Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

The "Bedroom Tax" doesn't go far enough! Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    Keeping yourself to your bedroom is easy when you're young and single. Try keeping children cooped up in just one room it isn't easy.
    You don't need privacy all day...
    Also, if you are saying 'children' then there would definitely be more than one bedroom in this scenario...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Stranger danger? You know what they look like, where they live, and so on. They're also registered at your address, and would be among the prime suspects should anything bad happen.

    You're also confusing 'preference' with 'bad vetting' - you shouldn't get to choose, nor should you have to live with someone dangerous. If you knew of their danger, then the police should too, in which case they wouldn't be put in situations where their danger could be 'unleashed'. It wouldn't be difficult to place paedophiles (well, convicted child molesters) away from children, for example.
    What an absurd comment - why would anybody want to share their houses with paedophiles, period? :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Hopple)
    Indeed, I'm surprised at how many people are reluctant to share. It's not a complete fix (we need more housing, plain and simple), but it's effective with what we have to work with.
    If the Tory party told you to jump off a bridge because it was fair to equalise suicide rates, would you do it? :confused: Of course you wouldn't - but Hopple, you've missed the blatantly obvious - there just aren't enough houses being built to accomodate the amount of people. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

    If the government instead spent time building houses rather than trying to cram people into existing problems, there wouldn't be a revolt like there is now. There's nothing fair about this benefit reduction, far less house sharing, so what the ConDem government is telling you is complete and utter BS. This is a way of massaging the homeless figures - should one be skeptical enough to believe that.

    I'm all for people being benevolent to each other. I'd let a girl sleep at my house for example if she couldn't get home until the next day. Give her a hot meal, let her use my shower and that - no problems.

    Should government officials start knocking threatening me to share my home with somebody I don't trust, I'd do what everybody else would do - Tell them to do one and slam the door in their face.

    More fool you perhaps for buying it though :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattFletcher)
    You do realise the Nazi's were quite the opposite. They did heighten pensions, and say they'll solve unemployment, but they were still incredibly right-wing
    It was a matter of speech man...

    No, what I mean is the Nazi regime has always promoted ideological beliefs as being in the interest of others when, more often than not, they weren't. Just as the Jews didn't cause the depression that Germany was going through - it's also a logical fallacy to say that the Tory party has stuffed this country - which it has - yet fail in the next breath to present any policy of their own that is fair and workable.

    This is a cry to Labour supporters. We get why you vote Labour - fairness, tolerance, respect and working for the benefit of the working class, but why are you voting for a party that has failed to come up with credible alternatives, and instead just making noise against the government with no policies of their own.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It's interesting that the Coalition Government want the private sector to expand but don't want people in social housing to be able to use their 'spare room' to set up / run a business. What's the logic in that.

    More women than men are now setting up in business - perhaps just those single parents who are in council houses.

    I don't think ( as usual ) that the Government has thought this one through.
    Another back of the envelope job from our part-time chancellor perhaps?

    If he concentrated on his ( surely fairly important) job of getting the economy going , instead of spending his time on Conservative Party strategy he wouldn't be making such a hash of it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    What an absurd comment - why would anybody want to share their houses with paedophiles, period? :rolleyes:



    If the Tory party told you to jump off a bridge because it was fair to equalise suicide rates, would you do it? :confused: Of course you wouldn't - but Hopple, you've missed the blatantly obvious - there just aren't enough houses being built to accomodate the amount of people. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

    If the government instead spent time building houses rather than trying to cram people into existing problems, there wouldn't be a revolt like there is now. There's nothing fair about this benefit reduction, far less house sharing, so what the ConDem government is telling you is complete and utter BS. This is a way of massaging the homeless figures - should one be skeptical enough to believe that.

    I'm all for people being benevolent to each other. I'd let a girl sleep at my house for example if she couldn't get home until the next day. Give her a hot meal, let her use my shower and that - no problems.

    Should government officials start knocking threatening me to share my home with somebody I don't trust, I'd do what everybody else would do - Tell them to do one and slam the door in their face.

    More fool you perhaps for buying it though :confused:
    I find it disapointing people see this so different from people like you, Shona and I
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I find it disapointing people see this so different from people like you, Shona and I
    I think what deeply worries me the most is this is political indoctrination at its absolute finest. Far, far too many people have drunk the Tory Kool Aid and believe this is good.

    This is a deliberate class war of the claret sipping rich scaremongering and waging war against the vulnerable and needy.

    This is not done to save the economy. This is done purely for ideological reasons. Nothing else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    What an absurd comment - why would anybody want to share their houses with paedophiles, period? :rolleyes:
    If they're a known paedophile and they're dangerous, then the police will take them away. Our legal system has room for improvement, sure, but you can't just blacklist criminals from having a place to live (or would you rather just they got their own homes?) and hope they somehow manage to rejoin society in spite of that. Perhaps you could stick ex-cons together, but I'd have to be convinced they'd be able to re-integrate into society in that situation before I'd back it.



    If the Tory party told you to jump off a bridge because it was fair to equalise suicide rates, would you do it? :confused: Of course you wouldn't - but Hopple, you've missed the blatantly obvious - there just aren't enough houses being built to accomodate the amount of people. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
    I haven't opposed building more houses, and I'd actually very much support it. Though I did point out why governments would be reluctant to do so, which might have confused you. What I have suggested is a 'quick fix' - it won't solve the problem in the long run (neither will the "Bedroom Tax") but would ease the symptoms for a while, buying time for a proper solution such as building more homes, perhaps at a time when our economy isn't so dependent on high house prices.

    If the government instead spent time building houses rather than trying to cram people into existing problems, there wouldn't be a revolt like there is now. There's nothing fair about this benefit reduction, far less house sharing, so what the ConDem government is telling you is complete and utter BS. This is a way of massaging the homeless figures - should one be skeptical enough to believe that.
    It isn't one or the other. I'd advocate both, but didn't see the point in making a topic on the less controversial "Build more places to live because we're getting more people" issue - it'd be locked after the only replies turned out to be "Well, duh."


    I'm all for people being benevolent to each other. I'd let a girl sleep at my house for example if she couldn't get home until the next day. Give her a hot meal, let her use my shower and that - no problems.

    Should government officials start knocking threatening me to share my home with somebody I don't trust, I'd do what everybody else would do - Tell them to do one and slam the door in their face.

    More fool you perhaps for buying it though :confused:
    It isn't 'your' home if you're receiving housing benefit in the same way that it's 'your' home if you own it outright, have a mortgage or even are paying the rent from your own earnings. To get benefits, you have to do certain things you might not want, for example, if you want JSA you have to prove you're actually seeking a job (the system isn't flawless, but definitely better than just giving money to anyone out of work), if you claim a disability allowance you have to show you're actually disabled - and if you want help from the taxpayer affording a place to live (which has more rooms than you need) then it isn't too much to ask that you share it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    If they're a known paedophile and they're dangerous, then the police will take them away. Our legal system has room for improvement, sure, but you can't just blacklist criminals from having a place to live (or would you rather just they got their own homes?) and hope they somehow manage to rejoin society in spite of that. Perhaps you could stick ex-cons together, but I'd have to be convinced they'd be able to re-integrate into society in that situation before I'd back it.



    I haven't opposed building more houses, and I'd actually very much support it. Though I did point out why governments would be reluctant to do so, which might have confused you. What I have suggested is a 'quick fix' - it won't solve the problem in the long run (neither will the "Bedroom Tax") but would ease the symptoms for a while, buying time for a proper solution such as building more homes, perhaps at a time when our economy isn't so dependent on high house prices.


    It isn't one or the other. I'd advocate both, but didn't see the point in making a topic on the less controversial "Build more places to live because we're getting more people" issue - it'd be locked after the only replies turned out to be "Well, duh."



    It isn't 'your' home if you're receiving housing benefit in the same way that it's 'your' home if you own it outright, have a mortgage or even are paying the rent from your own earnings. To get benefits, you have to do certain things you might not want, for example, if you want JSA you have to prove you're actually seeking a job (the system isn't flawless, but definitely better than just giving money to anyone out of work), if you claim a disability allowance you have to show you're actually disabled - and if you want help from the taxpayer affording a place to live (which has more rooms than you need) then it isn't too much to ask that you share it.
    There's a big difference between asking an unemployed person to search for work (perfectly reasonable) and stripping someone who has fallen on hard times of their dignity and privacy.

    If I became homeless I'd happily live in a one bedroom flat and sleep in the living room. I'd even rather have 4 of us in a bedsit than lose the right to control what my children are exposed to in their own home, what is supposed to be their place of safety.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    There's a big difference between asking an unemployed person to search for work (perfectly reasonable) and stripping someone who has fallen on hard times of their dignity and privacy.

    If I became homeless I'd happily live in a one bedroom flat and sleep in the living room. I'd even rather have 4 of us in a bedsit than lose the right to control what my children are exposed to in their own home, what is supposed to be their place of safety.
    Is your problem restricted to families with children, then? I've said it before, you can stick such families together so that you don't have drunken twenty-somethings (for example) coming home at 3 in the morning, the kids will wake up for school and go to sleep at the same time and so on. Plus you can lock the doors like you do at uni and have only the parents (and the kids inside, of course) having the key.

    I'm not sure what you're on about with the 'stripping someone... of their dignity and privacy' - technically you're right, but it's no worse than what the typical student has to go through so hardly the travesty you're trying to make it out to be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Is your problem restricted to families with children, then? I've said it before, you can stick such families together so that you don't have drunken twenty-somethings (for example) coming home at 3 in the morning, the kids will wake up for school and go to sleep at the same time and so on. Plus you can lock the doors like you do at uni and have only the parents (and the kids inside, of course) having the key.

    I'm not sure what you're on about with the 'stripping someone... of their dignity and privacy' - technically you're right, but it's no worse than what the typical student has to go through so hardly the travesty you're trying to make it out to be.
    You're very naive if you think restricting it to parents only would eliminate drink and drugs use.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    You're very naive if you think restricting it to parents only would eliminate drink and drugs use.
    Have locks on the doors like student accommodation (and I think more and more kids these days are having locks on their doors even when it's just their parents). It's good that you're looking for potential issues, but there are solutions to these things that you should look for too before rubbishing it - I haven't had to think hard to come up with solutions to the concerns you've raised. You raised drugs earlier saying you'd lose your job, but given that the government know that you were paired up with the other person by them rather than your personal choice, it's easy for you to claim that you had nothing to do with the drug user. If your co-tenant was doing drugs, you could report them. If they drink to excess, again you can report them. And if you're worried about your kids merely seeing someone drink alcohol, you're going to be in real trouble once they go outside.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    People report their neighbours for things, however often nothing is done and if something does it takes an extremely long time. If these people were sharing a house with you then during the lengthy process of getting the council to do anything your children are at risk. I would not want to have to worry about my son's wellbeing and safety in our home. I think that those in social housing who have unnecessary bedrooms should be put on a list and when a smaller house in the local area is available they should have to move (with a contribution towards the cost of moving) or have to pay the 'bedroom tax'.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Emergency planning law update for social housing over the next three years = Problem solved, good government borrowing, and economic stimulas that actually works!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Have locks on the doors like student accommodation (and I think more and more kids these days are having locks on their doors even when it's just their parents). It's good that you're looking for potential issues, but there are solutions to these things that you should look for too before rubbishing it - I haven't had to think hard to come up with solutions to the concerns you've raised. You raised drugs earlier saying you'd lose your job, but given that the government know that you were paired up with the other person by them rather than your personal choice, it's easy for you to claim that you had nothing to do with the drug user. If your co-tenant was doing drugs, you could report them. If they drink to excess, again you can report them. And if you're worried about your kids merely seeing someone drink alcohol, you're going to be in real trouble once they go outside.
    I'm not worried about them seeing alcohol. I don't want them in the position where the don't have adequate place to hide from an abusive drunk. A bedroom with a lock is not the same. I want to control how they are introduced to alcohol at an age appropriate level gradually learning more as they get older. I want them to be able to go to the toilet without the risk of standing on a used needle.

    As another poster said council complaints procedures take months if not years.

    Through work I have dealt with many people in homeless hostels, they are vile places and the bedroom locks are not sufficient protection. It is not the same as a student halls/house not least because their is an element of choice in being a student
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x__justmyluck)
    People report their neighbours for things, however often nothing is done and if something does it takes an extremely long time. If these people were sharing a house with you then during the lengthy process of getting the council to do anything your children are at risk. I would not want to have to worry about my son's wellbeing and safety in our home. I think that those in social housing who have unnecessary bedrooms should be put on a list and when a smaller house in the local area is available they should have to move (with a contribution towards the cost of moving) or have to pay the 'bedroom tax'.
    That still runs into the problem of people having to move away from the area and people they know.

    (Original post by shonaT)
    I'm not worried about them seeing alcohol. I don't want them in the position where the don't have adequate place to hide from an abusive drunk. A bedroom with a lock is not the same. I want to control how they are introduced to alcohol at an age appropriate level gradually learning more as they get older. I want them to be able to go to the toilet without the risk of standing on a used needle.

    As another poster said council complaints procedures take months if not years.

    Through work I have dealt with many people in homeless hostels, they are vile places and the bedroom locks are not sufficient protection. It is not the same as a student halls/house not least because their is an element of choice in being a student
    Bear in mind that the council would be directly involved in placing people together, so not only will it have added reason to believe a complaint because they know the history of the people involved, but also they'll bear at least some responsibility should a crime be committed after you raised a flag.

    Why have you brought up homeless hostels? They're (typically) not council run, the 'tenants' aren't held accountable, and have less to lose by misbehaving anyway - a far cry from a family living with their children in a government 'endorsed' and subsidised home.

    Enough of this though, say you had a 4 bedroom house available to put people in, and there are 5 families needing housing, each have 2 adults and 2 children, and need 2 rooms. If you had the power to decide what happened, what would you do? House two families who were sort of compatible, or house just one leaving 4 families out, despite there being room available?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    That still runs into the problem of people having to move away from the area and people they know.



    Bear in mind that the council would be directly involved in placing people together, so not only will it have added reason to believe a complaint because they know the history of the people involved, but also they'll bear at least some responsibility should a crime be committed after you raised a flag.

    Why have you brought up homeless hostels? They're (typically) not council run, the 'tenants' aren't held accountable, and have less to lose by misbehaving anyway - a far cry from a family living with their children in a government 'endorsed' and subsidised home.

    Enough of this though, say you had a 4 bedroom house available to put people in, and there are 5 families needing housing, each have 2 adults and 2 children, and need 2 rooms. If you had the power to decide what happened, what would you do? House two families who were sort of compatible, or house just one leaving 4 families out, despite there being room available?
    1)4 bed social houses are scarce
    2)The council waiting lists are so long there is likely to be a big family requiring 4bedrooms on the list. Probably have been on list for long time so a family would get a home.
    3) A non-family member having access to your child's bedroom isn't nice, not a way to make a child feel secure and cruel. Locking a child's bedroom would be a fire safety hazard and probably attract the attention of social services.

    As for the council taking responsibility that's funny and if they did too late if your children are harmed or worse.

    We need more 1,2 and 3 bed properties with affordable rent. More sheltered housing for the elderly that want (freeing up houses). A better economy with better employment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    What if you stick two people together and one kills the other, whose liable? The state. The lawyers lick their lips.
    and if you hadn't stuck them living together- couldn't they have still killed eachother in the street?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    1)4 bed social houses are scarce

    2)The council waiting lists are so long there is likely to be a big family requiring 4bedrooms on the list. Probably have been on list for long time so a family would get a home.
    It was an example, to see what you would do in such a situation. So, what would you do?
    3) A non-family member having access to your child's bedroom isn't nice, not a way to make a child feel secure and cruel. Locking a child's bedroom would be a fire safety hazard and probably attract the attention of social services.
    As you imply, lock the door. As for it being a fire safety hazard, you can kick it down. Heck, you could probably have an inter-room door put in if you arrange the rooms so that parents are next to kids.

    As for the council taking responsibility that's funny and if they did too late if your children are harmed or worse.
    This is true of any crime. However, it is easier to press local authorities into action if its known that they know of the situation, and bear some responsibility for putting those individuals together.

    We need more 1,2 and 3 bed properties with affordable rent. More sheltered housing for the elderly that want (freeing up houses). A better economy with better employment.
    I don't see anywhere where I've argued against those. "More houses", "Affordable rent", "Sheltered housing for the elderly", "A better economy" and "Better employment" are all good things, but they take time so I suggested something to alleviate the problems until we can deliver on those things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Quite frankly I hope you never get to make decisions about the safety of my children.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You are quite frankly an idiot. Ive lived in social housing all my life with my family, and you think you can just stick people in houses together like that!? How ignorant. I myself have extreme anxiety issues, as does my mother, my sister suffers from bad depression and has frequent suicide attempts (sometimes in the house), My older brother also suffers from depression and has very aggressive outbursts too where he destroys the place. We have always argued everyday, fought most days of our lives with each other, and I don't mean little slaps and smacks, I mean throwing each other down the stairs and smashing each other with irons. But yes, lets smack us in another house with another dysfunctional family cause I'm sure we'll get on like a house on fire. I can't even imagine pushing an unknowing person into our families daily madness. Who should be subject to that? Oh right yeah, it doesn't matter because we are SCUM! What an absolutely ridiculous 'fix'. And believe you me where I've grown up my family is the norm before you think we're just an odd crazy bunch. Product of the time and times before.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 12, 2013
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.