Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 10 11

Original poster

In thinking that a couple living in a one bed flat with 2 kids should not have decided to get 2 dogs ?

252 replies

nevereatbrownsnow · 08/02/2010 21:45

Am watching tower block of commons and really don't see the logic in this.

Both dogs are peeing everywhere, those children have no beds and there little playspace is saturated in dog urine.

Children deserve a bed at least and cleanish floors to play on, makes me feel

Seems selfish, they have little money and feeding two dogs of that size is not cheap.

Feel really sorry for the poor girl in temporary accomodation tho.

OP posts:

onagar · 08/02/2010 22:04

It's what people do if they are short of money and space and can barely look after the kids. They get a dog.

Never understood it myself.

Cadelaide · 08/02/2010 22:12

When I was in the small maternity unit after having DS the woman in the next bed had a big row with her baby's father. She stormed out of the unit after him, leaving the baby behind, and returned about 30 mins later.

Anyway, they were reconciled and the next day he came to see her bearing gifts, namely a puppy.

I just don't know what to say, really.

Vallhala · 08/02/2010 22:16

I don't know the programme so have no idea of the background but is it the case that they got the dogs after moving into a flat or before?

If afterwards, they need their heads examining and a kick up the ass, if before, maybe they are seeking to move on but took a flat in the short term (perhaps in emergency) and are desperate not to give up loved dogs.

Many years ago my first dog and I moved into a flat for 6 months owing to having no suitable alternative. Not fun but we coped, though he never peed on the floor! To let the children live without beds is another matter - thats deplorable. And is it just me or do such people often claim not to be able to afford beds but have a flash TV, Sky subscription, money for a night out etc?

dayday · 08/02/2010 22:22

i had a two bedroom house with four small children, me and the kids all slept in one bedroom. I dont think i was 'common' it was a happy home were we spent alot of quality time together and were happy and grateful for everything.My kids are well mannered and behaved and the kids who have everything r ungrateful and dont appreciate anything. Think ive gone off the topic its just the idea of u looking down at these 'common folk' which wound me up.

pooexplosionsareimproving · 08/02/2010 22:26

Unless you had dogs pissing all over your kids toys, you can be sure no-one is talking about you dayday.

Vallhala · 08/02/2010 22:29

Ditto, poo (may I call you poo? ).

This (hopefully) isn't about class, it's about common sense, decent treatment of children and the intelligence of having dogs in a flat.

amber1979 · 09/02/2010 10:08

Shouldn't it be about why the council have failed to adequately house them? Shouldn't this family be in a two bed room flat at the least?

NotAnOtter · 09/02/2010 10:09

dp said that...
i said that he was being unreasonable

sarah293 · 09/02/2010 10:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

pooexplosionsareimproving · 09/02/2010 10:14

Of course Val

Council duty to house them? Well yes, but that doesn't mean you negate your own responsibility to behave like a minimally decent parent. It wouldn't matter if I had to sleep on the street with my children, you can be sure I'd make sure I didn't bring dogs to piss all over their cardboard boxes!

I don't see how they would be much different in a 2 bed anyway, thats a red herring IMO.

expatinscotland · 09/02/2010 10:15

i agree with poo.

yanbu.

amber1979 · 09/02/2010 10:19

"I don't see how they would be much different in a 2 bed anyway, thats a red herring IMO"

Well, at least they could have a bedroom for themselves and one for the kids... Basic requirements I would have thought, considering that we are not actually a third world country.

Sounds like you want to punish them for being "common".

expatinscotland · 09/02/2010 10:31

Why does it always have to be us v. them and common v. ponce and all that?

Whenever someone's values are so skewed that they keep big ol dogs like that when they can't afford to feed or house their children appropriately (because that's teh government's job ) they need lessons about personal responsibility and priorites, be they living in a crumbling palace or a one-bed council flat.

What's responsibility have to do with 'class'?

pooexplosionsareimproving · 09/02/2010 10:33

Thats ridiculous amber and completely unwarranted. Punish them for being "common"? Thats offensive.
Its also offensive to all of us who live in less than ideal circumstances and yet manage to actually be half decent parents. It has nothing to do with money or class whatsover.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just flailing wildly?

EcoMouse · 09/02/2010 10:34

YANBU.

However, someone commented about it often being struggling families who get dogs? It often is and I can't say I disagree with that.
It can be so enriching for all concerned and when children have little, a dog can be everything.

Still, in this instance it doesn't seem healthy for the dogs or the children.

People are usually trying to do the right thing, life just goes very wrong sometimes.

amber1979 · 09/02/2010 10:36

It is the governments job actually. They should fullfill this responsibility in two ways:

1, Keep employment/education/housing costs at a level by which the majority can afford to house themselves.

2, Private a safety net of adequate housing for those who fall through the net.

The government is failling on both of those. The gap between rich and poor is getting worse.

In the 1950's, my Nana was judged to be living in over-crowded conditions and given a three bed flat. Two adults, two kids, one bed flat.

How things have changed.

GypsyMoth · 09/02/2010 10:37

i'm on benefits with 5 dc....but nobody really knows. we don't look in any way poor,simply because there is no need. they need to take some pride in themselves. and their home...why should they be re-housed if they cant take care of what they have? there really is NO excuse.

i manage very well on the benefits we recieve...i save for nice items,dont waste money on cigarettes or dogs which are not necessities!!

i would love a dog!!

expatinscotland · 09/02/2010 10:39

It's also one's personal responsibility to do what he/she can to look after one's kids properly.

When you can't feed them or you put dog maintenance about feeding them as well as you possibly can or the dogs eat into the food budget, then the responsible person takes them to dog's trust or what have you and lets them know they can no longer afford to keep them.

pooexplosionsareimproving · 09/02/2010 10:39

But amber what on earth has that got to do with the point at hand? You haven't said!

expatinscotland · 09/02/2010 10:41

Amen, tiffany!

Thing I hate about that show is a) not a word about the working poor, much less featuring a working poor family b) bitching. The gal last night who did nothing but bitch about asylum seekers. She lost a council house over rent arrears. Who do you do that unless you really fuck up? We're HA tenants. We don't get LHA/HB but plenty do and you get the benefit sent directly to the landlord! If you get into arrears b/c HB cocked up, it's very easily sorted and the HA bends over backwards to keep the family in their home.

LoveBeingAMummy · 09/02/2010 10:43

imvho the problem is more than just the dogs. Anyone who spends money on treats for them selves when their children are going without is a twat. Whats really sad is the fact that animal workers would problem be able to do more and quicker re these dogs and how they are living than what will ever be done for the children.

amber1979 · 09/02/2010 10:43

" But amber what on earth has that got to do with the point at hand? You haven't said! confused"

I just think that it's a sad indictment of the world we live in, when the fact that they stupidly have two dogs is considered more worthy of comment than the fact that this is a glaring example of how we have been royally shafted by the powers that be regarding housing.

Right, getting off my soapbox lol

EcoMouse · 09/02/2010 10:45

Amber, I agree, housing's a difficult one.

There are currently many under occupied properties because people have the right to remain in council/social housing accommodation. I agree with the right to remain but I'm experiencing first hand the issues with lack of larger properties many families are stuck in accommodation that's too small while many people rattle around in larger properties.

GypsyMoth · 09/02/2010 10:46

my mil had a council place from the 50's onwards....and the council came round once a year to check the house was being cared for. this should still happen now in my opinion.

people should look after their homes. its not hard

Morloth · 09/02/2010 10:46

Because it is bloody stupid to make an already shit situation shittier?

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 10 11