Council evictions begin

neverdespairgirl

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You couldn't have a list of crimes and associated punishments. Too many variations. Hence why we have judges.

You do indeed have lists of crimes and associated punishments! That's what the sentencing guidelines.

vivatifosi

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

You do indeed have lists of crimes and associated punishments! That's what the sentencing guidelines.

Sorry if this has been addressed earlier, but there has been an article that says magistrates have been told they can ignore normal sentencing guidelines:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/15/riots-magistrates-sentencing

Tbh there are so many posts re the riots I'm not sure whether this has been posted or not, so sorry if I'm reapeating stuff.

StevieJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

Sorry if this has been addressed earlier, but there has been an article that says magistrates have been told they can ignore normal sentencing guidelines:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/15/riots-magistrates-sentencing

Tbh there are so many posts re the riots I'm not sure whether this has been posted or not, so sorry if I'm reapeating stuff.

What a pig's ear they are making of it I am off line for a few days enjoy yourself

milliebear00001

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

It. Was. In. The. Contract.

I never said it wasn't.

Do you really think councils routinely evict women and young children from their homes because of a criminal offence committed by a non tenancy holding adult living at the same address?

The council are doing this to curry favour. There is no justification for punishing two innocent people (one of whom is a minor) for a crime they were not involved in and could have done nothing to prevent.

STing

StevieJ wrote: »

I am against people (and children) being punished for other peoples crimes (no problem with perp being kicked out, unless maybe it is a child) , I think transparency covers that as well. You can have a list of crimes and punishments, but you are correct you still need interpretation by a judge.
what we don't want is Mother of two with no previous convictions receives 5 months in jail for receiving a £10 pair of shorts compared to:
A fourth defendant, Linda Boyd, 31, who has 62 previous convictions, was given a 10 month jail term suspended for two years.
The maximum sentence of six months jail was deemed not long enough by the lower courts and their cases were fast-tracked to Manchester Crown Court for sentence today.

It reminds me of the whole class being held behind after lesson, for one individuals misbehaviour.

And the rulings are like teachers, totally inconsistent.

Oh, the memories.....

Eskimo12345

milliebear00001 wrote: »

I never said it wasn't.

Do you really think councils routinely evict women and young children from their homes because of a criminal offence committed by a non tenancy holding adult living at the same address?

The council are doing this to curry favour. There is no justification for punishing two innocent people (one of whom is a minor) for a crime they were not involved in and could have done nothing to prevent.

Look at it this way: After seeing their neighbours evicted, Sharon will enforce stricter discipline on little Kev next time he steps out of line. "Do you want us to lose our home?" should be a very effective phrase.

As for 'could have done nothing to prevent' - he was her son, if he was rioting then she didn't bring him up properly. I know the difference between right and wrong, and I understand there are consequences for my actions. If he was brought up to know the same, he would not have done it - this also applies to middle class kids whose parents never followed through with threats ('If you run after the ball in to the road we're going inside' *kids runs in to the road* 'don't do that again!" *parent carries on playing*).

On top of that, the little girl will know that they got thrown out of their home for her older brothers crime. This is a valuable life lesson for her that her mother will not have taught her (judging on her son's behavior).

heathcote123

ruggedtoast wrote: »

What a complete tokenistic waste of time and upheaval of an innocent 8 year old girls life. With that for a mother and brother she has enough stacked against her already.

By all means put the chav in prison and chuck him out but I just dont understand the logic of doling out a lenient sentence and then punishing the family.

I'd give it about a month before we're reading about how their human rights been breached and they get a million pound payout.

STing

A parents guide to avoiding eviction.

1) disown any troublesome child. if in doubt don't risk it, put them up for adoption, and let the taxpayer pay for bringing up the brat.
If this fails
2) don't hand them in. to the contrary, do your best to hide them from the authorities, and if caught, ensure you give them a good alibi.

milliebear00001

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

Look at it this way: After seeing their neighbours evicted, Sharon will enforce stricter discipline on little Kev next time he steps out of line. "Do you want us to lose our home?" should be a very effective phrase.

As for 'could have done nothing to prevent' - he was her son, if he was rioting then she didn't bring him up properly. I know the difference between right and wrong, and I understand there are consequences for my actions. If he was brought up to know the same, he would not have done it - this also applies to middle class kids whose parents never followed through with threats ('If you run after the ball in to the road we're going inside' *kids runs in to the road* 'don't do that again!" *parent carries on playing*).

On top of that, the little girl will know that they got thrown out of their home for her older brothers crime. This is a valuable life lesson for her that her mother will not have taught her (judging on her son's behavior).

LOL - so basically, the son's justification for his rioting and looting is just to say 'sorry Guv, it's me mum's fault for not bringing me up right'.

You ARE having a laugh right? When exactly do the parents stop getting the blame for the child's crimes then?

Why stop with eviction of council tenants - perhaps the way to solve our society's ills is actually to punish whole families, rather than just the perpetrators? Perhaps we shouuld really be locking up the parents of all the burglars and muggers? Perhaps my parents should also be fined for my recent speeding offence? Maybe Fred and Rose West's parents etc should all be up in the dock?

Eskimo12345

milliebear00001 wrote: »

You ARE having a laugh right? When exactly do the parents stop getting the blame for the child's crimes then?

As he is just 18 years old, his mother is responsible, but not accountable in law. The exception is the clause in the housing contract which I wholeheartedly agree with.

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Why stop with eviction of council tenants - perhaps the way to solve our society's ills is actually to punish whole families, rather than just the perpetrators? Perhaps we shouuld really be locking up the parents of all the burglars and muggers? Perhaps my parents should also be fined for my recent speeding offence? Maybe Fred and Rose West's parents etc should all be up in the dock?

Now you are just being silly. A contract is a contract, plain and simple, and the clause is quite easily justified when you take in to account social responsibility, which as we have recently seen, is a quality which is severely lacking in certain sectors of society.
If I still lived with friends, and one of them was involved in rioting, and we were evicted as a result, I would be much more careful if I had to choose housemates again. And god damn would I instill the lessons I learned in to any children I may have.