1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Children from social housing not allowed on playground

Discussion in 'Personal' started by bobpite, Mar 26, 2019.

  1. Aquamarina1234

    Aquamarina1234 Star commenter

    My son lives in a newish purpose-built apartment block. It surrounds a courtyard which has seating, planting and a play area. He owns his flat and pays a service charge for this facility. Many of the lower ground floor flats are social housing. I don't think it has ever crossed his mind that the courtyard should not be for the benefit of all residents.
    The meanness of spirit this story has revealed is truly depressing.
     
    corgie11, Orkrider2, vannie and 7 others like this.
  2. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter

    I did not say that they "didn't count". For the third time, this is what I wrote: ""The only taxes these people pay are indirect taxes such as VAT." I did NOT state or imply that they don't count. I made no comment on how much of their income VAT takes up.

    You are imagining things I didn't write while ignoring what I did write. You have failed to grasp other aspects of the discussion.

    I only see one strange attitude and it isn't mine.
     
    towncryer likes this.
  3. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter

    If you look at the photos in post 18, the playground is designed for children whereas the garden area isn't.

    I don't see how it's a victory if the garden area is taken away from the adults. I wouldn't want a kid kicking a ball around while I was reading a book in the sunshine. It's immaterial whether that kid comes from social housing or a million pound property.
     
    towncryer likes this.
  4. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter

    Isn't that a different situation if there is only one block of flats and one outside space? I don't see how the tenants could be prevented from using it.
     
    towncryer likes this.
  5. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Lead commenter

    Better to dump on the leaseholders than allow an Internet pileon to continue.
     
    towncryer and sparklesparkle like this.
  6. bevdex

    bevdex Star commenter

    I think the smaller play area looks much more child friendly.
     
    towncryer and sparklesparkle like this.
  7. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    Who is talking about 'footballs' being kicked around? No-one I've heard...
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  8. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter

    You heard ME talking about it. In the post you read and responded to.

    The clue is in the first-person singular personal pronoun. I even used it twice!

    You really are clutching at straws now.
     
    towncryer likes this.
  9. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    When I said 'who' I meant someone who knows anything about this; not someone making a wild speculation. FWIW No-one campaigning for the space to be opened up talked of playing football, and the space isn't suitable for football (whether by the progeny of the owner occupied houses or the social housing).

    So the comment you made was a just a red herring...
     
  10. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter

    There was no "wild speculation". I wasn't speculating about the development. At no point did I suggest that I was talking about the development. I didn't make any allusion to it. I said that I wouldn't want a child playing football in the same garden if I was trying to relax.

    I did not state that anyone involved in this development "talked of playing football". I talked of playing football.

    I did not make any statement about whether the space is suitable for football. I said that I wouldn't want it to be played in any garden where I would be reading.

    If your comprehension issues are such that you didn't follow my meaning, I can't help you any further.

    Enjoy your evening and I hope you find something more useful to fill it with.
     
    towncryer likes this.
  11. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    Yawn, yawn,yawn...
     
  12. catmother

    catmother Star commenter

    Well said,@Aquamarina1234 . I must say that I have found the comments and way of thinking of some posters pretty depressing too.
     
    monicabilongame and InkyP like this.
  13. catmother

    catmother Star commenter

    Exactly. The developer might even have had access to grants and public money in exchange for designating some of flats as social housing.
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  14. Jude Fawley

    Jude Fawley Star commenter

    When I was a kid there was a family who lived in a big house with a wood. In the wood was a wooden horse. The wooden horse was the size of an average horse and solid in construction.

    I came from poverty but I used to go over their wall and sit on that horse. Somebody said the householder had a shotgun but I never got any hassle.

    Every girl at school was posh to me. We were so poverty stricken that love was an impossibility. Sometimes the posh girls would come down our street. Their dad's had jobs and they even had cars.

    Once, I had such a fleeting glimpse of a possibility that one posh girl (her dad was a housebuilder) actually liked me.

    But posh girls on our street! I remember a feeling of acute embarrassment that they should see where I lived.

    I'm filling out my application for social housing. The last I heard she had moved to Australia with some football mad gorilla.

    Let the children play.

    Spread the love. Share the joy. Give us your money.
     
    monicabilongame and jubilee like this.
  15. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    My daughter bought a London flat (ex-Council) that has three blocks around a large children's play area. The gates to the play area are locked by a warden at 5.30 pm in winter and at 8pm in summer. They open again at 9am. Ball games are not allowed because of the proximity of windows and older children are not supposed to play there. They are deemed old enough to cross a fairly busy road nearby to get to the large open spaces of a public park.

    In the housing development in the news, toddlers from the private flats can now access the toddler play area next to the social housing (as originally planned). Children over the age of 5 now have access to open spaces in the development where previously there was no provision for them (despite the plans being approved for everyone sharing communal areas).
    Common sense and justice has prevailed. Good on the private tenants who have been petitioning for 4 years to get this inequality sorted!
     
  16. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    You are right it isn't new, I lived in a similar development and moved in during the 90s. To be honest we were so pleased to be given the opportunity to live in a decent home via shared ownership that not accessing the central square reserved for private residents who owned their home and paid elevated maintenance for the Square that we couldn't hope to afford at that time soon faded into insignificance. The housing associations involved had however planned a playground at a different site in the development for social housing residents but at dusk it became a no go area.

    Rather than moan we aspired to change our financial situation and after many years of jolly hard work savvy spending and gaining additional skill sets we were back in control of our destiny.
     
    agathamorse and towncryer like this.
  17. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Lead commenter

    That seems reasonable. They shouldn't have to build them for nothing.
     
    needabreak likes this.
  18. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Lucky your mental states were of the correct subset.
     
    monicabilongame and corgie11 like this.
  19. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Chemicals again Rac? Or genetics and possibly environment? Or indeed were we lucky there were shared ownership properties being developed under the then Labour Government now deemed so unsuitable by pretty much everyone who forgot all the positives they initiated at home, including Sure Start and decent pay increments for teachers... With a safety net for those unable to look after themselves, while incentivising the able to remain tax paying citizens in the much maligned meritocracy.
     
    monicabilongame and racroesus like this.
  20. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    'sall chems innit?
     

Share This Page