Council evictions begin

leveller2911

ceridwen wrote: »

My point is that Council tenants are TAKING from Society (ie subsidised rents) and therefore have obligations to Society. Owner-occupiers arent taking anything from Society - and therefore dont have corresponding obligations to behave themselves.




Not sure I agree with you, we are tenants of a Housing Association .We have paid far more in rent that the house cost to build, there is very little maintenance carried out so where does the rent money go?.There is an arguement to say that Social Housing rents are not low(subsidised) but private rents are far too high..;)

Owner occupiers have in the past been able to claim £1,000s in grants to renovate their properties and also warmfront grants were available to homeowners so i'm affraid your wrong there too.

Am I right in thinking that homeowners can get financial assistance to pay mortgage interest if they fall on hard times?.

pqrdef

leveller2911 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that homeowners can get financial assistance to pay mortgage interest if they fall on hard times?.

Not to mention Bank Rate being pegged (at the expense of savers) to hold mortgage interest down and prevent over-inflated house prices from collapsing to realistic levels.

Wookster

julieq wrote: »

This is wrong on all sorts of levels.

You are very much mistaken.

People with jobs and professions have everything to lose in collateral damage if they offend - misbehave and you get sacked from work, struck off by your professional body, lose your house because you can't keep up with the rent or mortgage.

These people have none of these things to lose - infact the only thing they have to lose are there benefits and it is right that they lose them. Furthermore they have broken their contract with the society that supports them and they need to be severely punished.

sjaypink

ceridwen wrote: »

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).

13 weeks.

if you are getting benefits (including income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance (JSA), or income-related employment and support allowance) you may qualify for help with your mortgage interest.You can get help with a mortgage of up to £200,000 after a 13-week waiting period. If you are on pension credit you may be able to get help immediately, but only for a mortgage up to £100,000.


Plus theres the mortgage rescue scheme. Very rare to be evicted by a mortgage company at the moment. And if you do, you'll often be eligible for priority local authority housing

vivatifosi

Wookster wrote: »

You are very much mistaken.

I am very much in the middle of the views of julieq and the majority of others here calling for tougher punishment. I think julieq raises very valid points about revenge, others raise important issues about the need to punish those involved firmly.

We do need to be careful about the inconsistency in our whole judicial system though. How can it be right that Venables and Thompson were given new identities (at cost to the taxpayer) and never had their faces shown for doing something far more heinous than the vast majority of the young people involved yet we are calling for houses to be taken off the parents of young people involved in this?

The right answer surely lies somewhere between the two and we need to radically redesign our criminal justice system so that the rights of the victims are more broadly reviewed without resorting to petty justice? This should be done in a considered, not hasty way.

In the current climate, surely making kids dress in orange boilersuits and clean up the mean streets of Tottenham, Ealing or Hackney while others stand by and watch will be far more effective than kicking people out of their homes.

On the home front though, I don't think it is unreasonable to remind people of the social contract in having social housing. It is a privilege not a right. Growing up on a council estate can be miserable and having the people around you breaking the law less often would make it a more pleasant place to live for everyone.

ikati5

How can the mother have made herself and the child intentionally homeless because her son, who is an adult in his own right did something wrong?

It will never happen, she wouldn't be fined or imprisoned for his actions and she won't lose her tenancy. She is not to blame.

StevieJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

I am very much in the middle of the views of julieq and the majority of others here calling for tougher punishment. I think julieq raises very valid points about revenge, others raise important issues about the need to punish those involved firmly.

We do need to be careful about the inconsistency in our whole judicial system though. How can it be right that Venables and Thompson were given new identities (at cost to the taxpayer) and never had their faces shown for doing something far more heinous than the vast majority of the young people involved yet we are calling for houses to be taken off the parents of young people involved in this?

The right answer surely lies somewhere between the two and we need to radically redesign our criminal justice system so that the rights of the victims are more broadly reviewed without resorting to petty justice? This should be done in a considered, not hasty way.
.

Good post Viva, remember those compare and contrast essays? Well have a go with these two (first example courtesy of nightwatchman)

Did Mohammed Ibrahim receivedany “justice” for mowing 12 year old Amy Huston and let her die wile he was driving disqualified and without insurance?

Ahh yes he get 4 months by Blacburn magistrates.

A mum-of-two who slept through the riots will spend the next five months behind bars – because she accepted a pair of looted shorts the morning after.
Ursula Nevin was in bed at home when city centre shops were ransacked by vandals.
Her housemate Gemma Corbett, 24, returned from the mass crime spree with £629 of clothing and accessories from the upmarket Vans store.
The next day, Nevin picked out a pair of shorts from the haul, tried them on and decided to keep them.
Hours later, police raided the women’s house in Stretford.
Nevin was arrested for handling stolen goods. Now she has been jailed for five months after pleading guilty at Manchester magistrates' court.

mbga9pgf

pqrdef wrote: »

You're missing the point. Policing is harder, more expensive, and less successful when it doesn't have public cooperation.


They always breed. When they couldn't afford the babies they had, they used to throw them in the Thames.


Two things amaze. Most people have nothing constructive, they just want the impossible - more policing without more police, more prisoners without more prisons, and people should not be what they are, they should be different, just like that.

And the wider the gap grows between the haves and the have-nots, the greedier the haves get.

I would love to pay 50% tax if chavs threw their babies in the thames, locked up more scum and seriously injured rioters. Perhaps if the have nots actually worked, they would see the other side.

The only areas policing would be harder would be in areas overpopulated by scum.

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

I would love to pay 50% tax if chavs threw their babies in the thames, locked up more scum and seriously injured rioters. Perhaps if the have nots actually worked, they would see the other side.

The only areas policing would be harder would be in areas overpopulated by scum.

And there kids is the Boogeyman :eek:

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

In the current climate, surely making kids dress in orange boilersuits and clean up the mean streets of Tottenham, Ealing or Hackney while others stand by and watch will be far more effective than kicking people out of their homes. .

orange boiler suits developed a sort of prison chic of their own, so no to them. I've always thought tighty whities or nappies to be a more fitting choice but BUT totally not on though they'd be hard to make in any way shape or form ''tough and cool'' . it would be wrong.

yes to every thing else in your post.