Then this is a legal/judicial issue, nothing to do with the "bedroom tax"
Both because her and her child are being punished, because of the bedroom tax, this panic room was part of her protection from this person and was put in for this reason, and was not classed as a none extra not needed room, the bedroom tax is saying that this is a extra room that is NOT needed, yet the police and other government department agreed that this room was needed and spent money on making this room into a secure safe room.
No, it's because people seem intent on blaming everything and every social ill on the "evil" "vile" Tories
OH MY GOD!!!! are you actually telling me that some people have had different lives and life experiences to the one/s you have had?
that they form their views and opinions based on their own individual and personal experiences, and that they don't all live the exact same life as you?
and that some of these people who have different opinions and experiences to yours actually have the sheer audacity to express them and to not agree with you?
That is outrageous and I now understand why you feel the need to sneer at and deride and belittle these creatures, what with you being the prime human and all.
As far as I am concerned Nye Bevan was 100% correct in his opinion of the Tory party,
Of course I understand that other people have different opinions and I fully respect their right to hold and to express those opinions, but then that's probably because I am a soft leftie liberal do-gooder eh?
Another welfare con, "I need bigger housing because I need a panic room" or something?
Blimey. Has even The Guardian now worked out it's not actually a tax?
Do you like the real title then, penalty which = punishment, so this women and her child should pay a penalty and recieve a punishment because a man has threated her and her child safety. The under-occupancy penalty (also known as the "bedroom tax
Just in case you're being serious, it's basically a mini bunker you can lock yourself in and call for help from, with reinforced doors, windows, floor, ceiling and walls.
Only needed in extreme cases, but don't let that stop the glib "scrounger" style rhetorical rubbish;
Another welfare con, "I need bigger housing because I need a panic room" or something?
I suppose at least it wasn't as bad as the victim blaming someone came out with on page one, eh?
She has a bedroom. Why can't that be her panic room ?
Guessing here, but it could have been one of those pokey box rooms that just about got a single bed and cupboard. It would be the cheapest in the house to fortify, and those fortifications would probably make the room too small for a bed to fit.
She has a bedroom. Why can't that be her panic room ?
Why did the the system NOT make her her bedroom into a panic room why did the system make a differantt room a panic room. only the system can answer that as its the system that decides these things
I was wondering the same - how many rooms do you need for this panic room?
You have to ask the people who did this NOT the lady, as its the system that decided to do it this way. I never asked the system to give me a 3 bedroom disabled persons adaptard house but i was given one, but we only ever needed 2 bedrooms, but they had no 2 bedroom homes availible that meet all of my disabled needs, only a 3 bedroom place that had all the adaptions done, now this government expect the local social services to find the money to adapt a 2 bedroom place to fit my needs, but have not given them any extra money to do this, and yes its SS who pay not the landlord for these adaptions
Most people forget its NOT the tenant who decides these things, its the powers above that decide if they build a safe room in that house or move the tenant, the tenant is ASKED what they would like to happen but at the end of the day it is other people who decide what is the best caurse of action is NOT the tenant. The tenant cannot force the landlord, police or socail servivevcs, to build a safe room or anything else in these things
It beggars belief that the few people in this situation (just 281 according to the article) are not automatically exempted from the "bedroom tax"/"RSRS". Yet another shameful indictment of Iain Duncan Smith and this government. I wish this lady all the best for tomorrow and I hope that she gets the verdict that she and others in her situation deserve.
well said, i too wish her the best and hope her challenge is successful
You have to ask the people who did this NOT the lady, as its the system that decided to do it this way. I never asked the system to give me a 3 bedroom disabled persons adaptard house but i was given one, but we only ever needed 2 bedrooms, but they had no 2 bedroom homes availible that meet all of my disabled needs, only a 3 bedroom place that had all the adaptions done, now this government expect the local social services to find the money to adapt a 2 bedroom place to fit my needs, but have not given them any extra money to do this, and yes its SS who pay not the landlord for these adaptions
Your situation sounds exceptional to me and you should be treated in an exceptional way. imo
Has the state of policing & the courts got so bad in this country that we are now building panic rooms to protect people from their ex partners?
Surely if this person is such a threat he should be locked up
We can't keep people locked up indefinitely 'just in case' they decide to commit another crime. Perpetrators of domestic violence are charged, sentenced, imprisoned and released in the same way that anyone else who commits a crime is. We don't keep burglars in jail 'just in case' they decide to break into another house, so expecting violent ex-partners to be kept locked up forever is unrealistic. Helping to protect victims by providing them with panic rooms within their own homes has been cost effective - people did not have to be immediately rehoused, or placed in refuges or emergency homeless accommodation.
It beggars belief that the few people in this situation (just 281 according to the article) are not automatically exempted from the "bedroom tax"/"RSRS". Yet another shameful indictment of Iain Duncan Smith and this government. I wish this lady all the best for tomorrow and I hope that she gets the verdict that she and others in her situation deserve.
It beggars belief that people expect the state to pay for a panic room. How about rehousing her somewhere else - so that the ex-partner does not know where she is. Or better still slap a court order on the ex-partner and slap him in jail if he so much as approaches them.
It beggars belief that people expect the state to pay for a panic room. How about rehousing her somewhere else - so that the ex-partner does not know where she is.
Who will pay to rehouse her somewhere else?
Or better still slap a court order on the ex-partner and slap him in jail if he so much as approaches them.
You think they don't do that already? The victim will still need to be able to escape to a safe place in order to phone the police, and will need to be able to stay there until the police arrive. Do you think if someone politely asks the perpetrator to wait until the police arrive before they begin smashing their face in they'll just say 'okay, sorry'?
It would be better to put him in a safe room if he is that dangerous. She can't live in a bedroom 24 hour a day, if he is hell bent on hurting her he will do it when she is out of the room.
Comments
Well if you can spot a baddun you should have done the right thing and reported this man to your leader as not a fit person to be a tory MP. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.co.uk%2F2014%2F07%2F28%2Ftory-mp-david-ruffley-to-stand-down-after-protracted-media-debate-about-him-beating-his-girlfriend_n_5627902.html&ei=bt9rVIWaGonjarLLgtAP&usg=AFQjCNEpLyFEyqfkzlpNtV2X0TZcVd2UhA&bvm=bv.79908130,d.d2s&cad=rja
OH MY GOD!!!! are you actually telling me that some people have had different lives and life experiences to the one/s you have had?
that they form their views and opinions based on their own individual and personal experiences, and that they don't all live the exact same life as you?
and that some of these people who have different opinions and experiences to yours actually have the sheer audacity to express them and to not agree with you?
That is outrageous and I now understand why you feel the need to sneer at and deride and belittle these creatures, what with you being the prime human and all.
As far as I am concerned Nye Bevan was 100% correct in his opinion of the Tory party,
Of course I understand that other people have different opinions and I fully respect their right to hold and to express those opinions, but then that's probably because I am a soft leftie liberal do-gooder eh?
Perhaps, but until then, she's still being penalised for needing such protection, hence the case.
Another welfare con, "I need bigger housing because I need a panic room" or something?
Blimey. Has even The Guardian now worked out it's not actually a tax?
Do you like the real title then, penalty which = punishment, so this women and her child should pay a penalty and recieve a punishment because a man has threated her and her child safety. The under-occupancy penalty (also known as the "bedroom tax
Only needed in extreme cases, but don't let that stop the glib "scrounger" style rhetorical rubbish; I suppose at least it wasn't as bad as the victim blaming someone came out with on page one, eh?
Guessing here, but it could have been one of those pokey box rooms that just about got a single bed and cupboard. It would be the cheapest in the house to fortify, and those fortifications would probably make the room too small for a bed to fit.
Why did the the system NOT make her her bedroom into a panic room why did the system make a differantt room a panic room. only the system can answer that as its the system that decides these things
I was wondering the same - how many rooms do you need for this panic room?
well said, i too wish her the best and hope her challenge is successful
Surely if this person is such a threat he should be locked up
Your situation sounds exceptional to me and you should be treated in an exceptional way. imo
Correct, As much as the IDS stalkers, whingers and whiners on here claim this 'story' has absolutely nothing to do with the 'bedroom tax'
We can't keep people locked up indefinitely 'just in case' they decide to commit another crime. Perpetrators of domestic violence are charged, sentenced, imprisoned and released in the same way that anyone else who commits a crime is. We don't keep burglars in jail 'just in case' they decide to break into another house, so expecting violent ex-partners to be kept locked up forever is unrealistic. Helping to protect victims by providing them with panic rooms within their own homes has been cost effective - people did not have to be immediately rehoused, or placed in refuges or emergency homeless accommodation.
It beggars belief that people expect the state to pay for a panic room. How about rehousing her somewhere else - so that the ex-partner does not know where she is. Or better still slap a court order on the ex-partner and slap him in jail if he so much as approaches them.
You think they don't do that already? The victim will still need to be able to escape to a safe place in order to phone the police, and will need to be able to stay there until the police arrive. Do you think if someone politely asks the perpetrator to wait until the police arrive before they begin smashing their face in they'll just say 'okay, sorry'?
"The local council has told her she will lose £11.65 a week from her benefits on the grounds that she has a spare room, which is the panic room."
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/18/panic-room-woman-challenges-bedroom-tax
Surely the council should make up the shortfall with their discretionary fund.