Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
SardineQueen · 13/08/2011 17:37

The people who will be scared will not be the people who have been involved. Again, it is punishing the wrong people.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 13/08/2011 17:54

It's not punishment for the council to fire a warning shot across the bows. And, taking your logic a little further, if the families of the people involved in the looting are not that scared of the repercussions... then maybe all of our hand-wringing about them being evicted is rather misplaced?

meditrina · 13/08/2011 18:33

The provision for evictions of this type was part of the amendments brought forward in 2007 to the Criminal Justice Act.

Despite what some people have posted, this also brings a duty on the council to rehouse any families with dependent children.

SardineQueen · 13/08/2011 18:37

I didn't say that the families of people involved in the looting weren't scared of repurcussions.

I was questioning whether this kind of threat will hold much water with a 14yo boy who is out with his mates IYSWIM. I doubt many of these children even knew about this clause in the tenancy. My children don't know the details of our mortgage (well they're a bit little!) but you get my drift.

These threats and punishments are being aimed at soft targets who are not the actual people who have done anything wrong.

Chantal2011 · 13/08/2011 18:41

www.wandsworth.gov.uk/site/scripts/news_article.php?newsID=10626

If Daniel Sartain-Clarke is guilty he should face the full force of the law - and where any council tenant commits a serious crime it is right that they face eviction from their property. What is completely unfair is Cllr Govindia judging this young man guilty before he has faced any trial - and then vindictively threatening to make his mother and a blameless eight-year-old child homeless as extra punishment.

AmberLeaf · 13/08/2011 22:22

No children will be taken into care if their mother parent is evicted.

It just doesnt work like that.

SardineQueen · 14/08/2011 10:41

Someone on another thread has said that the people will still be entitled to housing benefit which was not what I understood the head of wandworth council to be saying.

When the council leader said that they would evict them and have no further obligation to them regarding housing I understood this to mean that they would not get any housing benefit and would be homeless in the on the streets sense. Hence the children would be taken into care as even if they washed their hands of the adults presumably they couldnt do that with the children.

Someone has said this is not the case but I am still concerned.

AmberLeaf · 14/08/2011 10:45

They would still be entitled to housing benefit even if evicted.

Children being taken into care is hugely expensive on a week to week basis compared to paying a housing benefit, that just wouldnt make sense, never mind the fact of foster carer availability!

No further obligation to them would mean no further obligation to house them ie council accomodation.

SardineQueen · 14/08/2011 10:50

I hope you're right amberleaf, I really do, I have been very worried about all these people out on the streets and what was going to happen to the children. The talk that I have heard though doesn't seem to say that they will have anywhere to live, the council leader implied it certainly.

Either way I am still very much against evicting people from their homes on the basis of a one-off crime committed by someone else in the family. I don't see why a young child should lose their home because of something their older brother did, it seems disproportionate to me. They should just evict the person who committed the crime and leave the innocent (women and children) where they are.

banana87 · 14/08/2011 11:02

Council housing is a benefit. People who trash and destroy the community do not deserve such benefits. I cannot and will not feel sorry for the rioters who are kicked out of council housing. They deserve everything they get. What kind of message are we sending these criminals if we allow them to destroy their community and keep the benefit of taxpayers paying for their housing?

SardineQueen · 14/08/2011 11:07

So you have no sympathy with little children who are going to be turfed out of their homes as a result of something they had nothing to do with?

You agree that it is correct to punish entire families for the actions of one of their number?

SardineQueen · 14/08/2011 11:09

So there is a family with a mum and 3 kids, a sixth form age boy who nicked some trainers in the riots, a disabled 8 year old and a 5 year old both settled at school.

You say throw them all out of their home and cheer while it's done.

Why does that make you happy? I genuinely don't understand it.

SardineQueen · 14/08/2011 11:10

Why not just evict the person who committed the criminal act?

Why punish everybody else as well?

Just simple spite?

AmberLeaf · 14/08/2011 11:10

Banana, here we are talking about the families of rioters [who have not been involved in rioting] being evicted.

SardineQueen · 14/08/2011 11:26

Sorry for multiple posts I just dont' understand the mass empathy bypass on MN at the moment.

BonnieLassie · 14/08/2011 11:26

It would be a hell of a deterrent, wouldn't it? Little scrotes might not fear jail, but they'd certainly fear their whole family being evicted from their home. I say do it. We've been too soft for far too long.

SardineQueen · 14/08/2011 11:32

Why do you think "little scrotes" will fear their whole family being evicted? If they are the "little scrotes" that you say they are they won't give a fuck.

The people who will suffer will be their families who haven't actually done anything wrong.

SardineQueen · 14/08/2011 11:33

Anyone who is actively calling for children to be evicted from their homes when they have done nothing wrong is the scrote quite frankly.

usualsuspect · 14/08/2011 12:12

What about the little scrotes who live in owned houses?

Or are they a different kind of scrote?

Currysecret · 14/08/2011 12:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BonnieLassie · 14/08/2011 12:18

"What about the little scrotes who live in owned houses?

Or are they a different kind of scrote?"
They pay their own way. It takes the piss for people to be happy to accept the benefits of the state but not being prepared to adhere to the law. They have to learn they cannot do both.

AmberLeaf · 14/08/2011 12:23

Bonnielassie

Do you mean their parents 'pay their own way'

You do know that people in council houses pay their own way too?

They arent free you know!

AmberLeaf · 14/08/2011 12:24

For the 1,000,000th time council house does not = benefit recipient!

SardineQueen · 14/08/2011 12:53

Given that most people I knew at 17 did stuff that their parents didn't know about, I find the reaction of many very strange.

Apparently me and all my friends were "little scrotes" although strangely now we are all fine upstanding members of society.

I think you would be more hard pressed to find a 17 yo who had never misled their parents or done something stupid than one who hadn't. Yet judging by the reactions on here you'd think it was the other way around Confused

usualsuspect · 14/08/2011 12:55

'They pay their own way. It takes the piss for people to be happy to accept the benefits of the state but not being prepared to adhere to the law. They have to learn they cannot do both'

Many people who live in owed houses receive some kind of benefit ,CTC ,TC. CB

Swipe left for the next trending thread