Rioters evicted from homes
 

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1...ted-from-homes

British Prime Minister David Cameron backed a call Friday to withdraw welfare benefits from rioters, as a London council became the first to begin evicting a tenant whose son faced unrest charges.

Cameron said that people who "loot and pillage their own community" should no longer be allowed to live in social housing, reflecting the tough line he has taken over four nights of violence in London, Manchester and Birmingham.

"Obviously, that will mean they've got to be housed somewhere else -- they'll have to find housing in the private sector -- and that will be tougher for them, but they should have thought of that before they started burgling," he said.

As he spoke, Wandsworth Council in south London announced that it had served one of its housing tenants with an eviction notice, after the tenant's son was charged in court over disturbances in nearby Clapham Junction on Monday night.

The council was responding to a wave of public anger at the riots, which has seen more than 160,000 people sign an online petition calling for anyone convicted of criminal acts in the unrest to have their financial benefits taken away.

"If you live in a council house, you're getting a house at a discount from what other people have to pay and with that should come some responsibility," Cameron told BBC television.

"For too long we've taken a too-soft attitude towards people that loot and pillage their own community. If you do that you should lose your right to the sort of housing that you've had at subsidised rates."

Wandsworth council, which is controlled by councillors from Cameron's Conservative party, said the eviction notice had been served against one of its tenants, and a judge would now be asked to approve the request.

In a statement, it said the tenant had breached their tenancy agreement, which applies to everyone living in the household and prohibits them from a range of criminal and anti-social activities.

"There is no room on our estates for people who commit violent crimes, who show no consideration for their neighbours or harass, threaten, intimidate or cause disturbance to others," said council leader Ravi Govindia.

Lawmakers are set to debate in September whether people convicted over the riots should lose their welfare payments, under a new system in which online petitions attracting more than 100,000 signatures are automatically reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

The petition on the rioters reads: "No taxpayer should have to contribute to those who have destroyed property, stolen from their community and shown a disregard for the country that provides for them."

Send the lot to Alaska or the South pole to live off the land

kick the kid who stole a cell phone out of his house. give the banker who fucked up the economy a few billion. sounds fair.

VERY bad idea
They are still poor and they need to live.
They won't suicide

So they aren't evicting people out of their homes. They are making it so that criminals are unable to receive welfare benefits.

Yes, a much better explanation.

.

Good, they deserve it.

Yes, but they will also deserve their next penalties

Behave like a dog, live like a dog... outside in the rain

Wish more countries would do that

hmm, i guess its the seed for just more anger ... now they will not only be poor but homeless ...

err, looting ... its the top 1% in every country that loots the most :(

Execute them now, save the penalty phase...Queen needs new panties.

it will lead to more unrest.

people controls starting, be fine or you are dead

smash the system

Soundsgreat to me :thumbsup

Sounds like a good idea to me. Wish they would do this in the US. I have no issues at all about social programs for people that need it.

I'd much rather my taxes go to help others than into some CEO's back pocket, but I don't like that people with criminal convictions or more so re-pete offenders can get govt hand outs with no risk of losing it.

Rioters Riot , Homes are Homes

that should fix everything then ...

Whoa, that move is going to make the shit hit the fan even more. It's like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Which in this case, was their parent's state subsidized housing.

If you are not dying of hunger it doesn't matter how poor are you. You don't have to be criminal, it's only your choice. You will find criminal multimillionaires and honest homeless guys. There's no need to advocate assholes.

Good for England....if only america would grow some balls like that

Perhaps Britain can take a vote. Anyone that wants the rioters to keep on getting taxpayer paid housing can have them live in their homes... That way they can make sure that the rioters are taken care of nicely. Anyone?

This is nothing new. If you live in a council property you have a tenancy agreement with the council. If you break the terms of the tenancy (for example by becoming engaged in criminal activity) you can be evicted, that has always been the case.

And so it begins.

If only people were smart enough to riot against something important, y'know.. something with... a cause!

Pointless dickwaving by Camoron.

I'm fairly sure it's impossible not to get welfare in the UK. Even if you don't qualify for a specific benefit you are entitled to what is called Income Support if you have no money coming in and no savings. Quite right too. I don't see how throwing families into the streets - in what is the 5th richest country in the world - achieves anything.

And while I'm sure it makes reactionary nutjobs feel warm inside to hear about 'rioters' being evicted, the slightly less bad ass small print is they will simply have to be rehoused elsewhere. So they become someone else's problem, perhaps in an otherwise nice area, and will attract all their old criminal friends over.

In fact it's long been the fully retarded policy in the UK of dealing with troublemaking scum to remove them from their slums and plant them into otherwise nice areas.

Perhaps the theory/delusion is that the pleasant environment will rub off on them and make them decent, functioning members of society. Of course it doesn't take Nostra-fucking-damus to predict what really happens, but if it doesn't affect politicians' lives, they don't give a fuck.

quoted for the hilariously fucked up truth.

export them to canada

So the parents lose their housing because of their kid?

a chav nicked me celly, mate

That's good!!!

crime is going to go up. they'll figure it out my dad told me "If your not working your stealing"

It's hard to imagine the welfare state with such random instances of accountability.

Well when peole are rioting against the government because it's acting too much like Big Brother naturally the way you quell that is to kick people out of their homes like Big Brother. You know it's like the parents that teach thier kids violence is not the answer by beating the shit of the them.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

right now it is just crazy , this one mother who is a charity worker is facing eviction .. together with her 8 year old daughter

her son is the one who is under arrest but not convicted ..! how can they threaten the innocent parents of a not yet convicted person like this ?

Thats right, when the 16 year old was out on the streets looting at 3am in the morning....
...good, throw them on the streets!!!

Such a shit argument, regardless of the comparison used. B has nothing to do with A.

the kid was actually 18 and it was daytime when he got "caught"

Apart from the fact that the both are encouraged to happen by the some society, obviously.

You're amusing.

Don't condescend me, cunt. Argue & debate all day long, but don't be such a condescending twat, it really does make people think less of you.

Back to this alleged 'encouragement' of both, even *if* that were the case, what do bankers ruining the economy have to do with the decision to evict families of looters? That's the same logic as the other idiots who whined about some bird (Ecclestone's daughter?) buying an $85m house while there is poverty in the world. B has fuck all to do with A; A should be looked at on it's own merits.

And in case you're wondering, no, I don't think the families of looters should be evicted.

I think you mean: "don't *be condescending*". One cannot 'condescend' someone.

And really, calling me a cunt adds such immense weight to your argument and makes you sound really intelligent and clever.

Bless you for trying though, it's sweet how you try to keep up in the face of such adversity.

It was actually meant to say "don't condescend to me", but good work on calling me up on a grammatical error I made - that point has blown mine right out of the water, so congrads on that.

ps I didn't call you a cunt to make myself appear intelligent, nor clever. I called you a cunt, because that's exactly what you came across as.

HTH.

I almost forgot - what do bankers ruining the economy have to do with the decision to evict families of looters?

How about this?

We throw the bankers (and on this side of the pond, the Wall Street gang) who ruined the economy into jail.

and then...

Deny looters, muggers and arsonists any and all public assistance.

It's not like the two ideas are mutually exclusive or anything.

Think outside of those designated preselected boxes the politicians give you everybody.

Do you want a civil war ?