Eviction of families from local authority, or housing association accommodation on conviction of any family member being involved in riot-related offences.

[Pan]

This has triggered a wide-ranging debate on the reasonableness of this measure. What we do know is that entire families are now liable to homelessness due to the actions of one person in the family. The tactic used to enable this is the commonly-applied clause to be of 'good behaviour'. This is designed to protect other tenants in the vicinity from anti-social behaviour. We know that approx. 70% of offenders here do not live in that vicinity. LAs DO NOT accept responsibility for abti-social behaviour in other boroughs.

The proposed actions are discriminatory against LA/HA tenants per se (as compared with owner-occupiers/private tenants, and will fall hardest on single parent mothers with sons who have offended recently.

Is it reasonable to ask MN to use their voice/influence to raise a public campaign against these measures before a case precedent is established that can be used by LA/HAs to assist in their evictions policy?

I agree Pan. Since when do we punish innocent relatives of criminals? It will be baying mobs next.

They are having consequences, they have been arrested and are going to court and (judging from what has happened so far in the courts) most are going to prison.

I'm in Pan

OK so the whole family shouldn't suffer for the actions of one member. But isn't it a 'whole family' problem in many cases?

When the riots were occuring, we heard over and over 'where are the parents'? And 'how is it that these young children are out on the streets at all hours'? Or 'parents do you know where your children are'?

I'm not advocating eviction, but many have said that the sentences are so minimal that they are a joke due to overcrowding of jails ,etc - so not really a punishment or deterrent at all.

Hmm.... Not sure now, another thread someone says why should those burnt out of their homes now be sleeping in a b snd b, whilst the rioter sleeps in his own bed still?

Surely if over 18 then the rioters should be forced out?
If under 18, not sure

I'm in.

Totally with you pan, the eviction of families in these circumstances makes me feel sick. One rule for property owners, another for those unlucky enough to be poor

those people who burned others out their homes are a very very small number. 5 or 6 of them? A diabolical act.
BUT..this measure isn't about dealing with those v serious offenders. It's about punishing all the family if your son/daughter/husband/wife took any part in the events, such as the water and chewing gum thefts.

However you need to consider the people on the receiving end of the abuse from people terrorising them. Take the case of the mother with a severely disabled child who took their lives after suffering years of abuse from local youths. Was it fair that she was pushed to breaking point?

If you bring a child into the world they are your responsibility - I'm sorry if it sounds harsh but maybe if the consequences are harsh it will prevent some of the anti social behaviour that goes on

this "well why should they sleep in their beds when others are burnt out" is very holey logic

far too simplistic, old testament childish thick-headed crap, in fact

are we to remove their children too, so that we can throw them out into the street with a clear conscience?

and are you happy for the rational course of the law to be disrupted in favour of something more glamorous and draconian at others' whim too, or just when YOU feel vindictive?

I worry sometimes, I really do

I meant that i agree with the campaign not the ones who won't give a shit.

i thought you meant that Opinionated.

I'm with you Pan.
I think it's very sad to hear people 'poor bashing' and talking of collectively punishing the families of rioters.

In the case of the family that Wandsworth want to evict.

The mother has a much younger child - and the son that caused damage during the rioters was 18 - an adult. Seems very harsh that the mother and her young (innocent) daughter lose their home.

I don't know what sort of punishment I think is acceptable, which is why I do not work in government or anywhere within the justice department.
I think that maybe being taken to court, sentanced and having a criminal record is a good starting point.
Maybe the youths who are beyond control need a young offenders/boot camp type stint.
But I can't help but think recent rioting etc are the acts of people without hope. Without hope of life getting any better.
I'm not saying I understand why these people acted in this matter, but I do think if they seriously think they have nothing to lose, then they have nothing to lose.
I don't know.
Maybe some parents don't care, maybe some don't know how to control their children, but maybe the failure isn't on the youth of today, but on the last generation.
Life is hard, and alongside all those politicians fiddling the system, taking tax-payers money fraudulently, it's clear they don't give a shit about looking after our interests, and this is why they are voted in because the vast majority believe they can make our lives better.
I'm not saying politicians are to blame, I don't really know what I'm saying.
I'm never going to understand why those people acted like that because I am looking at the situation as a decent, law abiding citizen, these people do not hold the same morals that I do, clearly.
Now I'm waffling and I don't really know what I'm talking about or what I want to say, so will shut up.

Hello there,

Thanks for drawing our attention to this one. Do please (continue to) let us know what you think.

MNHQ x

To punish anyone with homelessness is just wrong. what do they expect will happen? more crime and more hate, benefits and social housing are the bottom of the barrel the end rung ofof the support network under which there is nothing. and why all the demonising of the poor, the police are not done catching people and taking them to court it's impossible to know who was fully responsible for the looting, all that is known so far is that 70% of them didn't live in the area they looted in, 10% where of no fixed address, so only 20% shitting on their own doorstep and out of them 50% where under 18, so thats 50% who where adults, as more and more go to court we are hearing more and more about them being upper class students, social workers, teaching assistants etc.

All this knee jerk reactions and blaming the poor because people where wearing hoodies, thats what kids wear, thats what all the students where wearing when they smashed up oxford street sometime ago, it's the uniform of trying to hide your face from CCTV thats all.

Please sign the epetition which is a counter epetition against the one that wants people to have their benefits cut off and be chucked out of council housing.

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7925

thanks Rowan.

It did strike me that the overall driver/ethos of Mumsnet is to 'make parenting easier'. This measure is directly opposing that value.

I am completely against the cutting of benefits.

But I am completely in favour of "good behaviour" clauses, which logically includes activating them.

I said this is premature because there is only one case, where only partial circumstances are known, and where the process has not reached its conclusion.

yes, I too agree with 'good behaviour clauses'. They are there for a specific purpose. But this use is not that purpose.

and yes the first case will provide a 'lead' for other civil court judges as to how to act in similar circumstances, hence the need to be on the front foot.

I am fairly fluid on the issue. I was in France most of this week and heard parents saying 'well how can I control my child when I am asleep' but really honestly, if you can't, who can? Are you saying your child is so out of control you need to throw him out and if given the choice between that and homelessness for the rest of the family what are you going to do?

I do think parents hold some responsibility - but there should be a place for the wayward kids too so that it is perhaps 'little Johnny lives in closely monitored accommodation for six months so he learns to live in society and that's partly because mum and dad can't cope with his behaviour.'

At some point we have to say this is a family problem, not an individual problem.

I think I prefer this sort of campaign:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14508554

wmmc - only a very small percentage of the people appearing are under 18. This is not a family question i.e. controlling children, though for some it will be.

The consequence though falls on all of the family - to have the safety and security removed, fracturing of relationships, schools being moved, friendships lost and a whole host of other problems.

And what are the family to do? the law favours the child and they are well aware that one phone call to SS can cause hell for their parents, it's not just teachers who are frightened of the kids and don't know how far they can go before the law says thats wrong, people don't know where they stand now.

Daphne - that peice is admirable.

but it doesn't have the wider impacts of this measure.

also, it is either/or - you can support this 'campaign' as well as supporting individuals in their struggle against the massive damage caused.