Council evictions begin

olly300

julieq wrote: »

No-one is saying that there isn't a scale of seriousness anyway. The difficulty is applying it on an even handed and level headed basis: steal a CD from my house in a burglary and frankly I want you killed. I am wrong to want you killed, which is why the courts exist to attempt to find a common level of retribution and restoration. I want the courts to decide on punishments, not the general public exercising its own prejudices egged on by the tabloid press and supported by opportunistic politicians.

Are you aware that lots of employees have it in their employment contracts if you get adverse publicity your employer can suspend you from employment and then dismiss you under gross misconduct?

Again this isn't the courts deciding but the employer, an organisation that could consist of anyone and actually have politicians on their board of directors.

Also this will be held up by employment tribunals particularly if you are found guilty in another court.

Point is there are some seemly unfair consequences in our society but when you sign a contract whether that be social housing or employment you need to read the small print and make sure you understand it.

StevieJ

julieq wrote: »

It's a separate issue as to whether punishments are appropriate here, or whether we're robust enough when dealing with low level antisocial behaviour. I'd be the first to say that standards of behaviour are falling back and there is a generalised loss of respect for authority or rules of society.

But if you increase punishments, it should be even handed, so that a graphic designer from Hackney gets the same as an uneducated unemployed kid from a sink estate. That's the issue here, and the idea that there is guilt by association.

It is not just between rich and poor it is also between February and August, it is not right that penalties should temporarily rocket just because some magistrate is getting it in the ear from his neighbours and journalists. I say temporaily because I am not sure where they are going to put this lot never mind trangressors in the future. My betting is that they let a few murderers out early to make space:eek:

Graham_Devon

I hope all those like JulieQ, Stevie, Prq etc, are hammering the drum for tenants rights and making it harder for landlords to evict the next time that discussion comes up.

I highly doubt it though, as evicting private tenants as and when the landlord chooses, for the reason of the landlords choosing is just business.

Evicting someone because they are pregnant? Fine...so long as it states kids are not allowed in the contract (remember that discussion?). Hmmm.

Evicting them for having a laugh and burning buildings down, looting and injuring people? Well yes, it says it in the contract, but hey, they were just having a laugh and it's a bit harsh to evict them.

Still cannot get my head around that.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I hope all those like JulieQ, Stevie, Prq etc, are hammering the drum for tenants rights and making it harder for landlords to evict the next time that discussion comes up.

I highly doubt it though, as evicting private tenants as and when the landlord chooses, for the reason of the landlords choosing is just business.

Evicting someone because they are pregnant? Fine...so long as it states kids are not allowed in the contract (remember that discussion?). Hmmm.

Evicting them for having a laugh and burning buildings down, looting and injuring people? Well yes, it says it in the contract, but hey, they were just having a laugh and it's a bit harsh to evict them.

Still cannot get my head around that.

Why do you drag me into that, I am not a BTL landlord, I find it disgraceful that you think you can decide what I find acceptable.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Why do you drag me into that, I am not a BTL landlord, I find it disgraceful that you think you can decide what I find acceptable.

I've seen your posts before on the subject of private eviction. Don't be too disgraced.

StevieJ

IronWolf wrote: »

And last time I checked people are not convicted by judges for serious crimes, they are convicted by a jury of their peers, you know the general public who you say should have no say in justice. And the judge then decides on a sentence based on law, written by politicians. So I dnot know where you've got your rose tinted view of the justice system from.

Are they not trying to change that for certain trials because they think the general public are not quite up to it? Now that would be another attack on democracy.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've seen your posts before on the subject of private eviction. Don't be too disgraced.

You better back that up with some links then

CLAPTON

StevieJ wrote: »

It is not just between rich and poor it is also between February and August, it is not right that penalties should temporarily rocket just because some magistrate is getting it in the ear from his neighbours and journalists. I say temporaily because I am not sure where they are going to put this lot never mind trangressors in the future. My betting is that they let a few murderers out early to make space:eek:

It's absolutely right that circumstances should determine sentances;

there is no absolute rules or logic that should determine the 'correct' sentance (if there is then please explain how that works)

if one get a sudden explosion of a particular crime that for whatever reason becomes 'poplular', then it's absolutley logic and necessary to discourage such behaviour by exemplary sentances

StevieJ

IronWolf wrote: »

Not true, the seriousness of a crime is not just about what is stolen, it is where its stolen and how its stolen. You picked a bad example which shows the gaping hole in your logic. Burglary and robbery are two different crimes, someone may steal a CD in both cases, but burglary holds a much stiffer sentence as you're breaking into someones home.

.

Could you explain that because I can't find anything in the post by Julie that makes that comment relevant.

dobsoncrew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Completely innocent people have also lost their homes, personal belongings and business due to arson and vandalism, what about their human rights?

Well said. Everybody just thinks of themselves. They need these council houses for the people that have lost their homes, why should the innocent be victims in all this