Where will they go?

[WonkyDonkeys]

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...

Solopower: obviously a council cannot act other than in its capacity as landlord in this. We don't yet know much about this case - the BBC said it couldn't report even names for legal reasons, though the linked bit of the Mail has a few more details. It does seem that the offence may be serious - he's actually being tried at a higher court for violent disturbance (not referred there for sentencing, as others with more minor offences have been), and there was rioting in Wandsworth. So it is possible that this is a case both serious and violent, and local.

(BTW: I used to live in Wandsworth. They definitely do not evict for all criminal offences. I'd be very surprised if any council did - none are proposing it even now).

Homeowners cannot be lawfully deprived of their property other than by the courts, and confiscation of assets is part of the penalty in some criminality - I think it's currently mainly icw proceeds of crime, and untaxed vehicles. If you want to see this established as a penalty, then it might be worth lobbying your MP or campaigning in other ways for harsher penalties (you'd also have to oblige private landlords, all housing associations and all councils - even those who currently do not evict - to act to the same effect).

Of course then, the home owner, if on a mortgage, would be left both homeless and also (unless they had outright ownership) with their mortgage to pay back immediately (as the company would foreclose). Would you want to impose a "fine in lieu of mortgage" on tenants to keep to the idea of equality of consequences?

But of course some might find themselves in a similar position - if they lost their job as result of acquiring a criminal record and could not pay the mortgage, they might be forced into a sale. And no-one would concerned about where they went next.

They should have thought about that before breaking the law. Those whose businesses and homes werent burnt down have to start all over again through no fault of their own, so quite fitting that those involved have to.

"Cogito - what about people who own their houses, as Tiffany said earlier? "

If you own your own home you can pretty much do what you like to it. But fail to keep up the mortgage payments because you've been gaoled or sacked and you'll probably lose it. If you are a council or private tenant you are already subject to fairly restrictive tenancy rules. Break those rules and the consequence is that you can be evicted. What this case shows, if anything, is that councils have not been enforcing the tenancy rules up to now.... and then is it any wonder that decent people abiding by the rules occasionally feel aggreived?

Edith, at the moment, I don't think anyone should lose their home simply because they took advantage of a riot to commit a crime - even if it is an aggravating factor. They are two separate things. Imo, Wandworth Council is muddying the waters by connecting the fact that they want to evict this family to the fact that one of the family members was involved in the riots.

Obviously, if you break the law, you have to take the consequences. But what is so sad - and unfair - is that the other innocent members of the family always suffer too (like Nevermind's example), whatever the crime.

Happymummy - making loads more people homeless isn't gong to solve anything, imo.

I think Wandsworth, far from muddying the waters, are being very clear in a literal sense. The contract - and I can only paraphrase because I haven't read it - specifically forbids tenants and anyone sharing their home from engaging in criminal activity in the locality. It's a breach of contract. All councils presumably have the same legal recourse and simply don't choose to exercise it. Yes, it's harsh on innocent family members and it's clearly a political decision, but if Wandsworth tenants start shaping up for fear of eviction it might improve the community as a whole.

Solopower, maybe it wont but the example I've read today shows one living in a £225k flat paid for by tax payers. Now rather than being grateful for a free (very expensive) home they choose to break the law so should suffer for their actions. Hopefully they wont get such a nice place the second time.

If parents suffer due to the move then its only down to poor parenting in the first place, if you bring a child up knowing right from wrong they dont then go out stealing etc.

Our justice system is a joke, they will get a slap on the wrist and those that had their homes/businesses burnt down or shops who lost immense stock will be the ones who suffer the most. Not to mention the fact that insurance and prices for all those law abiding people will rocket.

Cogito, I agree. They should evoke the clause regardless of the criminal activity - perhaps then we would have a nicer society.

They should be treated exactly the same as anybody committing similar crimes in less dramatic circumstances. Anything else isn't justice, it's scapegoating.

The boy in wandsworth hasn't even been convicted yet. The bloke from the council said she would be considered to have made herself intentionally homeless. I suppose in those circumstances they would house her DC but not her

I read this morning that normally Magistrates' Courts jail 3.5% of their cases. This week alone, the figure is 60%. Exceptional times, but I would imagine that the party line here is to make an example of anyone found guilty of any involvement in rioting/looting/burglary. So many people seem to believe that the authorities can't touch them whatever crime they commit. This sort of action, draconian, harsh or unfair that it might seem to some, has to be intended as a deterrent against future antisocial behaviour.

news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16049238

First eviction notice served. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I don't know anything about this woman and her son, but on the face of it, it is very chilling. As is the footage of police in full riot gear battering their way into a flat at the end of the piece.

clam: interesting as that statistic is, it's not a valid comparison. Magistrates' courts usually deal with a much greater range of crimes, with a much greater range of potential sentencing options. In the last few days they have been sitting round the clock, dealing exclusively with crimes arising during the disturbances. I'd be much more concerned if it wasn't atypical.

JUST IN CASE you missed my post on the other thread.This bloody patriarchy is punishing women for men's crimes.

Mother of man arrested in riots is served with eviction notice

So not only have they invented a new law without asking anyone. But they have invented a new law that punishes women for men's crimes.
It's despicable.
I'm going to write a letter to the equalities commission about this. PUnishing women for men's crimes is taking the backlash against women to another level

Why don't they round up the father of this rioting man, and evict HIM from his home too. Seeing as the government is so keen on pretending that fathers are equally as important.

Or is it that fathers are involved when it suits them (men, I mean), but when it comes to punishment and BLAMING, parent= mother.

No, they are enacting a sex-blind clause in an existing tenancy agreement.

EdithWeston there is a massive range of crimes and severity of crimes that have happened during these disturbances. Everything from murder and arson down to 'theft by finding' (picking something up from the pavement).

They should be treated the same as anybody else committing such crimes and they should be tried as individuals.

Its got nothing to do with punishing women for mens crimes - they are evicting the household as they broke the rules of the tenancy. Its nothing to do with the sex of the tennancy holder.

Edith, You're defending a woman being made homeless because of a man's crime, then, in a society were women are already disenfranchised economically, politically and socially?
THe reason the Equality Commission exists at all is because, in a patriarchy, women are an extremely vulnerable group. Look at the cuts. The Fawcett society has taken the government to court for targeting women, who are already poorer. Look at the job-losses. Women have been hit much harder than men.
Women are a vulnerable group because they are discriminated against, and because violence is regularly used against them in order to uphold the status quo. A homeless woman is in a very vulnerable position indeed. If the government was competent, it would know this.
The alternative is, that it does know this, and doesn't give a shit

It's not a new law and it isn't sexist. It's there in the existing tenancy agreement that all the occupants of the house have to abide by certain rules. If the boy in question was living with his father in the council flat, the father would be being evicted.

There is a new rule being proposed which is to extend the stipulation to cover other areas and not just the immediate locality. So if someone lived in a council flat in Wandsworth but had been smashing up shops in Birmingham, they'd be covered.

So only council tenants will get this extra punishment?

And thats fair?

I agree plenty. And of all those convicted in Wandsworth so far, only one has been issued with an eviction notice (following a charge of violent disturbance - even though details of actions which led to that charge have not been released, it is clearly not a minor matter).

No council has said it will be using its existing powers automatically for all offences.

Happy
So, it wouldn't be political if a black man was punished for a crime that a white man commited?

The word patriarchy means that men run all institutions, create all laws, organize and run the police/government/corporations all to their benefit (this is not conjecture, this is fact)
Given that a patriarchy is the status quo, where laws are made by men to benefit men and women don't get a look in, it is really important that women's groups address a situation like this, whereby women are becoming collaterol damage, and are taking hits for men.

sakure if a black man and a white man shared that council flat and the white man committed the offence then they would both be in breach of contract. You seem rather obsessed with the concept of patriarchy and I think you're missing the point as a result.

Sakura: that is not the issue here.

The prima facie case is that the tenancy agreement has been breached. As cogito points out, had this been a household headed by a single father, the action would be the same.