Council evictions begin

dawyldthing

toadyfrog wrote: »

I don't think evictions is a good idea because they will only end up rehousing them somewhere else. I still don't know a good way of dealing with them.

Personally i think they should pay for the damage with community service based on them working in their spare time based on minimum wage for things in the community (will replace a gap from the funds cuts), so those who stole 4500 pounds worth of goods would need to do 759 hours back into the community in their own time. It might act as a deterent if they don't have spare time and need things to occupy their time thats constructive.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Dev, 'you are a card sir, a card'

Well on the bright side, at least we have something in common, what with you being the King of Spades.

Edit: Sorry, forgot the

olly300

ceridwen wrote: »

Well - I guess the next thing to sort out (PDQ) is removing the legal obligation to re-house anyone who doesnt deserve it - and restrict it to only those that DO deserve it.

You can't leave children homeless.

The fact that the children mostly come with a parent means you have to re-house both as children tend to do much better with their own parent(s) compared to being in the care system.

julieq

This is wrong on all sorts of levels.

First of all it increases the punishment to people who are in council housing. Many looters weren't. So you are creating a two tier punishment essentially based on pandering to and reinforcing prejudices against a particular group. That isn't justice, it's a witchhunt.

Secondly it's an expensive option. From the moment someone is evicted they have to find somewhere else to live. If this is in the private rented sector then instead of the people involved paying a low rent, the public purse actually has to pay them housing benefit at market levels. Or they end up homeless and in many cases will end up in expensive short term accomodation.

And thirdly where does this end? I'd class murder or rape as a more serious offence than burning down a shop or stealing a TV. So are we now saying that families are to be evicted if their children murder or rape someone? Or if one of their children is caught shoplifting? In truth, much of the looting was a feeding frenzy where people saw an opportunity which others were taking advantage of and got carried along with it. That doesn't make it right, but the psychology of a mob is complex, and when this sort of thing happens - and incidentally you see precisely the same psychology on MSE when a major loophole appears and people can take goods from Tesco at a profit - people do not turn evil, they just step past their normal standards one small footstep at a time. Now you or I wouldn't do it, of course, until the time when the cashpoint starts spewing out fivers and everyone else is taking one... There but for the grace of God, in other words, and judge not lest yourself be judged.

The actual psychology of those not participating in the riots and being scared by them is the overriding factor behind the draconian and frankly rather stupid suggestions for additional punishments: stop their benefits, evict them from council houses, blight their lives forever, etc.

What happened last week was that most of us were absolutely terrified by the ease at which gangs could take over major cities and apparently destroy them, and the apparent powerlessness of the authorities. With that in mind it's not at all surprising that we want the protestors to be crushed like ants in the aftermath, so we can in effect reassert our own sense of control and regain confidence in the rule of law. This is about how you react to being scared, not about justice.

But it's not necessary. In the aftermath the most obvious thing that happened is actually that people stopped rioting. That wasn't so much as a result of the increased policing or the threat of plastic bullets, it was because very large numbers of rioters realised that what they were doing was beyond the pale, and stopped doing it. That doesn't mean that they can be excused in any way, but what it does demonstrate is that the structures by which society exercises control, including the weight of collective opinion, still work. I very much enjoyed watching a few cocky looters being chased off twitter with their tails between their legs.

So let's punish those we can catch in the courts, but let's not allow ourselves to slip into a kangaroo court mentality by finding additional punishments that cannot be consistently applied, just because something happened that scared us.

The best piece I've read on the riots is incidentally by Russell Brand. It's very well balanced. And arguably the best response is some form of restorative justice like community service.

dorsetlady

MrsE wrote: »

The son is over 18. If she just threw him out could her & her daughter stay?

If they are going down this road





They should do it to all criminals.

Yes, my thoughts exactly! Not that I have any sympathy for those involved in the riots but why should they be treated in a more harsh way than murders and rapists?

olly300

julieq wrote: »

This is wrong on all sorts of levels.

While it may be wrong to you on all sorts of levels Wandsworth council already evict families where their children threaten, abuse and harass the neighbours even if they aren't convicted.

Why should one of my nephews' friends' (who I've also known since she was a baby) put up with threats of rape and violence from a boy a couple of years older than her?

Our youth justice system is build on giving young offenders a chance to mend their ways before they turn into serious criminals but this doesn't mean they should be allowed to make others particularly other children and vulnerable people suffer as well.

In the private sector good landlords can and do chuck out problem tenants.

Graham_Devon

it was because very large numbers of rioters realised that what they were doing was beyond the pale, and stopped doing it.

<shakes head>

As for rapes and murders, families have already been evicted for that, and in some cases, deported.

StevieJ

Julie, a well thought out piece, I just hope part of our democracy has not been destroyed for ever, especially in the case of police accountability and govt mandate for more draconian laws.

olly300

dorsetlady wrote: »

Yes, my thoughts exactly! Not that I have any sympathy for those involved in the riots but why should they be treated in a more harsh way than murders and rapists?

To ensure he doesn't come back they would have to re-house them in a one bedroom flat as there are problems with accommodation in London they wouldn't find one for a while.

tomterm8

I think 'it depends'.

It really does depend on the circumstances of the case. If someone is living in a council house and running amok, harming the neighbors, and the council tenant has been warned and doesn't take action, it is not unreasonable to evict them as a last resort.

Neither is it unreasonable to evict the tenant if they knowingly allowed someone to break the law in the council house (either they were present, or notified by the police / council and the problem doesn't stop).

So, if the tenant had been warned about this person being antisocial, and they failed to control him or throw them out... not unreasonable to evict him.

If the tenant had never been notified of his actions, never had a chance to either throw him out, or get him under control... it is unjust.

So it really depends on the circumstances.

Either way, I believe that punishment should be set by law, but in this case the tenant agreed that the residents of the council house would be law abiding. So it is not unjust to have these powers, but it is unjust if they are exercised against a tenant who had no idea someone who was living in their house was causing a problem.

And I believe justice demands that people be given a fair trial before they are punished.