To think the level of state involvement many posters expect is bonkers?

I agree with what you’re saying but as a society there needs to be a way to stop people having children they aren’t going to look after. That’s the real issue at hand

Againname · Today 16:22

Thanks for your detailed reply making good points - but I think what you say, and what I say, still indicates that a discussion needs to be had by politicians about social housing in the 21st century. Our society is totally different to what it was in the immediate post-war period when many s.h. schemes were built.

My point is: before we start bulldozing, we need to know exactly what to build and why (learning from the mistakes of the past with the horrendous, Brutalist architecture), whom it will be for and how the allocation system will work. Lots of good points have been made on this thread, including the fact that people without children seem to have no chance of getting social housing.

The vast majority of parents want to do the best for their kids, for those that don't there will be wilful neglect and thats what SS should be dealing with but for many its often just a complete lack of knowledge.

So i remember an initiative in an inner city area to get would be and new mums to cook, one of the workers involved told me "its not a lack of an oven or even utensils, its that many of the women cannot read.."

So what good is it pointing them to a cookbook? or as one pp said "they could look up teeth brushing on the nhs website"

You might say thats a tiny minority but its not:
It is estimated that more than 7 million adults in England are 'functionally illiterate', lacking basic skills beyond a primary school level or below

Now you see "forcing" people into anything is usually very counter-productive. Hence the saying "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".

I remember my dear late mother, with whom I got on very well for the most part, lamenting the loss of literal "fear of God" in child rearing. She didn't think it was a bad thing for small children to believe an invisible entity watching their every move to spur them into compliant behaviour on threat of terrible punishment if not now then in the afterlife.

We had a long conversation about it, and she backed off especially when I pointed out that there is plenty of evidence that upbringing like that have contributed to the actions of some of the worst serial killers, not to mention other more general atrocities.

It's all well and good to punish people for their failings but some of them will take out their perceived injustice on the nearest next available target.

Parent gets punished for child's poor dental health, parent blames child and punushes it. Again, accuse me of hyperbole or extreme thinking, but if a vulnerable child is made more vulnerable by punishing the parent, that child has the foundations of poor mental health that carries on down the line.

So something like poor dental health is often part of a bigger picture, but can be overseen reasonably cheaply and effectively by a little intervention in the immediate best interests of the child, freeing up resources and focus to address the bigger, core issues, and hopefully lead to better outcomes for the child and their children.

Once again, it's a bigger picture. Focusing on punishing parents doesn't necessarily help the child, even if it seems like the right response.

I think more families where both parents work full time make it harder as well. When people are able to just about cope, good parenting with full time work can be too much to cope with.

But the point is so many children are disadvantaged because they are not receiving proper care and attention from their parents for one reason or another. If they did then there wouldn't be all this need for extra support from schools. People expect far too much to be done for them these days. The nanny state has got a grip in this country.

Possibly, there is, according to organisations like the Rowntree Trust, more poverty.

Or was it a case that we had health services that could step in and now we don't?

Children dont get to see a dentist and GP video consultations don't pick up on areas of neglect.

@Desecratedcoconut I agree. But an added issue is that neglected children who got a poor education could get work on leaving school that did not require qualifications. That is no longer the case. People need education to get jobs, which makes life harder for these kids.

In our health system, who would pay & provide for this?

We cannot even get a GP appointment, let alone a dentist, 50% of the adults in my home country have not seen a dentist for 10 years or more, any treatment i want i get done in France, costs me 35 euros.

Yes of course Teachers cannot be expected to brush childrens teeth but equally, we ve consistently voted to get rid of NHS dentistry and thats both Lab and Tory Govts, so there is no capacity to do as you might think is a great idea, its not.

We can only afford to focus on the least well off/deprived.

I'm not sure if it seems likely to me that we have more neglectful parents now than ever. I wonder if what we are seeing is that the neglected children who were always around are now doubly exposed because of the atomization of wider family networks?

Previous generations may have seen a grandparents/ aunts/uncles/ cousins step in to fill the gap in a lot of social needs that are now being directly dumped onto teachers?

With telling people to move away for work or housing. It doesn't solve the issues and just makes things worse.

Increased loneliness, displaced from family, friends, and carers, declining communities. Then people wonder why there's an increase in anxiety and depression and more state dependancy.

People can't afford housing in their area? Told to move somewhere cheaper, so adding pressure on housing there.

Lack of work opportunities in someone's area? Told to move somewhere with more work. Except there's no affordable housing where there's more work (partly because lots of people have had to move there for work). So then they get told to move somewhere cheaper for housing but can't get work, so told to move away for work, and it just goes round and round.

Related note. Re London, which has come up in this thread. I find it bizarre to see some people's attitudes towards people from London compared to people from other areas.

Often there's threads where people from London, or another area where housing has been made unaffordable. They're told to move if they can't afford it (although then there's other threads complaining about 'blow ins').

At the same time there's threads insisting people from some other areas absolutely MUST be able to stay in their communities. London has always had very expensive parts, but it's also always had (established) average and lower income communities same as everywhere else.

Edited to add. Sometimes I've seen threads equally unsympathetic or impractical regarding rural areas. People told to just move if they can't afford housing or get work. The problem of unaffordable housing or lack of opportunity can't be solved by displacing communities on mass. It just moves the problem somewhere else, adds pressure there, and doesn't tackle the actual issues.

Better to have affordable housing especially social housing, good public services, and more work, education, and training opportunities everywhere.

I understand but this example is one of neglect, not necessarily poverty. If a parent has substance abuse issues they will sell anything to feed their addiction. I remember one very bright young boy who had serious potential, he managed to read and memorise the only book in the home - the Argos Catalogue...
(He's almost 40 and okay now X)

I am sorry I just don’t agree. There is no excuse not to be brushing. If people can’t/don’t and won’t then it’s a huge issue and I don’t see another reason than being lazy or “too busy”. The poster on another page said in her class or 5 year olds nearly everyone had rotting teeth. It’s not right and something needs to be done; but making someone else do it just isn’t the answer. People need to be forced into taking responsibility so that children don’t suffer.

How do we a) allocate s.h. and b) ensure that s.h. estates don't just become dumping grounds for the anti-social underclass (Marx's 'lumpenproletariat).

For A) We need to build more, including homes suitable for older people, the disabled, and include homes for childfree people. Also end RTB.

People register on waiting lists and wait their turn but get moved up if in dire circumstances (like homeless, DV, disabled and needing accessible home). The 'queue jumping' issue might cause resentment but that's solved if there was more SH built, because then there wouldn't be such long waits for everyone else who needs it.

For B) By not telling people to immediately move out as soon as they're not in abject poverty. Have more social housing available, so it's more mixed. A proper community. Working people on low but also medium salaries, the disabled, the elderly, families, child free couples, and single people.

My ideal model would be like Singapore, where about 80% of housing is public housing. I realise though that's probably too idealistic for the UK, but we could at least aim for more like things were 50 years ago. Back then it wasn't only people unable to work on benefits or the very lowest wages. It was people on medium wages too.

I get why people will think those like Bob Crowe, on higher than average incomes, shouldn't have it, but I think the majority in his position would choose to buy so it's a mostly irrelevant issue. He was the exception rather than the rule.

He recognised the value of stable community. People moving away for work or housing is one reason why there's increased social problems.

Lack of care and support, loneliness and isolation and feeling displaced (no coincidence the rise in people off sick with depression and anxiety).

Even when someone isn't disabled or older and doesn't need care, most people need a bit of temporary help or support at times. Not always financial. Practical or emotional. When they're a longterm member of a community, and know their neighbours and have family and friends nearby it makes a difference. Add in good public services and opportunities (work, education, training) and health is better so there's less state dependancy.

This is a great idea - I would back this 100% and pay into a system that did this. Some parents would be embarrassed into doing it, and if parents 3 x in a row were shown to be still not doing it they could and should face repercussions.

it’s not the same though as expecting teachers etc to brush daily. It’s educating them monitoring parents and calling them into account.

@CoffeeCantata your last comment about misery memoirs is deeply offensive and proves beyond all doubt that you wouldnt want to put your money where your mouth is re, Carers Allowance

Im actually a 45 min walk away in social housing from my elderly parents

JenniferBooth · Today 15:28

My point is simple: the fact that you may have to step up to take responsibility for family members at some point in the future isn't a good enough reason to say you can never move away. Obviously you wouldn't do that if their decline was imminent - but I'm talking about young, or younger, people who need to build a career.

It's not a misery-memoir competition!

GiacomettisCornetto · Today 15:27

Thank you - appreciate your points.

Why is it about winning or losing? It's a logistical rather than moral issue in the long term.

Care for your parents? You are only after the inheritance.
Dont care for your parents? how lazy and selfish you are.

See You cant win

Regarding teeth/ dentists - in my state in the US, every child has to have a physical exam every year and also a dental exam when entering kindergarten, 2nd grade, and 6th grade in order to enroll in school or stay enrolled. Children in private or parochial schools are not exempt from the requirement.

The exams are free for children on Medicaid/ AllKids and for students whose family's private health insurance plan covers routine exams. For all others, there might be a co-pay amount.

Beginning this autumn, school boards across the state will be responsible for putting into action an annual mental health wellness check for all students in all schools in the state (a new state mandate).

The annual medical exam is an expected part of American life for children and adults. The required vision tests are usually done as part of the annual medical checkup (where children and teens also receive required vaccinations).

School districts, child care facilities, private schools, and parochial schools are also obliged to provide annual free vision and hearing tests to students aged 3 to 8 or who have been referred by a teacher. These are administered by state department of health personnel in the schools during the school day. They're basic exams, and if an issue is flagged, parents are notified and asked to arrange further investigation themselves.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5771574/
A study concluding that it would be beneficial for more states (in the US) to mandate comprehensive health and wellness exams in order to catch and treat problems early, when treatment makes a difference.

Health barriers to learning are a problem that affects everyone's experience of school, not just the experience of the children who are suffering them. You can harrumph all you like about feckless parents - it won't make the problems caused by poverty and/or caregiver or family dysfunction go away.

The choice a society is left with is when, not whether, you're going to pay for the fallout of these issues. If you choose paying later, you'll end up paying more. Prison costs a lot more than early intervention, and the cost of sending barely literate and numerate students out into the world when they leave schooling is huge. Convict ships are not an option any more. Public opinion needs to catch up on this development.

@CoffeeCantata Nearly a year? Oh bless you There are people on the elderly parents board who have been doing it for YEARS including a post about a man in his 70s who has been doing it for his mum who is over 100 for years.

When poorer people on Carers Allowance do it and then the person they are caring for dies, they then trot off to the Job Centre to be treated like they have been a scrounger for the last few or several years. Can you really not see why people dont want to do it when they are treated like they are shit on someones shoe afterwards (and sometimes during) for doing it.

If there was enough social housing available then they would be at market rent as landlords wouldn't be able to extort as much rent as they do now.

If tenants couldn't meet their rent then housing benefit would be paid to the local authority, rather than a fortune going to private landlords.

Maybe not 90% of parents but given there are apparently three of us on this thread with a similar experience it might be higher than we realise. I'm not saying tooth brushing shouldn't be part of basic parenting at all. I'm saying that parents didn't instigate the tooth brushing initiative and one size doesn't fit all. If some parents can't/don't/won't then it's not necessarily just down to laziness - we need to know why and address it at both ends. For the remaining few, to prevent children suffering and needing more intervention down the line at yet greater expense, preventative programmes may help.