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...

but anyway, my main argument aside, the entire premise is ridiculous.
As usualsuspect says, you don't adjust the punishment according to a criminal's socio-economic background. YOu don't and change the punishment to fit their race/class/gender/personal circumstances. WHat kind of justice is that?

If your poor, you get punished more than if you commit the same crime but own your own house? Ridiculous.

Hey Cogito Yup, obsessed with the patriarchy and proud

There is too much to go into here, but women getting evicted because they happen to be the mothers of men who commit crimes is a breach of civil rights. Especially because women are a vulnerable minority. (Minority is the term sociologists give to women because their political and economic power in proportion to men is so tiny)

Sakura: spot on! And it would be wrong to assume that all council house tenants have a certain income level, or indeed make any assumptions about their circumstances. What remains is the clause in the contract that has been broken, and that all who break their contracts face enforcement.

What about the parents of the ballerina,or the A level student or the social worker?
What extra punishment will they get?

and people think inequality this will solve this unrest?

this equality*

inequality* ,god can't type today

Edith,
If this clause is detrimental to women's safety, whereby through no fault of their own (it's not a crime to have a son FFS) they are made homeless because the men who invented the clause didn't take into consideration that this would affect the vulnerable minority group: women, then this is an issue for women's groups.

women didn't invent the rules, men did. And they did so without taking into consideration how this would be a disaster for women. Why should women be punished for giving birth to a boy (males are FAR more likely to commit crimes than girls.

LOL! usualsuspect. Yes, I do believe they think creating homelesness will solve the underlying issues that led to the riots

that was to the government

I think other peoples attitudes towards council house scum has a big part to play in the underlying issues

Interesting youtube clip with Jeremy Corbyn, where he criticizes the eviction of families because one member committed a crime

I think the fact our taxes are going on paying for large salaries for incompetent bankers and their bonuses, (the scrounging banker scum) instead of libraries and community swimming pools, has a big part to play in the underlying issues too

sakura: you seem to be consistently overlooking the point that this is a sex-blind clause. It would apply equally regardless of makeup of the household. It has to - unless you are going to categorise some people as beyond the law that applies to all of us. I would not want to see any group given immunity from the laws that bind the rest of us. That would be a dangerous precedent.

Thanks for the link, Sakura.

Imo it is inevitable that whole families will suffer when one member commits a crime - but the powers that be should try to minimise the bad effects on the other family members, or they will just create more problems, and round the vicious circle will go again.

You are right to make the point that it's mostly the men who commit the crimes and the women who suffer as a result. We need to understand why and do something about it.

Sorry to intrude with a bit of logic but wouldn't stopping all government support for these just mean they would be more likely to do crime seems like shooting ourselves in the foot. The same for jail really throw them in, then all do is learn new skills gain more contacts and when they come out they are virtually unemployable and guess what happens that's right more crime they have nothing to lose by it. Is it any wonder that the majority of people in jail are reoffenders.

If it was a reduction I might be in favour but a complete stop makes me ask the question what if they have children, also since in London half of those arrested are under 18 does this mean their parents/parent get kicked out too a long with any siblings?

sakura it is not a breach of civil rights either because Wandsworth council will demonstrate that their rule applies to all their council tenants regardless of ethnicity, gender or income level. Eviction has always been a sanction open to councils for breach of contract. Eviction is also a sanction open to private landlords. Eviction/reposession is also a sanction open to mortgage lenders when the mortgage-holder goes into arrears. Would we say it's a civil rights issue because innocent children are evicted from a private home when the parents they happen to live with don't keep up the repayments? There is no automatic right to remain in your home unless you own the thing 100% ... and even then, you and the people in your household are bound by certain laws not to be antisocial.

But seeing as you seem to have completely gone off on a tangent blaming the national bogeyman bankers for everything, I assume you don't want a sensible discussion really.

here

The Daily Hate Mail have an article on the first family to be evicted.

So an 8 year old girl is in danger of losing her home?

Yep ,thats going to solve all this countries problems

If this is true it's so unfair!

Councils have always had the power to evict people who break the law, but if they were not applying this power beforehand, this must come as a terrible shock to anyone who was caught up in the riots - especially if they have never been in trouble before, and hadn't read through/understood the tenancy agreement.

'I didn't read the small print' is no defence.

An 8 year old girl losing her home. It's enough to provoke another riot.

David Cameron is a fuckwit.

This is a stupid idea.

If they want to evict problem tenants that is one thing. To make a whole family homeless because of one member is disgusting.

Now the News of the World is out of action are the Daily Mail running the country?

It is a breach of civil rights because women are a group who are protected by the Equalities Comission, by virtue of them having almost zero power in law and policy-making. This is why these organizations are set up: to protect women and other groups who are considered to be minorities.

Women are still considered "minorities" by sociologists because of the miniscule amount of power they hold in society compared to men.

This means that when governments of any country in the EU are making decisions about laws, they must take into account women's minority status. The COndem government did not do this when it targeted women for cuts, and the "person" i.e the man, who invented the rule that if a son commits a crime his "parent" ('which we all know translates into mother in 99.99999% of the cases) will be made homeless, this is an issue for women's groups.

If women had as much power as men then no, this would not be a problem.
When women are MASSIVELY disenfranchised in society, you can't just throw them out of their homes. When they haven't done anything wrong.

I think it's right and I hope they follow it through everywhere.

The reason it's mothers who will be evicted alongside their kids is because it's where the person who does the crime is registered as a tenant.If said person was living with his father it would be the father evicted.

People renting anywhere have to follow by contracts and rules.It is their responsibility to make sure all living at an address abide by the rules.If a parent chooses not to control their children and to raise kids who think it's ok to trash their local community it's tough luck and I have zero sympathy.Why should the wider community put up with said tenants?

If it was private housing they'd be evicted pronto and said community could have decent law abiding neighbours. This action could well get rid of bad apples who have made a community suffer for years.I think it's outrageous that those living in their nice quiet neighbourhoods think "poor little rioters,the wider community should just put up with them" you wouldn't want them if it was your community.

Poor,lazy parenting makes communities suffer and it's about time parents were made to take their responsibilities on the chin instead of just turning a blind eye to their kids appalling behaviour. Perhaps if parents are in fear of loosing their flat they may put more effort into their parenting instead of expecting society to do it for them.If we all let our kids run riot it would be total anarchy. These parents enjoy the benefits of a society in which the majority of parents do a decent job.If we all choose to parent the way some do life just wouldn't be worth living for any of us.

Oh and re the rich(by that I guess you mean those that pay a mortgage for which one needs a job to do so)as I said before if my dp chose to riot he'd loose his job pronto and we'd be homeless pronto. Nobody would care about my 6 and 7 year olds either so it's more than fair.If you break a contract you pay the consequences. Contracts are made for a reason ie to stamp out selfish behaviour such as we've seen the past week.