Sheffield children living in poverty!!

[Ms Macbeth 75]

Stopped reading when you came out with that. You may say many years ago but it still happens now. Yes people can bid but they can still only bid on properties they have points for. Take for instance washington Road flats. They're all low point flats. If people had a choice why would any flat have points?

 

I didn't say what is put in bold. The council dump the same types. I didn't say they were the worst. Threy put all immigrants in the same areas. Look at the Somali population in S11. How come there are very few in Gleadless for instance? There's loads of council properties in Gleadless. The council need to get rid of the stupid you're not worthy point system. Unless they do tat the desperate people won't have a choice at all.

 

Its ok arguing a point, but it is important that you know how things work to substantiate your argument. There hasn't been a points system in Sheffield for 7 or 8 years now. Properties are advertised, and people bid with either priority or waiting time. Approx 3 out of 4 lettings are to priority applicants for obvious reasons. Social housing has become mainly for people in need. A great difference from my young days when getting a council house was aspirational for many of us who lived in substandard private lets! But in those days even moving to a different town put applicants at a disadvantage with regards to waiting lists.

 

You mentioned Somalim people - I think its reasonable that they prefer to live in areas where there are others who speak the same language. They will rely on people from their home country who have been here longer to advise and help them to apply for schools for their children, to look for work, or claim benefits.

 

Of course, many immigrants never need or want council housing, if they have come here to work in a professional job they are just as likely as anyone else to buy their own homes or rent privately. Being an immigrant doesn't necessarily signify poverty for them or their children.

 

For info: http://www.sheffieldpropertyshop.org.uk/resources/Lettings%20Policy%20document.pdf?ID=DE4D4721FA444D67844BAE88864318EB

Edited March 18, 2011 by Ms Macbeth

[Michael_W 11]

I'd probably take in your statistics too if you'd only supply some to support your assumptions.

 

Get real, quoting the 'charity spin', don't wash with me, do you know how much people for example on Job seekers allowance get ? If you don't know check it out, then tell me how someone recieving that level of 'benefit' payment would stay out of poverty based on the £11 per day figure.

Maybe then tell me how much income people need to survive these days, I reckon you have not got a clue gullibleblob

[Michael_W 11]

I could not believe my ears when I heard a report on Radio Sheffield this morning. The report says that up to 40% of children in the inner city live in poverty, it is almost half of children live in S1!

 

Houses for rent north London

 

Commercial properties north London

 

my bold

They don't, The report is hype and bull !

[LadOnDole 10]

We are mentioning the people on benefits.

 

But what about the people on low wages who don't get benefits.

 

compared to them, I'm very rich

[HeadingNorth 11]

Get real, quoting the 'charity spin', don't wash with me, do you know how much people for example on Job seekers allowance get ? If you don't know check it out, then tell me how someone recieving that level of 'benefit' payment would stay out of poverty based on the £11 per day figure.

 

Based on the £11 a day figure, they can't; but that's meaningless. Why not change the figure to £50 a day, then we can claim that 95% are in poverty? Or change it to £3 a day and we can claim that nobody is?

 

 

This is the whole point. The very concept of "relative poverty" is nonsensical, precisely because it means that how many people are in poverty depends solely on what percentage you choose. Nobody in Britain is so poor that they cannot feed and clothe themselves, and have a roof over their heads.

[Badlittlepup 10]

The reason why certain areas seem to have high levels of poverty is simply because of Sheffield City Council's ridiculous housing policy. Rather than spreading people about they just lump them all in the same place. I lived in S11 for 5 years and it was always the same types of people getting dumped in the same places. Lots of immigrants with kids, young single parent families and or just general down and outs. I liked the people but had to leave the area as the Council just didn't seem to care who they put in the area. I worked all the time I lived there and the council's policy made me feel alienated because of that. Maybe if the council housed people all over then some people could get motivated by their surroundings.

 

True. Look at Shiregreen, my husband works on a site up there and he starts very early and apparently there are almost no signs of life early in the morning, no people going out to work, no lights on. He sees maybe one or two men leave for work. Otherwise it's just people getting up to take the kids to school then come straight home again. It's the norm there not to work so people become acclimitased to that as a way of life whereas if they lived in more mixed areas perhaps they wouldn't and would aspire to be like their neighbours. Same with the unacceptable behaviours you get in areas where they just dump people, so many people behave like that it's acceptable whereas if they were mixed into better areas other people refusing to accept it might prevent it.

[manofstrad 10]

True. Look at Shiregreen, my husband works on a site up there and he starts very early and apparently there are almost no signs of life early in the morning, no people going out to work, no lights on. He sees maybe one or two men leave for work. Otherwise it's just people getting up to take the kids to school then come straight home again. It's the norm there not to work so people become acclimitased to that as a way of life whereas if they lived in more mixed areas perhaps they wouldn't and would aspire to be like their neighbours. Same with the unacceptable behaviours you get in areas where they just dump people, so many people behave like that it's acceptable whereas if they were mixed into better areas other people refusing to accept it might prevent it.

 

Wouldn't it ultimately result in pockets of poverty within these "better areas"?

[go4it 10]

True. Look at Shiregreen, my husband works on a site up there and he starts very early and apparently there are almost no signs of life early in the morning, no people going out to work, no lights on. He sees maybe one or two men leave for work. Otherwise it's just people getting up to take the kids to school then come straight home again. It's the norm there not to work so people become acclimitased to that as a way of life whereas if they lived in more mixed areas perhaps they wouldn't and would aspire to be like their neighbours. Same with the unacceptable behaviours you get in areas where they just dump people, so many people behave like that it's acceptable whereas if they were mixed into better areas other people refusing to accept it might prevent it.

 

Isn't then council housing the worst idea ever? Groups lots of lazy people together in one place, giving them no hope and no aspiration? Right to Buy was a way of sorting this out, making council estates more desirable to live in. But it doesn't seem to have made much difference. As a result you get bad schools and problem neighbourhoods because of the people that live there.

 

I agree if they were in mixed areas then they wouldn't get away with it, but those who have worked hard to live in nice areas would not want some of the people around.

[Badlittlepup 10]

Isn't then council housing the worst idea ever? Groups lots of lazy people together in one place, giving them no hope and no aspiration? Right to Buy was a way of sorting this out, making council estates more desirable to live in. But it doesn't seem to have made much difference. As a result you get bad schools and problem neighbourhoods because of the people that live there.

 

I agree if they were in mixed areas then they wouldn't get away with it, but those who have worked hard to live in nice areas would not want some of the people around.

 

Council housing isn't a bad idea but estates are. Small spread out groups of houses or single houses would be much better.

[Badlittlepup 10]

Wouldn't it ultimately result in pockets of poverty within these "better areas"?

 

I don't think so. I think it would raise the aspirations of the people living in the council housing and they would see themselves as part of the community rather than being part of sink estate which would make them want to fit in with that community. I mean when you have swathes of council housing full of single mothers who work 15 hours a week in cleaning jobs and otherwise live on benefits there does seem to be some kind of argument for behaviour being learnt and copied from people around you.

[Pearl_Jam 10]

On the £11 a day note....that's quite a lot of money for each person when you consider mum, dad and all the kids!!!

 

Don't forget the housing benefit, council tax benefit, JSA, income support, free prescriptions, free legal aid the list is endless!

 

I'd be quite upset if each member of my household spent £11 a day, its quite a lot.

[go4it 10]

Council housing isn't a bad idea but estates are. Small spread out groups of houses or single houses would be much better.

 

Sorry yes - I meant council housing in terms of grouping house together. Small pockets would work, with a local neighbourhood group given the power to evict tenants for anti-social behaviour.

 

Council housing is just another reason not to get a job - leave school, have kids, claim benefits, get a house, stay there for ever, keep claiming benefits.