Panorama Britains Homeles

but true.

That was in reply to Katy

I used to volunteer at a homeless shelter. I have every sympathy for those who find themselves in this position. They get very little in hand outs and actually ask for very little.

Aka since I haven't noticed anybody on GN I would classify as 'looney left' I am left wondering if its me! (confused)

I meant

I have stopped watching all these sorts of programmes, they seem designed just to make your blood boil by choosing certain OTT people to film.Of course there are many people who need housing help, for all kinds of reasons, but the film makers always go for the 'usual suspects'.

No way Petallus is that you!

And people can be 'left wing' without being looney.

When I am yelling at the TV my DH says 'I bet you wish everyone was as perfect as you'

The media always pick those families that will prove controversial and ignore the decent people who have fallen on hard tomes through no fault of their own. 'Twas ever thus - they are after the ratings.

Hard Tomes - a book for our times...
(Sorry, Mishap, couldn't resist [moon[)

Aka I'm curious to know what exactly the term "loony left" means to you?

Paula8

I could not afford for that to happen to me so for six months till I got myslef back on my feet, baby making activites were banned for us, yes its true, I took my responsibilty of being a parent that serios its true and I am not scared to say so.This was how I chose to do things, everyone has a choice

What if you had had a husband who didn't agree with sexual abstinence?

Like others, I make a point of not watching those programmes for the reasons given. I like to think that the vast majority of people are decent and I am sure they are.

After one of my uncles came out of the RAF, he, his wife and daughter, lived in a lovely 'caravan' type home in Wooten Wawen - as a child, I used to really envy them! The park where the 'caravan' was sited (along with many others) was such a beautiful, picturesque setting complete with a stream running through it - it had a shop and tea room as well. It was beautifully kept as well. If there was something like that near me, I would get rid of this ball and chain of a house and move into one of those caravan-type things like a shot!

Maybe if more those were built (which is cheaper and takes up less room) then more people could have somewhere decent to live.

Holly I live near Wooten Wawen and it is a lovely area I agree.

It may seem idyllic buying one of these residential park homes but there are terms and conditions attached to living there, ongoing costs, rules and regulations and you are often at the mercy of the site owner when it comes to things like gas, electricity, waste disposal, and buying and selling homes ion site.

Also the fabric of these homes will only last a certain time.

I find it difficult to debate these issues; as others have said the programme is made with an agenda and suspicious person that I am, I do wonder if it is all part of the Tories' master plan to create a two tier society. However: one of my staff, a girls of 21 in a long term relationship ( he works) has decided to have a child. They were living in an annexe of family member but that house was on the market and has now been sold. So, off to housing office, emergency accommodation, very hard up, and moaning about the cost of rent/council tax in the rather nice accommodation.(brand new, not a grotty B & B) I dont see why they couldnt have waited a year or two until they were in a better position, saved up, maybe got the deposit together for a rental property of their own. I know we can never really afford children, but think it is irresponsible to deliberately have a child without the means to provide a home for it, when just hanging on for a couple of years and working a bit longer would have made such a difference to their lives as a family.

Paula8 I agree with your OP. In my opinion only people on benefits (not working) can have as many children as they want, the more children they have the more benefits they get. A couple who are working and have a mortgage or have to pay rent have to think twice.

What I object to is the sense of entitlement that is so prevalent. It's as if there is no understanding that it all has to be paid for by somebody and that somebody is the taxpayer.

Governments don't have funds of their own - just what they collect from various sources of taxation. The idea of personal responsibility seems to play no part in the thinking of some sections of the community and I think programmes like the Panorama one illustrate this perfectly.

The welfare state was supposed to be a safety net not a goodies box to be plundered by the idle and feckless.

Gagagran

That's what has annoyed me about my employee. I will obviously pay her maternity pay, but she was moaning that they wont get any benefits, but why should they? They haven't fallen on hard times, they haven't lost a job, they have chosen to have a baby when they could easily, at their age have waited a couple of years.

How hard it is for young couples - unless you are very rich there is no right time to have a child. I know that the arrival of our first lass put us into some financial difficulty and I am sure I am not alone in that.

What should they do? The right time financially may not arrive till they are past child-bearing age?

Lucky you Aka - I am envious of you living in such a beautiful part of the country

Landlords only get away with what the law allows them to - I remember the place where my aunt was, they loved it, it was well cared for. If the law fails to keep feckless landlords in line, those that fall into that category will always try to get away with doing as little as possible whilst charging as much as possible. As usual, it is the legal system that lets ordinary folk down.

I have known single parents deliberately get pregnant to ensure themselves a council flat.

There was an interview in the DM yesterday with a family with between 10 and 15 children, I forget the detail. The council were knocking two council houses together to give them a bigger home. No member of the family were in employment.

The man's attitude to peoples reactions to him about children and occupying two council house was the inevitable 'human rights' argument to have as many children as he liked and a threat to have more if people kept complaining.

My reaction was that in the past if a man and women had more children than they could support the excess children died from starvation or diseases caused by malnutrition thus solving the problem. Today we quite rightly consider this unacceptable, so we do what we can to make sure every family has sufficient food and a roof over their head. Now that safe and effective means of contraception exist it is reasonable to accept that the quid pro quo for this security is that no-one should have more children than they can reasonably expect to be able to support by their own efforts until maturity.

The purpose of the welfare state is to support those who fall on bad times despite all their efforts to be self supporting not to support those whose own actions actively contribute to their welfare dependency.

I remember watching Cathy Come Home and being horrified with what happened to the family, but I do wonder now, whether family benefits, including housing benefit should be capped at the family size then in being when the family first start receiving benefits with no provision for extra children until the family has been self supporting for six months.

But let us put it into perspective. I remember seeing statistics that showed that the number of families in the UK with 10+ children is only about 1,500 and under 10,000 have more that 5. Many of whom have working parents. These cases make good TV and news because they are so exceptional.