Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Where will they go?

264 replies

WonkyDonkeys · 11/08/2011 15:15

In this article about the Nottingham riots (specifically about an 11yo girl being charged, but that's a whole other thread), it says:

"The city council has also said it will seek to evict any council tenants found to have taken part in the trouble."

So... they will be out on the street then?!

Not sure this is the right approach...

OP posts:
Original poster
WonkyDonkeys · 11/08/2011 15:15

Blush messed up italics

OP posts:
lubeybooby · 11/08/2011 15:18

Well I would have thought they will end up in emergency accomodation (if they have children) and then have to find a privately rented place. People with kids won't be left with streets or nothing as an option.

If any young men or women without children have managed to get a council place and get evicted though then I think it would be private rent, crash with friends or street.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 11/08/2011 15:19

I suppose they'll be taking advantage of the situation to remove anyone they've already got down as a nuisance neighbour. Not sure where they'd go exactly, but presumably the same problem presents itself when people are evicted for other reasons.

Original poster
WonkyDonkeys · 11/08/2011 15:25

105 people have been arrested. That's a lot to just chuck out onto the street? Surely there's only so much emergency accommodation? If they do manage to get a private rent, it will be the council paying for it, and I should imagine it will cost them a lot more?

OP posts:
Shitter · 11/08/2011 15:30

who the hell cares what happens to them. I am sure someone else would be extremely grateful for a room over their heads. And maybe those thugs can see what it is like to be homeless, just like the people whom they have made homeless by burning their properties down.

I couldn't give a damn what happens to them. Behave inhumanely, get treated the same.

Original poster
WonkyDonkeys · 11/08/2011 15:32

Oh I don't care about them being homeless... but I can't see it as the answer? Not sure what the answer is though, they'll just be continually rotated round 'the system' I suppose.

OP posts:
Shitter · 11/08/2011 15:33

And 3 months without any type of benefit if they are not working. That money could go to help their victims.

GypsyMoth · 11/08/2011 17:55

105 people arrested....yes.....but why are you assuming that they are ALL in social housing??Hmm

Shitter · 11/08/2011 18:50

I don't think anyone is assuming they are all in social housing, but those who are, should be thrown out. Fuck'em , as that is their view on anyone else.

GypsyMoth · 11/08/2011 19:02

and homeowners? what punishment?

Shitter · 11/08/2011 19:07

no idea, but it should be punishment of equal measure.

GypsyMoth · 11/08/2011 19:09

increased council tax for ll might be fairer....untill costs of riots is repaid

GypsyMoth · 11/08/2011 19:09

*all

Shitter · 11/08/2011 19:12

yes, good point Tiff. I have no idea how they are really going to deal with this, or even follow it through. But I do hope they should be accountable for their actions rather than slapped wrists.

Perhaps they should be forced to help with the re-build of those properties they have razed to the ground. Or work unpaid in the stores they have looted (not sure that there would be much stock with them working there though).

But they should all me made to suffer.

MilaMae · 11/08/2011 19:16

If my dp was involved in the riots he'd loose his job and we'd be homeless as we couldn't pay the mortgage.

We'd "be out on the street" end of and nobody would care two hoots.Right approach or not it's life.

Thankfully dp is a law abiding citizen so loosing his job for anti social behaviour won't happen.

You do the crime you do the time or should these people get preferential treatment?Hmm

meditrina · 11/08/2011 19:20

Many councils already have provision for evictions for anti-social behaviour or criminality and use these provisions. So the same would happen to the people who, following the riots, fit their locality's eviction criteria.

I'd say that if the role in the riot was the burning or smashing up of the neighbourhood, then that fits both anti-social and criminal criteria pretty well.

maypole1 · 11/08/2011 21:01

Shitter amen they they really will be able to plead poverty

ReshapeWhileDamp · 11/08/2011 22:33

Shitter (charming name, BTW Hmm) - how, in any way, is turfing people out onto the streets going to help bring an end to this sort of anti-social behaviour?

And I think you'll find that the courts are going to throw the book at individuals convicted of criminal damage, looting, burglary and so on. Why does every DM reader one assume that they're just going to get slapped wrists?

AmberLeaf · 11/08/2011 22:53

Yh the assumption that all rioters/looters must be social housing tenants is pissing me off.

hellospoon · 11/08/2011 23:01

Alot of the looters and rioters that have been in court are being shown to be professional people!

I think they should build a great big warehouse fill it with beds, a kitchen, some loos and let the fuckers get on with it. Let them destroy each other.

No benefits and no help. Make them fend for themselves

GypsyMoth · 11/08/2011 23:02

so what is causing proffesional people to loot and riot?

hellospoon · 12/08/2011 00:03

Don't know tiffany! I just saw on the news that a lot of the looters that have been brought to courts have jobs and 'normal' lives.

Original poster
WonkyDonkeys · 12/08/2011 08:44

The areas that were affected have a considerable amount of social housing - I would bet my life that the majority are housed by the council. It's one thing saying the majority of the rioters are probably in social housing and quite another to say all people in social housing are rioters, not sure why there is an outrage.

hellospoon - I think the media have been picking out the more 'unusual' cases as it makes a better read. Look at all the hype over the millionaires daughter.

MilaMae - you make a very good point. However, you're employer wouldn't say, "well you've been evicted, so here's some money towards renting a house".

I think 'the system' should cut them out. Completely. I like your idea hellospoon

OP posts:
OpinionatedPlusSprogs · 12/08/2011 10:34

It actually costs more to have them in temporary accomadation. Private rents cost more than council rents. If they have no roof over their head or income at all at all they will be even more likely to turn to crime to survive.

I'm no bleeding heart when it comes to crime but this is counter-productive. Unless you put someone away for life then you need to rehabilitate them back into society. Homelessness does this how?

If you couldn't pay your mortgage and were made homeless you would also be eligible for assistance so that argument is neither here nor there really.

Anifrangapani · 12/08/2011 10:50

Private rents cost more than council rents.

It depends on the area, but in London you would be right. This is why it is an attractive idea to council leaders, MPs et al in expensive areas. They are able to ghettoise those people who have displayed anti social behaviour into already poor areas. Most importantly to them the problem would no longer be theirs.