Anger as association vetoes a house swap (From Oxford Mail)

Words (almost) fail me, 4 will be less crowded than 3 bedrooms so what logical reason for the refusal?

You would think that with all the benefits they are getting, they could afford to buy a five bed mansion. Either that, or put a hold on the flow of children until they were permanently housed. They've been on the list for four years and looks like they have at least three kids under that age.

Not all families in council/local authority housing recieve benefits!!! alot of people in these houses do work and pay there way

Would it not be a good idea to follow our european friends and find a private house large enough and get the neccesary people to pay for it ....you read about it all the time in national papers so why not ?

Would it not be a good idea to follow our european friends and find a private house large enough and get the neccesary people to pay for it ....you read about it all the time in national papers so why not ?

dave from witney wrote:
You would think that with all the benefits they are getting, they could afford to buy a five bed mansion. Either that, or put a hold on the flow of children until they were permanently housed. They've been on the list for four years and looks like they have at least three kids under that age.

I would just like to add that not all people are on benefits!! I work 6 days a week to support my family. If we were on benefits then we would be able to afford to privatly rent a 4 bed house as we would have our rent paid!!. Im a hard working man and would like to think i do right by my family

'Im a hard working man and would like to think i do right by my family'
Does doing right include making the problem worse, because despite being overcrowded you are still having children with no thought for those you have already.
And before you say thats your choice, it is, right up to the point that you ask other people to sort it out.

If you can't afford to house children then don't bring them into the world!
I have stopped at 2 because I wanted to be able to provide for them and house them...
Quite simple really....??

If they're willing to move up the road to Carterton, there's a 5 bed detached property to rent for £1400 a month. If they can afford 7 children, they must be able to afford that, and it would solve their space problem.

Even better, in Faringdon, there's 4 bed properties to rent for under £1000. Bampton is just very expensive with very little coming up to rent, so I guess it needs to be a compromise between space and location/price.

LadyPenelope wrote:
If they're willing to move up the road to Carterton, there's a 5 bed detached property to rent for £1400 a month. If they can afford 7 children, they must be able to afford that, and it would solve their space problem.

Why should they have to move away from their friends and the place that they love living. As he put it if he stopped working tomorrow he could rent privately getting a maximum of nearly £1,500 pcm in housing benefit for a 5 bedroom house, but instead he is working and contributing and as such should be given the chance to rent an affordable house. Penny, you would be the first to complain if he took your advice and rented the carterton house courtesy of your tax money, so what point are you trying to make, or are you just attacking the working class as usual.

Pierre, I'm trying to point out that you can't always have what you want, and if you choose to have that many children, then your choices will be limited. If they like their location, then they have the option of staying put, but if they want space, then they need to look at cheaper areas, or areas where more housing is available.
I'm saying he should rent the house PRIVATELY like many others do, as he's already said he works, so it can't be that much more than their current council house. This will then free up their 3 bed house for another family in need.
If I had 7 children and needed more space, I'd look to rent a larger property in a cheaper area.

Lady P - just how much do you think Council rents are?? the private landlord will be 3 or 4 times more, way out o freach of ordinary working people. Housing benefit woul dpay the rent you are talking about in Carterton - probably more but he would have to give up his job!

LadyPenelope wrote:
Pierre, I'm trying to point out that you can't always have what you want, and if you choose to have that many children, then your choices will be limited. If they like their location, then they have the option of staying put, but if they want space, then they need to look at cheaper areas, or areas where more housing is available. I'm saying he should rent the house PRIVATELY like many others do, as he's already said he works, so it can't be that much more than their current council house. This will then free up their 3 bed house for another family in need. If I had 7 children and needed more space, I'd look to rent a larger property in a cheaper area.

What planet you on pen. A private rented 40 year old 5 bedroom house in Cowley is about £1,700, a council/association rent would be about £600, (the difference would be similar in any location in Oxon, except North Oxford where it would be greater) obviously you are that rich that £1,100 is not that much more to you. Do you ever actually venture out into the real world, or just take all of your info from the Daily mail. If he were to take your advice and rent privately on benefit, then good luck to him.

Thanks for the correction. Having never claimed any benefits nor ever lived in a council house, I had no idea how cheap the rents were.

I certainly do not read the Daily Mail.

I still think it's wrong to have SO many children, then rely on the state for a large property and a cheap rent. I know the guy works hard, but having so many children when they don't have the space or money is irresponsible.
I do live in the real world. I live in a world where I think it's important to contribute to the system rather than drain it, and take responsibilities for your own actions.
I choose not to have 7 children because I don't have the space or money for them, and I don't want to be a drain on the system, which should be there for those who genuinely need it.

Sorry, but if you can't afford to house them, why have 7 kids?!?!?!?

Pierre Im surprised! I applaud the man for working and not willingly wanting to take handouts but surely people should all live within their means and that doesn't just apply to cars/houses/clothing it applies to the number of children you CHOOSE to have, if you can't afford a house big enough for the size of your family in the area you WANT to live in either move to area where it is affordable or don't have so many children. Simples.

LadyPenelope wrote:
Thanks for the correction. Having never claimed any benefits nor ever lived in a council house, I had no idea how cheap the rents were. I certainly do not read the Daily Mail. I still think it's wrong to have SO many children, then rely on the state for a large property and a cheap rent. I know the guy works hard, but having so many children when they don't have the space or money is irresponsible. I do live in the real world. I live in a world where I think it's important to contribute to the system rather than drain it, and take responsibilities for your own actions. I choose not to have 7 children because I don't have the space or money for them, and I don't want to be a drain on the system, which should be there for those who genuinely need it.

Pen, a brand new (to be finished in April) beautiful Detatched 4 bedroom house in a quiet close in littlemore is up for rent at £564 PCM, that is why people are fighting to get social housing, and I wouldn't like to guess the rent on this privately.

LadyPenelope wrote:
Thanks for the correction. Having never claimed any benefits nor ever lived in a council house, I had no idea how cheap the rents were.

I certainly do not read the Daily Mail.

I still think it's wrong to have SO many children, then rely on the state for a large property and a cheap rent. I know the guy works hard, but having so many children when they don't have the space or money is irresponsible.
I do live in the real world. I live in a world where I think it's important to contribute to the system rather than drain it, and take responsibilities for your own actions.
I choose not to have 7 children because I don't have the space or money for them, and I don't want to be a drain on the system, which should be there for those who genuinely need it.

Here, Here!!! If you cant afford to house a large family then quite frankly this should have been considered long before!. Don't moan to the authorities because you are unhappy with a 3 bedroom house with 9 people. You created this situation, so you sort it!!!

angelox99 wrote:

LadyPenelope wrote: Thanks for the correction. Having never claimed any benefits nor ever lived in a council house, I had no idea how cheap the rents were. I certainly do not read the Daily Mail. I still think it's wrong to have SO many children, then rely on the state for a large property and a cheap rent. I know the guy works hard, but having so many children when they don't have the space or money is irresponsible. I do live in the real world. I live in a world where I think it's important to contribute to the system rather than drain it, and take responsibilities for your own actions. I choose not to have 7 children because I don't have the space or money for them, and I don't want to be a drain on the system, which should be there for those who genuinely need it.

Here, Here!!! If you cant afford to house a large family then quite frankly this should have been considered long before!. Don't moan to the authorities because you are unhappy with a 3 bedroom house with 9 people. You created this situation, so you sort it!!!

Angel love. They could sort it in a second, by going and renting privately. But as they don't want to be a burden on the state, they want a bigger council house. Would you be happy if they moved, and claimed £500+ of your money in housing benefit? If yes all good and told. If no then what is your solution? (apart from terminating a few of their kids)

Why so many children ? we would have liked more but couldn't afford it.

pater mcvey wrote:

angelox99 wrote:

LadyPenelope wrote: Thanks for the correction. Having never claimed any benefits nor ever lived in a council house, I had no idea how cheap the rents were. I certainly do not read the Daily Mail. I still think it's wrong to have SO many children, then rely on the state for a large property and a cheap rent. I know the guy works hard, but having so many children when they don't have the space or money is irresponsible. I do live in the real world. I live in a world where I think it's important to contribute to the system rather than drain it, and take responsibilities for your own actions. I choose not to have 7 children because I don't have the space or money for them, and I don't want to be a drain on the system, which should be there for those who genuinely need it.

Here, Here!!! If you cant afford to house a large family then quite frankly this should have been considered long before!. Don't moan to the authorities because you are unhappy with a 3 bedroom house with 9 people. You created this situation, so you sort it!!!

Angel love. They could sort it in a second, by going and renting privately. But as they don't want to be a burden on the state, they want a bigger council house. Would you be happy if they moved, and claimed £500+ of your money in housing benefit? If yes all good and told. If no then what is your solution? (apart from terminating a few of their kids)

How will they sort it!!! The point was that, if you want to have a large family then make sure you can support them!!. It would have been much better if they had thought about housing before having so many children!. Their are solutions although they are rather harsh. adoption etc!! perhaps to a family more capable of providing for the children! This is not a hard task, If i was wanting to have children of my own then i would at least think how i could provide for them first!. This is nothing but pure ignorance on their part. As i said before, they created the problem, so sort it out! If not maybe consideration should be given to the children and make changes to offer them a better life

McVey, you're missing Angel's point; The family chose to have this many children, knowing full well they didn't have the means or space to support a family this large. This is utterly selfish.

LadyPenelope wrote:
McVey, you're missing Angel's point; The family chose to have this many children, knowing full well they didn't have the means or space to support a family this large. This is utterly selfish.

Yes Petra - as you'll see on another thread Lady P has offered her best wishes to that nice Mr Cameron. With his privileged background I'm sure he could afford many more children without incurring her wrath.

It’s just those nasty proles breeding that gets her hot under the collar, perhaps some kind of sterilization programme would be an idea…..

locodogz wrote:

LadyPenelope wrote:
McVey, you're missing Angel's point; The family chose to have this many children, knowing full well they didn't have the means or space to support a family this large. This is utterly selfish.

Yes Petra - as you'll see on another thread Lady P has offered her best wishes to that nice Mr Cameron. With his privileged background I'm sure he could afford many more children without incurring her wrath.

It’s just those nasty proles breeding that gets her hot under the collar, perhaps some kind of sterilization programme would be an idea…..

A sterilization program is sick, and you seem somewhat sick to suggest that. I just wish people would use common sense when it comes to having kids, and not be selfish.

LadyPenelope wrote:

locodogz wrote:

LadyPenelope wrote: McVey, you're missing Angel's point; The family chose to have this many children, knowing full well they didn't have the means or space to support a family this large. This is utterly selfish.

Yes Petra - as you'll see on another thread Lady P has offered her best wishes to that nice Mr Cameron. With his privileged background I'm sure he could afford many more children without incurring her wrath. It’s just those nasty proles breeding that gets her hot under the collar, perhaps some kind of sterilization programme would be an idea…..

A sterilization program is sick, and you seem somewhat sick to suggest that. I just wish people would use common sense when it comes to having kids, and not be selfish.

Pen. What is your position on Child Murder (abortion) as this would have been the way to keep the family numbers down.

What are 7 kids worth on Tax Credits? A friggin packet, that's what. Yeah, he works hard 6 days a week, but they probably take 150% what he earns in benefits to top off earnings. Having kids is a license to print money thesedays.
You need to realise that you're fortunate enough to HAVE a council house which costs peanuts to rent. It's not fit for purpose because you have too many children, the council didn't give you them.

Budowaah wrote:
What are 7 kids worth on Tax Credits? A friggin packet, that's what. Yeah, he works hard 6 days a week, but they probably take 150% what he earns in benefits to top off earnings. Having kids is a license to print money thesedays. You need to realise that you're fortunate enough to HAVE a council house which costs peanuts to rent. It's not fit for purpose because you have too many children, the council didn't give you them.

So why do we spend £billions a year feeding and housing illegal immegrants when we can't support our own, not to mention all the polish claiming Child Benefit for non-excistent kids back home.

I don't see what abortion has to do with this Pater, and my opinion on this is irrelevant. The solution is contraception.

LadyPenelope wrote:
I don't see what abortion has to do with this Pater, and my opinion on this is irrelevant. The solution is contraception.

And what if you are unlucky and the contraception fails?.