Council evictions begin

StevieJ

ikati5 wrote: »

So... the authorities want people to hand in their sons and daughters so they can then evict the whole family!

Yes, they are not thinking it through, they should have waited until they had most of them handed over, problem is politics and blood lust now rule the asylum.

haras_nosirrah

My personal opinion

I don't think we should evict council tenants over the riots. This is just meaning one punishment for one and not the other (i.e. those in council v those in private or homeowners). I do think that lifetime tenancies should be revoked if council tenants commit crime and their tenancies should be reviewable on a 1 year basis. If they behave themselves in the future they can stay, if they don't then they need to go.

I think that those who are earning should have an attachment of earnings for the damage. They caused it - they can help pay it back. Say if they were involved with a theft of 5k then they should have an attachment of earnings for double that for as long as it takes to pay it back. This would possibly stop people from quitting jobs to avoid paying it back as even if it took 20 years they would have to pay up eventually. Essentially it would be a riot tax. This should be the same for those on benefits. They stole from their communities - there should be financial consequences for this.

They should also go to prison for the crime although it should be relative. More for people causing the damage than those who were more opportunistic and stupid e.g. the Lidl water guy.

We need a heavy handed response however I am not sure that immediate eviction is the answer. Surely making them pay for the damage is a better way.

pqrdef

IronWolf wrote: »

Yes and if uv ever seen a snuff film, the attackers r usually laughing then too, what's your point?

I said many of the rioters and looters were ordinary people having a laugh. That is obviously the case, but it's touched a nerve among people who don't like having obvious facts pointed out, because they'd rather give in to incoherent rage than attempt any rational hard-headed analysis.

I'm sure their hearts are in the right place, and they'll occupy the moral high ground while the country sinks into the mire.

IronWolf wrote: »

Is it ok to loot and murder if your enjoying it?

Huh? Where did that come from?

HappyMJ

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

My personal opinion

I don't think we should evict council tenants over the riots. This is just meaning one punishment for one and not the other (i.e. those in council v those in private or homeowners). I do think that lifetime tenancies should be revoked if council tenants commit crime and their tenancies should be reviewable on a 1 year basis. If they behave themselves in the future they can stay, if they don't then they need to go.

I think that those who are earning should have an attachment of earnings for the damage. They caused it - they can help pay it back. Say if they were involved with a theft of 5k then they should have an attachment of earnings for double that for as long as it takes to pay it back. This would possibly stop people from quitting jobs to avoid paying it back as even if it took 20 years they would have to pay up eventually. Essentially it would be a riot tax. This should be the same for those on benefits. They stole from their communities - there should be financial consequences for this.

They should also go to prison for the crime although it should be relative. More for people causing the damage than those who were more opportunistic and stupid e.g. the Lidl water guy.

We need a heavy handed response however I am not sure that immediate eviction is the answer. Surely making them pay for the damage is a better way.

If I was a private landlord and a tenant of mine was convicted of rioting/violent disorder or anything similar I would seriously consider eviction. Only 2 months notice against the tenant is required outside of any fixed term.

It's a civil matter if the victim of theft wishes to pursue a convicted thief for losses. There will be an award made against the criminal in civil court, the crown court, and then the victim can pursue various recovery methods.

StevieJ

IronWolf wrote: »

Yes and if uv ever seen a snuff film, the attackers r usually laughing then too, what's your point? Is it ok to loot and murder if your enjoying it?

Not sure what to make of that :eek:

Jennifer_Jane

StevieJ wrote: »

Not sure what to make of that :eek:

Thanks, Stevie. Has upset me terribly because he/she seems like a reasonable kind of person.

StevieJ

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Thanks, Stevie. Has upset me terribly because he/she seems like a reasonable kind of person.

I will make allowances, you being a DM reader and all BTW I am sure there is a reasonable explanation for that comment (that is the bleedin heart Liberal in me, not wanting to jump to conclusions).

pqrdef

macman wrote: »

I don't follow the comments about 'having to rehouse them'. Anyone who is evicted under these circumstances is considered in law to have made themselves intentionally homeless

The 8-year-old daughter didn't make herself intentionally homeless. And it'll be hard to make that stick against the mother, unless the son's criminality was forseeable.

But we clearly have a situation now where everybody with a teenage kid on an ASBO will have to kick them out. Then they'll really be feral.

ceridwen

HappyMJ wrote: »

If I was a private landlord and a tenant of mine was convicted of rioting/violent disorder or anything similar I would seriously consider eviction. Only 2 months notice against the tenant is required outside of any fixed term.

It's a civil matter if the victim of theft wishes to pursue a convicted thief for losses. There will be an award made against the criminal in civil court, the crown court, and then the victim can pursue various recovery methods.

Quite:T

If I were anyone with any sort of power over an asset someone had - in this case privately-rented housing - then they would be given notice to quit (even if they had been perfectly okay - as tenants). I wouldnt want to give someone like that "the time of day", let alone housing - when there were normal people queueing up to rent from me instead.

I do see that owner-occupiers seem to be getting off more easily. There could be an obvious reason for that, ie owner-occupiers are probably much less likely to get up to anything like rioting. Once one owns ones own home - then you have a "stake in society". If there was one thing Margaret Thatcher (who I'm no great fan of incidentally....) recognised was that if people have their own home then they have a lot more to lose and will have a stake in Society staying stable. So - as a matter of interest - how many owner-occupiers were out there rioting? I'd be willing to bet there werent many - if any....:cool:

Also - owner-occupiers arent taking anything from Society. Council tenants are taking subsidised homes from us and it behoves them not to "bite the hand that feeds them". Owner-occupiers arent getting any help from Society - even MIRAS vanished quite some years ago now. We get no help at all - and if we become unemployed there comes a point (think its 2 years into unemployment if it goes on that long) where Society refuses to give us any money towards mortgage interest and WE lose OUR homes (despite having done nothing wrong).

macman

But an 8 year old does not have a tenancy agreement-she's the responsibility of her parents. If her parent's are unable to look after her, she will be taken into care.
These evictions are little more than PR show trials-a few LA's will evict a few families each to show the voters that they are being tough, then it'll be quietly shelved.
Wandsworth appear to have jumped the gun anyway, as they have served the eviction notice when the son has only been charged. If he's not convicted, there will be no grounds to evict.
This reminds of Blair's 'march the yobs down to the cashpoint for instant justice' speech-whatever became of that idea?