Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be angry at this mother.

165 replies

Sallyingforth · 07/12/2012 10:25

Right. I know I'm going to be flamed for this as it's been discussed before but I'll ask anyway.
On the tv last night there was a young mother who was complaining that the council had kept her in b&b because they had no suitable flats. You could see that she was also pregnant. There was no mention of a father for either child.
The last time I checked, pregnancy was optional. It seems totally irresponsible to have another baby when you do not have adequate accommodation for the first.
Councils have a responsibility to house homeless people, and that is quite right. But they cannot keep building infinite numbers of flats just to keep up with people who expect free accommodation for life. The rest of us have to pay for it!

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDude · 07/12/2012 11:58

Since you ask, I think we should tax more heavily that very rich 1%, and there should be initiatives to get more employers moved out of London. We do need more housing, as a nation. It may not be possible in your London borough, but it has to be done. Sorry.

VinegarTits · 07/12/2012 12:01

we dont need more flats we need to better educate children caught in the poverty trap, but this government is only interested in educating the rich, and it will get worse believe me, teenagers from poorer communties have no chance of being able to go to uni now, so what else is there for them?

BumpingFuglies · 07/12/2012 12:03

no intercourse just isn't realistic Gatorade - especially when contraception is so heavily encouraged. Not everyone has the same sense of responsibilty as you

Original poster
Sallyingforth · 07/12/2012 12:04

LRD I like your idea of taxing the very rich, but from the calculations I have seem this would be a feel-good factor rather than providing enough cash to deal with the problem.
Another thrust of the programme was that people should be able to live where they chose rather than be moved about.
And moving employment won't help to move unemployed mothers like this one.

OP posts:
Gatorade · 07/12/2012 12:05

I guess that comes back to vinegars point then that educating those in the poverty trap is very important.

absentmindeddooooodles · 07/12/2012 12:06

kind of agree with a bit of both sides on this one. where i live alot of younger, and older in some cases, people do plan children just to get a flat or house on the council. this is not me judging, it is a fact that is widely known. however i can see just how easy it can be to get into a situation like that. Im educated, know all about contraception and pretty sensible, but i still found myself pregnant with my ds when contraception failed. it was not an ideal situation. i had only been with my partner for 7 months......when i found out i was 5 months pregnant. Abortion is not for me, especially at such a late stage in my pg, so we tried to make the best of it. We struggled. alot. and were not entitled to much help as my partner worked full time. one wage however is not enough to get a deposit and rent in advance together ( i had a rough pregnancy so had to give up work from 6 months ) We got there in the end, with the help of promotions at work and family. But some people just dont have that. .......can totally see boths sides. but every situation is different, and it is hard to see how much tax we pay every week when i see some of these people literally bragging about the fact they are on to baby number 3 so therefore getting a bigger house :/

VinegarTits · 07/12/2012 12:06

dont be angry at this poor girl who is stuck in a b&b with 2 babies, be angry at the system/government/school that have failed her

imagine what her xmas is going to be like compared to yours op? i for one would not be angry at her for not wanting to spend xmas in a b&b

FierySmaug · 07/12/2012 12:09

I haven't read the whole thread but I wanted to tell you op, that I totally agree with you. I don't watch programmes like the one you saw as it just makes me bloody angry.
My Dh pays a HUGE amount of tax, and rightly or wrongly, I resent the idea of any of it going to support dysfunctional families who have little or no sense of responsibility and a huge sense of 'entitlement'.

LRDtheFeministDude · 07/12/2012 12:10

sallying - depends how much you tax, doesn't it.

Moving employment will help unemployed people like this. That's the whole point. At the moment, people go to London because they want to get jobs there. If they become unemployed or struggle financially, they don't want to leave because it makes it less likely they'll get a job anyway.

So, it would be better if we had more employment opportunities in areas where housing can be more easily built, and is cheaper. There have been measures to try to do this, with places like Leeds for example.

WileywithSageStuffing · 07/12/2012 12:12

Unless you left housing more than about 10 years ago your experience is not in line with most other housing depts, perhaps its a case of your vile way of looking at it that makes the tiny % appear so much bigger

TBF i did leave over 10 years ago because of what was going on at that time.

I don't have a vile attitude - its just different to yours on some levels. I agree with you that the mind set needs to change. Get off your high horse and have a sensible discussion without calling people names.

I left because of what i was seeing - and that was those who needed the welfare state, needed help were being cast aside to make way for young girls having babies. That did happen. Frequently.

Abra1d · 07/12/2012 12:13

It would be better to have residential centres for young, unsupported mothers, rather than putting them with their babies in flats. They could have post-natal support, a bit of childcare, perhaps, when they started working/job hunting, and company. it would cost less than a whole load of flat rentals. Some of them do not seem ready for independent living.

LookBehindYou · 07/12/2012 12:17

These young girls having babies often have absolutely no self esteem or aspirations. It's complicated. Life is a series of events that happens to them. They need empowerment. And young men need this empowerment too and to learn that respect doesn't mean someone should be afraid of you.
There are kids that believe a baby leads to a free house but I find that hugely depressing, not something to judge.
I am more irritated by large families that believe they're entitled to a bedroom for every kid.

alemci · 07/12/2012 12:17

I think kids with parents on low income do get help with university. It is
usually the squeezed lower middle who don't.

I think it is the sense of entitlement that irritates me. I still think the teenagers shouldn't be 'rewarded' with flats.Also this allows them to do what they like and probably end up pregnant again with another man or the original bf but pretend they aren't together etc.

I think they could take more care with contraception and why are we living in such a sex obsessed society. I have 2 teenage dd's and I don't think the YD is sexually active even though she has a steady bf for the past year but I could be wrong. If she did get pregnant I wouldn't expect the state to support her.

EldritchCleavage · 07/12/2012 12:23

I saw the report. For what it is worth I don't think she was necessarily pregnant, possibly just hadn't lost the baby weight from the first pregnancy.

And it is not unreasonable to expect the council to ABIDE BY THE LAW which states that B&B accommodation should not be used for longer than 6 weeks. The council Housing chief spoke very well on why they had broken the law, but he didn't dispute that they had.

This woman now sleeps on the floor of a friend's bedroom while their babies and the friend share the bed. All I can say is, the B&B must have been bad if that situation is preferable.

AbigailAdams · 07/12/2012 12:23

"They both have responsibilities to a baby. Not just him." But she is looking after the child - so meeting her responsiblities Confused. He isn't. At. All. So surely that is what should be addressed. Why are you so keen, Everlong, to allow men/boys to get away without providing for their children either emotionally or financially just because they can?

I would prefer that the state looks after these vulnerable women rather than them be on the street.

Original poster
Sallyingforth · 07/12/2012 12:38

LRD the trouble with moving employment away is that you end up with ghettos of those who can't or won't work. There is housing for them but nothing for them to do except have more children - which they know they can do because the council will move them up to something bigger/better.
And who pays for their housing, health and education when all the tax-payers have moved away?

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 07/12/2012 12:43

I watched the same programme and the woman you are judging was not pregnant, Sallyingforth.

I hope she reads this and gets pregnant just to piss you off, TBH.

LRDtheFeministDude · 07/12/2012 12:44

I don't agree, sallying, and don't see why.

EverlongLovesHerChristmasRobin · 07/12/2012 12:45

Not keen at all. AA.

The girl isn't looking after her child either, the state is.

alemci · 07/12/2012 12:46

also on a more general note, if the mum hasn't been interested in education herself or not very well educated then will she bother to pass this on to her own kids. I think the cycle does need breaking.

I agree the men should provide for their children and stop being selfish about pressurising the young girls to have sex.

tethersjinglebellend · 07/12/2012 12:52

Are we talking about the same woman? I saw no mention of her age, education, or employment status.

Or have we moved on to discussing faceless demon?

TheReturnOfBridezilla · 07/12/2012 12:54

Yabu.

I fell pregnant accidentally aged 23. Luckily my dh (dp then) and I had good jobs and our own house and could afford to bring the child up without state help and we are now married and have another child.

If DH decided to divorce me or fell off a scaffold tomorrow and DC made me (public sector) redundant I would probably lose my house. A lot of us could quite easily end up homeless and single with two children. It's surprising how easily it happens.

There but for the grace of God etc.

HoHoHokeyCokeyPigInAPokey · 07/12/2012 12:54

Abigail how can society make men take responsibility?

Men can and do just walk away and the women are left with the baby, often dependent on the state.

A genuine question, no sarcasm.

EldritchCleavage · 07/12/2012 12:55

I think the cycle does need breaking

On of the key factors in breaking the cycle may be access to decent housing to allow the mother to build a stable family life, bring up her child well and gain employment.

VinegarTits · 07/12/2012 12:56

'The girl isn't looking after her child either, the state is'

how do you know? the report didnt say she was claiming benefits, are you one the fuckwits many who think that those living in council accomodation must be claiming benefits?

and yes she is looking after her child, the state maybe (id she is claiming benefits) helping her financially but they are not changing shitting nappies, cooking their meals, getting up through the night, wiping up vomit etc etc are they? Hmm while the father is probably out creating some more children for the state to pay for because he can get away with it

Swipe left for the next trending thread