the riots

[billy]

i think we have had a thread on the riots. but this one is about a different thing.

some councils in the uk are taking people to court in order to evict them because they broke their tenancy agreements etc. some families could lose their homes because of the actions of a teenage child and even pre teenage children. is it too harsh a an action?

here's an article in it's entirety;

Manchester riots: wine thief, 12, could lose his council home
The family of a 12-year-old boy photographed stealing a bottle of wine during riots in Manchester are facing the possibility of eviction from their council house.
The 12-year-old at home with his mother and their pet dog. The woman said her 'biggest fear’ was losing the house
The 12-year-old at home with his mother and their pet dog. The woman said her 'biggest fear’ was losing the house Photo: JULIAN SIMMONDS

By Nigel Bunyan, and Stephen Adams

The boy was caught on camera stealing the £7.49 bottle from a city centre Sainsbury’s on Tuesday evening and was charged with burglary.

On Thursday he was given a nine-month referral order, requiring him to see a probation officer once a fortnight, while his mother received a £50 fine.

But Manchester City Council have warned that the family of four, none of whom can be named for legal reasons, could pay a much higher price.

A spokesman said: “We are currently preparing a file on this case while we assess the next steps with a view to seeking a possession order. We will not tolerate any of our tenants being involved in anti-social behaviour, which is detrimental to the city.”

Authorities throughout England are taking action against tenants charged with involvement in the disturbances.

Wandsworth council in south-west London is preparing an eviction order for the mother of an 18-year-old boy charged in connection with riots near Clapham Junction station on Monday night.

Leaders of Birmingham City Council have also promised to do whatever they can to evict rioters and looters.

Yesterday, the mother of the 12-year-old boy described losing their home as her “biggest fear”.

She said there was “no excuse” for his behaviour and said she had grounded him. She also admitted she had been reprimanded for her parenting skills by her own mother.

“My mum saw it and called me saying I need to get control of him and be careful because I could lose this house,” she said. “That’s my biggest fear now, I’m scared we will be kicked out.”

The 33-year-old lives in an end-of-terrace house on a run-down inner city estate with her son and 14-year-old daughter. Her boyfriend, the father of the two children, is in prison and is due to be released in February.

She said of their boy: “He has been grounded now for weeks, until he goes back to school at least.”

But she also claimed he was “not a bad kid”, saying: “He has been in trouble before for fighting at school but he wasn’t charged. He is really feeling ashamed now: his face is all over the place from the CCTV and coming out of court.

“There is no excuse for what he did. He shouldn’t have done it: end of. The fact it’s the summer holidays is no excuse. He is sorry and I am too. He is really good at school and he wants to be a footballer.”

The boy said a 16-year-old girl had urged him to steal the wine. “I just didn’t think,” he said. “I am gutted my picture’s in the paper and now I have a record.”

Grant Shapps, the housing minister, has urged local authorities to take action against tenants involved in the riots.

Ravi Govindia, leader of Conservative-run Wandsworth council, said councillors owed it to “decent law-abiding citizens” to “send out a strong signal that this kind of violence will not be tolerated”.

John Lines, Birmingham council’s cabinet member for housing, said: “There will be no soft option. I have thousands of decent law-abiding families queuing up for council houses and will waste no time getting rid of these scum of the Earth.”

[addy]

Should be on a case-to-case basis, imo. I mean, a twelve-year-old kid getting swept up in the rioting and doing something stupid (nabbing a wine bottle)... should he really be lumped in with "scum of the earth"?

[Leanne]

Some people think "scum of the earth" is a blanket term for everyone more disadvantaged than themselves.

This particular kid's mother has obviously at least tried discipline -- I'm sure there are plenty, including the parents of that very wealthy lassie from Kent caught knocking off televisions, who simply shrug and let their over-indulged little mongrels continue to do what they please.

[billy]

here's the thing, in the uk they have something called the ASBO: (sourced from wiki) every child and parent in our inner cities know about them even if by word of mouth most kids know others who are on them except in the posh schools. while i'm not blaming the parent (the dads in jail) i doubt he doesn't know what right and wrong are and i doubt he was just walking by and decided to get of all things a bottle of booze.
i'd bet the kids out till the late hours of the night being a cunt in general. where i live they're on most street corners and usually hang around the front of shops harrasing people or begging them to buy booze and cigs. they also do a lot of bullying. back to her boyfriend and father of the child; what was he in prison for. if the kid is emulating his dad "look at me if i want it i'll take it and fuck the police" that again is the fault of parents. i say kick the fucker out. the more you do it, the less of a problem it will become. i think as of now the 12 and 13 year olds own the streets, it's time they were taken back. those of impressionable age, jail the bastards. of course she grounded the boy, she'd look a right twat if she didn't. if that was happening in my area when my kids were 12 they'd of been grounded before they went out. what mother in those situations doesn't say "if you go out tonight i'll gut you like a fish" or words to that effect. sorry but grounding him after taking part in looting and rioting is like locking door with a blade of grass after the horses have pulled the stable down. (jmo)

An Anti-Social Behaviour Order or ASBO (pronounced /ˈæzboʊ/) is a civil order made against a person who has been shown, on the balance of evidence, to have engaged in anti-social behaviour. The orders, introduced in the United Kingdom by Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1998,[1] were designed to correct minor incidents that would not ordinarily warrant criminal prosecution.[2] The orders restrict behaviour in some way, by prohibiting a return to a certain area or shop, or by restricting public behaviour such as swearing or drinking. Many see the ASBO as connected with young delinquents.[3] In July 2010, new Home Secretary Theresa May announced her intention to reform anti-social behaviour measures for England and Wales with the abolition of ASBOs in due course in favour of alternative 'community-based' social control policies.[4]

[Leanne]

I suppose the definition of a "kid out till the late hours of the night being a cunt" changes depending on the distance from your own youth. The fact remains that it was not just kids from council estates involved in the rioting, nor were they (in most cases) the ones inciting the violence -- which is not to say that they weren't fairly well represented, just that it's always easy for the privileged to suggest punitive measures against the poor rather than actually admit that "the poor problems" exist and people of every demographic are responsible for social change.

[billy]

rich people don't let their 12 yr old kids out alone after 8 pm in the uk. even middle class kids of that age often kept in after that time.
and during the riots, i'd bet that an extremely large percentage weren't let out at all. i think when they do the logistics, we'll see 90% or more of those teens and pre-teens come from the inner cities. i went through the rights 20 odd years ago and it was exactly the same thing. i never took part but i rode round on my motorbike and witnessed it. the wealthy marched and the poor looted. being poor doesn't give anyone the right too loot. and being 12 isn't an excuse. yes social changes need to be made but they never will be, we all realise this and as such we do what we can. the media pointed out all the designer shoes looters were wearing. that normal innercity wear.
many are snide but the media doesn't care as long as they can mouth off.
they aren't starving and i don't believe they're disenfranchised. most never went to school let alone college, most (even the 12 year olds) mix in a world of violence. here in the filipines people forcibly educate their kids to get out of deprivation. in the uk they say fuck it, we can scrounge our way through life. the rioters stole; not because they were poor or disenfranchised but because they thought they could get away with it. one of the clips showing the police arresting someone had a part where the stolen clothes were in the boot of the thiefs car. if he (a young ) can afford a car he's not so poor.

[Leanne]

Really? I know quite a few well-off people in the UK whose kids are... well, not perfect little angels, shall we say?

And then there's this.

[billy]

so do i but is'nt that more indicative of bad parenting than bad government?

i was not a good person, did a lot of bad things when i was young but even i wouldn't loot, when the looting went on 20 years ago my kids were kept indoors.

[Leanne]

It's also indicative of wealthy folk letting their kids out after 8pm :p

Yes, it's bad parenting, but that isn't something that's just confined to the lower classes. Many poor folk grow up to be exceptionally well-behaved, law-abiding, productive members of society -- and there are many upper class reprobates (Lord Archer leads the way!). The riots should not be used as an excuse to paint all people living in a particular neighbourhood with the same brush -- nor, on the other hand, should social status be used as justification for criminality by the "oppressed poor", because there are millions of people living in poverty (or near enough to it) who don't set fire to cars in the street. The riots should not be taken as anything other than mob disorder and thuggery, regardless of demographic.

[billy]

no i agree totally with that. many of the people who live in the inner cities are hard working good upstanding people.
i do see the 12 year old in this instance, being a yob and coming from parents who don't really give a fuck until they risk losing their home. i'm sure some of the looters will be college grads belong to upper class parents.

the thing is; the terms of the housing agreement pretty much states if you ( a member of your household) act in an anti social way they will seek an eviction of you.

[Leanne]

Yes, there should be consequences. People must realise that even though countries like the UK have a strong social conscience, society doesn't OWE you everything when you give nothing in return. In socially responsible nations, you have certain rights and privileges by virtue of simply being a citizen... but if you abuse those rights and privileges, if you take your good fortune for granted, you should be reminded that "anti-social" means you are acting against the social conscience and therefore, you really don't deserve to benefit from the order you're disrespecting.

However, terms like "scum of the earth" shouldn't be thrown around glibly by upper crust arseholes either.

[billy]

fair point but often it is the case. i think the really sad thing is that people had to die.
they had a rally today (a peace rally i think) in Birmingham, and the fathers are calling for better community
spirit. if i were one of the fathers whose son was murdered i'd be doing some rampaging of my own. hats off to them

[abu nuwas]

I have never understood the need for Social Housing as well as Housing Benefit, which pays all or part of the rent, depending on circumstances. That said, it is a very serious thing to throw someone out of their home -- they will have to be re-housed, but in a more horrible place. Certainly, if the tenant makes a nuisance of him/herself to the community, in one way one can argue that the person has ejected themselves, but with some of the case dealing with children, i doubt much good will be done, unless, for example, it is the last straw from a family which does not give tuppence for anyone or anything. I think the courts are likely to err on the liberal side--some of the sentences so far seem far from draconian.

I am completely with Leanne on the use of 'scum'. Although it can be almost attractive in reality, on a lake say, I find it revolting as applied to human beings. Newspapers love it, just as they love the term 'sink estates'. What does that say to the people growing up there? The rather simplistic BBC likes to get right in and analyse 'gang culture', but they wouldn't recognise a gang-member if they found him in their soup!

One thing which may have eluded people who are not here: there is an after-taste, inasmuch as one does not know-- was he in it? was she? Then the corollary: so many plainly innocent people, so many. And what a bloody cheek! That's when I have to calm down over a coffee, and listen to someone else's tales, or theories, the most intriguing being, that it is all in response to cuts which have yet to happen, or some opaque piece of legislation. Oddly, people have the same views now, as they did before. It is all because of Labour's 13 years at the helm; it is Cameron and the Toffs. Plus ca change.....

[billy]

social housing is a great thing (i've used it) you can buy the house from the council at the market value should you wish.
and rent if you can't afford to buy or rent private housing. the house belongs to the council unless the tenant buys it. and as has been shown the tenant can be kicked out of said house if they take part in anti social behaviour, in which case it's often private and usually pretty bad. but i digress.
i think most countries have their disenfranchised. and i think those who looted are scum. i can think of now reason apart from greed why they did it. the people who live in the inner cities however are not all scum. some are, quite a few actually but so many are hard working good people. as leanne pointed out "not only poor people looted or rioted" i agree. for me the term scum applies to those guilty of such crimes no matter what class they belong to.

the financial crises we're in is because of successive gov's from and including good old maggy fucking everything up. the looting and the rioting apart from the initial demonstration had nothing at all to do with government or politics so in my opinion they can't really be blamed for the rioting and looting. to blame them would diminish societies accountability. jmo