Eviction of rioters
Question: What’s the difference between having a child who is a mass murderer and a child who is a rioter?
Answer: A roof over your head.
That’s because sharing a home with a mass murderer won’t get you and the rest of the family evicted from your council house.
But having a child who took part in the recent riots could cause you to be made homeless.
How has this come about? The green light has been given to local councils to evict tenants who were involved in the recent riots in London and cities across England.
Wandsworth in London has become the first council to serve an eviction notice to a tenant – a mother whose son has appeared in court in connection with the disturbances.
It’s a policy supported by none other than our prime minister who, fresh from his holiday in Tuscany, has come back energised to fix what he alliteratively calls Broken Britain.
David Cameron told the BBC that people who ‘loot and pillage their own community’ should be evicted from council housing. Evictions were a way of ‘enforcing responsibility in our society,’ he said.
Too bad if the rioters’ siblings have to change schools.
Too bad on the parents, too, if they have to move away from where they work or lose their support networks.
After all, the rioters ‘should have thought of that before they started burgling,’ Cameron said.
But they didn’t, of course, no more than they ‘thought’ about being caught and convicted. That’s the nature of the beast.
Cameron’s policy, however, is already fixing Broken Britain.
Already one mother, as the Daily Mail reported on 19 August, has allowed her 19-year-old son to stay in prison rather than use the family home as a bail address.
He had appeared before magistrates in London in connection with the riots and his mother didn’t want to risk being evicted – she has younger children to look after.
And this is just the beginning.
The most popular e-petition on the government’s website currently calls for convicted rioters to lose their benefits. Good idea, so long as when they are strapped for cash they don’t mug you or me.
But why stop with benefits? Let’s deprive them and their families of treatment on the National Health Service.
Not to mention free schooling at state schools. That’ll teach them a lesson they won’t forget.
There will be no more Broken Britain – just a sub-class of people with even less engagement with society that those rioters demonstrated.
I’m not, to paraphrase Cameron when he was in opposition, suggesting we hug a rioter. They should be punished – and hard.
But unleashing the spirit of the vigilante mob is not the solution.
Comments
Eviction of rioters
I couldn't agree more with this. Why don't politicians ever seem to think through the true consequences of some of their knee jerk policies rather than playing to the massed ranks of the thoughtless. An excellent university education (paid for by the tax payer too) has obviously not taught David Cameron much about true causes and effects.
Also of course none of these rioters had any idea they were risking thier benefits or their or their families' homes when rioting, since this is a new policy, so even if they had been minded to think about such things they wouldn't have known they needed to.
Revenge or punishment?
This is an important issue spoilt by a stupid comparison. A mass murderer's home is more likely to be demolished than its occupants' tenancy terminated. The question we should be asking ourselves is what is the right and proper reaction to a state of uncontrolled law breaking which threatens the lives and livelihoods of the community? If parental control has failed and there is no trace of respect for law and order, what measures are effective to deter potential rioters and looters from making the mistake of joining in or promoting an attack on a local shop? Deportation? Being fired from their job? Being evicted from their home? A prison sentence and a criminal record? All of these are valid and justifiable reactions to recent events and should not be dismissed out of hand. Each case warrants being dealt with on its merits and it ill behoves factions in our society to ridicule them under an emotive and misleading heading such as this.Where do you live, Mr Rayner, and what would you do if your house was set on fire and your local shops put out of business?
Spot on
Nobody would disagree that rioters should receive the appropriate punishments based on the circumstances of the crime, in line with sentencing guidelines (or justified deviations from those guidelines) but the key word is appropriate. Where is the justice in punishing those in receipt of benefits and, more importantly, their families when those who own their own houses are not subject to the same punishment. It suggests a two-tier justice system where those less fortunate are treated differently in the eyes of the law.
In response to N A-G:
"A mass murderer's home is more likely to be demolished than its occupants' tenancy terminated" - that's an equally stupid comparison and misses the point, which is that the parents of the mass murderer would lose their home too! Is that justified.
"The question we should be asking ourselves is what is the right and proper reaction to a state of uncontrolled law breaking which threatens the lives and livelihoods of the community?" - the answer to that question is to react in accordance with the law, rather than to change the law in a knee-jerk response. 'Being fired from their job', 'Being evicted' are not punishments under the law. The former may be consequence but is certainly not a punishment available to the courts. 'Being evicted' potentially is but only under very well-defined circumstances but would and should not extend to the others living in that home.
'Emotive and misleading' could equally be applied to the statements from politicians regarding the removal of benefits.
The law also considers issues such as rehabilitation and prevention. How likely are these to be achieved if benefits are withdrawn and individuals and families made homeless?
Where is justice and
Where is justice and fairness?
Who will be left to clean up the mess?
Let me guess!
Charities funded by the big society?
Eviction for anti-social; behaviour
I can't see why you shouldn't evict families whose members are guilty of gross anti-social behaviour (such as rioting and looting). The power to do this is already in most tenancy agreements anyway, albeit unevenly enforced. And it is popular among tenants as they have rights too..
Children Of the Damned
So the parents of all these mass murderers roaming the country are managing to stay in their houses eh? Very sinister indeed.
Perhaps Jonathan Rayner has been watching too many late night movies on the horror channel. How many child mass murderers in the UK have we actually had in recent years (or at all)?
Perfect circle
Oh, they`re poor, live in council places because they can`t afford anywhere else. So let`s put them on the street where they`re err...poor and can`t afford to live anywhere else. At least those who introduced the Workhouse were honest about their intentions....
Welcoming evicted looters as next door neighbours
Perhaps the last blogster could tell the authorities where he lives and that he is happy to have evicted looters and rioters relocated next door to him? Or could it be that he/she lives in an area where he/she never will have to face systemic anti-social behaviour as a problem?
Why should people in social housing ( what the previous blogster describes rather patronisingly as "poor" people) have to put up with behaviour that he/she- presumably not "poor"- wouldn't tolerate for a moment?
Why so much sympathy for the
Why so much sympathy for the rioters, and none for the people who have to live in the vicinity of those who partake in criminal and antisocial behaviour? Not everyone in social/council housing is poor, feckless, or on benefits. Nor are they disengaged from society or part of some underclass. Many are ordinary hardworking people trying to live decent lives. Why should the law abiding majority have to put up with the antisocial and criminal activities of the minority? Why should they have their lives made a misery? Or are you worried Mr Rayner that if these people are forced out of their council homes, they may just come and live door next to you!
Response to comments on 'Eviction of rioters'
Thanks everyone for your posts.
I didn't mean to try and gain sympathy for the rioters. They have burned businesses and people's homes. They have burgled and mugged and intimidated. And some of them have killed.
They deserve to be punished, but I fear that eviction will cause more problems than it solves. Where will their families live? Will landlords rent them a property after they have been evicted from their previous home?
Will the offenders become even more 'feral' and anti-social? Will their brothers and sisters, who have hitherto been law-abiding, reason that they have gained nothing by being honest - they have been made homeless, after all - and so decide on a life of crime?
And so forth.
Jonathan Rayner
Why is it wrong Mr Rayner for
Why is it wrong Mr Rayner for the law abiding relatives of those involved in criminal behavior to lose their homes, but apparently acceptable for equally law abiding and innocent people to be terrorised in theirs? No one forced these rioters onto the streets, they made a choice and as a result must accept personal responsibility for what they have done. If their families also suffer, then surely they only have themselves to blame?
Well who knows how an evicted
Well who knows how an evicted family will respond- it could go either way, but that is what being an autonomous person with free will is all about. Actions have consequences for good and for bad and if you don't want bad ones then the solution is in your own hands. That is what grossly dysfunctional families have to learn, just like the rest of us. And it is never to late to change.
I should, however, point out that there is a secondary duty on Housng Departments to help intentionally homeless people ( eg those evicted) find alternative accommodation. The state does not wash its hands of evicted looters. The prospect of large numbers of homeless feral children haunting the urban streets like 21st century Artful Dodgers is remote and based on ignorance of modern housing law.
Let's remember that families are regularly evicted for anti-social behaviour, for such activities as allowing drug dealing in their home to persistently intimidating neighbours, or even trying to set fire to their own home ( recent case in my area). For every family that does this sort of thing there are a great many families living nearby suffering as a result. What does Jonathan Rayner propose as an alternative that he would be prepared to accept if he was a neighbour?
Seems that Cameron loves a
Seems that Cameron loves a knee-jerk reaction, populist, reaction with little thought to the concequences.
I'm beginning to think that politicians set the basis for policy on who gets the most thumbs up on the Daily Mail comments section.
Simples....
I would certainly like to see anti social tenants rehoused if they were living next to me..but there is no slack in the system to relocate people to the extent that it will solve the problems rather than shift them to another part ofn the system. It is almost literally "passing the buck". And if its all the same to you, I`d rather the exercise of "autonomy and free will" didn`t have to extend down to choices between noise, rats bed and breakfast and the street. Its called civilization BTW.
Particularly, in Asian
Particularly, in Asian society, parents have more control over their children rather than West. West always talk about, human rights, fundamental rights and independent behavior. if I do not have the right to punish my child, how can I control him. How, can other members of that family be responsible for once bad behavior. Basically, we are wrong. If parents beat their children reasonably, law must allow this. then only, that child learn a lesson that if I do something wrong I will be punished. Can parents in our country will thing about???
More response to comments on 'Eviction of rioters'
Dear Anonymous at 15.14 Wednesday and others
What would I do with anti-social neighbours?
Good question. We used to have such neighbours and they made us miserable with their graffiti, minor arson, vandalism and the rest. Luckily for us, they moved on of their own accord.
It just seems to me unjust collectively to punish a whole family because one member of it, along with thousands of others, got involved in the recent riots and looting. I suspect such a measure could be storing up more trouble for the future.
In a nutshell, I don't have a solution, but don't think this is the solution.
Jonathan Rayner
Eviction for offences other than rioting
But we already do that. Indeed it's a very popular measure- in the case of a son/daughter who uses the family house for immoral purposes such as prostitution or illegal activities such as selling drugs it would not be unusual for the family to be evicted, usually to the great relief of people who live there. I think that society hopes that the act of eviction will force the family to take some responsibility for its own behaviour.What alternative is there? If communities do not believe the law will protect them then they will take it into their own hands- or the bad guys will....
I can't see why it is ok to evict for these offences and not for rioting, looting and wrecking your neighbourhood. Or are you saying that nobody should ever be evicted unless the person who actually signed the tenancy agreement was the individual convicted of anti-social behaviour, and not for example the partner, or the children? If so I don't think you would have much support for it and in any case that's not what tenants have agreed to when they sign tenancy agreements.
Important distinction
I am no housing lawyer but a crucial difference to take into account is that the offence ie. looting , has not taken place on or from the property, therefore however reprehensible, it does not affect the immediate neighbourhood in the same way. Evicting a whole family for it is disproportionate and is the social equivalent of turning on a fan in a stifling hot room -it doesn`t cool the room, just circulates the hot air.
Most tenancy agreements these
Most tenancy agreements these days include terms relating to acceptable behaviour of those living in the property, not just related to behaviour in the property but in the locality. Housing associations have legal responsibilities to ensure that the behaviour of their tenants does not adversely affect the right of people living in the area to peaceful enjoyment of their property (and locality). It is irrelevant in terms of many tenancy agreements whether you burned your own house down or whether you did it to your neighbour's house/shop , whether you sold drugs in your house or went round the corner to do it, or whether it was actually your partner who did it (etc). And so it should be.
Contrary to what the previous blog rather bizarrely suggests, looting and fire bombing a parade of shops near where you live has a dramatic impact on your neighbourhood. There is an interesting current debate about what constitutes your locality and whether it is right for tenancy agreements to have locality as a limiting factor.
Collective Punishment
Collective Punishment is a war crime.
Rioting is a historically important way for the disenfranchised to make wider society aware of their dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Just like ‘Bread Riots’ weren’t just about being hungry, these riots aren’t about a lack of widescreen televisions.
They are a reflection of the creation of an urban youth without opportunity in or connection to society as a whole.
The answer isn’t just to punish (by deportation? Seriously? Or do you mean Transportation?) but to recognise the wider causes and deal with them compassionately. Because committing war crimes on people who have nothing to loose seems like an exercise in short-sighted stupidity.
Removing people from view solves nothing. Giving them a chance to repay their debt to society makes much more long term sense.
Eviction as a war crime
So eviction is a war crime eh? Those who support the eviction of persistently anti-social tenants are actually advocating transportation? Pretty hysterical stuff...
Families living in social housing are expected by their housing associations not to indulge in anti-social behaviour - the bar is set pretty low let us remember-, and in extremis they can be evicted. That's all.
Why the silly comparisons? It
Why the silly comparisons?
It is wrong to always put forth the (semi- correct) argument that there are deeper issues in society, which must be addressed. Yes, there are issues, there is poverty and there is a lack of positive role models for the children of today. HOWEVER, this is not an excuse for looting, arson, (let's not forget) murder, GBH and criminal damage. By what standard is being poor (by which most mean being on benefits and dressing head to toe in designer clothing) or not having a father around a viable reason to behave like an animal? Instead of putting forward the sympathy as a knee - jerk reaction to any mention of stricter laws and policing, how about a reasonable and plausible solution is offered?
I am interested to know what practical solutions the Sympathy Clan have to offer. Until then, here is one, evict some rioters, who clearly have no regard for the very community and government which puts food on their table, and make an example of them. The others will think twice before following in their glorified footsteps. More importantly, parents will reconsider the values od disciplining their children and perhaps will begin to do this themselves rather than expecting the rest of the world to (and then complaining when they do).
Realistically, nobody is going to suggest or tolerate the image of the unfortunate mother with her numerous young children on the street, cold and hungry. Come on. The families of the rioters will be made to relocate and the rioter responsible will be taught that his or her actions have consequences. Maybe even, the rioter will be made to (SHOCK HORROR) earn a living/ attend their school.
Since the youth of today have decided that the law does not apply to them, it is time for some drastic action and the time for the softly softly approach has been and gone.
It would be naive to suggest, however, that the only rioters were young and poor. I heard (from a reliable source) of two parents turning up with the family car to pick up their son and 'his' various electronic goods. This is appalling behaviour and as such must be addressed with a heavy hand so as to demonstrate that it will not be tolerated.
The law applies to all in equal measures - rioters, their families and the rest of society alike.
The phrase 'nip it in the bud' springs to mind.