To think that a decent home is a basic human right, not a privilege

[0pheliaBalls]

I rented absolute hovels in London for years, paying vastly over the odds for flats which variously had slugs in the shower/condmned gas appliances the landlord refused to fix in the depths of winter/2ft wide holes in the ceiling through which I could see the upstairs flat caused by water damage which again the landlord refused to fix and so on. The last straw came when I went into DD's room when she was a few days old and found a rat in her carrycot with her.

I now live in another part of the country in social housing and have lived here for 10 years. DH works (for a housing charity, actually) but there was a scary bit a few years ago when he was made redundant - thankfully we qualified for housing benefit so we didn't lose our lovely home.

We feel so fortunate to have a safe, secure, pleasant home for which we pay a very reasonable rent. We're all too aware that not everyone is as fortunate, both from my previous experience (I've also been briefly homeless, slept rough and in a hostel) and DH's work. But shouldn't everyone have the right to a decent roof over their heads, at an affordable cost?

Wanted to put this to you because when I mentioned it elsewhere I was flamed and told that people have too great a sense of entitlement these days. Sorry, but I believe everyone IS entitled to a secure, decent home.

I have no problem paying for others to be housed - it is the definition of a right I am debating. If you giving people a 'right' to subsidised housing, you are giving people a right to steal from you.
And, if this is a universal right, then we should all be living is shared accomodation and allowing the homeless in slums across the world into the extra space created - however, no-one on here is demanding universal income across the world, just in this country.
You are demanding the rich in the UK subsidise the poor in the UK, without taking into account the UK poor are richer than the majority of the world.
If you follow your convictions, there should be less support for the UK poor as it is diverted overseas, or we allow unlimited immigration. You can't talk about rights and ignore 70% of the world's population that is more in need than you are.

It depends what you mean by decent.

I think everyone is entitled to shelter from the elements, but I'm not sure that everyone is entitled have others pay for them to have long term security in a nicely furnished home.

caroldecker

If you giving people a 'right' to subsidised housing, you are giving people a right to steal from you.

Were you born rude and offensive or are they life skills you have worked really hard on and have honed to perfection???????

I saw your posts on a similar thread and found a lot of them to be bigoted and selfish.

May I suggest that you go and check that your tenants haven't stolen the £800 curtains you have provided them with.

I think children have a Right to a decent home - and I think it is the Responsibility of the Parents to provide it.

Sometimes the State should intervene for the welfare of the Child - and in cases of adults with physical or mental impairment - but I do not believe it is the responsibilty of the State to house functioning adults.

When push comes to shove, we dont have a "right" to anything. Who is going to make sure that we get it?

diami - is it selfish to expect someone else to pay for you, or selfish to object to paying for someone else? I'm not sure. Personally i think everyone should look after themselves if they can

I think everyone should have a nice clean space to live in. I also think if that space belongs to someone else then you should treat it with respect and keep it clean. I think it works both ways. Some LLs have beautiful homes that get let out to horrible tenants who absolutely destroy the place. My old downstairs neighbors were evil drunks who damaged my land lords property. Night after night police were called and when they finally left they had damaged the property very badly and left the property unlocked with the door wide open.

diaimchlo Not sure where the curtain point comes from - I have no tenants?

On your other point, I was trying to point out that rights can only be reasonable if they do not put an obligation on someone else.
A right to freedom is ok because it does not obligate anyone else
A right to a home is wrong because it obligates someone else to pay for it and, as I pointed out, the logical conclusion is we should give large amounts of UK accomodation to non-UK citizens in order to ensure thier rights - I do not hear this argued at all - mainly it is people who do not have what they want in the UK demand people give things to them.

If the aibu was AIBU to expect a rich country like the UK could provide a minimum standard of housing for its citzens? , then my answer would be very different, as I certainly believe it should.

In essence, I was answering the actual question asked by the OP, which you seem to have missed.

caroldecker First of all I must apologise I got you mixed up with another poster. Braincell went on holiday

But I still find it offensive that you said you are giving people a right to steal from you.

I am in social housing and in receipt of HB, I can no longer work due to health issues. I worked and paid my taxes for years and you think you have given me the right to steal from you.

IMO the OP was asking if people have the right for decent basic housing, where ever they come from to the UK. But you seem to have latched on to a worldwide issue, which I agree is bad but we really need to look after those who are here. We do contribute stupid amounts of money in foreign aid to many countries and it is their citizen's right to be sheltered in a dignified manner not ours.

diaimchlo thanks for the apology.

The OP said it was a basic human right to get housing, hence I have included all human's in this. To explain my point about theft:
Imagine a world with a universal police based on human rights
One of those rights is to a home
A homeless person steals a wallet to pay for cheap shelter
In a court case, he cannot be found guilty as he has a 'right' to housing.

In the UK there is a difference. Via the democratic process, we have voluntarily opted into a system of laws which regulates the provision of services to those that need them, funded by those that can afford them.

This process is imperfect and most political discussions on here centre around the level of services/funding, but that is a different discussion.

I personally would not call your situation theft because of the democratic nature of the UK. I do, however, stand by my point that you cannot unilateralliy create a right that imposes an obligation on another party - it needs buy-in by the public via a democratic process.

What would happen if everyone stopped going to work and just sat at home "demanding" their right to a decent home? Who would build and maintain these homes?

This thread is full of total bollocks. OP, YANBU.

This thread is full of total bollocks. OP, YANBU.

I love a considered, well-balanced summary for late-comers

Dickens, if he were alive now, could really have gone to town on some of the people on this thread.

Shameful.

Dickens' sense of deja vu would be mindblowing, I imagine. Truly a case of plus ca change and never for the better, apparently.

YANBU.

Article 25 (1)of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Tuscon I agree.

Just because there is a handy law somewhere stating the above, doesnt make any of it happen.
Try quoting it in some of the poorest countries of the world.

Just because those in power fail in their obligations doesn't stop it being a right.

waffly please tell me how you fund this for the world today? I would love this to be true.

I demand ice cream for everyone on the planet. And I want a law written.

The ice cream isnt going to happen for everyone is it?
It is merely words.

Reminds me of the "end world poverty now" campaign.
I couldnt believe quite how many went along with it.

It is very noble, but all problems are not solved by throwing money at them, or enshrining a law.

By all means give some money, but dont expect it to "end world poverty now" because it just wont.

viz a viz writing a law.
Or demanding and expecting.

Love what to be true? It's a human right as signed up to by members of the UN.

It would be no mean feat to go from how things are today to an equitable world where human rights are met, especially considering some of the attitudes on this and other threads. But it's not impossible. How things are now is not the only possible way to organise resources.

Setting expectations is not a bad thing. It gives those of us with a conscience something to work to. Just because something is Thr status quo does not mean it is either right or unchangeable.

Otherwise we would still have slavery, segregation, no vote for women, etc etc. sometimes making legislation just does work.

I cannot understand this powerlessness around "don't say how it should be because it won't change anything". It must be so depressing to live like that.

I help shape my own world and so can you, even if it is just in a tiny way.

Landlords do have standards they have to meet. This is a whole raft of legislation in Scotland setting the Tolerable Standard and the Repairing Standard,landlord registration, HMO licensing, gas safety. There will be those who ignore it and it's up to local authorities housing departments in conjunction with the criminal courts to enforce them.