Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
Pan · 13/08/2011 14:13

reeling - the clause was designed for dealing with 'neighbour nusiance' and anti-social behaviour, and it's reasonable, imo, to have those clauses to protect other tenants. What is unreasonable is to evict on the basis of behaviour during the 'riots'.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 14:13

Sardine having gone down that route I can assure you that most children available to adopt are older than babies.Yes couples want babies but they don't get them.You don't put an order inHmm you get whoever needs a home and sadly in most cases it's older children.

Pan · 13/08/2011 14:15

this is prob. why 'orphan babies' from other countries are in such a demand.

sakura · 13/08/2011 14:15

I HAVE HAD AN EPIPHANY.

MAYBE the Conservatives don't like people who live in public housing

[random guess]

PlentyOfPubgardens · 13/08/2011 14:16

we cannot conclude it is abusing powers yes we can! He hasn't even been tried and convicted yet.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 14:18

Rioting is anti-social behaviour and those whose communities have been devasted deserve to see the perpetrators face the full arm of the law.

sakura · 13/08/2011 14:19

And as usualsuspect keeps pointing out:

since when do you make the crime fit the punishment?

How can you punish one group of people harsher than another group for the same crime?

sakura · 13/08/2011 14:21

but why their mothers Mila?

usualsuspect · 13/08/2011 14:22

I don't think its just the government,sakura

Pan · 13/08/2011 14:22

mila - so far 70% of those appearing don't live anywhere near the places they offended in.

EdithWeston · 13/08/2011 14:22

Sakura: you're ahead of the known facts. One eviction process has begun it will have to go through all the normal channels for eviction under that clause (which Wandsworth has, according to the councillor on the news, used many times before - which shows the clause is legal in itself). The young man charged is awaiting trial at another court - the eviction will proceed only if he is found guilty. The BBC report makes all this clear.

No further details of the nature of his alleged offences of violent disturbance and burglary, nor the prior record of any of the household, have been released.

sakura · 13/08/2011 14:22

People who think it's okay to punish a woman for the crimes of the male she is affiliated with really do see women as adjuncts to men.
Women can be either mothers (in relation to males) or wives/partners (in relation to males)
They simply cannot be seen as people in their own right, with their own separate moral and ethical codes.

sakura · 13/08/2011 14:24

edith but why his mother?

And why is nobody speaking up on behalf of the fact this is gendered: that it is going to be predominantly men who are found guilty for rioting, and predominantly women who will carry the fall-out and suffer the consequences, if they have to leave their homes

thefirstMrsDeVere · 13/08/2011 14:24

Sardine. The youngest age a child is freed for adoption is on average - 2 years old.

Most are much older.

Very occasionally a baby is removed if multiple siblings have been removed previously.

My DS came to live with me at 8 weeks. It was unlikely from the start that he would be reunited with his birthmum. He was two by the time we adopted him and there was no contest, no complications, no objections to the adoption. He was lucky that he came straight from her to us. Most children in his particular circumstances (very demanding b.mum, very very demanding contact schedule and emerging SN and medical problems) would have experienced multiple placements.

EdithWeston · 13/08/2011 14:26

The "crime" for which they are facing eviction is that of breaching the good behaviour clause in their tenancy agreement. According to Wandsworth, this clause is indeed in use, so they are being treated, prima facie, in the same way as others who broke thus clause. Self-evidently, being charged with a riot-related offence is neither necessary nor sufficient for that (if it were, we'd be seeing far more cases).

reelingintheyears · 13/08/2011 14:26

Pan,i do agree with you.

I live in rented accommodation...my LL wont throw me out as long as i pay my rent...why would he?...he just wants his rent paid on time.

MilaMae...are you being deliberately obtuse?

You will lose your house as a result of losing your job (unless you get gainful employment soon enough to keep paying your mortgage)
Not as a result of your criminal behaviour.

If you were self employed you would not lose your job therefore you would not lose your home.

EdithWeston · 13/08/2011 14:30

Sakura: that it is his mother is incidental. It is not targeted at mothers. It is a provision that affects all in the household. This happens to include in this case his mother - but it could have been any other permutation.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 14:38

I am self employed and I would loose my job-instantly!

Anybody sent to prison would loose their job pdq as they'd be in prison and not at work.Employers would find out as you wouldn't have a sick note or any lie to explain your absence for that long.

My criminal behaviour would thus cause the loss of my house.The end result is the same -myself and the dc would be homeless but that's ok.Hmm We'd be in even worse situation than those on benefits because we'd be completely out of the benefits system until things started to kick in.

usualsuspect · 13/08/2011 14:39

But if one of your children committed a crime ,you wouldn't lose your house

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 14:45

I would,dp maybe not.

sakura · 13/08/2011 14:45

Edith

One of the reasons protections are in place to protect minority groups such as women, is so that when a gendered issue arises, as it has done here, it can't be passed off as "random" or "unconnected" by people with agendas .

If there is a gendered pattern then it must be observed. If a policy disproportionately affects females then it is no longer "incidental" . It is gendered.

In the case of these evictions, it will be predominantly women who suffer the fall-out for the crimes that males commit (because sons tend to live with their mothers, and women are very vulnerable when homeless) .

I am interested to know what the Equalities commission has to say about this. They will know that there is no "incidental" about it.

sakura · 13/08/2011 14:47

it's not incidental that women are poorer, by far, than men
it's not incidental that black people are poorer and marginalized

if you refuse to look at the data and the big picture, you can pass it off as random, but I'm not here to do that. I'm here to look for patterns, and if I see a "provision" , as you call it, which unfairly affects women, then I will name it for what it is.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 14:47

Actually if theft was involved I'm not so sure re dp,I suspecting he could.We would loose the house anyhow as we need my income.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 14:49

Sakura you seem to forget the element of how much choice has an impact on your data and big picture.

Cheria · 13/08/2011 14:50

Personally I think evicting families from council housing is a disgusting, badly thought out knee jerk reaction pandering to Daily Mail readers.

Turning the poor out of their homes is never a solution, and reeks of extremism.

The UK should be very very worried. And not giving a damn what happens to them, as some have said on here? We're talking about families with children.

Swipe left for the next trending thread