Council evictions begin

ruggedtoast

In order to commit crime a person first has to want to, and second has to consider the benefit outweighs the cost.

Some of the harshest sentencing and worst prison conditions in the developed world are evidenced in the United States. A country that incarcerates more individuals per capita than any other Western country, yet they have more serious crime than almost anywhere else.

However the demographic spread of crime is the same as everywhere else. The underclasses commit violent and drug related crime and go to prison, the middle classes go to University and get jobs.

Clearly harsh sentencing is not much of a deterrent or no one would be on death row. A strict justice system may be excellent at catching perpetrators and stopping them misbehaving while locked up, but it is clearly useless at actually stopping people wanting to commit crime.

If one thing these riots and this long thread evidences, is that as a society we clearly know nothing whatsoever about these people, why they've done what they've done, or how to stop them doing it again. Surely that is the first problem that needs to be tackled.

olly300

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thats fine. Let them.

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

All they need to do is change the law so the police can remove the face coverings off people in riot and protest situations.

Anyway the Greater Manchester Police took no sh*t when they faced the same situation as the Met police. The Met police just handed it wrong allowing it to escalate to other areas.

Removing benefits will just more crime and won't stop rioters and looters.

Firstly if you are on benefits and can't get money then you are going to mug and steal from people.

Also some of the law breakers this time either were too young to be on benefits themselves i.e. 14 and 15 year olds don't claim, or not legible for benefits i.e. were working or students.

Really2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

IA country that incarcerates more individuals per capita than any other Western country, yet they have more serious crime than almost anywhere else.

Although I know what you are saying is that not partly down to their gun laws?

In crime per capita we are head of the US, So i would say the serious crime bit for the US is perhaps a bit of a red herring as guns are readily available.

If they were here I dare say serious crime would go up.

The other part of the debate is recorded crime. I dare say the richest countries record more crime, that does not always mean they are X times worse than other countries for safety.

dtsazza

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.

It's not really about "collective punishment", though it's often being dressed up/presented as that.

It's quite simply about the mother breaching the terms of her tenancy agreement - an (IMHO) reasonable clause - and consequently having her tenancy terminated.

The same would have happened under any sensible private landlord, so it's good to see it happening in council housing too.

[Deleted User]

olly300 wrote: »

All they need to do is change the law so the police can remove the face coverings off people in riot and protest situations.

Anyway the Greater Manchester Police took no sh*t when they faced the same situation as the Met police. The Met police just handed it wrong allowing it to escalate to other areas.

Removing benefits will just more crime and won't stop rioters and looters.

Firstly if you are on benefits and can't get money then you are going to mug and steal from people.

Also some of the law breakers this time either were too young to be on benefits themselves i.e. 14 and 15 year olds don't claim, or not legible for benefits i.e. were working or students.

Whats the betting that the majority of 14/15 year olds, and probably the rest of the looters) are from families where both parents (if known) are on benefits.

We are paying more and more to fund these ungrateful parasites. Many of the older ones are unemployable. All they do is soak up resources and help steer money towards other contemptible groups such as the legal profession, gangs, insurance companies etc.

Except for a tragically small number these people will never make anything of their worthless lives. So far right or wrong we as a country have been held to ransom by them. Paying benefits and dispensing pathetically light punishments for their crimes.

On the whole at least 95% are not going to achieve anything ever. They are just a cost and drain on our resources we do not need. So forget baton rounds, fines paid out of tax payers money or anything else. We should make them more and more uncomfortable and when they riot we should use live rounds and the death penalty liberally.

Think how much we'd save from each one we kill, all the illegitimate kids they spawn and they in turn spawn all soaking up benefits. Think of all the benefits they take. Think how much damage they cause. Then imagine how much wealthier and happier a world without them would be.

Nobody like the idea of killing people but this is essential, overdue, population and quality control. Lets get our country back from these vermin.

OptionARMAGEDDON

Let their mothers throw them in the river. If we didnt pay them to breed, and left the burden on them, pregnancy rates amongst those hanging onto the coat tails of society would drop like a stone.

Shakethedisease

dtsazza wrote: »

It's not really about "collective punishment", though it's often being dressed up/presented as that.

It's quite simply about the mother breaching the terms of her tenancy agreement - an (IMHO) reasonable clause - and consequently having her tenancy terminated.

The same would have happened under any sensible private landlord, so it's good to see it happening in council housing too.

Lets start living on the same planet shall we ? Where do you think convicted rapists and !!!!!philes get housed after release ? And it isn't in council housing. It's in the private rental sector, at the tax-payers expense. So let's not go there lauding private landords, state provided benefits, 'reasonable' tenancy clauses and criminal behaviour. Sensible isn't always a money maker.

Anyway, the grounds for these evictions is very shaky re tenancy law. Just one example below, but I've seen it mentioned many times over this issue the last few days, so is worth mentioning :-

This move should be resisted strongly by all housing professionals.

We already have an array of established laws for dealing with riot and other violent or theft offences; the Courts should apply the appropriate laws and punishments under those codes, and not cross over into the realm of housing/ tenancy law which operates on entirely different lines. The only ground for possession which applies legitimately is serious nuisance committed in and around the tenanted property and it's estate if applicable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2011/aug/17/your-views-after-the-riots

In other words. Let the criminal court do it's job. This man hasn't even been convicted yet let's remember ( trial not till Sept ). And leave tenancy law to concentrate on the home, behaviour within it and it's immediate surrounding areas.
Overlapping the two is a bit of a disaster waiting to happen long term. Since anyone convicted of anything at ALL forthwith, (should this eviction go ahead).. is likely to see entire families/housemates and spouses on the streets on the basis on one individuals behaviour within the household. 'Sensible' private landlords will be very unwilling to house them either after referencing and seeing why they lost their last tenancy. It's a very dangerous road to go down. IF you can take the 'knee jerky' stuff out of it and look at the bigger picture and the precedence it has re housing.

Nobody like the idea of killing people but this is essential, overdue, population and quality control. Lets get our country back from these vermin.

Thanks for the giggle lol ! You're really unashamed about your trolling. Very refreshing.

Let their mothers throw them in the river. If we didnt pay them to breed, and left the burden on them, pregnancy rates amongst those hanging onto the coat tails of society would drop like a stone.

You too lol ! Lovin your work..

OptionARMAGEDDON

I am not trolling. I often visit countries around the world that think we are !!!!!! in the way we deal with those who are keeping our country back.

brit1234

Its a good deterrent. From what I have personally seen London is full of criminal families where parents cover for there childs actions and proceed with more child birthing. Many of our top criminals have children at aged 16-18. One I know has 3 with different mothers and he is aged 18.

The state is sick, it needs to toughen up. I do however know a few mothers who are good but can't control their child, so I don't think the mother should be evicted but in most cases the parents obstruct police and should be thrown out. Crime should be seen not to pay.

ruggedtoast

Really2 wrote: »

Although I know what you are saying is that not partly down to their gun laws?

In crime per capita we are head of the US, So i would say the serious crime bit for the US is perhaps a bit of a red herring as guns are readily available.

If they were here I dare say serious crime would go up.

The other part of the debate is recorded crime. I dare say the richest countries record more crime, that does not always mean they are X times worse than other countries for safety.

Well again, the UK locks up more people than anyone in the EU, but as you suggest thats because a lot of things we consider to be crimes arent crimes in Europe.

Re the US I once stayed in a place called Saginaw in Michigan once and the report of that weeks shootings, slayings, drive bys, adults shooting children, children shooting adults, children shooting children went on for about 45 minutes.

It would have all been national news in the UK but I got the impression it didnt even make State news there. So I dont think we are as badly off as them; although you are much more likely to be mugged in London than NYC; however NYC does actually have policemen whereas London doesnt so maybe that isnt a fair comparison.