Petition for the convicted rioters to lose benefits

[Fabricio the Guido]

The issue is likely to be whether the behaviour took place in the 'locality' of the property subject to a tenancy. The court has a very wide discretion and likely to see cases where suspended orders are made which would require future good conduct.

[edresi10]

There is currently a provision for the eviction of council tennants in situations exactly like this, so that can do it if they want. i think that The Labour council in Greenwich are the first ones likely to push it through. Unlike some other unfounded, made up posts there does not need to be any change to the law as it stands.

[peterstorm1985]

Edresi10: so that this argument doesn't run on needlessly, could you provide an extract/quote of the provision you refer to? Those amongst us with legal backgrounds may then be able to give an explanation of how it could be applied.

Thanks

[Fabricio the Guido]

Any of the legal people care to do a proportionality analysis under the current judge's discretion and not under article 8?

[Chener Books]

Section 144 Housing Act 1996

[edresi10]

When a tennabt signs their tenancy agreement they are agreeing to Schedule 2 of the 1985 Housing Act. In the case of those that participated in the riots the relevant condition will usually read along the lines

We might terminate your tenancy if you or a member of your household or a visitor does anything which causes, or is likely to cause a nuisance to anyone in the local area, or you allow your home to be used for immoral or illegal purposes

The actions of the rioters constitute a nuisance in the local area and those who have looted shops and returned goods to their homes have allowed their homes to be used for immoral purposes.

[Brendan]

Can?t argue with that. The criminal law is almost certainly so entirely deficient that what is needed is the importing of principles from completely unrelated bits of legislation to bolster it.

On another note here?s a little insight into how magistrates are going to have to deal with all this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/11/looters-beak-magistrates-young-offenders

[Otta]

It's not the council that actually Di it (they can't), it's the housing association that works in partnership with the council, and owns the properties.

It has been done in anti-social cases in the past.

[The Minkey]

And where exactly do they go once they've been evicted from their Council/HA accomodation?

[Brendan]

You fuck off with your "joined-up" thinking!

[david_carnell]

Private rented sector.

Friends.

Family.

Streets.

[ianr]

> The actions of the rioters constitute a nuisance in the local area and those who have looted shops and returned goods to their

> homes have allowed their homes to be used for immoral purposes.

How much of that is clearly established in law, and how much is wishful interpretation? I can, although ignorant of the area, at least envisage the possibility of problems with both 'local area' and 'immoral purposes'.

[Rick Channing]

The Minkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And where exactly do they go once they've been

> evicted from their Council/HA accomodation?

Er, well... They could, y'know, rent privately. Other than that, anyone who loses their council dwelling as a result of a conviction brought by participating in the recent riots should've taken the eventual consequences of their actions into account before going on the rampage and helping themselves to goods that weren't theirs.

It's time to foster a culture of accountability in today's 'disadvantaged' youth. Which hasn't really been making its presence felt over the past few years, in my opinion.

[The Minkey]

Wouldn't there be a likelihood of the more dysfunctional folk ending up seeking alternative methods of raising the money to pay the increased cost of private rents, e.g. burglary, mugging, drug dealing, prostitution.. Just a thought.

[DJKillaQueen]

I really can't see magistrates applying the current law on tenancies and anti-social behaviour to those involved in the riots and looting. Anti-social behaviour within tenancies usually refers to immediate locality...neighbours etc and even when those rules are broken...it's takes more than one incident of anti-social behaviour to see a request for reposession granted. The Daily Mail and local authorities can make all the noise they like......there is no precedent for eviction under one incident of anti-social behaviour......warnings and second chances are given first. Eviction ia always a last resort.

At the end of the day there are already adaqute laws to deal with those that break the law. To confuse that with established defintions of anti-social behaviour is misleading and any defence lawyer would have a field day with any local authority that tries to evict in respect to those convicted of rioting/ looting.

And there will be a cost to society if we start evicting council tenants (whilst those who are not council tenants see no punishment beyond the law).....we effectively are saying by that, that the poorer you are the more you'll lose. The law seeks to apply fairness in punishment......can't see such a measure ever becoming law.

Yes we have a serious cultural problem, but it's complex (we have seen those rioting come from a rather wider range of demographic that the media first painted) and will require concerted and complex solutions. If we seek only to punish and deprive.....already disfunctional people will grow in disfunction and in turn pass on that disfunction to their children. Is that the kind of society we really want? Of course those who deserve to be punished should be so, but let's apply some common sense as well, instead of the kind of depressing reactionary tone I saw in the DM this morning.

[Brendan]

I didn?t die face down in the mud for queen and country to share oxygen with scrounging feral scum. Hanging never did me any harm.

etc.

[Rick Channing]

The Minkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wouldn't there be a likelihood of the more

> dysfunctional folk ending up seeking alternative

> methods of raising the money to pay the increased

> cost of private rents, e.g. burglary, mugging,

> drug dealing, prostitution.. Just a thought.

There is that possibility. But there's also a possibility that they could go and get a job, like the rest of us. You know, the thing in life that comes after another milestone called 'school', which prepares us for gainful employment.

Just a thought.

[Ridgley]

Rick a lot of the youth are too young to work and some are unemployable the whole system need to be looked at it not just one simply thing there other factors.

[DJKillaQueen]

Also where are the jobs for them to do? Look at the high unemployment rate of 16-24 year olds alone......it's not a happy picture.

[Rick Channing]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rick a lot of the youth are too young to work and

> some are unemployable the whole system need to be

> looked at it not just one simply thing there other

> factors.

The "whole system" does not need to be "looked at", Ridgely. What does need to be looked at (or addressed, rather), in detail, is the attitude of those you claim are unemployable. Honestly, if a wheelchair-bound citizen can work at a desk or fulfil any other productive role within the parameters their disability will allow, then an able-bodied, insolent scrote can make do.

These 'youths' need every bleeding heart to stop apologising for, or accomodating their undesirable behaviour/tendancies and give them a healthy boot up the arse.

[edresi10]

I wouldnt say some are unemployable, no one is unemployable, they may not be able to get a job that they particularly like, but they can still get a job. Problem is there arent enough jobs to go around because of the screwed up economy, and the ones that are available for people with little or no skills are pretty hard working and therefore some would rather not do them.

[Brendan]

Bring back the World Service!

[Brendan]

edresi10 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldnt say some are unemployable, no one is

> unemployable, they may not be able to get a job

> that they particularly like, but they can still

> get a job. Problem is there arent enough jobs to

> go around because of the screwed up economy, and

> the ones that are available for people with little

> or no skills are pretty hard working and therefore

> some would rather not do them.

No the immigrants took them.

[Rick Channing]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edresi10 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I wouldnt say some are unemployable, no one is

> > unemployable, they may not be able to get a job

> > that they particularly like, but they can still

> > get a job. Problem is there arent enough jobs

> to

> > go around because of the screwed up economy,

> and

> > the ones that are available for people with

> little

> > or no skills are pretty hard working and

> therefore

> > some would rather not do them.

>

> No the immigrants took them.

Well, perhaps stopping or drastically stemming the influx of immigrants into this country (illegal or otherwise) is something else the government should take into consideration. I mean, we can't allow all these foreigners to keep coming to settle in the UK. Otherwise there'll be no jobs left for British people (or national identity, for that matter). Seriously, this is just as much of a sensitive issue in the US, though it needs to be addressed, all the same.

[Brendan]

They take the benefits too and the houses.