To ignore the upstairs neighbour banging on his floor about crying baby

[MrsHende]

Baby hates getting dressed and usually screams her way through the 5-6 minute process. Twice our upstairs neighbours has banged on their floor, presumably because of the noise. Both times were after 7.30 and before 8am, once this morning and once last week, on a week day.

Who IBU?

(My mum thinks I should change the baby in a different room, possibly the best solution for everyone's blood pressure!)

I think the main reason teen birth rate is so high in UK is that having a baby as a single teen mum= being rewarded with a free flat and income. The more babies you have the more money you get. I find it hard to believe that all these teen pregnancies are the result of naivity and accidents. Teenagers have sex education, even schools give out free condoms, any teenage girl can go to her GP and get the pill, implant or Depo-injection. If she's left school with no qualifications and the prospect of min-wage jobs i can see why having a baby (with all expenses paid) might appeal more.

theboat Do you buy the Daily Hate Mail or do you read it online?

Wherever you live - barring a convent - babies and children, the smaller members of our species, are the norm.

Theboat is clearly Katie Hopkins .

I think the main reason teen birth rate is so high in UK is that having a baby as a single teen mum= being rewarded with a free flat and income

It's also a way of creating some family that you've never had if you've been in care or your step-dad was a piece of shit, or your mum was always drunk.

It's also a route out of a terrible home situation. See above.

It's also the only thing some people know. If your mum never worked and her mum never worked then you think that's just the way of things. That's how it is.

It's also something to do, to give your life some purpose and meaning. To go from 'benefits dole sponger slapper' to 'mother'.

It's very ignorant to think that there are all these young women out there cynically rubbing their hands with glee and thinking 'well I could go to college and get a job that paid enough money for me to be able to afford to live comfortably, but fuck it I'll just have some kids and move to a flat with paper thin walls and sit on my arse smoking all day.'

You're still talking about it as if it's just one choice out of many available options. It's not.

I will say that at the moment, in certain circumstances, people are better off not working than working. But that's because the cost of living is a fucking joke and because wages are too low. It's not because benefits are too high.

Totally agree Rizzo especially with the last paragraph.

Rizzo... the reasons you put forward make sense and I can understand why having a baby appeals to teen girls. I'm not blaming them for wanting a family or saying they only get pregnant for the financial gain. But do you think it's a good thing for girls to get pregnant when they can't afford to feed or house the child without government handouts? Do you think it's fair on the child to be born into this cycle, with a teen mum on long-term benefits? Can a teen mum with no career and no prospects ever be a good role model?
I appreciate sometimes the pregnancy is a genuine accident and the mum pursues a career when child starts school, but in many cases they just have more kids. I still think having a baby before you can afford one is irresponsible and not fair on the child.

I guess a society we need to promote alternative routes out of poverty, such as going to college and getting a meaningful job. There are so many ways to find purpose and meaning in life that don't involve getting pregnant.

'Wherever you live - barring a convent - babies and children, the smaller members of our species, are the norm.'

Andrewof... in many areas they are not the norm, eg if you live in a street that is mainly students, young professionals or retired couples. When your neighbours are accustomed to peace and tranquility, they don't take well to kids screaming in the garden. It's totally different from living somewhere where the majority have kids. I think its very arrogant when parents assume 'kids are the norm everywhere' and expect everyone to therefore put up with their noise. Plenty of people don't like children and choose not to have them. To assume they should put up with our kids making a racket (because we made decision to be parents and they didn't) is a rather narrow-minded way of looking at it.

I guess a society we need to promote alternative routes out of poverty, such as going to college and getting a meaningful job. There are so many ways to find purpose and meaning in life that don't involve getting pregnant

See I broadly agree with the sentiment in this paragraph. But I would change the word 'promote' to 'create'. Because right now, those opportunities simply do not exist for many people in the real world. Not in the way you think they do. Not in a way that's accessible to people of all socio-economic backgrounds.

Rizzo, is it because the opportunities aren't there or because people aren't taking them? What opportunities would you create that don't already exist?

Theboat As far as I'm aware, actual qualifications are only free to those under 19, so are inaccessible to those above that age, unl3ss they're paid for.
They do offer 'courses' through the job centre, things such as 'health and beauty', 'travel and tourism', and the like.
I've never known anyone to get a job through having one of these.

I think they also do IT courses and maths courses? but from what I gather these are very basic, and will take you to about a year 9 level (so pre GCSE).

I'm fully waiting for someone to correct me on the above, but this is how I think it is?

I know for a fact they have recently started giving loans for NVQ level 3 and 4 to over 24's, but again, levels 3 and 4 are definitely 'higher level' so unless you already have a good foundation, not going to be much use. (It's actually called a higher education loan or something along those lines).

I think the main reason teen birth rate is so high in UK is that having a baby as a single teen mum= being rewarded with a free flat and income. The more babies you have the more money you get.

I don't even know where to fucking start with this one. Your ideas about benefits and why people have kids are not only incorrect but may aswell be directly quoted from the Daily Fail. With each and every post you come across more bigoted and ignorant than the last. Life on benefits isn't one long party and believe me I'm sure you have a nicer life than they do. The problem with benefits is people fall into a catch 22 - if they get a job they usually end up with less money than if they had benefits, and on top of that would need to pay for childcare, and if you're already struggling to get by on benefits, why would you put yourself in a worse position? Jobs don't pay enough, a lot of min wage jobs are zero hour contracts, and there aren't many jobs out there that would keep a single mum and her kids afloat, and that is the problem. To simply say 'well she shouldn't have kids then' doesn't help anyone. Ever thought about the classic story of a young teen girl, tough upbringing, desperate to be loved and for something that is hers, gets pregnant with boyfriend who promises her the world and swears he'll get a job, get them a flat, and stick around. He doesn't, and she is left high and dry with a baby to bring up alone.
People should plan their pregnancies but sometimes they don't. That will never change despite free contraception, yadda yadda, no contraception is 100%. Your picture of an idyllic society where everyone is trouble free, responsible and plans everything carefully is lovely, but it's unlikely to ever happen.

I don't know why this has ended up on the benefits Britain debate but if we start going down the road of who should and shouldn't be allowed to have children we may aswell start talking about the final solution. We could bring back fucking workhouses but I for one am proud that we live in an age and a country with a safety net for society's most vulnerable. Yes there are people who go on TV and brag about never working and how much money they get, but they are a minority and there are so many more people who desperately fucking need those benefits to keep their heads above water. Those people are the ones being most affected by the benefits cuts, and it's fucking shameful.

theboat Some students might not take kindly to retired people and vice versa. There are many women who have every reason to prefer living surrounded by other women.

But that's not how it works, is it? You have to take your human neighbours (animals are another issue) with the gender, age and family structure which they have. Like it or lump it.

I've already posted about all the reasons why those who are most vulnerable and disadvantaged often don't finish their secondary education. Rendering all other avenues closed.

If you're looking for a solution, start with primary school. By the time you're talkig about college and jobs, that ship has long sailed for most.

And yes pp, let's not forget that often single mothers don't start off that way. The father fucks off and leaves her and the kids high and dry.

Rizzo, is it because the opportunities aren't there or because people aren't taking them

How do you spot an opportunity when no one's shown you how or pointed you in the right direction?

How do you find the confidence to grab an opportunity if you've been told your whole life you will fail? If you have no self esteem?

Practically; what if you have no education? No money? No transport? No childcare?

It's not that people aren't taking them. It's that people can't take them. Because those opportunities aren't for them. Not really. Maybe in theory, but not in any practicable way.

Where was my free council house?

Or am I one of those naice teen mums who stays in uni so I dont count?

My London borough is infamous for sending homeless single mothers to hostels in Manchester and Birmingham.
Not council houses in different cities, just hostels.
Then they wash their hands of them..

I would far rather live next door to a single mum on benefits with a screaming baby than someone who told me off if my kids played in the garden and harassed me by banging on my walls.

That said there isn't any correlation between social class and a baby making noise. I think this discussion started because someone said people who have young children shouldn't live in flats and someone else said they often didn't have a choice.

However that is totally irrelevant as clearly no one should have to move out of their home for this reason.

The person with the issue is the one that can't tolerate the entirely natural and unavoidable noise of a young baby crying and they are the person that shouldn't be living in a flat.

I agree with you, jellybeans, it's gone off on a bit of a tangent but theboats and several others opinion is that people are selfish to have young children in a flat with thin walls, or even just a flat, they always have a choice about when to have kids and where to live, and that anyone who has kids that make noise (as many of them do) should apologise to the neighbours daily and go round bearing gifts such as chocolates to excuse their kids existence because some people don't want to live round kids. I personally don't think that's necessary, she is obviously a very conscientious neighbour to do so. My opinion is that people who complain about a baby crying are petty, and banging on a wall is rude.

theboats I'm sorry if I have come across harsh, I think we're clearly of very different opinions and attitudes and I am a liberal leftie (as Katie Hopkins would say). the benefits blaming really gets my goat as I hear it far too often, from people who don't know what they're talking about, with massive generalisation and incorrect information thrown in. I really hate the way the media stir up tension between people in this country and literally get us to turn on each other and blame the poorest of the poor for all the country's downfalls.

Thatcucking It's amazing how the people with the least power get the most blame isn't it?

Yep, and the people at the top get away with scandals, theft and deceit, and redirect our attention by pointing fingers to those at the bottom of the pile.

Jemima I didn't live in a flat. I lived in a terrace.

A three bed family house. I couldn't give a shit about some jumped up arsey wall banger when my baby is crying in pain with colic and reflux.

Plus when you choose somewhere to live how do you know you're even going to have a "screaming baby?" What a stupid statement. Thanks for the laugh though.

Sorry your life was almost ruined by a baby crying.

'If you're looking for a solution, start with primary school'

I agree changes need to happen, but can schools alone compensate for a disadvantaged home? If parents of infants don't take responsibility to help them academically (eg with reading and numbers) these kids will fall behind and get discouraged v.early on. Teachers and support workers only have so much time per child.
I think part of problem is lack of good role models in media.. so many kids nowadays aspire to be models, pop stars instead of scientists, doctors, lawyers, engineers etc... if society promoted 'proper' careers instead of 'glamorous' jobs that require no qualifications, kids might be inspired to work hard at school.
When parents encourage kids to pursue unrealistic dreams with the backup-plan of 'you can always have a baby and go on benefits like me' I don't see how better education will help.

Rizzo... I agree with your reasons why disadvantaged teens may lack ability to spot opportunities and the confidence to grab them. I definitely think better careers advice is needed, starting young, so every teen leaves school with a clear plan of where they are going. My school (a normal state school) provided this for everyone, we were bombarded with careers advice from year 8 onwards and everyone in final year had to have either a 6thform/college place lined up or an apprenticeship. I guess it's different in different schools.
However I also think the reasons you outlined are not the only reasons ppl miss opportunities. DH says his family were not helpless to find work or lacking self-esteem, they chose not to because they had the easier option of benefits. If the adults around you are apathetic/lazy about work, feel entitled to claim long term benefits, blame others for their lot in life etc, many teens will copy and reflect the same attitudes. Better signposting to opportunities might help some, but only ones who actually want to study/work. If children are brought up with no self-discipline or work how do you break the cycle? How do you stop them just copying parents?

ThatCucking, I appreciate your points and I do agree life on benefits is not a pleasant life. But if it's the only way of life they have experienced, so they probably don't feel it's such a bad option?
This discussion has certainly opened my eyes to things I hadn't considered. I don't read Daily Mail but I've never discussed these issues with a 'liberal leftie' before so it's interesting to hear different points of view.

Rocket... I looked on government website re routes into further education. You're right, it's only free until age 19, although loans are available for age 24 and over and ppl on benefits are entitled to help with course costs, childcare and travel expenses in some cases, though its not clear how this is assessed. I'm not sure why there seems to be a gap for 19-24 year olds unless it means they can claim bursaries.

Hi Theboat
I was 90% sure that was the case.

From what I understand the loans for over 24's are for higher level courses only? (As I was going to apply for one recently, the course was £1,800 not including the £100 membership fees, which is a lot of money obviously) If I were on Income support or JSA and if I were 20-23 it would be impossible, and I'd also have to A levels, or at least very good GCSE results.
So while obviously helpful for someone who has a good school results who has fallen on hard times, for those over 19 who left school with nothing, it may as well not exist as it's so irrelevant to them.

If the loans do indeed cover GCSE's etc then I obviously stand corrected.
But that just means that people are being made to stay on benefits until they are 24, as the free courses offered definitely only take you up to a pre GCSE level.