Bedroom tax for 'panic rooms'

[BeetrootRocks]

This first came up years ago when the tax came in, I assumed it was sorted. I cannot believe the government have been fighting it all this time.

It's such a small number of people (women) and such a small amount of money in the scheme of things. They could probably have paid the bedroom tax for everyone in the country with the lawyer costs!

The other thing is that there's a massive burden of proof to get these safe rooms in council properties because they cost 1000s to build. They have to be fire proof, door you can't get through with an axe or a chainsaw etc. Really terrifying. The council don't do it on a whim. So they sink 1000s to protect, and then either make these women who are in a terrible situation pay bedroom tax, or, essentially, encourage them to move somewhere without one. Then pay to change it back again for the next tenant?!

Final point is, council would not do this on a whim, the burden of proof must be huge to get this money spent. So why are these men not in prison? For public safety? Rather than spending 1000s to protect women and children in their homes from these men who, if the woman is able to provide enough proof to get the £££ spent, isn't that enough proof to keep them inside, iyswim?

Whole thing is cockeyed and I am genuinely disgusted by the government stance on this. It's poor value for money, penalises victims of serious crime, and potentially puts them at risk.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51805684

[BeetrootRocks]

Clicky

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51805684

[SerendipityJane]

... but the rape clause for CTC still stands.

[BeetrootRocks]

Yes that too

Fuckers

The bedroom tax thing makes no financial sense at all. It's such a small number of homes, that have cost £££ of government money via local councils, to change to secure them. To protect women and children being attacked, injured, killed. And yet the same government wants to count that room as unused and excessive and charge then extra, or get them to move.

And they are haemorrhaging money no doubt over lawyers.

And it looks just so terrible.

I can literally not understand what they are thinking with this.

[SerendipityJane]

The bedroom tax thing makes no financial sense at all.

Who said it was meant to ? The government ? Surely we've already established they are a bunch of lying cunts who wouldn't know the truth if it danced in front of them topless ?

It's really a social cleansing measure, intended to punish people for daring to be poor and relying on the state to live.

Does anyone recall the gaffe a minster made when quizzed over PIP by the Commons Select committee ? They said it hadn't saved as much money as intended. Which was curious, as we were all assured it was never intended to save money.

Anyway, this government is quite happy to spend money to teach poor and vulnerable people a lesson. Which inevitably and invariably means women. Real women too. You don't seem many men suddenly self-identifying as a single mum on benefits do you ?

[BeetrootRocks]

But in this case they are indirectly spending ££££

That's the difference

These rooms cost tens of thousands to put in place.

That's what I mean.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me tbh. Yes there's lots of shit they've done but paying through the nose to protect women from men who should be in prison, then encouraging them to move out is completely bonkers.

[Absentwomen]

Thanks, OP, for raising this news article. This is where the policy surrounding bedroom tax is bad policy. Affecting domestic survivors and mothers who have children in foster care (for any number of reasons) .

The rationale behind the welfare reform act where this policy was included was a sneaky way of both reducing the housing benefit bill and freeing up social housing.

It was a direct attack on woman who are the main claimants of housing costs.

Now ruled unlawful, this is good news.

[Mockerswithnoknockers]

Bedroom Tax was only half of it. Alongside it you have the two-child limit: Got kids, you're fucked. Not Got Kids, you're fucked.

[wellbehavedwomen]

This is horrific beyond belief.By definition, if someone's affected by this then they are extraordinarily vulnerable. So vulnerable the state will fund a panic room, but not accept that that room is not a luxury amenity, that someone should fund accordingly?

Thank God for the European Court of Human Rights. One woman winning her case will mean the rest have all won, too. The British are bound by their decisions, thankfully. But how appalling that our government were ever willing to take victims of incredibly serious crime to this point, in the first place.

[SerendipityJane]

Thank God for the European Court of Human Rights. One woman winning her case will mean the rest have all won, too.



victory may be short lived, if we are pulled out of the ECHR which is looking likely.

Also, successive governments haven't always abided by ECHR based rulings. Votes for Prisoners, anyone ?

[wellbehavedwomen]

Yeah, Cummings has made it very plain he's gunning for it, I seem to remember. It's miserable. But for now, at least, we do still have it. And I will be glad for this woman, and the others affected by this judgement accordingly. The overwhelming majority of ECHR judgements are complied with, after all.

Grim reality is, though, that with a majority like this, and a broken opposition, they can do pretty much whatever they want.

[BeetrootRocks]

If we pull out of ECHR can they reverse stuff that happened before that date?

I suppose they can do anything they like?

Christ that's a bit scary. Not to mention all the people who won cases, spending £££ and fighting for years, could have them reversed at the snap of fingers? Or is that not how it would work.

[SerendipityJane]

If we pull out of ECHR can they reverse stuff that happened before that date?

That's my understanding of it.

As long as we were in the EU, we had to remain a signatory of the ECHR (made sense, we drafted it). It was the stumbling block to Camerons "British bill of rights" guff a few years ago.

Now its not.