Whether I Get To Marry Appears To Be Dependent On Employment Contracts, Oh The Romance!

Facebook has a lot to answer for. But so does the Trafford Housing Trust. An idiot posted on his Facebook aghast that the Government would dare force equal marriage upon churches (the plans aren't even about religious organisations!). An even bigger idiot decided that this person deciding to express his personal opinion on his personal social media page in his personal time constituted a reason to demote the original idiot.

I used to work at a housing trust. I know they can be dumb. They once told off the LGBT group (of which I was a member) for the use of the word "queer". So it is good to see sanity prevailing and the idiot won his case against THT.

THT should be ashamed of themselves. Their policies are an insult to free speech and have succeeded in bringing the marriage equality movement into disrepute through association with such an abuse of power. But the case does now strengthen freedom of speech and belief. It flies in the face of the accusations from the anti-equality crowd that courts will send them all to a gulag for daring to speak their mind.

Speaking of which.... the Coalition against for Marriage has declared their fear that teachers may well be sacked for refusing to "promote" equal marriage. This amuses me for several reasons.

1) their position implies a school shouldn't sack (or at least discipline) a member of staff who refuses to do their job.
2) it flies in the face of the previous policy of anti-equality activists that was disgusted that the previous Government would force them not to sack LGBT people (and force them to consider hiring that person if they were the best candidate for the job).
3) it is not like they haven't previously tried to sack LGBT teachers in this country or actually sacked them in other countries

Personally I think it would be a rather authoritarian and unnecessary step for a school to sack someone for this reason. I think it is healthy that kids get different view points. But I also think schools have a right to sack teachers and staff that don't toe the line on what they teach children. I'm not saying a Catholic school should be allowed to sack a gay teacher, nor that a secular school should be able to sack a Catholic teacher. But if that teacher doesn't follow the lesson plans and school curriculum then they aren't doing their job and should be disciplined in the appropriate way.

If a teacher "promoted" equal marriage in a private Catholic school should that school be allowed to sack them? That is the question one should ask anyone who spreads this sort of fear. I'd be interested to hear their answers.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Social Housing: Time For A Discussion

At last a topic I have frontline experience of. Social housing. It's difficult to describe how hard it is for some social housing tenants, who have to put up with cramped and, if in temporary housing because of lack of social housing, AWFUL conditions. It's even more difficult when you are working on that frontline dealing with those people knowing there are plenty of decent homes in your stock... but they are full (or not so full) of well to do people whose lives have already been improved by social housing and now live there because it's cheap. They have the money to do the place up and keep it nice. They aren't living in squalor like others.

Of course one of the most important things that needs to be done to help this is increase our social housing stock. We should not need to be keeping people in private landlord's badly kept houses at extortionate prices whilst we desperately try and find a decent home for a family or individual.

But the other problem is that social housing just isn't geared up to help improve people's lives. We dump people in them and leave them there. The organisation I worked for was championing a "progressive" approach in getting people into social housing, helping them improve (mentally, financially and socially) and then helping them move on to BETTER accommodation where appropriate, even offering a "ladder" to ownership, allowing tenants to purchase 10% of the house, then another, then another. It hoped by doing this it could create more mixed communities and help fund further home building.

So I'm not entirely displeased by David Cameron's latest statement on the future of social housing and a more "means tested" approach. I'm also not won over, at all, by the kneejerk reaction of some on the left who see any attempt at modifying how social housing works as a "Thatcherite attack".

Cameron's approach needs to have a great deal of sensitivity regarding succession and when it's appropriate to move a family on to a different type of housing. And it cannot work with the limited housing stock we have now. But this is a discussion that's long overdue. Social housing isn't working. It's failing the most vulnerable. Investment is lacking too. We need to talk about it. The situation needs to change.

Let's keep our beady eyes on what the Coalition's next step is, and cry havoc if it's not in the interests of the most vulnerable, but let's not decry any attempt at change when we have people living in conditions I wouldn't want my worst enemies to live in.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Gay Rights... In Housing???

We live in a country with rather draconian rules about equality. Draconian in that some times they lean a bit too heavily in favour of minority groups, in my opinion. But whatever my opinions on these things are, they do have practical benefits and us LGBT people are fairly well protected in terms of services being provided to us not being adversely affected by homophobia.

So suggestions like this one which suppose that members of the GLBT have specific needs in such areas as housing makes me a little annoyed. I can see a very strong case for disabled people (mental and physical disabilities) having specific housing needs. It goes without saying. But do LGBT people really have them? I don't think so and to even suggest such a thing beggars belief. Just because I fall in love with people of my own sex does not influence my needs for housing. One commentator valiantly suggests some issues:

"- we want our identity and lifestyle choices to be respected in our dealings with our housing provider, and its staff. We shouldn't need to anticipate homophobic attitudes, any more than we'd expect to encounter racist or sexist ones, and it shouldn't get to the stage of having to complain about it."

Erm... Yes. So does everyone! What identity? We each have our own identities and I would hope, as long as they weren't aggressive ones, that any housing association would respect everyone's right to their own identity. Lifestyle choice? Erm... do gay people have a particular lifestyle choice? I find the suggestion offensive.

All people, regardless of any other factor, should not expect to be treated rudely or badly just because of some irrational dislike on behalf of their landlord. Why should the GLBT community be particularly targeted? It should be a universal thing.

"- we want a sympathetic and effective response to homphobic hate-crime, bullying and harrassment, and neighbourhood purtsuits."

Hate crime is something I've always had a problem with. A crime is a crime. You vandalise something and say your neighbour is a slut, it's a crime. Call them queer and it's a hate crime. Does not make sense to me at all. A crime is a crime, and should be discouraged and punished as necessary. All tenants should expect sympathetic responses to bullying and harassment. Effective responses are also desirable although the way housing is currently run might be more of a pipe dream. But a universal one!

- we want recognition that domestic violence and happens in same-sex relationships just as much as straight ones, and practical help and support when it does.

Again, shouldn't this be true of everyone? Female on male violence is one particularly ignored one.

- we want recognition of the particular difficulties faced by young gay people, who are often especially vulnerable to homelessness, exploitation, abuse, and danger.

And other young people aren't??

- when we are old, we want our sexuality to be treated with dignity and respect, and not as if it and we have grown invisible.

What does this mean? Shouldn't everyone be treated with respect regardless of age and sexuality??? Do you want people to be like "Oh you're gay AND old. CONGRATULATIONS!!!" as if it is somehow noteworthy? All folks of advanced years are sexual creatures, because (shock horror) they are still the bloody same people they were when they were "young". It's not something that should ever need to be acknowledged.

Truly, it is time we all moved beyond this stupidity, and start fighting for universal rights. If one wants housing to be tailored to specific needs, then that should be done on an individual basis. You don't go installing a ramp on every disabled home as not every disabled person is in need of one. You tailor it to their needs. That should be true of everybody, not just specific "special interest" groups.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Such A Waste

Whilst Boris Johnson swoons over glamourous plans for post 2012 east London, including building thousands of new homes, Inside Housing reports the biggest rise in empty homes in 17 years. The Empty Homes Agency also reports that there's nearly a million empty homes throughout the UK as part of Inside Housing's campaign to increase awareness of the issue.

We have millions of people on housing waiting lists, we have thousands of the homeless, we have hundreds of thousands of empty houses blighting our neighbourhoods and all the time politicians are calling for ever more green spaces to be consumed in the bid to build new homes! Wouldn't it be more cost effective, and better for communities, to bring empty homes back into circulation and build only enough homes to meet the residual demand? I'm sure amazing savings could be made by using the money allocated for affordable homes on bringing these homes back up to scratch?

Why not sign the petition over at Number 10's website to show support for the three main principles:

VAT - a cut in VAT on repairs and maintenance to 5 per cent, to make it more attractive for owners to invest in an empty home, or for a potential buyer to make an offer

Grant – use cash from existing Homes and Communities Agency budget for social landlords to buy and repair long-term empty properties

Guidance – clearer advice from the government to help councils use Empty Dwelling Management Orders