Wed 19-Nov-14 08:32:07

Agreed dave. Topsy-turvy society we live in, spending tens of thousands protecting people from abusers. Why not just throw away the key for these scumballs. Rape and or serious dv - with proof - should mean 15 yr min sentence.

CogitoErgoSometimes Wed 19-Nov-14 08:32:45

There are discretionary funds available to councils that would easily cover the extra cost of HB here. Agree that the real problem is that the woman should be able to live anywhere safely rather than in some sort of converted fortress. IDS is not the devil.

turbonerd Wed 19-Nov-14 08:33:27

I agree With dave on this. the focus is all wrong.

Fontella Wed 19-Nov-14 08:36:25

Wow GratefulHead no need for the personal attack!

Not agreeing with WildBill's views is one thing, but simply because they don't chime with your own, doesn't mean she 'lacks sensitivity and empathy'.

If there's a lack of two bedroom properties available then I fail to see how this Government of 'rich toffs' is responsible for that? They haven't been in government a full term yet and if there's a shortage of 2 bed properties in this country then there's an historic element to that that goes back way before the coalition came to power.

Our benefits system in this country is there to look after the most needy and vulnerable in society, but it also needs to be spent wisely. Whilst there may be extenuating circumstances in this particular case, I do agree with WildBill that a single mother and a small child, or any two people for that matter, can live perfectly well and be safe and secure, in a two bedroomed property, which is the point she was making.

And I speak as a working single mother of two on a very low income, living in social housing - without question, one of those 'poorest' in society that you refer to in your post. And I don't lack sensitivity and empathy either. But I also know the benefits system in this country isn't a bottomless pit.

WildBillfemale Wed 19-Nov-14 08:36:57

The Sanctuary scheme usually creates a "safe room" in a house too so likely the spare room has been adapted to allow this woman and her child to get to an additional secure space within the home

The safe room could have been one of the bedrooms......

CocktailQueen Wed 19-Nov-14 08:40:00

*What I want to know is why her scumbag cunt of an ex isn't being sent the bill, and I'm assuming he's still running around town otherwise she wouldn't need the protection.

This is all wrong. The focus is all wrong. She should be safe in a normal house.*

^^ This. I also agree with Wildbill - the benefits pot is not bottomless and it makes sense to use it as wisely as possible.

But I honestly think this is crazy - if her ex is that much of a threat, then why isn't he in prison?

EverythingsRunningAway Wed 19-Nov-14 08:45:13

Bottom line is I want my taxes to be used efficiently and 2 people in a 3 bed house is excessive for any reason.

For ANY reason?!

You don't understand much about efficiency or bottom lines if you think that kind of rigidity leads to optimum resource allocation.

Knee-jerk nonsense like thisfrom people who want "their tax dollars" spent according to their personal preferences are a contributory factor in governments making wasteful decisions that appear on the surface to be sensible and/or "tough".

I'm a little bit disgusted at the threadbare safety net some of you feel barely obliged to provide for people at serious risk of harm or death.

camperthanbeethoven Wed 19-Nov-14 08:46:04

Having heard the woman's lawyer on R4 this morning, my understanding is that one of the major issues is that, now this house has been made safe, she has to stay there. If she moves, her new house will not be secured under the Sanctuary Scheme. So she is stuck, in a sense.

I agree absolutely that it is her perpetrator who should be locked away, but that is not the case here for whatever reason. She is being punished - and potentially put in a very dangerous situation- for something that is in no way her fault or within her control. She will not be safe if she is required to leave the house.

potless111 Wed 19-Nov-14 08:55:24

"and if one doesn't want it (for whatever reason) then the other has no grounds for sulks, tantrums and emotional abuse."

agreed.
but ultimately, sex is like food and water. deprive men their regular source of it, most men WILL eventually look elsewhere for it.
marriage is a compromise between 2 people.
thats why i am saying they need to have a sit down and talk about it before it potentially leads to unintended consequences.

potless111 Wed 19-Nov-14 08:56:25

oops wrong thread

Rebecca2014 Wed 19-Nov-14 08:56:33

I hate the Tories. I cannot believe so many people want vote them back in, they are so so vile.

potless111 Wed 19-Nov-14 08:57:58

rebacca, yeah, cos labour are amazing and love poor people
hmm

potless111 Wed 19-Nov-14 08:58:29

ps i will be voting tory in the next election

JamNan Wed 19-Nov-14 08:59:32

Potless are you on the wrong thread luv?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now