Council evictions begin

julieq

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

That's so dramatic, Julieq. How about they get private accommodation, they seem to have a bit of money about them. Anyway, presumably it isn't a knee-jerk reaction by the Councils as they already have provision in place, and have rehoused people in the past.

The knee-jerk reaction is from the appalled people who sat quietly in their homes over the last week, watching London burning with an intensity that was reminiscent of the Blitz, and people watching as old buildings were set fire to, some with people shouting down that the buildings were occupied. And they were told to 'F off'. People are angry, not scared - although I was a bit on Saturday - but they are very, very angry. Hmmm, and I think I still am.

The British don't like injustice,, and they see people just breaking and grabbing things as the breakdown of fairness and law. And they are right.

It's not justice. It's about vengeance. And it's not punishing all rioters equally because most are not actually in council accomodation, and inequal justice is a non-sequitur. And actually you'll be punishing people who didn't even riot in many cases, on the basis of association. And if these people are housed privately and needed social housing, they end up costing us in terms of housing benefit anyway. So what is the point.

What you are fundamentally implying is that the problems were caused by an underclass of people who must be the low lives in council housing. Well that's rubbish. There were too many of them for that. It was actually people not so very different from you or me, with jobs and families and a wide spread of backgrounds.

It is obviously going to be impossible to reason with a lynch mob gripped by moral panic. But it is still important to make these points before we just panic ourselves into making things worse.

And incidentally this didn't equate to the Blitz. It looked a little like the Blitz on TV, but what it actually was was a few hundred teenagers running around and setting fire to a few buildings while stealing from others. The Blitz involved hundreds of aircraft each dropping tons of high explosive and incendiary bombs for weeks on end. So again, can we please get a bit more of a sense of proportion?

StevieJ

julieq wrote: »

So I don't buy the argument that most of us are better behaved. In fact there are two checks to our behaviour, peer opinion and fear of consequences. If you take the fear of consequences away and you see peers supporting a behaviour, there is a very high chance you will behave in the same way, and in fact it's very easy for a feeding frenzy to develop.

I do like your MSE and cash machine examples.

StevieJ

This was the last time there was looting in Ealing, I think it demonstrates the points made by Julie quite nicely.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBp2ke5Bye4

olly300

julieq wrote: »

Speeding is an example. Speeding - in some circumstances - kills people. As a group many accept it. As a result, people die. More people die because some people speed than died in the riots, and it costs all of us a lot more money in terms of insurance costs than the entire costs of the rioting. But we discount its seriousness: why? Because it's widely done and people rationalised their own speeding as "safe speeding".

You are aware that the 3 guys that died in the Birmingham riots were alleged to be run over by a speeding car?

So it's a bad analogy in this case due to it being part of the criminal behaviour.

ILW

If you kill someone thru deliberately speeding you can be charged with causing death by dangerous driving, which I believe can carry a life sentance.

ILW

Anyone who riots and loots is criminal scum, and should be punished to the maximum extent allowed by the law, at least it may set and example to others. And I for one could not give a toss about any excuses for that behaviour. It is inexcusable.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Graham, the rioters self evidently stopped rioting. Why do you think that was exactly?

Just like football rioters stop rioting, thats just what happens. Nothing lasts forever. It doesn't mean that people suddenly see the wrong in what they are doing en masse.

Students stopped rioting. Poll tax rioters stopped rioting. Fuel campaigners stopped campaigning. Nothing goes on forever.

But OK, let's take this to the end point and say we've just evicted say 500 families in London and they are now having to live on the streets without benefits. Do you think that makes the streets of London more or less dangerous? When the cold weather hits and some of them die, does that mean that it's justified because one of their family took an LCD TV and that it's now acceptable to kill people because they've scared us?

That's not what happens, or will happen though, so whats the point in asking the question?

They will get re-housed. They have to be re-housed. BUT, they will lose the home they currently live in. They will lose their right to life long tenancies.

These people will simply not be on the streets, and I think you know that.

Incidentally I'm not saying that some families shouldn't be evicted in some circumstances, and habitual antisocial behaviour genuinely blights places other people live in council estates or anywhere else. But not as a knee jerk reaction to rioting please.

I think this is more to do with the rioters in our faces, on the TV, talking it up to the media saying "nothing will happen, what are they going to do".

This is the police and the government, and also councils all pulling together to make a statement that we CAN do something. These things are already written into agreements.

If people get away with things time and time again, it's only common sense that they will do it again. Now they see there is a punishment, maybe they will think twice. It's certainly better than living up to what they claimed.

As I said, we want this not because it's right, and it's not justice. It's because we were scared and we want to crush the people who scared us. Understand that before demanding particular action.

Well you don't speak for me. I think it is right, and I think it is jutice. We pay for these people (the ones we are talking about losing housing), we pay to house them, we pay to clear up their mess, we pay for the fire, police, nurses etc who will all have been working overtime to control this and we pay out in insurance for those who suffered their consequences.

In my mind, they can pay through the upheavel of losing their homes, and seeing how they like it.

You may not see it that way. But please don't speak for me and others with your "we want, we don't want" stuff.

I want actual rules followed. Eviction is a rule followed. It's a punishment. I do not want to be paying tax money to say "oh well, we better not do that".

There are many many situations whereby one person can lose more than another through criminal behaviour. Many professional roles will see you losing your job and career over a criminal activity. Police for instance can lose their jobs a lot easier than a factory worker. People caring for others can lose their jobs much quicker for a crime than a supermarket worker would.

I want a deterant. This is one.

ASBO's, Public order fines, and "help services" didn't work. These people laughed at them, and told us so. It's time to give something new a try.

mbga9pgf

StevieJ wrote: »

What do you reckon they should do to that left handed para with a nice taste in musical instruments?

Dont worry, that lad faces a few years of 5 am starts, room inspections and no pay at her majestys pleasure colchester. He will then, i imagine then be expected to serve any civil sentence. The military doesnt p!ss around when it comes to righting a wrong.

experience08

julieq wrote: »

It's not justice. It's about vengeance. And it's not punishing all rioters equally because most are not actually in council accomodation, and inequal justice is a non-sequitur. And actually you'll be punishing people who didn't even riot in many cases, on the basis of association. And if these people are housed privately and needed social housing, they end up costing us in terms of housing benefit anyway. So what is the point.

What you are fundamentally implying is that the problems were caused by an underclass of people who must be the low lives in council housing. Well that's rubbish. There were too many of them for that. It was actually people not so very different from you or me, with jobs and families and a wide spread of backgrounds.

It is obviously going to be impossible to reason with a lynch mob gripped by moral panic. But it is still important to make these points before we just panic ourselves into making things worse.

And incidentally this didn't equate to the Blitz. It looked a little like the Blitz on TV, but what it actually was was a few hundred teenagers running around and setting fire to a few buildings while stealing from others.

Another hug a hoodie Liberal, got no time for these excuses for these scum.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

So again, can we please get a bit more of a sense of proportion?

Can't believe you have the nerve to suggest that, after suggesting others want these people, and 8 year old girls chucked out on the street and dieing in the winter.

You've linked riots to speeding, which is absurd. No one speeding PURPOSELY runs themselves into buildings and PURPOSELY aims at pedestrians. These people purposely set fire to, vandalised, and stole items.

Sense & proportion? Should use it yourself and stop trying to trivalise these riots, murder, bodily harm, stealing and vandalism.