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

[nevereatbrownsnow]

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.

I think amber raises a very good point, actually.

YANBU.

I'm currently an LP on benefits and FWIW, I find it a walk in the park compared to working. I could afford a dog. In fact, I've always felt a little guilty about how well we live.
OTOH, I'm glad my children don't have to suffer the material fallout of their father's failings and my current life situation (chronic illness). That's not to say we have even a remotely nice TV but I'd prioritise having a dog over that any day!

The programme was called tower house of commons because it was about membersof parliament living with families who live in tower blocks etc!

If I were in that situation my children would have the bedroom.

My children would have the bed, me and dp would have the sofa and the sofa would have sheets.

These children were living off microwaveable food because the parents could not afford the £80 to get there gas cooker installed.

Dogs cost money to feed, I would rehome the dogs and use the money saved from feeding them on getting the cooker installed thus providing my children with better food AND a cleaner home.

And, this must be noted, dad disappeared off to his mates for a smoking and drinking session wasting money which could have been spent on getting those poor children out of that stinking flat for a few hours.

He spent money whilst his children paddled in dog piss.

And yes i'm judging, I have quite bad depression, two children with asd, have been a carer since age 17 with no breaks and my only coat which I cannot afford to replace has a great stinking tear in it

I do not smoke or drink because I can't afford it.

I would love a dog, we don't have one because we can't afford it and don't have the room.

My money goes on providing the best for my children.

When we inherited some money recently we used it to pay off our (luckily only 24 grand) mortgage and yet we are still freaking skint.I did not get wasted.

Putting it bluntly,people who somehow seem to produce children and then don't at least try to provide whats best for them and waste the little and few resources they have make me really, really

i have 5 dc in a 3 bed....its fine. and 2 of them are big teenagers and ones a toddler.

but i appreciate it can be hard for alot of families.....but why make the situation worse by adding 2 dogs to the equation??

maybe they got them because they knew the cameras were coming so attempted to make their grim life look grimmer to gain sympathy and a few more housing points?

How much does it cost to insure 2 dogs every month ? And feed them ? If people are living in a dire housing situation, is it unreasonable of them to allocate cash spent on dogs to a savings account so they can start to accumulate a deposit for better accomodation ? Or is that assuming a degree of personal responsibility for ones circumstances ? And therefore not fair or acceptable ?

Good post, never.

It's a two-way street, really.

The government has obligations, but so do citizens.

It's a luxury to go out and get pissed. It's not a necessity.

And when you put that above a clean place for your kids to live in and as good a food as you can afford, that is whacked and wrong, no matter what your circumstances.

It's not so much the fact they had two dogs tbh, more the fact that those two dogs pissed everywhere

There baby, when he wasnt dumped in his travel cot was crawling around in dog piss

EcoMouse ~ 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 confused many families are stuck in accommodation that's too small while many people rattle around in larger properties.

Hope you don't mean all people in a house that is now too big should be made to move, don't think my 90 year old gran could take it after having children in the house and her husband dying there.

They are quite possibly terrible parents. They are not living in a one bed flat because they are terrible parents, nor are they terrible parents because they are in a one bedroom flat.

Which begs the question, why were they chosen by the producers to represent family life in inadequate housing? It seems as if there's another agenda to me.

But her not moving, Love, means many young children grow up in very appropriate accommodation.

inappropriate.

sorry!

If we can't judge people for this kind of behaviour then whats the bloody point of any of it?
It isn't all up to someone else to sort out for you, you have to do something for yourself and your own children. The houseing authorities didn't make them get dogs, or even make them let the dogs piss and shit everywhere. The housing authorities didn't make them spend their money on beer and fags while their children suffer.

Amber, of course its more worth noting. Lots of people live in properties that are too small, millions of us, council housed and not. But this is a whole different thing. I make absolutely no apology for judging these "parents" none whatsoever. Its not always someone elses fault.

No Love, like I said, I agree with the right to remain!!
However I'm also experiencing first hand the effects of the deficit of larger housing. I don't know what the solution is, hence the

Ooooh, don't get me started !!!

When dp lost his job, he took any job he could find and now works 23hrs a week on the minimum wage as a cleaner.

I am proud of him, he has no qualms about scrubbing other peoples shit off the back of a toilet door as he is providing something for his children after being on benefits for two yrs, he loves it.

In my opinion, when you are responsible for the lives that you have decided to create this is the only attitude to have.

I have been in a council flat with small children and on benefits. It was in the early 90s when the Conservatived dedicate a whole Conference to the scurge (sp) of single mothers (not parents).

We were the scum of the earth at that time - the 90s version of 'bogus muslim asylum seekers' if you will.

So I know about bit about this.

I did have a dog but as Valhalla has already said, I had him for years by that point and I wasnt about to get him PTS as I fully intended to improve our situation asap.

But FFS if you are really saying you cannot afford to feed your kids, buy and oven etc why the hell would you then go and buy a couple of big dogs?

If you were living in accomodation inadequate for your family's needs would you then go out and buy 2 big dogs to make your flat even more cramped?

I fully agree that the housing situation has got to ridiculous levels amber and there is always going to be a need for social houseing. But we all have to take responsibilites for ourselves and our families.

I dont buy into the horribly prevelant attitude that the 'underclass' are all spliff smoking chavs who dont give a toss about their kids. Us chavs love our kids just as much as anyone else. But whatever your socio economic situation once you become a parent you have make decisions based on what is best for your family.

That might mean not getting a bloody great staffie or it might mean one of you cutting back on your stressful, high powered career because you have a sick child.

I sort of agree with expat there but it's hard to call. Nobody wants to see elderly ladies being forced to move but then again under-occupying is a real problem.

I once had a neighbour who was unable to use the stairs in her three-storey council house. She had a little bed in the large kitchen / diner and there was a small cloakroom downstairs too. There were four bedrooms and a large bathroom on the other floors.

Another neighbour was similarly disabled but a real pragmatist. She had a comparatively more spacious living space in a one-bed flat which was easy to clean and maintain and was quite happy.

I do think some people who are reliant on benefits over the long term sort of absolve themselves of any personal responsibility whatsoever. They become reliant on the state for everything and everything becomes someone else's fault. It's a mindset.

Also the dog thing - my godmother's daughter used to voluntary work on a notorious Hull council estate as part of her social work degree and she said that most people lived in shocking conditions but that almost everyone had at least one or usually two massive dogs in their tiny flats. She said the dogs were a status symbol.

I agree with an earlier poster though. I wish on these sorts of programmes that they would actually show examples of "proper" working class people who are decent and hardworking rather than escapees from "Little Britain". I suppose the latter make better TV....

It's okat as long as she breastfeeds the dog.

Whoops. Wrong thread.

*okay is what I meant to say.

Do you know Stella I had just about managed to get that photo out of my head, and now it is back. We need a vomiting emoticon!

Riven i agree, and if the rule was kids grown out you go, there wouldn't be the issue of people who have spent their whole life in a house they are getting kicked out of.

IMO the governments obligation is to insure everyone has somewhere suitable, clearly a pensioner in a 3 bed isn't suitable and also brings it's own set of problems cost of heating etc.

"I dont buy into the horribly prevelant attitude that the 'underclass' are all spliff smoking chavs who dont give a toss about their kids. Us chavs love our kids just as much as anyone else."

I agree, chegirl...

So why were they chosen to illustrate shambolic housing provision? Their parenting decisions are eclipsing the issue the programme purports to highlight- and I don't think that's an accident.

The subtext of the programme was 'it's their own fault they live in inadequate housing', which I find questionable at best.