Council Evicting Family of Rioter

[RecordAceFromNew]

Westminster Council has done what Cameron said in the Commons, servied eviction notice on a father whose son was convicted for rioting. The outcome presumably will end up being decided by a judge if the father contests.

I can see justification for evicting a convicted criminal, and it is probably next to impossible to enforce if the family wasn't also evicted.

But should the father/mother/brothers/sisters also be punished (i.e. evicted) for the convict's sin? How do we balance the useful deterrent set by such examples, against the intrinsic problem of punishing the innocents?

 

[Spinney]

Westminster Council has done what Cameron said in the Commons, servied eviction notice on a father whose son was convicted for rioting. The outcome presumably will end up being decided by a judge if the father contests.

I can see justification for evicting a convicted criminal, and it is probably next to impossible to enforce if the family wasn't also evicted.

But should the father/mother/brothers/sisters also be punished (i.e. evicted) for the convict's sin? How do we balance the useful deterrent set by such examples, against the intrinsic problem of punishing the innocents?

The link says 'alleged to have been involved', not convicted. If so, it is definitely jumping the gun.

Even so, it assumes the family have some control over the alleged rioter, which may well not be the case.

There is no easy answer for this one.

 

[asterix]

I wonder about the long term affects of such activities. Are other varieties of criminal similarly punished.

My suspicion is that it is simple populist revenge rather than a well-thought out strategy.

Still, at least the PM will be booted out of No 10 soon!

 

[Arch]

I wonder about the long term affects of such activities. Are other varieties of criminal similarly punished.

My suspicion is that it is simple populist revenge rather than a well-thought out strategy.

Still, at least the PM will be booted out of No 10 soon!

According to the news yesterday, councils have always had the sanction of eviction in the case of antisicial or criminal behaviour by a resident in their local area - whether that be householder or member of family. One of the differences the politicians are pressing for is to extend it to antisocial behaviour outside the local area.

I'm torn. Half of me is all for a bit of populist revenge, the other half just assumes it won't work and will make things worse.

 

[MacB]

I say evict away, of course they need to be relocated so I think a location adjacent to Cameron would be fair, it's hard to 'hug a hoodie' unless you have close proximity

 

[Saluki]

When I lived in Norwich, the council evicted 4 households from a relatively new complex of flats. 2 people were evicted for car theft and damage, another for drug dealing and another for violence. The rest of us tenants were mightily relieved to see the back of them.

Councils evicting tenants for criminal behaviour is nothing new, it just seems to be in the news right now after the riots.

 

[swee'pea99]

It's nonsense. Like those bits of 'news' footage you see where a dozen riot-geared plod storm into some hapless example's council flat, all PR-piffle to show the powers that be are Taking Serious Measures.

There's no way such an idiotic and palpably unfair action will be upheld by the courts. As Spinney says, thus far even the supposed miscreant is only 'alleged to have been involved', which means that under British law even he is innocent. (Until proven guilty.) Let alone his family.

Just the kind of demagogue-twattery you expect of a council like Westminster.

 

[accountantpete]

They have to be housed somewhere - so this will only work if they are evicted from a nice desirable council house and then put up in a real pit.

 

[ohnovino]

When they rented a council house they would have had to sign a legally binding tenancy agreement. I'm only guessing here, but I expect it has some kind of reasonable behaviour clause that the rioter has now breached, and that will be the legal justification for evicting them.

 

[ASC1951]

I don't have any problem with evicting tenants whose crimes affect their neighbours - dealing drugs from the house, for instance, or burgling - but this is just daft. It'll be some councillor willie-waving again.

 

[biggs682]

cant see a problem

 

[Vapin' Joe]

'alleged to have been involved', which means that under British law even he is innocent.[/b] (Until proven guilty.) Let alone his family.

Just the kind of demagogue-twattery you expect of a council like Westminster.

The council leader was asked about that on Newsnight, and his reply was that the process of eviction had been started but the final decision was pending on the outcome of the court case.

 

[Arch]

I don't have any problem with evicting tenants whose crimes affect their neighbours - dealing drugs from the house, for instance, or burgling - but this is just daft. It'll be some councillor willie-waving again.

If they are rioting and looting in their own area, and that means businesses shut or move out, and investment in the area gets even smaller, then it is affecting their neighbours - perhaps in a more long term subtle way, but it still all has an effect.

The long view is important - if more politicians took it, we might not have some of the problems we do....

 

[Saddle bum]

Collective punishment is illegal - Fourth Geneva Convention.

Discuss.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

When they rented a council house they would have had to sign a legally binding tenancy agreement. I'm only guessing here, but I expect it has some kind of reasonable behaviour clause that the rioter has now breached, and that will be the legal justification for evicting them.

+1