more fresh air from the torygraph... holland go hardline on scum

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Generali wrote: »

Truly a nasty place. A social experiment gone very badly wrong.

Croydon was actually ok when I lived there a few years ago (the central bit within walking distance of East Croydon station anyway).Not pretty or trendy, but great transport, shops and services (massive library that used to open on Sundays). Never felt unsafe walking homeat night drunk and alone.

I've always thought the "problem families" should be housed next door to North London Guardian-reading champagne socialists.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

ILW wrote: »

Just need to come up with a sensible definition of "undesirable"

Should be relatively simple to put together a list of acts that fall into that category which most people would agree with.

Gypsies, disabled people, people with different religious views, people with different political views, people with different gender preferences.

Basically, people who are different and who are weaker than the people doing the percecuting.

ILW

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Gypsies, disabled people, people with different religious views, people with different political views, people with different gender preferences.

Basically, people who are different and who are weaker than the people doing the percecuting.

None of the above, but what about say:

Conviction for antisocial behaviour.
Conviction for violent assault.
Conviction for drug dealing.
Multiple convictions for public drunkeness.

Would you have a problem with that?

Seems that it could be quite simple to come up with an agreed definition of scum.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

ILW wrote: »

None of the above, but what about say:

Conviction for antisocial behaviour.
Conviction for violent assault.
Conviction for drug dealing.
Multiple convictions for public drunkeness.

Would you have a problem with that?

Seems that it could be quite simple to come up with an agreed definition of scum.

I'd have a problem with all of that. So, not so easy after all.

ILW

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

I'd have a problem with all of that. So, not so easy after all.

Do you think they are acceptable behaviour in a civilised society?

worldtraveller

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Croydon was actually ok when I lived there a few years ago (the central bit within walking distance of East Croydon station anyway).Not pretty or trendy, but great transport, shops and services (massive library that used to open on Sundays). Never felt unsafe walking homeat night drunk and alone.

Well, I lived in Purley as a kid , but used to travel into south Croydon regularly. I well remember the swimming pool there, by Croydon market, where I learn't to swim and the Grants & Allders department stores where we used to go shopping for a lot of stuff throughout my childhood, and later the Whitgift Centre. As you rightly say, it was OK then. I had the misfortune of having to drive through it a few weeks ago and it really was the pits!

ruggedtoast

I read about a pilot project they did in the UK about 5 years ago where they decided to look at anto social behaviour as a public health issue.

They put the most badly behaved families in warden secure housing. When trouble blew up the warden would come straight down and would know them personally. There were restrictions on visitors.

This was combined with parenting classes and all sorts of rehabilitative social adjustment programmes to teach them how to live with other people.

It turned out the majority of people dont want to be constantly at war with their neighbours and the authorities but never had any structure to their lives before. After spending 6 months or so in the project over 90% of the "families" (generally single mothers) were not only able to go and live in the normal community happily but had far lower incidences of mental illness, substance abuse, child truancy or anti social behaviour then people who were just shifted around.

Obviously this sensible approach was never replicated elsewhere in the country, as it doesnt fit in with the "hang the scum" political agenda that trundles round the bitter tiny minded political debates informs most of the discourse in the UK about class and behaviour.

No one wants to (or should have to) live near an asbo family from hell, but if the best thing we can come up with is putting them in ghettos then thats a sad day for humanity.

ILW

Why do we seem to care more about the "scum" than the people who have to put up with the misery of living near them?

Anybody remember the mother of the disabled daughter who killed herself and her daughter after years of suffering anti social behaviour?

quantic

This really rough woman was re-housed in our parents estate (which is all otherwise privately owned), she was put in a 4 bedroom detached house because it was central to the 3 fathers of her kids.

After a while of causing mystery for her neighbours they finally kicked her out, it cost the owner of the property 10k to fix the interior of the house. They even had to replace the fence in the property due to them climbing over it instead of using the gate (its a 6 foot high fence).

They have now been rehoused somewhere else similar, there is a skip on the drive of the original property with all of the flooring, carpets, walls etc which were ruined.

Moral of the story, try hard at school, save up and if your lucky you will be able to afford to buy someones ex council house who bought it for 40% of the price having not worked a day in their life, while scum like this move into affluent areas and destroy them no less.

Generali

The_White_Horse wrote: »

yeah but they are next door to £1m houses. the scum should be removed as far away as possible from the normal decent folk.

Which brings us back to Croydon.