Council evictions begin

Graham_Devon

Eviction of the whole family is absolutely no different in the private sector.

It just doesn't seem to command the same sort of compassion or outrage. When a whole family is evicted just because the landlord can get a higher rent from elsewhere, theres no compassion, it's just business.

Howcome it's so different when the person is in a council house?

milliebear00001

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

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.

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, 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.

So again - when do parents stop being responsible for their children's actions then?

There is NO justification for punishing two innocent people for the crimes of another adult - end of.

Graham_Devon

On another point, the eviction action is supported right across the political board.

David Cameron supports, Nick Clegg supports and Ed Milliband supports.

People are looking at this in a one dimensional view. I.e. his mother is not responsible.

The message being sent however, and the reason for the clause in the contract is that the lad himself has a responsibility towards the people he lives with. His responsibility (and his mothers, and his sisters....and anyone they invite into that house) is to obey the law of the land while living under that roof. Therefore, the son and all members / visitors to that household have a responsibility to each other.

The message being sent out is simple. Exercise that responsibility towards others in your household, otherwise the household will be evicted.

It's not that hard to understand, and it's a deterrant to those who wish to commit crime. They have family to think about before they do it. It again comes back to responsibilities that human rights sit alongside, but are all too often ignored.

If we want to start mending the family unit, then we have to get tough and start making people aware of their own responsibilities towards the family members. The state bends over backwards to help people and offer them rights which other countries cannot touch. I don't think it's therefore that much of an ask for the families themselves to be aware of their own responsibilities to each other.

milliebear00001

Graham_Devon wrote: »

On another point, the eviction action is supported right across the political board.

David Cameron supports, Nick Clegg supports and Ed Milliband supports.

People are looking at this in a one dimensional view. I.e. his mother is not responsible.

The message being sent however, and the reason for the clause in the contract is that the lad himself has a responsibility towards the people he lives with. His responsibility (and his mothers, and his sisters....and anyone they invite into that house) is to obey the law of the land while living under that roof. Therefore, the son and all members / visitors to that household have a responsibility to each other.

The message being sent out is simple. Exercise that responsibility towards others in your household, otherwise the household will be evicted.

It's not that hard to understand, and it's a deterrant to those who wish to commit crime. They have family to think about before they do it. It again comes back to responsibilities that human rights sit alongside, but are all too often ignored.

It doesn't make it any fairer because there is a 'social reason' for doing it. It is not a 'solution' that has been used before on a wide scale, even though the power has always been there. It is a knee jerk reaction to a very specific event by politicians keen to be 'seen to be' solving a problem.

What extra punishments will be meted out to those looters and rioters who live in a privately owned home? Will their parents and sisters be similarly sanctioned in some way...in order to 'send a message' that they must share respsonsibility? Of course not. The mother and sister of this criminal are in a weak position, and are being attacked in an extremely unfair way.

Graham_Devon

milliebear00001 wrote: »

It doesn't make it any fairer because there is a 'social reason' for doing it. It is not a 'solution' that has been used before on a wide scale, even though the power has always been there. It is a knee jerk reaction to a very specific event by politicians keen to be 'seen to be' solving a problem.

That's because this problem is one of social and family issues. That cannot be ignored.

What extra punishments will be meted out to those looters and rioters who live in a privately owned home? Will their parents and sisters be similarly sanctioned in some way...in order to 'send a message' that they must share respsonsibility? Of course not. The mother and sister of this criminal are in a weak position, and are being attacked in an extremely unfair way.

That's like saying it's not fair to send someone to jail for comitting benefit fraud as someone who isn't on benefits won't get sanctioned for benefits fraud.

The difference between someone living in a privately owned home, and someone living on housing benefits is huge. One the state pays for, and has the clause in place.

Why should people pay for people to eat, live and stay warm, when the same people then go out and commit crime against those people who are paying for them?

We all know it wasn't only those on benefits commiting the crime. But for those we do pay into the pot collectively for, it's unfair to ask the taxpayer to keep on doing so, and also pay for the mess they created.

It really is very simple. The "fairness" issue is a non starter.....afterall, how is it "fair" one person has to pay for their housing, whereas another doesn't? Hence why I said, complete non starter. If we do want to go down the fairness route, theres loads we can start on, that some families get and others don't.

milliebear00001

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's because this problem is one of social and family issues. That cannot be ignored.

And the way to solve social and family issues is obviously to remove law abiding citizens' homes from them?

That's like saying it's not fair to send someone to jail for comitting benefit fraud as someone who isn't on benefits won't get sanctioned for benefits fraud.

Not at all. The difference is clear - two people - committing the same crime - punished differently.

The difference between someone living in a privately owned home, and someone living on housing benefits is huge. One the state pays for, and has the clause in place.

So therefore, it's fair for the state to sanction two people differently, for the same crime, because of their living conditions?

Why should people pay for people to eat, live and stay warm, when the same people then go out and commit crime against those people who are paying for them?

Two of the people being sanctioned have NOT committed any crime.

We all know it wasn't only those on benefits commiting the crime. But for those we do pay into the pot collectively for, it's unfair to ask the taxpayer to keep on doing so, and also pay for the mess they created.

Aren't those 'tax payers' also responsible for the society - and therefore 'the mess' we live in then?

It really is very simple. The "fairness" issue is a non starter.....afterall, how is it "fair" one person has to pay for their housing, whereas another doesn't? Hence why I said, complete non starter. If we do want to go down the fairness route, theres loads we can start on, that some families get and others don't.

The criminal justice system SHOULD be based on fairness. If not, then we really do have nothing left of a reasonable, decent society! I find it very difficult to understand how anyone could ever believe it's OK for the courts to mete out different punishments based on which strata of society a person belongs to. It is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

This will be my last post on the thread as it's impossible to reason with people who have such a fundamentally different idea of fairness and justice. There's just no common ground! I wonder though, if you'd find it as easy to explain why making a small child homeless in order to punish her brother, is fair and just, if you had to be the one to tell her to her face.

mbga9pgf

milliebear00001 wrote: »

This will be my last post on the thread as it's impossible to reason with people who have such a fundamentally different idea of fairness and justice. There's just no common ground! I wonder though, if you'd find it as easy to explain why making a small child homeless in order to punish her brother, is fair and just, if you had to be the one to tell her to her face.

Because the small child will grow up knowing behaving like a c^nt gets your whole family evicted.

I would much prefer a 10 year ban on benefits for the individual, but I bet the guardian readers would have something to say about that, as well.

CLAPTON

Interesting

two people commit the same crime
both are given the same sentence by the courts

one is unemplyed and suffers no further sanction
the other is a lawyer and naturally is sacked by his law firm: can he now claim from the taxpayer for lose of earnings (lets say £1m ) as he has been unfairly punished?

mbga9pgf

Its da poshies fault innit?

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What do you suggest we do?

My motto is, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

We know the politicians, judges and police despise the lower classes, but lashing out with venomous spite isn't going to help.

Back to Supernanny. It's the grown-ups' job to be in charge. No use blaming the irresponsible for doing what they do, being irresponsible.

The politicians, judges and police are in office to keep order. That's what we have them for and pay them for. If they fail to keep their charges in order and provoke a revolt, the primary responsibility is theirs. The first automatic response to rioting in the streets should always be the resignation of the government, for failing in a basic duty.

This would focus the minds of governments on their proper priorities. It's taken riots to bring matters to Cameron's attention which I don't suppose have crossed his mind since he became PM.

The sickness of British society has been obvious for a long time to anybody with eyes to see. Didn't you ever notice how everybody was going round saying what a wonderful country they lived in and how well run it was? The papers were full of it.

Nothing is fixed until we get a ruling class with a vision of social justice that has some alignment with everybody else's.