aibu in thinking that the couples on the news

[TheUsefulSuspect]

shouldn't have had a first child, let alone a second if they think there 1 Bedroom flat is insufficient.

Why do they think they deserve to be rehoused?

S alright, one poster on a far off thread that am avoiding but won't die if I meet iyswim

I've tyried before and with my typing / background, if I can't say chat on sn with background then MN becomes fairly useless: so I do this for a week or so from time to time as a rest.

made me smile its no me is another lassie(aye peachy here but dont ken you know)

in response to tethersends post.

what i think is that there are resources in place to care for children who are not currently cared for.

if you have more children than you can care for, then those agencies would still be there to help you as they are at the moment.

we shouldn't have a blanket policy which legislates for a society with no personal responsability.

if we followed that road it could become a very costly and sticky road indeed.

pandora69 well said. Someone else posted earlier on this thread who also worked in this sector and found in very demoralising too.

There seems to be people in denial that this is actually a problem. Those that work at the coalface seem to have a more realistic view.

We cannot generalize based on one or two cases that we happen to know. Yes i'm sure some of you know someone who has 11 children and spends the benefits on fags. And some of you worked in benefit offices and seen some bad cases. I believe you.

I, on the other hand, spend 20 years working as a nanny for the richest and for some famous couples. The majority of them were fab parents, few of them less fab, and one of them was very sad case. Both very successful and well off. They did what some posters here suggest, they waited for the 'right time'. By that time the woman was not fertile and had to undergo fertility treatment, one after the other. In the end they went for egg donation and produced twins. By that time the poor woman was a wreck and felt that it was 'unfair' the babies didnt have her eyes. She went on to have another one. The new baby had blue eyes but was a girl and they wanted a boy. They didnt want to hold her at all . But hey, they all had their own bedrooms with expensive cots!

It is a very sad case but it is ONe case. We wouldn't say that all rich and famous people shouldn't have children or people shouldn't have IVF or twins. Because the rest of them, the majority are fab parents. The same applies to low-income parents.

Personally i am happy for my tax to support them. And if few pence of that goes to ONE bad case you know, then it is ok i can live with this. But don't use these few cases to justify that only people with over £100,000 and six bed house should have children.

FWIW i have a large house (private one) and my three children prefer to sleep in one bedroom. It is lovely watching them together.

Why on earth cant you have 3 DCs in a three bedroom house?

I mean if you are desperate why would a child having to share a room with another child stop you?

I live in a 3 bedroom house. DS1 has the little room, DS2&3 share and when DC is born and old enough he will go in with his brothers.

What is the problem? Its hardly Dickensian FFS.

Can i just remind people that council/social housing is not free housing.
Councils are landlords , they charge something called rent, which must be paid , for allowing you to live in the house/flat.
IF you are very poor , you may be allowed housing benefit ,depending on circumstances.
Not everyone can get a mortgage or can afford to buy their home for cash, nor can everyone afford the high prices that private landlords charge.
If the law changed so that private landlords could only charge a set amount for their property , say £250 for a single bedroom, per month and add £100 for every bedroom after that . ,then there would less of a housing problem.
Actually how many people on here are sitting in ex-council houses that have been sold off since the thatcher years? How many bought their first home that way? .
and what happened to the promised building of new homes to replace the sold off stock....decades later still nothings been done about it.

Am I being unreasonable to expect you to spell 'their' correctly?

Anyway what better way to get yourself a mansion?

shiitake ..... their , sorry dyslexic , trying very hard but sometimes the spelling slips .
Mansion? lol . have you seen any mansions on council estates lately?...

Custardo, I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

"what i think is that there are resources in place to care for children who are not currently cared for.

if you have more children than you can care for, then those agencies would still be there to help you as they are at the moment."

I assume you mean social services. Were children of large families to become neglected through a policy of the state only supporting two children per family (ie the parents didn't have enough money to care for them and refused to work), I am assuming that you would like them to be taken into care. Which, leaving aside the emotional impact, would cost the state infinitely more money than supporting those children within the family through paying benefits.

Please tell me I have misunderstood you.

SM

So we have established I would be a shit spy. No surprises there LOL

I don't think people should have more babies if they can't cope with them. That might mean financially (even with help - I'm not saying people on benefits shouldn't, but if they couldn't cope even if benefits) or emotionally or practically.

I know a lady who has a disabled boy, like mine, very hard work, needs more respite, finding it hard to cope with him etc. She has her own (more minor) disabilities herself. She's got 2 others too and they do struggle for money as her DH is in a low-paid job. She wants another baby and I really want to say WTF - you are having a hard enough time with you life as is...why would you go for another one????