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?

and you think that the burden of the (already) poor people having children is that much greater than those that fall on hard times create? I doubt it (although of course there are no "stats" to show things like that as whether life has thrown shit at us before or after children doesn't affect what benefits we get)

Chore - I'm with you. Come join the revolution.

Custy - the difficulty is "personal responsibility" is subjective. Your concept may be very different from the next person's.

indeed hully, indeed.

What we need, as a society, is a lovely big old chat about how we would all like to organise ourselves better and more equitably, with love and fairness and opportunities for all.

and beer.

and I brought the disabled people into it to make a point - how do you decide "who" out of those on benefits gets to choose to have children, and who doesn't? How do we determine "who" is allowed to have children, despite their cicumstances, and who isn't?

Are the unemployed/poor couple allowed to have children if they're retraining/studying to improve their future lives?

Are the young couple stuck in dead end jobs, and with no real prospects of getting better jobs allowed to have children - because they at least have a work ethic even if it doesn't really cover the bills?

Fact is you can't fit people into boxes and say "this applies to you, and that applies to that group

And I can tell you something - I think it's unlikely that those of you working in housing know the real stories behind many of these people that you meet.

I recently saw the Housing Options people, I told them the truth, but they know nothing of how I ended up in this situation, and the application form I filled in ("just in case") to apply for social housing didn't want any details that would reveal my actual story - they just wanted the facts as they are now.

Now - I'm am someone that doesn't usually think before opening her mouth and telling anyone and everyone about my life............and even I didn't give them enough details to judge my Life - and many others wouldn't too.

And I know in the past I've told some right blardy lies to people (not ones that would affect any help I've been genuinely entitled to) that have asked about how I ended up on benefits/single etc etc - depending on how nosey/rude/judgemental they're being

Even people who don't apply to the topoic we're discussing do it too - my (now) BF once sat there at a toddler group and when one very nosey, busy body women asked her how many children she'd got, and BF told them 5, the women went "oh - are they all yours"........... "oh yes" replied................but I don't know who any of their fathers are (3 children from first marriage, 2 from her 2nd that she's still happily in)

My point is - don't believe everything that people say to you - at the end of the day it doesn't make a difference to someones housing needs whether they had their 6 children by 6 different fathers, or whether they had 6 children with a wealthy man who then beat the shit out of her - they're still entitled to the same thing - and some of us are very good at gauging how judgemental "official" people are being and giving suitable annoying replies

oh bollox - just wrote that bloody tome, posted and then saw we were on to discussing alcohol.

I'll have anything but beer or gin

and I brought the disabled people into it ...

disabilty is a different issue i feel as it may be unlikley that circumstances have the ability to change. but even those with a disability make choices regarding how many hildren they have and how they can look after them. personal responsability again.

Are the unemployed/poor couple ...

everyone has the right to have children, but once you have one child there is a point where one has to assess where they are at in life befor having another. If that couple had a child and were re-training, perhaps it would be silly at that point to have another child. I certainly would finish my training and get stable earning power and maternity leave.

Are the young couple stuck in dead end jobs...

again if they have a child and wanted another, then i think assessing their personal situation is key. If they have a child and can't pay the bills even with govt support, they would have to assess whether they are making the right choice.

we have to as a society work on generalisations, it is how the benefits system works. Ofcourse there will be individual circumstances that aren't properly catered for and this is unfortunate, however we have to look after the majority of people and ensure that everyone is getting the help they need

I'm with Laurie & Custardo.

I don't think you are being unreasonable. It is difficult to have an opinion on this without coming across as judgemental. My cousin has 4 children and lives in a 2 bedroom house, she clearly doesn't have enough room and lots of family members feel angry that she hasn't yet been rehoused, all of her children were planned. She is actually considering a 5th child.

We live in a smaller 2 bedroomed house and are expecting our second child, there is no way we could fit any more people into our house and as we can't afford to move we have made the decision to stick at 2 children. My family know our situation but they don't feel angry on our behalf.

Why do my family feel that my cousin has to a right to a larger property but not us? If I told them I was planning on having a third child they would think that we were irresponsible. It is purely down to the fact that we have a mortgage and have never relied on benefits. Because my cousin has always lived in social housing my family think she has a right to have as many children as she wants and the right to a property that can accommodate her family.

YANBU it is different if someone has children and then loses their job or circumstances change these people need and deserve help to keep their family whatever size it is until they can get back on their feet. If you keep having children that you cannot adequately house then I see that as irresponsible.

Its not about "affording" to give children things its about simply being able to fit them into your home without expecting other people to provide you with a larger house.
Child benefit, tax credits etc are different because the supplement income, although I do think that child beneift etc should only be paid for say the first two children.

I speak as someone who is expecting my fourth child, my children will share two to a bedroom (three bedroomed house). If we lived in a one bedroomed flat or if we couldnt the beds etc in, I would not have had more than one. We are really not that well off but you live within your means and if for some reason that is a one bedroomed flat you improve your situation before trying for another child.

Of course you can feed a child properly on benefits in the UK, you have some the cheapest food in the world (relatively speaking) and its cheaper to buy healthy food than crap most of the time. How insulting to suggest that if you live on benefits you automatically don't feed your kid properly?

Why can some of you not seperate the housing situation form everything else? It took about 5 posts before someone started ranting about eradicating the poor and stopping free maternity care and benefits, as if you dare to have an opinion on govt housing and family size you must be a rabid tory DM reader?

Nobody is talking about letting people have children (and uh hello, Godwins law already, sheesh). Have we really got to the point where pointing out that people can have the slightest bit of thought about whether the amount of children they have will fit into their house makes us facists?

Get a bloody grip. Its ok to judge about earings on babies and early weaning but woe betide you if you say people might want to consider having a child they can't house adequately?
MN Bizarro world.

It makes me so angry that people expect to be rehoused because they keep having kids. I haven't seen the story so I am just speaking generally here.

My DH and I own our flat (mortgaged) and cannot afford to move. We therefore will NOT be having any more children because we can't fit them into our flat! I don't expect the bank or government or anyone to come along and say "Aaah, you go ahead and have a sibling for your DD and we'll give you a bigger home"

I've read both these threads with interest: Toccata, of course I think I'm right about some things, but then you think you're right too.

I read your posts back by the way and I accept that it was a general feeling I received from other posters and to a certain extent from you, but you did not actually say it. I'm very glad you agree with me that people aren't absolved from personal responsibility by welfare support.

That puts us in the same place, on principle, but we draw the line as to where, and what action should result. If you read back yourself you'll see my posts are full of "I'm not sure" and "I haven't thought this out fully" when it comes to restricting benefits.

I'm certain about only one thing: that welfare has moved from a safety net to a choice for some people. I do feel bewildered when there is denial of this. On both threads some people have accepted this but say: it's a price worth paying, which is an opinion to be respected of course.

This is where I/we differ: I increasingly feel that action should be taken to stop this conflation of support with dependancy by choice.

The price is not just financial, and paid by the taxpayer, it's also paid by the children, the families and wider society in quality of life, happiness, safety, the larger welfare network of health and education, even peace of mind. A price is being paid by many of those children for what sometimes looks like utter self indulgence.

That's why I think some action should be taken. I think the problem will become worse, and little good will come of it.

I don't see it as a financial price only though.

transferred my interest over here because i can't bear to be on that thread any more

but what is "adequately housed"?

Define it?

Or is the issue here really those (who really are very much in the minority - as most know that actually even if you have 6 children the chances of there being a council house available for you to slim in are slim) that have children purely for the benefits? In which case we're not talking about those who are having children because they want children - but those that want to milk the system aren't we............

Yes lots of people you've met may have told you they had their children to get a house etc etc........but bet you most of them are lying. And those that work in housing on this thread will know that most of those people don't get their "big house" anyhow - because the housing stock simply isn't there.

Yesterday I told a bitch nosey cow at the school gates who was eaves dropping on a conversation with my best friends that "yes I'm going on benefits because I don't want to work before my children are in school, and because I just want to take it easy for a year or so" (her face was an absolute picture) )

And if the issues is about people moaning about their lifes..............well that's what keeps some of us sane, people are allowed to moan don't you know

"Want", "Idleness" "Ignorance" - they're not new issues...............

I haven't seen the programme, but I do feel people should take more responsibility wrt all the responsibilities that parenting involves.

And no, it does not only mean money - also time, energy, etc. I understand that circumstances change, I also understand that limited funds should not necessarily mean you have no/one/three/... children - but you can't have 7 children and then automatically expect someone to provide a bigger house, more money, assistance etc. If all these things were readily available, perhaps, but realistically, it is not, and you should take responsibility for your own choices.

If, for example you have two children but only one bedroom, and you are happy to do as someone suggested earlier - sofa bed for parents in sitting room and two children in bedroom, then good on you for deciding that at this stage of your life, more children is more important to you than space / comfort. But to have 2 and then complain because a bigger flat/house is not immediately available, is wrong.

"We therefore will NOT be having any more children "

now you see that statement takes inot a whole new discussion about termination of pregnancy.

I could NEVER (unless absolutely dire circumstances - ie risk to my life) terminate a pregnancy - I just couldn't do it.

Contraception fails - well - then if you have the views I have then your screwed reall and just have to squeeze 'em in.

But thats not the same thing as hey I want another kid even though I have no room so I will and then I'll get a bigger house (even if they actually won't/might not).

I see your point, though I have different views. There is no way I personally could bring another baby into my tiny house, whatever happened.

"Yesterday I told a nosey cow at the school gates who was eaves dropping on a conversation with my best friends that "yes I'm going on benefits because I don't want to work before my children are in school, and because I just want to take it easy for a year or so"

is that true? you are going on benefits by choice because you want to take it easy? or is it a joke?

I don't want to underestimate you, I want to assume it's a joke, but I can't tell

it must be a joke, you would not be taking it easy with pre-schoolers, surely

I don't think it is a new thing this "choice" of living like that - people have always done it - see my previous post about the great evils that the Welfare state as we know it was set up to try and tackle.

There have always been bone idle, lazy people who were happy to live off other people's generosity rather than supporting themselves, having a welfare state didn't create that - it happens

My (soon to be ex) BIL is a like that - he's a bit of a lazy bum really - relying on other family members and friends to support him and his wife and child! (in a 3rd world coutry that has no welfare state).

And often those that do "choose" it have low aspirations and can't see any future for themselves other than that - is that the fault of the welfare system? Or symptom of a much wider problem. How many people that are posting on this thread, who are currently on benefits would choose this life for themselves adn their children. None of us I'm sure - as we (mostly) have backgrounds/experience that shows us there is something better to aim for, there is something achievable to aim for, and most of us probably have an education behind us that equipped us with ways to (try) to find a way out of the situation.

How many children now (from every background) are growing up "wanting to be famous" (or words to that effects), how many go to sink schools, live on sink estates, and can see no future for themselves even those who have working parents probably see their parents slogging their guts out for 40hrs a week for a pittance, and even though they have working parents, see that nothing is gained from it. >

this kind of thing makes people angry.

Poor me, I have 11 children and am poor. Are we not allowed say ffs maybe you should have stopped like 8 children ago?