Council evictions begin

olly300

milliebear00001 wrote: »

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

I linked and quoted to the anti-social behaviour clause from Wandsworth council that would be in the contract to make it clear to everyone -

If you live in council housing and your name is on the tenancy agreement you are responsible for the actions of all visitors and people that live with you.

It doesn't matter if you are related or not.

Graham_Devon

pqrdef wrote: »

Idiot. I'm asking whether people keep their speed down because they worry about the sentence, even when there are no police in sight. Evidently not. Not even knowing that the car behind them at any time might be an unmarked police car.

Idiot am I?

So if there are police on the road, people are less likely to speed. I'd suggest if people KNEW there were absolutely no police on the road a hell of a lot more people would be speeding than are now. Would you disagree?

Therefore, if people know they will lose their tenancy, because we are proving it now, people will be less likely to commit crime....no?

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Idiot am I?

It was an idiotic thing to say, and you still don't get it even when it's pointed out.

I was questioning the alleged value of heavy sentences in discouraging crime, so you give me an example of how the presence of a policeman discourages crime, as if that proves the same point.

Am I likely to be disputing that the presence of police discourages crime?

In other words, your argument took me for an idiot.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Therefore, if people know they will lose their tenancy, because we are proving it now, people will be less likely to commit crime....no?

Unlikely. People who commit crime are gambling on not being caught, not doing cost-benefit analyses of just how bad it'll be if they are.

Graham_Devon

pqrdef wrote: »

It was an idiotic thing to say, and you still don't get it even when it's pointed out.

I was questioning the alleged value of heavy sentences in discouraging crime, so you give me an example of how the presence of a policeman discourages crime, as if that proves the same point.

Am I likely to be disputing that the presence of police discourages crime?

In other words, your argument took me for an idiot.


Unlikely. People who commit crime are gambling on not being caught, not doing cost-benefit analyses of just how bad it'll be if they are.

I'm still responding to your argument which I quote below:

I was talking about sentencing policy and robust policing. "These people" are supposed to get the message that they must not do it again for fear of the consequences.

But there's very little evidence that deterrence works.

Which does make you look like an idiot. Especially considering you are now suggesting people see deterants and change their behaviour (cop on road analogy).

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm still responding to your argument which I quote below:

You've trimmed the quote. If you read the rest of the paragraph, you'll see I'm discussing the argument that heavy sentences are justified as a deterrent. You're avoiding that issue.

Toddlers know that if they're up to no good it's best if there's nobody watching. It's not an issue that there's any ongoing debate about.

adyj73

I don't give a toss. They are all scum and whatever punishment they get is fine for me. You can all argue semantics all you want but it's plain to me people like Stevie J and pqrdef are why we are in this mess with their crass liberal left skewed view of the world. The pure democracy they dream of is as untenable as pure communism...only autocracy truly works as long as I am the leader

Shakethedisease

Therefore, if people know they will lose their tenancy, because we are proving it now, people will be less likely to commit crime....no?

No, they'll just take much better care to hide their faces and perhaps take out a fair few of the cctv camera's en route.

A lot of the complaints regarding police reaction was the huge dependence on cctv's allowing arrests to take place after the event, ( the next day ) rather than during the actual looting.

Anyway, this topic has veered somewhat. It's about 'collective punishment' re the mother and 8 year old sister of an 18 year old that has been charged with an a crime, and the consequences faced by those completely innocent of any such crime. Yet are facing action on the basis of the fact they live under the same roof/and/or are related.

I'd guess it depends on which takes precedence. Local Authority contracts of tenancy, or UK and International Law on 'collective punishment' and wether it applies here. Am not an expert on either. But I'd be guessing the woman in question has solicitors/lawyers queuing up in their droves to take her case, and others like it, on.

olly300

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Anyway, this topic has veered somewhat. It's about 'collective punishment' re the mother and 8 year old sister of an 18 year old that has been charged with an a crime, and the consequences faced by those completely innocent of any such crime. Yet are facing action on the basis of the fact they live under the same roof/and/or are related.

I'd guess it depends on which takes precedence. Local Authority contracts of tenancy, or UK and International Law on 'collective punishment' and wether it applies here. Am not an expert on either. But I'd be guessing the woman in question has solicitors/lawyers queuing up in their droves to take her case, and others like it, on.

Wandsworth council will need to prove:
1. That the neighbourhood includes an area less than a mile away from where they live.
2. They have done this before to other tenants.
3. That people in the area particularly those affected knew what was in their tenancy agreement.

And I personally know they will be able to prove all of these.

Plus if there is an argument about whether they should evict the entire family they could easily argue that they only have to house the mother and the daughter and give them a one bedroom flat if the living room is sufficiently sized.

vivatifosi

olly300 wrote: »

Wandsworth council will need to prove:
1. That the neighbourhood includes an area less than a mile away from where they live.
2. They have done this before to other tenants.
3. That people in the area particularly those affected knew what was in their tenancy agreement.

And I personally know they will be able to prove all of these.

Plus if there is an argument about whether they should evict the entire family they could easily argue that they only have to house the mother and the daughter and give them a one bedroom flat if the living room is sufficiently sized.

Thanks olly. To me that burden of proof is at the crux of what happens next. I don't think anyone wants someone to lose their house on a triviality. If they can prove all three then it does sound fair, though I don't much like the idea of rehousing a child in a one-bedroom flat. However I don't know the circumstances.

What I would say to the liberals (who still haven't answered my earlier question as to what their direct experience is) is they should try living somewhere like this and see what it is like.

Where one of my family lives, in the past two weeks and in their street: an elderly person has been attacked in their home; a young man has been stabbed and a child has been mugged and his bike stolen. When visiting this person in the past I've also been shouted at by police to park up and run in the house quickly as they were in the middle of a gun battle with someone hauled up in a house and were in the process of putting a cordon in (I arrived at exactly the wrong time). This is in one street.

The people who live there - who contrary to pqrdef's earlier statement aren't mostly a bit useless and !!!!less - just want to get on with a quiet life and not have these people around them. As Rochdale I think said earlier it isn't a lot of families, it is a few causing a disproportionate number of the problems.

pqrdef wrote: »

My mother was raised in a slum. But a lot of your neighbours are liable to be people who're living in a bad area because they can't get their act together.

Graham_Devon

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, they'll just take much better care to hide their faces and perhaps take out a fair few of the cctv camera's en route.

Thats fine. Let them.

Our next solution will be to get tougher, get the plastic bullets out and remove benefits full stop.

We can't not punish people just incase they do it again in retaliation for punishment. We cannot be held hostage.

If they want to do it again, fine. We can't stop them. But if they want to get tougher with us, we can get tougher with them. Simple as that.

It seems to me, the people who want liberal ruling, are making it harder for us to be liberal....but more likely with all this nonsense of "don't punish them or they will get you back" it will absolutely FORCE us to be less liberal.