to thing that having child number 5 when living in a small 2 bed flat is unfair to all the children.

[byanymeans]

I totally understand that it is in all honesty none of my business how many kids people choose to have, as long as the parents can provide from them. However I really do find it a bit hard to get my head around how one family of 4 kids 2 adults could fit into a 2 bed flat before but last week they came home with baby number 5.

I just don't get how the parents feel this arrangement of 4 kids (oldest child is 13, some boy some girls) sharing a bed room is healthy. They must have no real play space or personal space. I just don't understand why you would want to bring another child into that?

I feel so sorry for the new couple who live below to as the noise from so many feet run around must drive them mad. I don't think that any one has lasted more the 9 months in the flat bellow for years.

I just don't understand they see nothing wrong this having still more without moving it?s not fair on any of the kids.

Anybody who works with kids knows that space is preferable.If you childmind they even measure what space you have.Your kids may not mind a lack of space but it is preferable and makes parenting easier.To be honest it's not so much the sleeping arrangements but the living.Several kids squashed into a tiny living area with no other room/bedroom to escape to-that causes problems and can cause arguments,stress,anxiety. Humans need privacy and we need space. If you're the Waltons then fine but many,many families aren't and the stress that lack of space brings isn't going to be a positive thing.

Lockets if you go by your argument then councils clearly should be under no obligation to house larger families in bigger houses. Clearly they should just be offering 2 bed flats for all,space is clearly not an issue or lack of it a problem.

No I'm not. And will you bloody STOP with the constant negativity. Squashed into houses? Some people might feel like that, others just have small houses. There are a lot of them about you know.

Bloody patronising is what you are. You see someone in a small house and assume they are struggling and squashed and so sad FFS.

I could go on and on about how sad it is that you seem to have a constant need to get away from your family, and how your children must feel so awful that you teach them that they need to hide from each other and are too annoying to be with you all the time. I wouldn't though, since that would be a opinion, judgemental, rude and condescending. You see how that works?

Live & let live. This is the norm for some cultures. The same cultures that think western families who live miles apart & don't support one another on a day to day basis are strange/ unhealthy.

In the nicest possible way I wouldn't let it worry you OP unless you have to live in said flat below :)

Lockets they generally try to but clearly in your view there is no need.

Yes I'm speaking from experience but also from common sense.

"Common sense"?? Oh don't be silly. You drew your knowledge from your OWN experiences and you call that "common sense"? Once again you're just generalising from your own experiences onto other people.

Yes you may have the patience of a saint but not everybody does.

Okay so you're one of those who don't have the patience...fine. There's no need to say that anyone else who does is a "saint". There is no need to elevate them onto a pedestal, or to try and differentiate them from what you consider the "general consensus", a.k.a. "common sense" - i.e. what you have learnt from your OWN experiences - by calling them "saints" and therefore implying they are out of the ordinary. You live in a bubble that is your life, and you decide that you have seen it all and know what's best for everyone else - except the "saints"/"exceptions"/"rarities" of course. You imply that your way is the right way for most, except for the "few"... i.e. the "Waltons" or the "saints".

Soooooo if lack of space isn't a bad thing then surely there is no need for councils to try and house people in houses more suitable to size.It would save £1000s.

Councils don't house people in larger properties for the good of their health they do it because the general view(not just my own personal little view) is that bigger families need more space and 5 kids cramped into a 2 bed flat isn't in their best interests.

if lack of space isn't a bad thing then surely there is no need for councils to try and house people in houses more suitable to size.It would save £1000s.

You keep going on about the councils. Councils have policies that were made by human beings. Not gods. They may decide to cut bin collections to 2 per month. Doesn't mean that that's the right thing to do, does it? They might decide to offer less respite care for parents of severely handicapped children. Not exactly the best way to go about it is it?

Lockets not sure you get it and not sure a 3 bed is what we're talking about.A 3 bed would be my friend's idea of heaven.

You're right though going round in circles so I'm off to bed.

I own my own house. Does that mean the council should rehouse me too, since anyone with more children than bedrooms is suffering and in dire need for intervention?

Some people need space. Others do not. Everyone different. Is that clear enough or do we need one syllable words for you?

of course it would be better for the family in the OP to have a bigger place but only if it suits them and does not meant as 'some' posters suggested that every child needs their own bedroom. This narrow minded, ridiculous view is what riled many posters. makes me think that poster is deliberately winding everyone up as no-one surely can be that sill and unpleasant.

My Mum has never slept in a single bed or alone. She went from her Mum and Dads bed to a cot in the room when her first Sister was born then progressively she shared a room with her 3 other sisters with 2 double beds rammed up together. Her Brother got a space walled off the room once he was too old to share with his parents.
She moved out of home when she married and so moved into another shared bed.

The issue here is that bedrooms are for sleeping - not running in. As long as a child has other space to roam who cares what the sleeping arrangements are?

My DH didn't have a room at all until he was 8. And this was in the 80's. He just slept with one of his sisters or his brother until they walled off a room for him. But, like the Waltons, they had "ruddy great farm" :) to run around in. He doesn't seem any worsefor it.

Dh's first bed was the bottom drawer in a chest of drawers - oh the shame!

this whole thread id bizarre. We thought we were well posh to have 3 siblings in one bedroom in a small 2 bed council house. What we had before was verging on slums.

MilaMae, I specifically said that 5 children in a 2 bed would not work for me. But IF IT WORKS FOR THEM, sweet.

I don't know if it works for them, I DON'T KNOW THEM!! Maybe they are happy with the arrangement, maybe they loathe it. This thread is not so much about the family OP refers to, but their own.

So my point was really: "each to their own" not "it must be lovely living in their situation, although this is short sighted of me as I only have one baby."

Happy 17mths still equates to a baby tho, he certainly seems ever the hulking toddler these days. :)

WINTER OF OUR.................

3 boys in one room and no garden that is astonishing, surely you would and everybody in your house would prefer more rooms.

Would you move if you could? because I do not believe that you stay in that situation through choice.

MrChips, could you respond to the multiples question please?

I used to live in a different area when I was younger and in a big detached house with loads of space. I used to spend every night in the bedroom with my brother though on a sleeping bag on the floor. My mum used to say I dont know why we bothered buying this house! Kids like it though and some of my best memories are from then.

I now live in Devon where lots of children have to share rooms as its more expensive. I dont think its the end of the world