• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Tottenham Riots

Forums Unread posts
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=46360.msg1379549#msg1379549 date=1313256212]
Earlier in the week Cameron visited Manchester to see the damage and speak to the locals. Today it was Clegg's turn. Neither bothered their arses to come to Liverpool. The Tories (and their lapdog) disdain of this city is laughably transparent.
[/quote]

Fortunately there seems to be a perception that the trouble in Liverpool didn't amount to very much. I notice that when the cities affected by the riots are listed in the news and current affairs programmes, Liverpool isn't included in the list. I think that's why Cameron and Clegg didn't visit Liverpool, which is therefore a good thing for the reputation of our city.
 
Are Wandsworth Council correct to serve an eviction notice on one of their tenants who's offspring was involved in the riots?

Discuss.
 
Yeah is my first reaction. But they have to live somewhere
so what happens? Will denying them a home result in further crime borne of a need to survive? Fuck it, lob them out.
 
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=46360.msg1379620#msg1379620 date=1313262501]
Yeah is my first reaction. But they have to live somewhere
so what happens? Will denying them a home result in further crime borne of a need to survive? Fuck it, lob them out.
[/quote]

You see, my first reaction was yours; lob the cunts out. But where? This is where my nimbyism comes in. We have a road on our development which is where all the troublemakers live. Its the affordable housing / housing association bit. Not all of them are cunts clearly but the ones that are tend to be biggest cunts of the lot. No respect to other people or the surroundings. These people have usually been lobbed out of areas like Edmonton and other such like shit holes in North London and Hertforshire. Worse places than the pleasant surroundings I live in.

So, these twats come and start to think they are "top boys" of the area because, there are no "top boys" of the area. Their kids do what they want and terrorise people with the anti social behaviour and if you try and discuss with parents, you either get threatened or a beating. The good thing is, by reporting them to the authorities, the police work with the housing associations and these people get moved on. This is great, but the trouble is, just like a bus another problem family with social issues is never far behind.

You can lob them out but they clearly can't afford the private rent or private buying market. I'm not sure its the answer, but I'm more scared that I think that!!!
 
It seems a bit draconian and depends on whether they have form or not. If they've got history then on your way. If it's the first time they've stepped out of line then a warning would suffice.
 
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=46360.msg1379632#msg1379632 date=1313263774]
It seems a bit draconian and depends on whether they have form or not. If they've got history then on your way. If it's the first time they've stepped out of line then a warning would suffice.
[/quote

I heard someone was sentenced to 6 months for stealing a bottle of water. I've got a case at my place where I can't get the CPS to try and prosecute an employee for nicking over £50k!! And that is not the only example I could cite, people taking cars, then selling them to people to use the money to pay off gambling debts, with no chance of us getting the vehicle or the money back. That's theft, yes says the CPS. So he goes to court and gets a fine and told to pay us nominal compensation over 12 months! But don't worry we can stand the loss because we are a big company, and its ok cos he didn't get his legs broken.

The lack of sentencing consistency is what bugs the fuck out of me.
 
[quote author=Spionkop69 link=topic=46360.msg1379617#msg1379617 date=1313262141]
Are Wandsworth Council correct to serve an eviction notice on one of their tenants who's offspring was involved in the riots?

Discuss.
[/quote]

It's an absolutely fucking ridiculous notion - evicting someone for something their kid has done? Where do you draw the line? Will everyone whose child commits a crime be evicted? Fuck it, might as well stop old folks state pension if their grown up offspring gets sent down.

Unbelievable
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1379638#msg1379638 date=1313264917]
[quote author=Spionkop69 link=topic=46360.msg1379617#msg1379617 date=1313262141]
Are Wandsworth Council correct to serve an eviction notice on one of their tenants who's offspring was involved in the riots?

Discuss.
[/quote]

It's an absolutely fucking ridiculous notion - evicting someone for something their kid has done? Where do you draw the line? Will everyone whose child commits a crime be evicted? Fuck it, might as well stop old folks state pension if their grown up offspring gets sent down.

Unbelievable
[/quote]


It isn't ridiculous but it does depend on the situation. For example, if the eviction leads to the parents in controlling their kids then it's job done. This is assuming the kids are under 18 years of age where the parents are still the legal guardians and all that wot not. Parents are a huge influence over their kids and their behaviour.


Eviction is not the thing that should happen, but it should definitely be on the cards to remove a problem from an area. Trouble is, as spionkop says, where to?
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1379638#msg1379638 date=1313264917]
[quote author=Spionkop69 link=topic=46360.msg1379617#msg1379617 date=1313262141]
Are Wandsworth Council correct to serve an eviction notice on one of their tenants who's offspring was involved in the riots?

Discuss.
[/quote]

It's an absolutely fucking ridiculous notion - evicting someone for something their kid has done? Where do you draw the line? Will everyone whose child commits a crime be evicted? Fuck it, might as well stop old folks state pension if their grown up offspring gets sent down.

Unbelievable
[/quote]

They already do it to private renters in housing associations. Anti-social children can lead to their parents actually being evicted and/or moved on. I know this because I've been involved in reporting persistent anti social behaviour near my property and the result was that the family was moved on. Perhaps it might make the parents care more about their childs behaviour? The ones round here, kick their kids out on the street to cause mayhem while they fuck off to the pub.

Why should I and other law abiding people have to deal with the shit from other people's lack of parental responsibility? This isn't just the kids who don't give a fuck, its coming from the parents. There definitely needs to be more responsibility from parents.

I applaud the woman who shopped her daughter after seeing her taking part. How many hundreds of parents *know* their child was involved in the shit, but kept quiet because they stood to benefit?

I'm not seeing people queuing up to shop their kids? That doesn't mean they're not, maybe its just not being widely reported or publicised?
 
So answer the question then - where do you draw the line? If a parent is to be held culpable for the actions of their offspring (presumably working on the logic that they are to blame for being a bad parent) - at which point does this kick in and where does it stop? Is shoplifting just the kids fault, but mugging you blame the parents? If the parents are partly responsible should they do part of the jailtime?

How is it not in any way ridiculous? How is a parent - who obviously so far has been unable to control their child - going to miraculously now find it easier when they also have to try and rehouse themselves? Perhaps the distraction will do them good eh?
 
[quote author=Spionkop69 link=topic=46360.msg1379645#msg1379645 date=1313266693]
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1379638#msg1379638 date=1313264917]
[quote author=Spionkop69 link=topic=46360.msg1379617#msg1379617 date=1313262141]
Are Wandsworth Council correct to serve an eviction notice on one of their tenants who's offspring was involved in the riots?

Discuss.
[/quote]

It's an absolutely fucking ridiculous notion - evicting someone for something their kid has done? Where do you draw the line? Will everyone whose child commits a crime be evicted? Fuck it, might as well stop old folks state pension if their grown up offspring gets sent down.

Unbelievable
[/quote]

They already do it to private renters in housing associations. Anti-social children can lead to their parents actually being evicted and/or moved on. I know this because I've been involved in reporting persistent anti social behaviour near my property and the result was that the family was moved on. Perhaps it might make the parents care more about their childs behaviour? The ones round here, kick their kids out on the street to cause mayhem while they fuck off to the pub.

Why should I and other law abiding people have to deal with the shit from other people's lack of parental responsibility? This isn't just the kids who don't give a fuck, its coming from the parents. There definitely needs to be more responsibility from parents.

I applaud the woman who shopped her daughter after seeing her taking part. How many hundreds of parents *know* their child was involved in the shit, but kept quiet because they stood to benefit?

I'm not seeing people queuing up to shop their kids? That doesn't mean they're not, maybe its just not being widely reported or publicised?
[/quote]


Been there as well, spionkop.
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1379646#msg1379646 date=1313266849]
So answer the question then - where do you draw the line? If a parent is to be held culpable for the actions of their offspring (presumably working on the logic that they are to blame for being a bad parent) - at which point does this kick in and where does it stop? Is shoplifting just the kids fault, but mugging you blame the parents? If the parents are partly responsible should they do part of the jailtime?

How is it not in any way ridiculous? How is a parent - who obviously so far has been unable to control their child - going to miraculously now find it easier when they also have to try and rehouse themselves? Perhaps the distraction will do them good eh?
[/quote]

Define "unable". If they've tried and failed over a sustained period, fair enough. Regrettably, more often than not (and I know this from decades of working first in the Legal dept.and then in the Education dept.of a local authority) parents in such cases have taken the line of least resistance and waited for society and its institutions to play "bad cop" for them - either that or they've actively made excuses for their child and taken his or her side against the teachers, police, social workers or whoever is trying to fill the discipline gap in their child's life. What's being discussed here is an admittedly blunt instrument, but what else is there?
 
Punish the criminal, not somebody that happens to be related to them.

Fine, if it can be demonstrated they are in some way responsible then they should be held to account, but if all they've done is had a kid who is a little shit (and that isn't necessarily in itself an indication of being a shit parent) then how can it possibly be considered fair or just to punish somebody for another's crime?

Can those of you in support of this notion please just make it absolutely clear that you advocate the punishment of somebody for a crime they did not commit - because on the one hand that sounds exactly like what you're saying, and yet on the other hand I cannot see how any reasonable person could approve of that
 
Your argument falls at the first hurdle. A parent isn't just "somebody that happens to be related to" these children. A parent is legally responsible for them until they reach 18.
 
So therefore any parent - being legally responsible for them - should be accountable for their actions, and any council tenant who has a child in a YOI should be evicted?
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1379646#msg1379646 date=1313266849]
So answer the question then - where do you draw the line? If a parent is to be held culpable for the actions of their offspring (presumably working on the logic that they are to blame for being a bad parent) - at which point does this kick in and where does it stop? Is shoplifting just the kids fault, but mugging you blame the parents? If the parents are partly responsible should they do part of the jailtime?

How is it not in any way ridiculous? How is a parent - who obviously so far has been unable to control their child - going to miraculously now find it easier when they also have to try and rehouse themselves? Perhaps the distraction will do them good eh?
[/quote]

Do you know what? You need to start smoking again. Your posting style is very much of the ilk of "I don't agree with you, so therefore you are wrong" at the moment.

Even those who try and debate with you are being treated with a pompous attitude of superiority from you. All in my humble opinion of course.

Anyway, to the debate again.

You know full well that there are many, many parents who give no fuck about parental responsibility and don't care what their kids do. Well you know what? I'm sick of having these cunts excused for their lack of responsibility AND being the victim of their offsprings behaviour due to their "couldn't give a fuck attitude" to parenting.

If this means they lose their house then so be it. It may mean they learn from it. If they don't whose fault is that. Its about time people took responsibility for their actions and that means the kids they brought into this world. A moral code, like manners costs nothing.

Funny how people always have an excuse for their criminality - for the high up to the low down. Commit the crime, take the punishment.
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1379654#msg1379654 date=1313268744]
So therefore any parent - being legally responsible for them - should be accountable for their actions, and any council tenant who has a child in a YOI should be evicted?
[/quote]


Yep.


A parent should take every action to ensure a child does not exhibit any anti-social behaviour such as shop-lifting, breaking other peoples property or terriorise any neighbourhood. If they fail, then the parents should ask for help from the social services and even the police and if they fail to do this then they are accountable for the childs behaviour.
 
Not all cases are the same. The decision-makers, be they the local council, housing association or whoever, have to treat each one on its merits and members of the public can have recourse to the courts if they think they've been unfairly treated.
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1379651#msg1379651 date=1313268232]
Punish the criminal, not somebody that happens to be related to them.

Fine, if it can be demonstrated they are in some way responsible then they should be held to account, but if all they've done is had a kid who is a little shit (and that isn't necessarily in itself an indication of being a shit parent) then how can it possibly be considered fair or just to punish somebody for another's crime?

Can those of you in support of this notion please just make it absolutely clear that you advocate the punishment of somebody for a crime they did not commit - because on the one hand that sounds exactly like what you're saying, and yet on the other hand I cannot see how any reasonable person could approve of that
[/quote]

So lets keep this dead simple. A parent who shows no responsibility for his teenage son who goes around, vandalising cars, abusing and threatening pregnant women, stealing from shops and when you try to discuss it with them, their reaction is to threaten you with a hammer or beat someone with a golf club, that parent should not have any link or responsibility for the shite his son is causing? Really? Come and live it SR because that above is a real story and we were not the only family terrorised by this little cunt and his family. Most people stood down and took it because they were bullied and intimidated by said family. I stood up to them.

Wait until your wife gets threatened by a little shit with being stabbed when she's not looking and then called a fucking cunt on her own doorstep because she asks them not to climb all over her car.

Do you not think these parents exist? They are not made up by the Daily Mail you know, they fucking exist and I'm willing to bet that many of the kids involved in the rioting have parents who don't give a fuck about their actions or better still, think they are a chip off the old block.

Apologies for the agressive tone, but the apologism I have read in many places regarding these riots is starting to wind me up. If that makes me a Daily Mail reader then I'm comfortable with that label.
 
As I said - if it can be demonstrated they are in some way responsible, or complicit - then by all means hold them to account. As you've said there can be families that terrorise neighbourhoods and everyone else's life is blighted by their presence.

For these cunts, by all means, knock yourself out - they get what's coming to them.

Obviously these people exist - some of them were sending kids - kids! Not even teenagers! - into the fray knowing they were too young to get nicked. In cases like these I think it's probably fairer for the parents to bear the brunt of the responsibility.

However, this suggestion that the parents of anyone caught rioting should be evicted from their home or "loose [sic] all benefits" is reactionary bollocks, and I'll call it as such. As JJ says - each case needs to be tried on its merits, and if it is found the parents have a case to answer then so be it - but to simply apply it to everyone involved in the rioting is fucking nonsense
 
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1379660#msg1379660 date=1313270817]
As I said - if it can be demonstrated they are in some way responsible, or complicit - then by all means hold them to account. As you've said there can be families that terrorise neighbourhoods and everyone else's life is blighted by their presence.

For these cunts, by all means, knock yourself out - they get what's coming to them.

Obviously these people exist - some of them were sending kids - kids! Not even teenagers! - into the fray knowing they were too young to get nicked. In cases like these I think it's probably fairer for the parents to bear the brunt of the responsibility.

However, this suggestion that the parents of anyone caught rioting should be evicted from their home or "loose [sic] all benefits" is reactionary bollocks, and I'll call it as such. As JJ says - each case needs to be tried on its merits, and if it is found the parents have a case to answer then so be it - but to simply apply it to everyone involved in the rioting is fucking nonsense
[/quote]

I've never suggested it should be applied as a blanket punishment. I agree with JJ, each case on its merit, is a fair response.
 
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1379663#msg1379663 date=1313272793]
Wonders if I'm being ignored ??? Could've sworn I said the same thing as JJ?
[/quote]

I only mentioned JJ because SR specifically referred to him.

You are not being ignored!
 
What recourse do these parents have, really? I'm not making excuses for them, of course, but what can a parent do to a rebellious teenager who is dead set on behaving like a jerk? My understanding is that child protective services are pretty quick to go after parents who use physical force (this was certainly the case in Sweden while I lived there -- maybe not so much in Britain?). And parents who don't have much to give financially can't use that as much leverage against the kid. So, what can they be expected to do? And are these parents afraid of their bully teens as well?
 
Parents whose kids are regular truants have been fined and in many cases sent to prison as a result of their kids actions, this has been around for a while, this seems to be an extension of that to me. Yes I agree it may well be reactionary crap in relation to this case, but I suppose its because its such an unprecedented case.


Listening to 5live earlier and they said one guy got 6 months for stealing some water, its clearly well over the top to do this, but the judge on there mentioned one of the factors involved in passing out sentences was that it would be a deterrent for others in the future, and in this case it kinda makes sense. Again by cutting benefits and kicking them out of their houses its seen as a deterrent for future cases, the housing thing is not new either local police have threatened families and parents of nutty kids locally that they will relocate them unless the kids stop acting like idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rurikbird
  • Locked
Ranking Klopp’s seasons
Replies
21
Views
581
Le Chacal
Le Chacal
the count
    • Like
  • Locked
Interview with Tom Werner
Replies
7
Views
908
FreshRed
FreshRed
MomoWASright
    • Like
  • Locked
Make Oxlade-Chamberlain believe
Replies
19
Views
1K
rurikbird
rurikbird
King Binny
    • Like
  • Locked
How Data (and Some Breathtaking Soccer) Brought Liverpool to the Cusp of Glory
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
dantes
dantes
the count
  • Locked
The future according to CFG
Replies
11
Views
2K
manwithnoname
manwithnoname
Back
Top Bottom