Social Housing

[Robin Orton]

Annie well said but who has got the guts to disipline these people and get them to show responsibility.

What do you mean, discipline? Cut their benefits? (Then what happens to their children - or shouldn't we worry?) Throw them on to the streets?

[Eagle]

The children seem to spend most of their time on the streets anyway.

As long as they can use the excuse of the children how can you punish these persons . Perhaps a small operation to ensure no more children would be a better idea .

I think more of the misery they impose on others rather than thinking of them.

[Annie]

What do you mean, discipline? Cut their benefits? (Then what happens to their children - or shouldn't we worry?) Throw them on to the streets?[/quote]

Bit dramatic Robin,
They should be made to take responsibility for their children and their own actions,to be taught if necessary the right way to behave, train them to work,to earn the benefits they take advantage of,
i'm not talking about the people on benefits that are genuine, the people who try for employment, who want to re-train, or who take an interest in their childrens futures, there is a difference Robin.
so please stop trying to be the devils advocate.

[Robin Orton]

I'm not trying to be devil's advocate, Annie, but I do find it distasteful the way people at the bottom of the heap are constantly demonized as scroungers, chavs etc. Some of us have more advantages than others, some of us make better use than others of comparatively modest advantages, some of us are pretty much total failures. But we are all human beings, and, in my view, should all be treated with respect accordingly. That does NOT mean that I think that people who break the law should not be punished or that the benefit system should not provide incentives (including perhaps, as you suggest, work training) to encourage people to be self-sufficient.

[Annie]

in my view, should all be treated with respect accordingly.


But thats my point Robin,

The people who ruin other peoples lives by their antisocial behaviour if recieving benefits of any kind, should be made to earn those benefits,and learn how to respect the hard working members of society.

[gerispringer]

I understand that the developers are supposed to contribute to services, but what does that mean in practice? With all these 1000s of extra people shoehorned in at Bell Green and the Grey hound- will there be extra primary school places? A new doctors surgery? more trains to London etc? Those of us who live here now know there is an incredible pressure on such services. There are bound to be loads of extra kids - if not immediately then in a couple of years time. I can't get an appointment at Bell Green doctors unless I phone on the dot of 8 a.m. ( and I am usually stuck in traffic at that time). Is there going to be another doctors ? Hospital? More buses? don't make me laugh

[Annie]

Hi Gerispringer,
I can't answer your post because I don't know the answer,
What I do know is that I make appointments at the Sydenham Green doctors by using their online service which is excellent, obviously if its an emergency than this won't help you. but if you need a forward appointment to suit you then this is ideal.

[bensonby]

I wasn't sure if this should be posted here or in the London Riots thread

A think a salient point that annoys many people when it comes to social housing and other forms of benefit is that the current system lacks any kind of moral focus or imput. I don't think any right-thinking person would object to the idea of genuine charity and giving to people who are unfortunate and in dire need. However, people do see it as unfair that the feckless, workshy or downright criminal, get given things hand over fist wheras the responsible, hard-working but nevertheless poor and needy are often not given as much.

The notion of "deserving" and "undeserving" is a Victorian one that many scoff at as outdated and wrong: the welfare state was founded on the idea of need rather than any idea of deserving. However, to many, it seems grossly unfair that those who have worked, contributed and been sensible - but are now unable to work through no fault of their own - get less, or the same, as someone who has contributed nothing through being unwilling.

This notion of "fairness" (or lack of it) permeates through all levels of state-spending on any kind of social provision: Is it fair that Mrs Sensible, who has saved and scrimped her whole life should have her money taken off her for nusing home fees whilst Mr Spendthrift - who has earnt the same amoutn of money over his life but spent it all - should be given his nursing home place for free?

Working out who is "deserving" is notoriously difficult. Should we deny NHS care to smokers or the obese? But that is not to deny that some people, genuinely do indeed deserve less help. We must, of course, also aknowledge that surely it is not fair for the children of the indolent to suffer for the sins of their (absent?) fathers. But it is also obscene that those working 60 hours a week on the minimum wage to suppor a couple of kids are no better off than those who won't work but rely on handouts to support their brood.

There is no quick-fix and there are no simple solutions but, surely, some form of moral element must be injected into the benefits system: rewarding work, efforts to self-improve and sensible behaviour whilst penalising laziness, dependence and poor behaviour. When it pays not to work then something isn't right.

At work I've given up on asking people what their occupation is in conversation - I was consistently laughed at. Something is very wrong when that happens.

[CaptainCarCrash]

Good post bensonby however you have neglected to realise that smokers pay heavily in terms of tax and any comfort that a dying smoker receives through treatment from the NHS has been paid for through the tax they have paid negates that argument.

I don't know the percentage of what revenue is made by the government but going by the price of a box of 20 they can't afford an outright ban.

[bensonby]

Good post bensonby however you have neglected to realise that smokers pay heavily in terms of tax and any comfort that a dying smoker receives through treatment from the NHS has been paid for through the tax they have paid negates that argument.

I don't know the percentage of what revenue is made by the government but going by the price of a box of 20 they can't afford an outright ban.

oh absolutely - I chose smokers as a rhetorical point.

[bensonby]

Perhaps I could have picked a better example.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Voyageur]

Great post bensonby

[Annie]

Well said

[Robin Orton]

I'm not sure I agree, Bensonby, that 'the current system lacks any kind of moral focus or input.' As you say, it is based on needs rather than deserving, but the motive for wanting to meet needs is, I would argue, a moral one. It stems from a sense of solidarity, that we are all responsible in some ways for each others' welfare, that those who are better off should help those who are worse off.

The other point I would make is that I do not believe that more than a very small minority of welfare recipients are 'feckless, criminal or downright criminal.' I suspect that the vast majority of them would like to be able to support themselves and their families, and that the reasons they are unable to do so are very largely outside their control. Examples would be poor health or disability (including chronic low-level mental illness, mild learning disabilities and personality disorders); substance abuse of various kinds; low educational achievements; abusive or chaotic family backgrounds; racial discrimination; lack of social skills; lack of support from family and friends; cultural poverty and poverty of aspiration; the disappearance of the sort of not-too-demanding unskilled work which might have been available fifty years ago; and just plain bad luck. I think one also needs to bear in mind the demoralization which must be caused by long periods of worklessness, and how strong the temptation must be to despair and sink back into a mindset of dependency.

[digime2007]

I agree with Robin, especially the point about miscreants being a minority.

Unfortunately, in this climate of cuts we are fed examples of these minorities by the government and press. It's much easier to cut things when you undermine the sympathy the public may have for the recipients by skewing the picture to make them appear undeserving. Try this daily mail search for a few dozen examples:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search. ... efit+fraud

I know someone who lost her job because her disability made her attendance at work too unreliable. She would love to work but hasn't been able to find anyone to take her on. She gets incapacity benefit but no help with rent as she has savings. The savings are the insurance payout she received after the accident that caused her disability. These savings are rapidly running out and her health is deteriorating. Now she is being told that she may face cuts to her benefit. Imagine how depressing that must be and then you read stories about Cameron's war on benefit cheats.

[Annie]

I agree with Robin, especially the point about miscreants being a minority.
t. Imagine how depressing that must be and then you read stories about Cameron's war on benefit cheats.

I dont think anyone wouldn't feel sympathy for your friend,
However, it's the non-genuine claiments of benefit that I personally refer to.

[CaptainCarCrash]

This from another local forum about the place I have to live in.



Hello fellow EDers,

I felt like a little rant about the ferral tenants that seem to have recently moved into Greenview Court.

Over the past few months I have had the pleasure of putting up with regular anti social behaviour in a street that has over the past three years, been relatively quiet. Such as today with groups of kids/teenagers running up and down my street screaming, an adult male 'setting' his dog on one of these kids, rubbish being thrown all over the floor where this little gang have been hanging out, one of the tenants standing at their window and using ear buds to clear their ears and then throwing said earbud out of e window onto the floor below. Lovely.

All this down my lovely, quiet street is doing my head in. This and the poxy scooters flying up and down mŷ road and the toss pot idiots that think it's ok to pull up outside someone's house late at night, with their music and bass vibrating through to my house windows whilst they have a little chat with their mates - does not fill me with glee.

I love my little flat and I love the area I live in, but these people are seriously making me consider moving. I don't much like walking down my street with rubbish everywhere, gangs of teenagers hanging out, crazed dogs off their lead and viciously trying to get at someone whilst the owner encourages it, watching people throw rubbish out of their own home window onto the street, mopeds quizzing up and down at all hours....is there anywhere to go that will do anything about it? Has anyone else out there noticed the change over the past few months??

And breathe.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I told you it was bleak.

A couple of days ago the kid upstairs emptied the contents of their hoover bag out of their window on to the floor by my kitchen window.

The housing people do not care that they have populated this place with scum so there is no point in complaining.

This place is fast becoming a ghetto and as soon as I can I'll get out like a rat up a drain pipe.

[Eagle]

It must be terrible.

Where do such antisocial people come from and how do they get away with it.

[Lisa]

Where do such antisocial people come from

pikey camps

[Eagle]

But why are they given social housing when they are not social.

People who abuse the gift of very cheap housing ( or free in many cases ) should be shown the door. I am sure there are plenty of more gracious people to take their place.