Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 20 2009, 09:05 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=10826


I am sorry but I personally don't have any sympathy. Perhaps she might have thought about the consequences of getting herself knocked up at such a young age and then expecting a lovely 'free' house to live in at my and others tax payers expense.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 20 2009, 09:10 AM

Neither do I have any sympathy.
If she and others like her behaved more responsibly and didn't use their chidren as a passport to housing and beefits at our expense then there would be more funds for real hardship cases.
She should be looking to the father to support her.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 09:29 AM

Maybe you should have renamed this thread ‘Should single-pregnant-women be given council property because they are pregnant?’ Is this a quick way for a single person to get property they wouldn’t normally get. That would make a better topic debate.


The bad condition of this girls living conditions is a different matter. Sovereign has responsibility to all their property.

Posted by: Andrea Aug 20 2009, 09:39 AM

I agree, no sympathy! It drives me up the wall seeing all these youths getting pregnant with the full intention of getting a free house. I wouldn't dream of getting pregnant until I have a stable full time job where i'll be able to get maternity pay and have a job waiting for me when I'm ready! I also wouldn't have a child with someone who wouldn't be able to support me (or with someone I wasn't married to even!)

Posted by: Iommi Aug 20 2009, 10:02 AM

Sovereign Housing Association have duty of care and their performance is getting worse in this regard. The bigger they get, the more aloof they are getting. They spend tax payers money and should ensure a reasonable service.

As for the 'girl' being entitled to a home, that's for a different thread.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 20 2009, 10:13 AM

But why does she think that complaining to the media is going to gain her any sympathy?

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 10:36 AM

The ‘bigger they get’ is so true. I used to be on their Tenants housing association and when they were small it worked. Once they got powerful they started dictating to us, instead of listening to us. Eventually it disbanded.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 10:37 AM

That will probably mean you will struggle, even though you are being sensible. If you did what this girl had done they'd be falling over backwards for you; extra money, house etc.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 10:39 AM

No, it will mean she will get her home repaired to the standards she wants. In other words she hopes to embarrass Sovereign into fixing her problem.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 20 2009, 10:58 AM

Yes, this is a parasitic attitude the has become to be considered acceptable.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 20 2009, 11:17 AM

She read the 'news' about the woman & her 20p parking underpayment.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 20 2009, 11:18 AM

Think about the child.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 20 2009, 11:43 AM

What, like she has you mean.
Yours is exactly the response she is looking for and probably why she allowed herself to get pregnant.
This sort of sponging off of the tax paying society has to be stopped.

But your'e right, the child needs to be considered and I would hope Social Services will be keeping an eye on this situation.

Posted by: Darren Aug 20 2009, 11:47 AM

From story

Looking at the photo it would appear the it windows are uPVC with locks. Therefore they can be opened and locked in that state:



I don't know about you, but this time of year, my upstairs windows are open 99.9% of the time.

Is this a case of hanging up washing indoors with no airflow?

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 20 2009, 12:23 PM

Reading the article fully, it would appear that she has lived there for 2 years already and is now pregnant. It would therefore appear that despite some of the rantings on here, she didn't get pregnant to get a house - she already had the house when she got pregnant.

Posted by: Darren Aug 20 2009, 12:28 PM

So how did a 17-year old get a housing association property?

Posted by: Iommi Aug 20 2009, 12:29 PM

I'm sure someone on here will assert they know the reason why. There's usually a gobsh*te on here that can type faster than they can think.


Sympathy? She just wants SHA to deal with the damp it would seem, which if not dealt with, will mean more taxpayers money being used to affect remedial work. Big institutions tend not to act until they start to get bad publicity.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 20 2009, 12:40 PM

Is Iommi a Sandal Wearing long Haired Beardy Liberal?

Posted by: Iommi Aug 20 2009, 12:42 PM

QED!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 20 2009, 12:46 PM

Hook line and sinker!

Posted by: Andy Aug 20 2009, 12:49 PM

Maybe she was the victim of abuse or some other such circumstasnce, but I doubt we'd ever find out and from my own personal point of view I wouldn't be interested as I'm sure Soveriegn probably did their homework before allocating the property anyway.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 20 2009, 01:04 PM

There is nothing to suggest that she is 'sponging' off the taxpayer. She's had the house for 2 years & is only 18 weeks pregnant.

Given the ludicrous prices of houses in this country shared ownership, renting is the only way many people can get on the housing ladder. There is nothing to suggest she's living there rent free. She's stated as having spent several hundreds of pounds on furniture. She could be working & have paid for it all her self.

Such predjudice - you should be ashamed.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 20 2009, 01:05 PM

I'm a bit confused as to what you are asking us to debate. Is it the damp house and Sovereign, as in the topic title and link, or the fact that she is pregnant and has a Sovereign home, as in your post?.

Posted by: graham Aug 20 2009, 02:26 PM

[quote name='Darren' date='Aug 20 2009, 12:47 PM' post='6305']
From story


Looking at the photo it would appear the it windows are uPVC with locks. Therefore they can be opened and locked in that state:



I have to agree she hasnt worked put nothing back into the community and moaning about a free house.Im affraid it this little girls think its fashionable to do this sort of thing i bet she smokes got a mobile phone and all of the state looks like no father around so she`s leaving it up to someone else to fund her problems! she wont have a care in the world as long as its falling in her lap

Posted by: Iommi Aug 20 2009, 02:32 PM

And another one!

Posted by: Strafin Aug 20 2009, 03:44 PM

It seems to me that she has exhaused her other avenues for help before getting the media involved. It is also abvious that if her MP and Sovereign housing have also both agreed that there is a problem in the property. The reasons for why she is there are unknown, and how much she pay is too. She might work and pay as much any other council tennant, and regardless of how much this is, Sovereign should not be supplying "dangerous" housing. I would see her as a paying customer not getting what she has paid for and therefore justified in complaining.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 20 2009, 03:54 PM

Am I missing something here, where in the report does it say all that, and what has it got to do with the fact that her house is damp and Sovereign have been dragging their heels?. It seems to me some people are far too quick to exercise their prejudices

Posted by: graham Aug 20 2009, 03:59 PM

I see what your saying but i know sovereign housing spend alot of money on maintence and it mailnly because the tennants dont look after there homes and the tax payer ends up paying for it. I think if tennants wreck there homes they should be de-ducted money from there benefits

Posted by: Darren Aug 20 2009, 04:09 PM

The article does say that Soverign had sent a contractor round, but she wasn't there. It doesn't say whether it was by appointment (but i suspect it was) so Soverign are not doing nothing.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 20 2009, 04:18 PM

No one said Soveriegn were doing nothing, just not enough to resolve the problem.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 20 2009, 04:19 PM

I wondered how long it would take for the 'P' word to be banded about.
Am I Predjudiced against single girls in their teenage years with no stable relationship firing out kids so that they can claim benefits and get a house? Yes I am. I know a lot of other people that are as well.

Does that make me a bad person. I personally don't think so but as we live in a democratic society with free speech I can say as I please.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 20 2009, 04:29 PM

That's fine and I agree with you, but this story is not about that, and not only have you chosen to make assumptions about this one case, your assumptions are totally unreasonable and against what the story actually says.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 20 2009, 04:33 PM

She claims to have sent numerous letters which included to an MP. From my experience in the past, Sovereign agents often turn-up without warning and without ID. A friend is a tenant (who works) and of three visits recently, all have been out of the blue.

Posted by: user23 Aug 20 2009, 05:01 PM

How is she qualified to judge that the damp that is affecting her health?

If it she had said her doctor had told her that would be a different matter, but she didn't, it's just her view.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 20 2009, 05:18 PM

Yes, most damp is quite harmless.

It sounds like an egged up story, but I would have thought SHA would have sounded more convincing. Damp in a modern house seems strange.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 06:40 PM

You are presuming a lot here; she might not be able to read.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 06:43 PM

I would imagine that she was homeless and that is why should got a place.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 06:47 PM

If you don't mind me saying User but that was a stupid question. There are a enough programmes on TV about damp and babies and the trouble it could course. With that knowledge she probably went to the doctors to check; which was a wise precaution. I am not a doctor but even I knew that.

Posted by: CBW137Y Aug 20 2009, 06:56 PM

Folk also might like to take into consideration the fact that stress causes a person to feel very unwell and tense. She may have suffered headaches or backache as a result. Not to mention the fact that she may be suffering as a result of the effects of pregnancy.

We really can't comment on her health claims because we are not her GP.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 07:02 PM

Yes, but if we were her GP we'd know the answers... which would kill this topic stone dead. So you should be saying 'thank god we are not her GP's or that we don't know the full facts otherwise we wouldn't have anything to moan about.'

Glad to help CBW

Posted by: user23 Aug 20 2009, 07:36 PM

If it's so stupid Glenn, why hasn't she have the support of her GP in what she claims.

If like yours, her medical knowledge is based a few scaremongering TV programs I'd take her opinion with a pinch of salt as I do yours.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 20 2009, 07:41 PM

She might have, the story does not rule it out. Also the HSE, part of your beloved council, are with her, and Soveriegn have admitted there is a problem. Did you sprinkle stupid on your cornflakes this morning instead of sugar?

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 07:49 PM

Who said she hasn’t?



You miss my point again user; whether it is ‘scaremongering TV’ or not if you hear something like that you check with somebody in the know. Neither you nor I are experts, but we do know experts so we check. What we don’t do is dismiss it as ‘scaremongering TV’ until we know it is ‘scaremongering TV’.

Posted by: user23 Aug 20 2009, 07:49 PM

How rude.Do you seriously believe everything you see on TV? We should dismiss something as ‘scaremongering TV’ until we know it is fact.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 07:56 PM

No, and that is not what I said; try rereading again what I said.



That is what I said. We should always check what we’ve been told if it is not from official channels.

Posted by: user23 Aug 20 2009, 08:08 PM

Nope that's totally opposite to "What we don’t do is dismiss it as ‘scaremongering TV’ until we know it is ‘scaremongering TV’".

What you've said there is don't dismiss anything as ‘scaremongering TV’ until you know that is, i.e. believe everything you see.

Were way off topic now anyway so I'll leave this here.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 20 2009, 08:10 PM

Have you ever lived in a house that suffers from damp?.

I have, and it's pretty awful. For a start the smell never leaves you, your clothes and furniture are damaged and smell awful, and there is no doubt it has an effect on the health of young children, apparently it's due to the spores in the air.

Surely the issue here is that Sovereign just aren't getting on with it. All have agreed on the damp, and the girl's morals, whatever they are, have nothing to do with it.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 08:29 PM

It is the same but worded differently.




Rubbish.... your interpretation is far out. You are the only person I know of who has problems interpreting what is written. You don't have special needs by any chance? I am not being sarcastic here, just concerned.



Running away? Typical.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 20 2009, 08:36 PM

Leave it Glenn - he's not worth it!

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2009, 08:52 PM

I suppose you are right; a bit like trying to milk a bull

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 21 2009, 07:59 AM

I'm with you TDH.
There are too many scoungers milking this country dry and diverting resourses from real hardship cases.
It has been reported that there are 6 million people of working age who are drawing benefits.
Something needs to be done now to curb this culture.

Posted by: graham Aug 21 2009, 08:53 AM

Fair play i agree! my mum lost her job last year and has been working all her life and went to citizens advice for help and because she owns her own home she couldnt get help but if it was rented they would help her pay the rent how crap is that?
But if she was a single mother looking for a place to live with no job they would house her! talk bout looking after the people who pay there way.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 21 2009, 09:22 AM

For all those that are scathing of the system that houses single girls with children, etc, (and I can agree to some extent) I ask this, would you now swap circumstances with that person?

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 21 2009, 09:34 AM

Not too sure as to the point of the question but no I wouldn't.
However I was brought up to stand on my own two feet and work to make something of myself.
Secondly it is biologically impossible.

Posted by: graham Aug 21 2009, 09:51 AM

Well it does seem that if you live of the state they will look after you more, than some one who works 9-5 5 days aweek. I have x2 jobs and cant get any help what so ever and ive just brought a house in the last two years and could get a look in with sovereign because i work and dont have any kids.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 21 2009, 10:19 AM

Single white working male with no kids? Your doomed mate.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 21 2009, 11:31 AM

I understand Iommi's point, what I don't understand, is how a topic about Sovereign's inability to deal with a problem of damp in one of their houses, can degenerate into unfounded attacks on the morals and lifestyle of this giirl.

Why not stick to the topic, and if certain members feel the need to have a go at single mothers start a separate thread on that issue.

It's totally unfair to have a go at this girl without any supporting evidence.

Ironic isn't it that some of these same members think we should have a referendum on the Death Penalty.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 21 2009, 11:36 AM

Hear, hear, my favourite post of the week.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 11:53 AM

I agree in most what you say, however, the morals of a girl or not is totally different to asking for a referendum on the death penalty. Which is a totally different matter.

I do agree that there are two issues here; Sovereign and the girls morality and the topic should have been split; I did suggest that the beginning.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 21 2009, 12:07 PM

My point was, that the very people who think they are qualified to make a judgement, on whether or not we should bring back the Death Penality, are the same ones throwing around unfounded accusations about a girl who cannot even defend herself.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 21 2009, 12:33 PM

The same people - with their prejudices - would sit in judgement, which is what I think the point Sarah was making.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 21 2009, 12:46 PM

Yes thanks Iommi, that is what I meant.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 21 2009, 01:06 PM

I wish not to be personal, but I think the subtext to my views on this are; I would like, in my 'imaginary John Lennon world', for everyone to be grateful for what they have, rather than be concerned about what other people do or don't have.

I wouldn't be surprised that people who think they are honest and hard working, might be more dependent on others than they might think.

A simpler way of putting it, 'There but for the grace of God...'

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 01:36 PM

I disagree and you underestimate the majority. A few doesn't make the majority.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 01:38 PM

You are partly right, but as I said in my reply to Sarah; A few don't make a majority. You/ she underestimates the people.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 01:39 PM

God has a lot to answer for, doesn't he

Posted by: user23 Aug 21 2009, 02:00 PM

You seem to have trouble expressing yourself resulting in this childish outburst, which is unfortunate as you express yourself so often on the various Newbury forums.

Perhaps less quantity and more quality is needed?

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 02:10 PM

What childish outburst? I asked you a legitimate question based on how you respond to people and how they respond to you. Nothing childish about that. If you think my observation of you is wrong then maybe you should have a closer look at how you respond to people.



There is nothing wrong with my ‘quantity’ or ‘quality’ just your reading of things. The difference here is that I have a wide range of interests and you don’t; and that is why you are so critical my friend. Get over it and concentrate on what you are good at (maybe I shouldn’t have said that as you seem to being doing that already )

Posted by: Sarah Aug 21 2009, 02:21 PM

Once again you seem to be missing the point. I was talking about the few on here, who feel they are qualified to vote on serious issues such as the Death Penalty, while at the same time throwing out unfounded accusations against a young girl.

What have the few I talked about got to do with the majority of possible voters?

Posted by: user23 Aug 21 2009, 02:30 PM

How do you know what my interest are to make a judgement on them? This is indicative of many of your opinions you post all over the various Newbury forums.

Honestly, please have a think before you post things like that, they just detract from your multitude of musings by making you look immature as you seem to speak from a position of ignorance (certianly in this case) with absolute conviction that you are correct.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 02:30 PM

If we had the death penalty - irrespective of the peoples views on here - it will be a majority informed opinion; collectively and democratically.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 02:34 PM

I make a judgment on you by what I know and have read.



That is your opinion; in fact it is your musings that make you look ‘immature’. I am sure you look in the mirror before making such comments.


We are getting off track here... let us stick to the topic.

Posted by: user23 Aug 21 2009, 02:36 PM

&

Posted by: user23 Aug 21 2009, 02:42 PM

The words "book" and "cover" spring to mind. I'm afraid just repeating what I posted, back at me word for word, isn't going to detract from what I said either.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 21 2009, 02:43 PM

I really can't be bothered with your nonsense, you know exactly what I mean, but persist in twisting what I say.

I'll just leave you and User to chat amongst yourselves, you're one as bad as the other.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 02:45 PM

I can say the same my friend.... besides you are going off topic.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 02:45 PM

Thank you, I am sure he will like that.

Posted by: funinuk Aug 28 2009, 08:02 PM

I used to work at SHA in the Maintenance Department and have spoken to so many people who think the rest of society owes them something! Use protection, get a job and stop sponging!

Posted by: Sarah Aug 28 2009, 09:05 PM

The article said ‘Miss Thatcher, who is 18 weeks pregnant, and lives alone’ it did not say ‘Miss Thatcher, who is unemployed, claiming benefits, 18 weeks pregnant, and lives alone’, and you can be sure that if she was it would have been mentioned.

It would be nice to know the outcome of this issue, but I doubt we ever will. It is so annoying when the media hype up stories and then don't bother to follow up.

Posted by: Andy Aug 29 2009, 01:13 AM

It did however state that the rooms were being occupied 24/7, which infers she probably is unemployed as she's at home all the time. On the other hand she may run her own business from home, who knows?!!!

Posted by: Sarah Aug 29 2009, 07:48 AM

True, but apparently the bedroom was so bad, she was sleeping in the lounge, which might account for the lounge being used 24/7 comment, it being used both day and night. It doesn't necessarily mean she was at home 24/7.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the issue was Sovereign's delay in dealing with the matter, and not the girl's lifestyle.

Posted by: GMR Aug 29 2009, 09:15 AM

What I find annoying about all this is that the press - that is local, national and international press - never do follow ups. They start it off and then once people have wet their appetite the story vanishes... never to be heard again.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 29 2009, 09:53 AM

At the end of the day. SHA, as landlords, are duty bound to make a home habitable for tenants. It is quite possible that this person is out of work and playing the system, but that's for councils and governments to consider.

I wonder how many people who are scathing of this type of tenant were fortunate enough to have been given a good start in life that has meant they are more independent?

Posted by: Sarah Aug 29 2009, 10:24 AM

It's probably because good news doesn't sell newspapers.

On the whole the general public don't want to read too much good news, a bit of shock, horror and wrong doing, allows for a bit of tut tutting and a feeling that maybe we, and our lives aren't quite so bad after all.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 29 2009, 10:29 AM

This harks back to what I said earlier, how many on this board, would willingly swap circumstances with her?

Posted by: GMR Aug 29 2009, 10:32 AM

Exactly... crime, murder, abuse or something out of the ordinary sells papers. But when it comes to good news; unless it is sport the press won't cover it, or very rarely covers it.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 29 2009, 10:35 AM

I would guess at there being quite a lot.

As a society we are far too judgemental, and far too quick to condemn without knowing all the facts.