Petition for the convicted rioters to lose benefits

[SpaghettiSue40]

Me as well, id rather share identity with chavs and my neighbours cats than a lot of brits

[Rick Channing]

Is this thread the far-left's echo chamber, or what?

You can sneer all you like. Go ask your average Californian about how the Democrats flooded that once great state with potential voters from Mexico after they chased-out the GOP in the mid '90s (I was there during the politically motivated demographic shift). The place has gone down the toilet ever since. The same will happen to the UK if the government doesn't stem the tide of immigration from the third world.

Just sayin'.

[Loz]

California? Gone down the tube because of immigration? Nothing to do with Enron, then...

I was in San Francisco in 1990. Half the billboards were entirely in Spanish then. It's hardly been traditional, mid-west, white only bible belt stuff, has it.

(Chalk up an new one today... I've never been accused of being a far lefty before)

[richardbach]

waht has merica and californiaia got to doo with aest dulwich an peckham as they used two say if yuo like rusia so much then why don you go an live there the same goes for merica lol

[mockney piers]

Mind you, california was originally mexico's so I guess you could just say they're taking it back.

I'd love to hear your exact definition of 'far left', somewhere between 'reasonable' and 'doesn't agree with you' I'm guessing.

[Otta]

I don't think this is far left. I think most people on here are a bit left of centre. You on the other hand, come across as pretty far right.

Seriously though, what would you say our national identity should be, as that phrase baffles me.

I'm a white 33 year old from a working class background. I suspect I have a pretty different identity to a white 33 year old from Liverpool, Birmingham, Football.

[DJKillaQueen]

I'm a white 43 year old from Liverpool Otta as it happens......illustrates your point perfectly I think ;)

It always makes me laugh when Londoners hark on about imigration polluting the country...as though London, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham went through some mythical golden ages without it. After all, there were no migrants helping our industrial revolution were there? Having grown up in what at one time was one of the busiest ports in the world I can't say I have ever known a time when Liverpool wasn't at the behest of migrants. Commerce depends on migration.

When the fire of London happened......the same xenophobia emerged then. It must have been arson, and immigrants must have been to blame. First it was the dutch and then the French, and angry mobs took it on themsleves to lynch any foreigners they could find. Five centuries later we haven't changed it seems. Blame the foreigners for everything....why not!

[Chener Books]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> They need to change the Landlord and Tenant Act

> 1985 before they can evict anyone for having a

> conviction I'm afraid. They can threaten but there

> is no permission in law for them to do so. The

> same goes for benefits removal.

>

> To change the law requires a review and any review

> would seek to apply the law equally....therefore

> prejudicing one type of conviction over another

> would not also be likely to get through.

[ianr]

DJKQ> Will be interested to see what grounds they use for pursuing that, and if there is already a prior

DJKQ history of ASB. Can't see it succeeding if there are no previous ASB orders in place though.

This intended repossession is in Wandsworth, following the appearance in court of the son re an alleged offence in the Clapham Junction area. The leader of Wandsworth Council was interviewed about it on R4 PM. He said, more than once, that the action was pursuable as a matter of a breach of the tenancy contract. He also, I think, claimed that the family would be deemed voluntarily homeless on account of a repossession action brought because of the action of the son, the mother being responsible for the son's actions. On listening to him I wasn't convinced that he was necessarily on top of his material, though I'm not in a position to criticise anything he said.

[DJKillaQueen]

Thank you for the details. I doubt that any magistrate will grant a possession order from those details - if only because it is just not the normal procedure for dealing with breaches of tenancy. If there is no established prior trend of anti-social behaviour, then there are no grounds for use of that aspect in respect to what is a seperate criminal matter. Similarly, tenancy agreements relate to behaviour within the confines of the tenancy. There are countless young people who receive criminal convictions for all kinds of vandalism, and theft but no-one would ever argue that is automatically grounds for eviction under the tenancy agreement. Wandsworth I suspect are going to have egg on their faces, unless there is of course something else to the case that Wandsworth are not disclosing.

[tfwsoll]

Wandsworth Council's website says that:

'The council is able to commence eviction proceedings against this tenant for breaching their tenancy agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, which applies to all the council's rented accommodation, all tenants, their household members and visitors are forbidden from a range of criminal and anti-social activities. Breaches of the agreement render them liable to eviction'

I agree with DJKQ in that social housing tenancy agreements prohibit criminal activity or nuisance in the property or in the immediate vicinity so it's unlikely that they can get possession.

The website does say that, 'The final decision will rest with a judge sitting at the county court.' so I guess they'll be able to blame the judge!

[Chener Books]

A judge is likely to have regard to Section 2 of the Housing Act 1985 for the definition of "locality".

[ianr]

This page provides a list, under the subheading "Your tenancy conditions: antisocial behaviour" of the activities that are said to be prohibited to Wandsworth tenants. It doesn't seem to me, however, to be a copy of the terms of the actual tenancy agreements, given that the first of the listed prohibitions is itself "Breach the tenancy conditions." Nor do I know how authoritative or accurate it might be as a summary of the law on repossessions as provided for by the Housing Acts 1996 and 1985, if that's the source or motivation. First person to find a good commentary on the Wandsworth stratagem by a housing law expert, please point and shout, in an unriotous manner.

Wandsworth's release about the eviction action is here.

[Chener Books]

peterstorm1985 Wrote:

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

> 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

[binary_star]

Interesting....

The Government's intention is that the necessary legislation be introduced alongside legislative changes required following the Home Office's recent consultation on reforming tools and powers to tackle anti-social behaviour.

This consultation seeks views on the detail and practicalities of a new mandatory power of possession to enable landlords to take swifter action to evict their most anti-social tenants.

A new mandatory power of possession for anti-social behaviour: Consultation

[Rick Channing]

Someone said earlier that they find my views far-right. Politically speaking that may be a fair assessment, but I prefer to regard it as just being a more realistic outlook. In any case, leaning towards the right may not be seen as 'cool', but it's a damn sight more sensible than falling head over heals towards the left.

[Huguenot]

Right wing ideologies tend to be individualist and authoritarian.

In that sense it is no surprise that you are rejecting other people's views, and consider yourself to be the voice of reason. ;-)

[SpaghettiSue40]

Like yourself Dear Lord

[DJKillaQueen]

Those are standard tenancy terms ian for all local authorities but they are interpreted to mean in the local vicinity to the tenancy by magistrates. Other bodies can obtain injuctions to protect other areas from ASB from 'outsiders'. Some tenants that receive custodial sentences tend to lose their homes anyway because they have no right to benefits to pay the rent while they are incarcerated - so normal eviction prccedures for non payment of rent apply.

Also a single incidence of ASB would not be considered enough for a migistrate to grant a possession order 9under the current laws). I know this from experience. So if a tenant or the child of a tenant is only guilty of one criminal act relating to the rioting, I don't expect any magistrate to grant possession. Local authorities do however use the threat of eviction to put leverage on parents of ASB behaviour and that often is all that is required to see a change in behaviour. But when you evict a problem family/ individual, they don't go away...they just become someone elses problem.

The legislation that covers the law regarding tenants and landlords is the 'Landlord and Tenant Act 1985'

And as we can see from Binary's post even the government knows they require a change in law to enable magistrates to grant possession after one act of ASB only. I personally think any effort to introduce a bill and change the law is going to run into complexities, especially regarding children. At present a family or individual has to demonstrate a history of ASB that is detrimental to their local environment. Evicitng tenants after one breach I think will be seen as too harsh by the judicial body that form part of any review. It looks good in the media and pampers to reactionary thinking but by the time this gets to parliament, and the Lords, it will be watered down......

[PeckhamRose]

I haven't time to go through all the posts but I just heard via a lawyer in twitter than a woman who was given stolen trainers who it was acknowledged was not looting, has been put in prison despite the fact she has two young children. And the arrogant outright thieves being the MPs who stole money by deliberately claiming unreasonable expenses, get what? And this is fair how?

[Ridgley]

I am not apologising and one size does not fit all, sending them to jail will not solve the problem in the long run they will just come out and do the same thing again, Sticking your fingers in ears and pretending that nothing is wrong just like David Cameron and his New Moral Army.

He needs to tackle these issues and stop ignoring the fact that it is his policy is some of the root causes.

[Huguenot]

So are you saying that fencing stolen property should not be a crime, or are you saying that creative expenses should be an imprisonable offence?

[Rick Channing]

Ridgely, imprisonment isn't a measure used to "solve a problem". It's used to punish convicted criminals. As long as any of the accused rioters - or anyone who's profited by association, such as fences - aren't facing the electric chair or any other comparatively draconian sanction (bar hefty custodial sentences), I'm all for taking a very hard line with all these 'people'.

[Chener Books]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> The legislation that covers the law regarding

> tenants and landlords is the 'Landlord and Tenant

> Act 1985'

Section 144 Housing Act 1996

Section 2 Housing Act 1985

[DJKillaQueen]

Those too Chener :)

PR I think that is a harsh sentence and completely indicative of the vengeful reaction to recent events. Handling stolen goods is a crime but a suspended sentence would have sufficed. Normally a Judge dealing with a mother on a first offence for handling stolen goods would have given community service, or at worse a short suspended sentence.

People convicted of first offence GBH and ABH are regularly given suspended sentences...........I think the mother should defintiely appeal.

We are all appalled by the recent rioting but the law has to be fair. What is going on here is people being made examples of whilst more serious crimes have numerous precedents of more maliable sentencing. That is not justice as I understand it.