Loose Women-DC in social housing banned from "Rich kids playground"

[HJWT]

AIBU to think these women can be absolutely VILE... I LOVEEE how they assume that everyone living in a housing association or council property has their rent paid by the council

Carol McGiffin, Jane Moore and Nadia Sawalha all argued that separate play areas for children in a council block versus children in private housing is just 'the way of the world'.

And Carol outraged viewers by saying she thought the poorer children were 'lucky to live' in the council flat.

Jane told the panel: 'It's a bit like being on holiday in two seperate hotels and your hotel is a 3 star and your holiday is a 5 star.

All this over a bit of grass! Such a sad sad world we live in.... should we also divide them in the school playground and at restaurants ?

I haven't seen the programme but is it possible they are talking about a privately owned play area - like a shared garden for a block of flats?
Obviously everything else screams horrid people who think they are above someone because they earn more.

They obviously didnt watch Monday nights Dispatches.

Fucking snobs.

Either......................they are too damn thick as pig shit to realize that these attitudes are what lead to the climate that lead to Grenfell or they DO realize and dont fucking care.

Llind - that's pretty much exactly what it was. A private play area attached to a private housing development, and fenced in so it could only be accessed by residents.

Wasn't this a thread that was on here the other day? Something about those in the privately owned flats paying a hefty annual charge for the use of leisure facilities such as a playground and tennis courts? The housing association flats didn't pay the charge, but their access to the leisure facilities was blocked by high hedges, although their flats overlooked the play area- which meant that their kids could see all the private owners' kids out playing in the area that they weren't allowed in. I can see both sides TBH, I live in a housing association house, I would hate this situation, it's hard enough being a skint single parent as it is, but at the same time I don't see why the home owners should have to pay for something if it were to be offered to the housing association tenants for free.

The question is, why are the Loose Women team taking discussion themes from Mumsnet?? It's certainly not the first time, watching Loose Women is like Deja Vu most of the time, with the panel regurgitating topics that have been already discussed on here the previous day.

Surely that's the same as wanting to use your neighbours garden because it looks better or has better kids toys? It's just a big shared garden

Thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3543090-to-think-that-this-has-no-place-in-this-country

I'm confused. There is a private playground only meant for residents of a building. Isn't it totally normal that others are not allowed to play there unless they are with kids of the building? That's how it was where I grew up. We had playground in every housing complex and those were only for residents of those houses. Then there were public playgrounds open yo anyone. This was not a rich/poor but that the residents paid for the upkeep and council paid for the public ones. Wouldn't this be the same as private garden vs. Public park.

It’s one single housing complex and the plans originally showed access for all.

This isn't a rich/poor issue as such its a private property issue. I'm sure it sucks seeing a nice play area you can't use, but you can't just pop into a nice big house next door, or go and sit in your neighbors posh car either.

It’s not next door though people are kissing the point. It is one housing complex not the neighbours and access was meant to be for all.

*missing!

I responded based on what was written here. I know scanned through the guardian article. So basically it is the same building with private and council housing. In that case it's very crappy for everyone involved. But the whole concept of having housing association and council houses together in the same complex seems like a terrible idea.

Is it not like complaints about not getting access to first class or the first class lounge at the airport if you have a standard ticket?

I know that block and looked at a flat there off plan. The models showed the HA flats but in a sort of ‘minimised’ inchoate form. There was a very strict segregation to the 2 blocks of flats; one developer and planning permission was granted for the posh flats conditional on the builder building the HA ones. Ironically we eventually moved round the corner; we gave a tiny tikes playhouse to neighbours 3 doors up for their communal gardens (HA), it was too big for our tiny yard and we weren’t even allowed to see it in situ. People are funny! You

I can see both sides to be honest, but erring on the side that is it unfair given the circumstances. I grew up in social housing and know the drawbacks and the perception of others (especially now). However I own a property on a private estate and we have a play area, paid for by owners for the benefit of the kids who live there. It’s not locked and is accessible to all, which is different to this complex. I do however get pissed off when my kids can’t play on things as there are kids from the estate up the road which doesn’t have this facility. Whenever things are broken we pay for it to be repaired, street lights, communal fencing etc via our maintenance fee and we receive an annual statement on what has been spent. Obviously we work to reduce costs and all get pissed off if damage has been intentional. In the situation where you now face social housing and private owners, when things get damaged, will the cost be split between all? I doubt it, but if they are all living in the same space, the maintenance costs etc should have been factored into the rent to allow equal opportunities- it’s not like mine where people who don’t live here access it.

Doreen Lawrence has been on the show before I wonder what she thought of todays remarks.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/02/doreen-lawrence-grenfell-tenants-faced-institutional-indifference

@ShatnersWig

FYI Jane Moore grew up in a single parent family on a council estate so maybe she’s just reflecting on her own experience?

Apparently it was given planning permission on the basis it was to be a mixed housing development. It somewhat defeats the object by then adding segregation through additional scale of payment for facilities.

I understand that in life not each person has identical property and access, but we don’t usually have our noses 24/7 shoved up against that we can’t afford. The children In this social housing part of this development are experiencing that by the design. Seems mean spirited planning by the developers.

The other argument perhaps is if the council wish to encourage a community mix for the benefit of all living in the area then they could consider subsidising the annual maintenance bill.

I think the HA should take a portion of the rent and contribute towards maintenance costs and everyone on the estate be allowed to use the facilities, social cohesion and all that. Especially as that C4 dispatches shown most HAs running a massive surplus that they don't reinvest into their homes but pay overinflated wages to directors instead. YABU to even watch Loose Women, awful awful representatives of womankind.

I can see both sides too - whilst it does seem quite mean-spirited, if only some residents are paying for it, then they're the ones who can gain access. If people want to use it, then they should pay for it - it seems that these days everyone expects everything regardless of whether they can afford it or not (caveat is that I haven't read the article, I'm just going on what's written here).

I'm confused by this too! They're two separate building, technically. The owners of the homes in one set of building pay a large charge for their facilities. The more affordable housing has more affordable facilities and of course they can't just wander into the facilities of the other building, which they're not paying for and which isn't really to do with them? Is it unreasonable that the general public cant just walk in and use the play area too? Should I open up my garden to my neighbours, because it's bigger than theirs?

Were I live we also pay a maintenance charge for parks road grass etc, but we also have council property's that I assume don't as the people cutting the grass in the 'communal areas' don't cut the grass outside of the council homes, Does that mean they shouldn't be able to use the park? To me it just isn't fair, no one ask's to be born or to live in a family with less money. They are kids and we should be encouraging our children to mix with those that may be less fortunate than them self.

But the private residents pay for their children to have access to the play area, I wouldn’t be pleased for everyone to have access if I was paying. Opening the play area to all will mean higher maintenance costs.