Shame on you Iain Duncan Smith for causing stress to this vunerable DV victim

[JamNan]

link here to story on BBC website

Long story short:
A woman known as 'A' has been raped, assaulted, harassed and stalked by an ex-partner. As part of what is called a Sanctuary Scheme, she and her son live in a three-bedroom home which has been specially adapted as a safe and secure space by the police.

Under new Housing Benefit rules, the woman and her son will only receive HB for a two-bedroom property; which means a reduction in income of 14%. Supported by Women's Aid she has challenged the decision in the High Court.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is defending the claim, no doubt at great expense to taxpayers having unsuccessfully argued at a hearing in June that it should be dismissed.

I am astonished at the callous attitude of the government, IDS and his ministers. Surely we should be helping this vulnerable woman until she can get on her feet again and not penalize her.

Please don't start a bunfight about scrounging benefit claimants.

No-one is saying that the Sanctuary scheme would have saved Mary's life, simply that going into hiding did not.

Maybe we could (and should) pilot some of those ideas.

Although if we're concerned about efficiency and value for money, we should be talking to domestic abuse experts about what is needed, and technical experts about what is possible, rather than presuming that notions that occur to uninvolved people on the Internet are in any way useful.

However, developing solutions like these is costly. And you can't remove the existing infrastructure in the meantime.

So for now the panic rooms are here and need to be acknowledged and used well.

I am quite shocked that there are people who are concerned about removing the "luxury" of a spare room from a family that has a proven need for a panic room.

I mean, really? That's your priority?

First let's make sure there are no spare rooms. Then, when we have assured ourselves of that, we can turn our attention to mere fripperies like the safety of the people with no spare room.

Just bizarre (and incredibly mean and vindictive) thinking.

Also - if I was in charge of houses with panic rooms, I would prioritise making each one (as expensive as they are) as flexible as possible for efficient maximum use.

Unless I could satisfy myself that women with two or more children were rarely or never targeted by dangerous men, I would certainly look to have houses with at least 3 bedrooms repurposed for this scheme.

The fact that there would be a "spare" room for some families would be a feature, not a bug.

Only an absolutely shite person could even think of applying a punitive charge for a "wasted" room in circumstances like these.

There are quite a number of women on here who either work with dv or have experienced it, I wouldn't describe them as 'uninvolved'

I wouldn't describe them as uninvolved either.

And I didn't.

The document linked to is very clear that sanctuary rooms are just one part of the strategy to keep the threatened people safe.

I'm sure the police, probation service, councils, and other agencies consider all sorts of measures to prevent offenders offending. Electronic tagging may even be one of them.

But none of that gets around the fact that IDS is taking legal action that will force people out of properties with sanctuary rooms, solely in pursuit of bedroom tax.

In a move that will affect a grand total of 300 properties nationwide.

So there are no significant savings to be made on this. Indeed, I'd imagine it will take years to even recoup the court costs.

It's not clear exactly what you meant tbh, you appeared to be favouring 'experts' in da, whatever that may mean, over 'notions' on the 'Internet'.

Perhaps you didn't mean to sound as pompous and dismissive as you came across.

Agreed PlausingFlatly, the maths does not add up, let alone the ethics of IDS's stance.

No, I didn't mean it to sound pompous.

IME coming up with possible new solutions to difficult problems normally involves conversations with people who know what they are talking about.

Tagging children to protect them from their violent fathers struck me as the kind of idea that's just arrived at the top of someone's head.

But perhaps it is the considered recommendation of somebody working in the field.

Either way, my point that it will take time and money to trial it stands.

I would agree with you about tagging that's for sure.

According to this Guardian feature the amount in question is £11.65 a week. That works out at £605.80 a year. How much has IDS spent in defending this case? FFS! This is outrageous.

'The local council has told ['A'] she will lose £11.65 a week from her benefits on the grounds that she has a spare room, which is the panic room.'

link here

This is proof (if it were needed) that the bedroom tax is an ideological initiative. Not a financial one.

Hence posters disbelief that IDS is willing to spunk £000,000s of pounds on it. He couldn't give two shiny shits about saving money, or reducing the deficit. However he is very concerned to ensure that we all know our place, and doff our hats to the Ubermensch.

Successive governments have used the benefits system to enforce their view of social reality on the population. It's become a tool of control and corruption.

Oh be fair, Jam. It will knock on to the other cases.

So that's 300 x £605.80 per year.

£181,740, spread across the whole country.

For scale, a Cabinet Minister's pay is 142,826. Before expenses, of course.

Having a "panic room" is not a guarentee that someone won't be murdered. You actually have to get into the panic room in time and hope that your house doesn't catch fire. Domestic violence can take place in other places other than where you live

This - Is this woman never going to leave the house? Is she never going to seek work? take her kid on holiday?.......

Cases are often brought to Court to establish a principle which then becomes a precedent for other cases. It is futile to do the maths in one particular case and not look at the global sums involved when applied to similar instances.

The "spare room" is the panic room?

I hadn't realised that.

Good god, they are basically penalising her for needing protection.

WildBillfemale

you can bet your life that if she didn't seek work, IDS would be back to strip her of more benefits.

Yes shame on IDS and this disgusting rotten shower. And the lib dems for propping them up. And all who will vote for them in May.

Valid points here though in that the sentences/sanctions are not tough enough for rapists/ abusers. How this helps this particular woman at this moment I don't know though- clearly, she needs to be able to stay where she is.

It's funny that benefits 'aren't a bottomless pit' but other things are- the free schools and academies programme is an astonishing waste of money, as is trident. The actual expenditure on benefits is lower than people imagine and trying to claw a proxy saving out of this vulnerable woman is pure shittiness.

Got there before you, Worried.

It's also futile to do the sums without looking at the global sums involved from all budgets. Eg council budget saves y, costs criminal justice budget 3y.

Oops poxy saving not proxy.

Seriously, something is deeply the matter with the national psyche when people can come up with defences of IDS's position on this one.

Women are murdered by their partners or ex partners at an astonishing and deeply disturbing rate in this country. And for £11 a week we're saying somebody can't be given some protection in their home?!

Springheeled

It's funny that benefits 'aren't a bottomless pit' but other things are...

Yes, like wars

It is illegal to have a bedroom without a window that a person can climb through. Buildings regulations/ FENSA regulation insist that bedrooms have to a means of escape. It would be interesting to know why a panic room counts as a bedroom if it has no window.

Springheeled

Women are murdered by their partners or ex partners at an astonishing and deeply disturbing rate in this country. And for £11 a week we're saying somebody can't be given some protection in their home?!

Only somebodies with no money. The Tories aren't monsters.

ReallyTired

because the bedroom tax is actually called the "spare room subsidy", with the government desperately trying to make it apply to broom cupboards. However that little stunt was killed by a recent judgement where a judge said if a room was smaller than

Wild and the poster you were quoting, had you read the very informative link to, you would have seen that the sanctuary is to buy time until the emergency services arrive.

Fire and police services know that the property has a sanctuary and prioritise response. They also have instructions how to get into the secure property themselves.

Your carping about this one measure which is part of a larger sanctuary strategy is odd.

Do you think she also shouldn't bother always carrying a charged phone and having safety strategies when out, because those wouldn't work when she's at home?