Why the Media blackout?

[cgksheff]

So you're idea of a 'media blackout' is that it isn't reported on the BBC news on TV.

 

.... when it was actually broadcast.

[*_ash_*]

 

I've just reread it and it could be interpreted as a personal comment. It wasn't meant that way.

 

No offence intended *ash*

 

Thank you. One hasn't taken any offence.

[AlexAtkin]

It amazes me how many people on here are in support of pushing people out of houses where there are "more bedrooms than they need". That is all well and good, but there is no logic being put into how they decide who needs a bedroom and who doesn't.

 

What about single pensioners who are arguably more likely to be living alone in three or four bedroom houses as it was their family home? Who should they be exempt when:

 

People using a spare bedroom as an office/work area to try and become self employed (something the government are supposedly in favour of) are being penalised.

 

Couples who cannot sleep in the same room for health reasons are being penalised.

 

Parents who have split up are being penalised, as somehow the council are supposed to decide which parent is the primary parent - even when both parents might have equal custody. Not only is it completely unfair, its offensive for the parent who is deemed NOT the primary parent.

 

Or of course in my own case, where I live in a three bedroom house with my disabled mum, where we converted one of the bedrooms into a second sitting room to suit her disability. Now you might argue having a sitting room each is greedy, but if I didn't I would instead be on the housing list looking for my own house which in turn would cost the taxpayer more money as I would then be claiming housing benefit myself too. So this living arrangement is actually saving the taxpayer money

 

I do not enjoy living off the state, but someone has to look after my mum and if it wasn't me, it would have to be the state and it would cost them a LOT more than they are paying me to live on.

 

Then of course there are people who DO have a spare room but if they moved house the only ones available with less bedrooms are private and so would actually cost the tax payer MORE money.

 

How is it fair if you are a family with young children so are expected to cram them all into a single bedroom, knowing full well that in a few years you will have to move house as they will be too old to do that any more? Doesn't it make more sense to put people in a house based on what their needs are clearly going to be in a few years? This isn't rocket science, a couple with two kids, a boy and a girl, is CLEARLY going to need three bedrooms and it makes no sense to cram them into two.

 

Whichever way you look at it, the bedroom tax is NOT freeing up social housing for people who need or, nor is it going to save tax payer money - it will actually cost more if people do move.

[Anna B]

It amazes me how many people on here are in support of pushing people out of houses where there are "more bedrooms than they need". That is all well and good, but there is no logic being put into how they decide who needs a bedroom and who doesn't.

 

What about single pensioners who are arguably more likely to be living alone in three or four bedroom houses as it was their family home? Who should they be exempt when:

 

People using a spare bedroom as an office/work area to try and become self employed (something the government are supposedly in favour of) are being penalised.

 

Couples who cannot sleep in the same room for health reasons are being penalised.

 

Parents who have split up are being penalised, as somehow the council are supposed to decide which parent is the primary parent - even when both parents might have equal custody. Not only is it completely unfair, its offensive for the parent who is deemed NOT the primary parent.

 

Or of course in my own case, where I live in a three bedroom house with my disabled mum, where we converted one of the bedrooms into a second sitting room to suit her disability. Now you might argue having a sitting room each is greedy, but if I didn't I would instead be on the housing list looking for my own house which in turn would cost the taxpayer more money as I would then be claiming housing benefit myself too. So this living arrangement is actually saving the taxpayer money

 

I do not enjoy living off the state, but someone has to look after my mum and if it wasn't me, it would have to be the state and it would cost them a LOT more than they are paying me to live on.

 

Then of course there are people who DO have a spare room but if they moved house the only ones available with less bedrooms are private and so would actually cost the tax payer MORE money.

 

How is it fair if you are a family with young children so are expected to cram them all into a single bedroom, knowing full well that in a few years you will have to move house as they will be too old to do that any more? Doesn't it make more sense to put people in a house based on what their needs are clearly going to be in a few years? This isn't rocket science, a couple with two kids, a boy and a girl, is CLEARLY going to need three bedrooms and it makes no sense to cram them into two.

 

Whichever way you look at it, the bedroom tax is NOT freeing up social housing for people who need or, nor is it going to save tax payer money - it will actually cost more if people do move.

 

Alex, I don't think people appreciate enough how hard it can be caring for someone. It must be especially sickening to feel hounded by the state when you are actually saving them money at the same time. They've simply no idea...

 

Anyway, I think your Mum is very lucky to have you for a son, and well done for taking on a very difficult job for no reward.

 

Good luck to you.