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.

The under occupiers should be forced to move, I know it's not nice,little old ladies etc

Unfortunately, shit happens.Get used to it .

Agree Tethersend, it's all a bit dubious. It's worked too - they're getting roundly condemmed for their living arrangements and the councils dereliction of it's duty to adequately house people is buried under a shower of scorn.

tethers thats why I dont watch these programmes. They pretend to be about exploring social issues but they are just trying to make 'good telly'

That means finding 'characters'. These 'characters' have to fit the recieved sterotype e.g. battling pensioners (how often do you see an OAP portrayed as a lazy drug taker?), shiftless white young men and stupid young women who put their love of smirnoff ice before their kids.

Nothing else will do apparently. Its boring to show ordinary people getting by, helping their kids with their homework and managing on a mix of low wages and top up benefits.

Absolute crap. The council are responsible for a lot of things,but they are not responsible for making sure dogs don't piss on carpets and that money is spent where it should be !

DH tells me the same when I think that people should be moved out of council houses that are too big for them - it would mean his elderly aunty moving. Which is why I don't understand why couples aren't moved when their children are grown up and have moved out. Because then they are young enough to not be confused and young enough to resettle well and get to know the neighbours etc.

His other problem is that it is likely that his hard-working auntie will be replaced with a feckless scrounger. We know a lad in his twenties; he and all his friends are like this, he even says that working is a "mug's game" and has made himself unemployable by walking out of every job he's ever had.

I don't know what the solution is. How do you provide a decent safety net for those in genuine need (and I know that there are many people like that on this thread) without making benefits a valid lifestyle choice? Because the UK is in serious debt and we're not going to be able to afford to pay out masses of benefits forever.

"Absolute crap. The council are responsible for a lot of things,but they are not responsible for making sure dogs don't piss on carpets and that money is spent where it should be ! "

Exactly, nevereat. So why does a programme purporting to be an investigation into inadequate housing (which is the council's responsibility) use this family and these issues to illustrate its point? Amber is correct, it's a deflection IMO.

Because people like this exist, the family WERE in adequately why on earth shouldnt they be portrayed ?

The single mum in the programme was not like that at all, her children were lovely, flat well kept and the children ate home cooked food at the table each evening. Should this single mumnot be portrayed for being too far the other way ?

Addd to that there have been programmes in the past showing homeless families moving from hotel to bedsit and struggling to keep things together.

I'm sure many of these homeless families would cherish ANYTHING with one bedroom and would not saturate it in dog urine.

Whoops, should have said inadequately housed

I'm not sure what your point is, nevereat... By showing a family without the parenting issues, the housing problem is highlighted. This part of the programme fulfilled its purpose.

"Should this single mumnot be portrayed for being too far the other way ?"

Err.. no, the programme was not about 'people on benefits', it was (supposed) to be about inadequate housing.

"I'm sure many of these homeless families would cherish ANYTHING with one bedroom and would not saturate it in dog urine."

I'm sure you're right, but to subtley point to this family as the reason other families are homeless is a very underhand and dubious thing for the producers to do. I am surprised you can't see that.

Of course the TV production companies chose these people because they fit their agenda - to make TV that would become a talking point. I am sure that there are plenty of families living in tower blocks which are living perfectly decent lives, hard working albeit financial poor.

But no. They chose a family which does not have bedding for their children, an oven whjich does not work and dogs which piss on the floor. TV bods must have rubbed their hands in glee.

I completely agree Chegirl. I was a single teenage mother at the time when tories judged that as the lowest of the low. The stigma carries on. I was utterly skint - I remember running out of money on the day I was paid, after paying rent, bills, rudimentary groceries etc. However I did the best I could - that meant not going out for donkey's years, having crap clothes, eating plain food, praying to god the washing machine wouldn't blow up and having to save to buy essential. I was not some kind of scum individual and I hate programmes like this which love to portray working class families as the scum of the earth.

There are plenty of decent, hard working low income families out there. I would like to watch a programme about them.

And no, you should not have a dog if you are prioritising a dog above your kids needs.

Must admit I watched only about 15 mins of this programme. The ones which stuck in my head are the family with whom Austin Mitchell stayed.

But the single mum was in the same housing situation, just without the pissy dogs, and yes, she was unemployed.

i thought the program was about "people on benefits" as well as those suffering from inadequate housing, hence the fuss they kept making about the MP's living on the JSA and not relying on a secret stash of cash down their bra's etc.

They did a fair portrayel imo, the other families portrayed were otherwise decent just financially poor and overcrowded.

And also, had no pissy dogs

a Housing Officer for the Council writes...

We do try to inspect our properties on a yearly basis, but of course, there's many other pressures on our time, so it often only happens if there's a reason to check - eg anonymous reports etc.

We also try to encourage our elderly residents into more suitable housing - be that a bungalow or sheltered bedsits / flats.

But when someone has lived there all their adult life, you can understand their retiscence (sp) to move.

A couple and child(ren) in a one bed flat is far from ideal, and I would hope they've been housed there as a temporary measure - ie until a two bed becomes available.

If I ever visited such a household, I would be referring them to several agencies - Social Services, some form of parental support programme, and suggesting they apply for a Community Care Grant to get beds for the kid(s).

I would also be encouraging them to get shot of the dogs - uric acid in their pee, the smell, and toxicplasmosis.

But it ain't easy to talk to some people.

The person who mentioned insurance - I'm guessing you mean pet insurance - come on, do you really think that someone with that lifestyle will get pet insurance?

Yes, I'm judging. You have to make a call when people are falling below a minimum standard, especially when children are involved.

And the oven - obviously it's not best practice if you're not properly qualified, but it's really not difficult to install even a gas oven. (I didn't install it, and you can't proove otherwise... )

so why dont HA's and councils bring in new legislation about downsizing? they can bring it in for all new tenancies,leaving the older people where they are for now....but eventually the new legislation will work

and how about a tv programme about benefit claimants doing well?? (NOT fraudsters)

YABU and it's fuck all to do with you.

I'm with you on all of that, ILoveTiffany. Particularly as my DP, was sent to the housing office today to make a pest of himself :-)

I will freely admit to being skint, piss poor, brassic, living on the bones of my arse or whatever else you want to call it.

I would consider myself to be overcrowded, our house is 3bedrooms but very small and only has a small yard, both my dcs have asd and find the lack of space hard to cope with.

Because of our situation I take my dc out as much as possible to give them some freedom, as a parent this is my job, nobody else

Social housing is not the issue,I for one would chew my own labia in return for a decent sized council house, as would many people.

Can't see that happening any time soon as i'm a homeowner, but if it did you can guarantee............my carpets would be dog piss free.

JuJusDad - I'm actually busy filling in application form for your job... Any hints if that's not too cheeky lol?

Me thinks skihorse may have incontinent dogs ?

What did the kids sleep on if not beds? And I assume SS are involved with the family now, if not before??

why woukld ss be involved with them?

I don't think it was the dogs as such that got me but the baby crawling around on a dirty floor without a carpet (the Dad was moaning to the local MP that he didn't have a carpet).

DP was laughing at me telling the other Mum why are you buying two huge boxes of Pampers Active Fit, the most expensive nappies there are, when Asda own label are about half the price? Now if she would have done that she would have more than the £42 left of the shopping budget to spend on her fags