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:
MilaMae · 13/08/2011 14:51

Ie I earn less than dp because I chose to give up my career choosing to stay at home with the dc until 5.Dp was more than happy to pay for childcare but I didn't want them in nursery,it was my/our choice. Nobody put a gun to my head and said have 3 kids and give up your career.

stripeywoollenhat · 13/08/2011 15:23

this guy is eighteen, right? an adult? am i missing something here? how can his mother be held responsible for his behaviour when she has no legal grounds to control him? and his 8 year old sister may be made homeless, and possibly put into care, if he's found guilty? is that not collective punishment? isn't that illegal?

just, wow.

EdithWeston · 13/08/2011 15:30

One case, which has not yet concluded, does not indicate let alone prove a gendered pattern.

Pan · 13/08/2011 15:43

no, but one knows that if this one goes through the innocent victim will be the mother, and daughter? We can be pretty sure that other cases will end up in similar circumstances where the innocent in all of the families will be made to suffer.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 15:49

Campaign errr not in my name thanks.

Exactly Edith.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 15:59

The mother says she's not responsible for him so why is she housing him?You can't have it both ways.

I'm sure the council can look at turfing out the looter and perhaps rehousing mother and child in a smaller property.

Given the petion crashed through so much traffic clearly the eviction of looters is a popular policy.

Pan · 13/08/2011 16:01

the petition is about benefits in any case.

acheiving 100,000 names means only it is popular with them. Not the entire country.

Pan · 13/08/2011 16:02

Mila - loving an adult family member and living with them ISN'T the same as 'being responsible' for them. If you dh offended would it be fair you are sentenced as well??

think things through please.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 16:08

As I said Pan I would be sentenced as well-we'd be homeless as dp would loose his job and be very unlikely to get another.

Currysecret · 13/08/2011 16:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen · 13/08/2011 16:17

"I'm sure the council can look at turfing out the looter and perhaps rehousing mother and child in a smaller property."

I suggested this miles upthread but everyone ignored it. Although I'm personally not sure what putting the looters onto the streets will achieve I understand why people want to see it.

This isn't what they are doing though. The procedure is to evict the whole family, then the mother is "intentionally homeless" and so will not be rehomed, at this point what happens to younger children I don't know, whether they will be put into care or what. I also don't know what would happen in multi-generational families where you had an elderly person living there as well, are they intentionally homeless as well?

This whole thing has not been thought through (surprise surprise).

Pan · 13/08/2011 16:18

a campaign asked for on this issue

SardineQueen · 13/08/2011 16:19

mila

I'm afraid you are talking nonsense again. I worked in financial services for years and they checked for fraud when you got the job. Once you're in they don't regularly recheck. If I went to magistrates court for looting and got a non-custodial sentence my employer wouldn't be any the wiser.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 16:20

I'm loving the assumption that all who think the state shouldn't pay to house criminals are daily mail readers Hmm.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 16:21

Well given my dp writes code for financial institutions and has access to millions of people's bank and life details and would have no way of excusing his absence when in jail believe me he'd loose his job-pronto.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 16:23

He'd never work again.

As a childminder/teacher I'd be struck off and would never work again.

SardineQueen · 13/08/2011 16:23

So you think that if a man is a criminal, his entire family are as well?

This really shows up a quite scary attitude - that women are not seen as having their own morals, approach, attitude etc. They are simply adjuncts to a man - and if he is bad and must go so must she and the children as well.

It's a really dated attitude (that women and children have no "presence" in law they only exist in relation to a man) and I find it amazing that people are falling in with this victorian way of thinking.

SardineQueen · 13/08/2011 16:24

I said if there wasn't a custodial sentence.

You really don't bother reading the posts of people you are conversing with do you.

SardineQueen · 13/08/2011 16:25

Oh blah blah admin people in financial institutions have access to that data. Financial institutions do not regularly check the criminal records of their existing employees.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 16:25

So you think it's ok that these people should get a non custodial sentence and get special protection to keep their homes/benefits(where applicable)?Where exactly is the incentive not to do it again?

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 16:27

So if there was a non custodial sentence what exactly would the punishment be?

From what I read most looters are going to have the book thrown at them and quite rightly so.If the gov don't ensure this happens it will happen again and again.

SardineQueen · 13/08/2011 16:27

You are changing the subject mila.

Please try engaging with the points I have made.

Why do you think women and children should be made homeless, and (presumably) younger children separated from their mothers and put into the care system (there will be no abuse in most of these home so children will be removed from loving families) when they have committed no crime?

Pan · 13/08/2011 16:28

'these people' are a very wide-ranging sort of people, from teenagers who stole bottles of water, and another who stole some chewing gum, right through to fire-starters, murderers and robbers.

no, not all 'these people' deserve to go to prison, or make their families homeless.

reelingintheyears · 13/08/2011 16:29

Ok MilaMae....you would lose your job working with children....but you can always get a different job that does not require police checks..

You could become a window cleaner for instance or retrain as an electrician/plumber/florist/ anything, in the evenings.

You would have choices in order to be able to pay to keep your home.

Losing your job does not mean your home would be taken from you.

Not paying your mortgage would mean your home may be taken from you.

If you don't keep up your mortgage payments then the bank may repossess...this also takes a long time.

You would be able to get another job and still keep your hmoe.

MilaMae · 13/08/2011 16:31

Teenagers stealing do deserve to go to prison.

How exactly else should they be punished? Oh I know by doing sfa which is exactly why we're in this mess to begin with.

Why should I loose my home and have to face the consequences and not others?

Swipe left for the next trending thread