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.

they sound awful herbie - and im really playing devils advocate - but if someone is as thick as shit and "happy" to live that way - maybe their self esteem is rock bottom? Is it actually their fault?

Have they been failed somewhere along the line? At school? In their childhood homes? by fascilitating their lifestyle?

This isn't necessarily my opinion and im sure had i watched the car crash program, i would be judging with the rest of you.

The trouble is it very much is the councils responsibility to support vulnerable members of society - even if the parents are fuckwits, without adequate support and investment the children will end up the same way - i dont think benefits are the answer - something has to change in the way we educate our young people abut functioning as part of a society

'it is often lack of intellect that means that they can't plan out their lives'

No it isn't!

I've lived in two areas of council housing.

There is nothing wrong with most peoples' intellect in such places.

Bad education, maybe, but more often bad parenting to begin with = no self respect or values that don't include prioritising self-gratification.

PLENTY of people here have only one or two children.

You don't have to go to university or even college to do many forms of work.

It's the problem, too, is that a lot of those forms of work leave you even worse off than being on benefits.

That has to stop if you want to get people back to work.

but for some people expat, it is just that. My cousin totally took the piss out of the benefit system, or at least thats what i thought because she used to say things like "oh i got this out of em" "i just played on xyz and got this much" - i would be so angry but when i stepped back and thought about it, she has severe mental health issues, has learning difficulties which i have come to realise are extreme as since her husband (my cousin) died she has had to go into supported accomodation. Her attitude was vile, but i realise that it really wan't her fault - while she thought she was "playing the system" she couldnt have ever managed without it

"We should definitely go back to benefits being paid directly to landlords and utilities companies, and a return to food and clothing stamps etc. It's the only way to ensure that the money is spent in a way that benefits the people who need it most ie the children. What's a bit of stigma, compared to knowing that your children will have a warm house and a hot meal, no matter how dim and short-sighted you are?"

TiggyR, its a great idea but would take a strong government to do it. Perhaps that, and a cap as to how long you can claim, would mean a return to benefits being a welfare state and not a lifestyle choice.

Everybody can have bad luck or make bad choices, but there are far too many who have children with no thought as to how they will support them and expect the government to look after them with no attempt themselves to improve on the situation.

I didnt see the program but what parent could put cigarettes and dogs before beds for their children.

for some, LEM, but the majority of people, on benefits or not, do not have compromised intellect, learning disabilities or mental health issues.

and even then, it's not an iron-clad excuse!

i've been depressed for donks now, suicidal, fucked up, addicted to booze, etc etc.

at some point you either own it or you don't.

and yes, i'll get 'but not all people can own it blah blah blah' i think it belittles people with mental health issues, tbh, disables and stigmatised them even more.

plenty of people with mental health issues and learning difficulties would never dream of living like this couple and therefore force their kids to live that way.

hell, twinset, nevereat, riven, getorf, myself, we're all people who've had mental health problems, disabled children, etc. but wouldn't dream of getting dogs when the kids go without or pissing away money on booze and fags.

LEM

I don't judge benefits claimants per se, I don't even judge the people who are too simple/feckless/marginalised to understand the concept of personal responsibility. I judge a system that allows those people to maintain the status quo by rewarding them for continuing a cycle of dependence.

Sterilisation? Not necessarily - though sometimes, for the terminally useless/dangerous cases. But financial incentives to take long term (injected) contraception, for people already a chronic drain on the system, rather than financial incentives to bring more disavantaged children into the system - yes.

And I wouldn't argue with the following:

Teenagers living at home should not get money (or housing) for having babies. They and their babies should be the responsibility of their parents. If their parents are not prepared/able to keep and house them then they make damn sure their daughter knows (in advance) that a baby she cannot support is out of the question. Hopefully it needn't end in abortion or adoption very often - just a more responsible attitude to contraception. In 2010 there is really no excuse for anything else. Initially there would be some difficult painful decisions, but once the message hit home the situation should improve greatly, and everyone would benefit.

I personally don't buy the argument that babies are necessarily 'punished' by being aborted. It depends entirely on what kind of life they are being born into. I think enough of them are being punished already - living a crap life in crap housing with crap parents and crap prospects. And people who insist on becoming pregnant over and over again with chaotic dysfunctional lives and no means of financial/emotional support for the children should have them removed and forcibly adopted. That should stop it in its tracks.

its so wrong that anyone would put dogs before their children. I needed new bunkbeds for the DDs I went on ebay and paid £30 for some. I need new drawers for the girls room as both sets have broken, I have been looking on ebay and freecycle. Its not hard to buy these items secondhand, there is no excuse, I just haven't found anything I like and keep missing items on freecycle.

Didn't watch the programme, were the family completely on benifits? or was it about their housing?

its so wrong that anyone would put dogs before their children. I needed new bunkbeds for the DDs I went on ebay and paid £30 for some. I need new drawers for the girls room as both sets have broken, I have been looking on ebay and freecycle. Its not hard to buy these items secondhand, there is no excuse, I just haven't found anything I like and keep missing items on freecycle.

Didn't watch the programme, were the family completely on benifits? or was it about their housing?

'But financial incentives to take long term (injected) contraception, for people already a chronic drain on the system, rather than financial incentives to bring more disavantaged children into the system - yes.'

Why should one person get a financial sweetie for using free long-term contraception and not another who does it out of personal responsibility?

Some states in the US do have time limits on how long you can claim benefits over the course of a lifetime.

i have to concur with your last post expat

'Didn't watch the programme, were the family completely on benifits? or was it about their housing?'

Yes, they were, Sparkly. And the guy was coming home from the pub obviously pissed and smoking spliffs in front of the camera.

In addition to the dogs pissing and shitting all over the place and the weans crawling/playing around it.

um, i knew that would happen - your second to last post then

Tiggy - enforced contraception - well that aint ever gonna happen, nice idea though. Not everyone is suited to mirena or implants or coils, so again we are relying on them taking the pill, wearing condoms.

Its difficult, i certinaly dont have the answers

so the typical 'benifit claimant' sterotype then? shame we all get tarnished with the same brush eh? Why didn't the dad work?

and why is it that every time contraception is mentioned it's always the woman's responsibility?

it's always the feckless female teenager who magically wakes up sprogged up, by asexual reproduction, it must be, because there's never any mention of educating men to use condoms or that condoms are also free.

men can father way more babies than a woman can give birth to.

'Why didn't the dad work?'

He was on JSA. But he was more interested in other pursuits.

I have to add to this because it is madness at times.

I have worked full time all my working life been a single parent for most of thier lives and childminders basically brought them up. I was made redundant three weeks ago, did not get a redundancy package because I had not been there long enough. I am being forced to live on JSA of £64.30 per week. I have a daughter in college.

So what would you suggest I do with my £64.30 per week. Where is this hundreds of pounds benefit that people supposedly get cos I cant see it

justsue - it's people like you I really feel for. You have done your best to take responsibility for your own child. If there were fewer people making no effort whatsoever there would be more money in the pot to give people like you a better deal. I hope you get another job soon. [Hugs].

I didnt think it was a typical benefit claiment portrayel, the other families shown were much better.

expat - I agree it's not really ideal for someone to be rewarded for contraception when others do it out of a sense of responsibility but we have to take a view that for some people in the 'vulnerable' category it's cheaper, and more effective in the long run than paying for them to have children, who will inevitably, due to poor and chaotic parenting, be a drain on social services, education, the police etc.

The whole thing reminds me of a modern day 'Angela's Ashes.'

Hardly Angelas Ashes. If you've no job your children won't die of consumption and you won't be living in squalor.
Unless you let dogs piss everywhere and never clean your house.

I agree that it shouldn't only be the woman's responsibility for birth control - but come on! This is not Victorian England where the poor hapless scullery maid gets goosed in the shrubbery by the man of the house and she has no say in the matter! Ultimately, a woman cannot be made pregnant - she can only allow herself to be made pregnant! (rape an exception, it goes without saying). We are left holding the baby so we know it must ultimately be our responsiblity!

We have the choice to whether or not to go to bed with a man.

We know whether or not he is using a condom and we have the choice to say 'hang on there, mister...'

We have a choice to use the cap, coil, pill, etc etc.

Having failed to do that, we have the choice to use the morning after pill.

Then we have the choice of abortion or not.

Then we have the choice of adoption or not.

Compared to men, we are pretty flush with choices, all the way along. Please, please, don't patronise all of womankind in Britain today with the 'He got me pregnant' defence!!! Have we not moved on in 100 years girls?!!!

hi its me day day! Thinking clearly today i know wot u mean about the dogs its not fair on the children their health and well being should come first. theres no excuse for the kids not having beds im sure they can make do with second hand shops until they sort themselves out. If they got rid of the dogs then they might have more money. they should sort their priorities out.

I think what pisses me off, on reflection, as pretty much everyone has stated on here, most benifit claimants and those reliant on social housing are good parents who are struggling in difficult situations. Of course, no one can deny that there are arseholes about and this family certainly sound like a prime example. So why did the program makers choose this family - because the consensus seems to be that they are scum and don't deserve help. This is not a typical benifit claimant - just another example of car crash reality TV.

So tiggy, what about the hapless teen who is taken advantage of by her controlling boyfriend, pressured maybe into having unprotected sex - i know that my DD was taught about this at school and apprently lots of teenagers feel this pressure.