One of the reasons that Scots largely don’t vote for the Tories is that there is always a fear that the old Conservative instinct of taking a big stick to the great unwashed can prove too tempting when the blues hold too much power. That old instinct has reared its ugly head this week with Tory councils across London stating that they intend to evict people who were involved in the rioting in recent days.
The move is so depressingly regressive and counter-productive that it almost defies belief. Even scumbags deserve a roof over their heads.
We have a legal system that serves to hand down appropriate sentences for crimes that have been committed, be it fines, community service or, at worst jail (though some right wingers would like to go even further than that). We don’t, or at least shouldn’t, seek to exercise revenge on wrong-doers just because we can and/or it makes us feel better. After all, what, precisely, are individuals and families supposed to do if they have nowhere to live?
My initial belief was that this was a threat handed out during the heat of the riots in order to disincentivise disorder and was not something that would ever see the light of day. It was a West Wing-style chess move, and nothing more. Indeed, it may well have proved to be an effective move for that purpose given the speed with which calmness descended on London since Thursday (the 16,000 tooled up, highly visible police officers may well have helped too). However, sadly, the threats have been followed through and eviction notices have been served, despite a pleasing level of arrests and sentences being handed down on the looters and fire-starters.
We can’t keep excluding people from the system and hope everything will magically get better. Closing down literacy and numeracy charities, increasing the number of homeless, increasing fuel poverty and slashing opportunities for various professions out there with seemingly no masterplan, no end game in sight other than just cross your fingers, it’s, well, it’s getting frustrating.
Cardboard City was created in 1983 in London, 4 years after the Conservatives came to power. With a new blue broom in Government, are we stepping ever closer towards a repeat dwelling being created a few years from now? Evicting people unnecessarily and for nothing more than spite surely won’t help.
So, I have a suggestion for the Conservative Party (though I suspect other parties are more likely to take me up on it), a move that can ensure that the top of the tree and those sleeping against the tree in dirty blankets can hammer out any differences that they have and find a combined solution to the country’s ills:
Homeless people and the unemployed are entitled to free membership of the Conservative Party.
It’s a policy that involves ‘we’re all in this together’ ‘compassionate Conservatism’ and ‘the Big Society’ rolled into one. I’m not holding my breath though. The Tories, as we’re seeing this week, just love that big stick option far too much.
#1 by Barbarian on August 14, 2011 - 7:41 pm
The Tory councils in question are going to find it harder than they think to evict people. There are numerous legal safeguards so it could become a costly exercise as the appeals roll in.
What we have in Westminster is a “Millionaires Row” in both front benches. People who have not truly experienced what it is like to live with next to nothing.
Obviously there are the cases where eviction is necessary, but to base it on what is effectively a single event is slightly troubling. The courts are doing their job, and the level of punishment seems to be effective in many cases.
The last thing that is needed is political interference, which will only add to the underlying social and economic problems.
#2 by Daniel J on August 14, 2011 - 7:54 pm
You seem to have missed the several Labour councils also peddling this idea!
#3 by Jeff on August 14, 2011 - 8:13 pm
Crikey. I did miss that, thanks Daniel. I’d have thought there were limits to blue Labour trying to out-Tory the Tories but I guess not…!
#4 by Alex MacDonald on August 14, 2011 - 8:12 pm
I agree with you here Jeff. I too found the controversial statement very troubling. What exactly do they hope to serve by increasing the amount of homeless people across the parts of England.
This policy is clearly a lash out at those who were involved in the riots, and as you put it the law is there to do the job. Increasing the fuel for the fire will really not help the situation resolve itself. It should be about logical and methodical process if we are to maintain a fair system.
@Barbarian I agree, the only one on the front row to my mind is Liam Fox who comes from a poorer background.
#5 by Douglas McLellan on August 14, 2011 - 8:13 pm
I totally agree. The act of taking “revenge” on someone outside of a “legal system that serves to hand down appropriate sentences for crimes that have been committed” because “revenge on wrong-doers just because we can and/or it makes us feel better” is one that should never be endorsed or promoted.
Of couse James & Kate have done exactly that in the recent past so I wonder why this is any different.
#6 by Doug Daniel on August 14, 2011 - 8:50 pm
“Even scumbags deserve a roof over their heads”
It’s tempting to disagree with that. However, it’s very difficult to see how evicting people and taking away benefits (the other idea the “moral” mob are calling for) are going to solve the problems that caused the rioting and looting. Plunge people even further into poverty and make them feel even more like the establishment is against them? Erm, yeah, great plan…
More than ever, politicians need to start thinking long-term, because it’s this obsession with the short-term gain that is causing many of society’s problems. I mean, people talk about the looters being “feral youth”, but if we don’t watch out, the next generation (i.e. the kids this bunch will be having in the next year or two) will be almost literally “feral”.
#7 by douglas clark on August 15, 2011 - 9:49 am
The Tories are excellent at revenge, perhaps not so good at problem solving.
I wonder whether anyone else sees this as a ‘moral panic’?
In the sense that everything possible has been thrown into the cake mix.
Whatever happened after the death of Mark Duggan, absolutely everything, becomes part of the meme that ‘our cities are in flames’ and ‘Civilisation to end next Tuesday’.
Lots of journalists – Melanie Phillips and James Delingpole for instance make extraordinary amounts of money by stoking these flames.
Personally I think our civilisation is a bit more robust than that.
The point being that a need to feed a 24 hour media feeds a political class that wants to be seen to be ‘strong’ feeds a 24 hour media and so on ad infinitum. This is one of those feedback loops that ends up with your ears bleeding….
#8 by Indy on August 15, 2011 - 10:24 am
I was having an argument with a friend about some of the sentences being handed out to rioters the other day. He was saying how preposterous it was that someone had been sentenced to six months for stealing a bottle of water. On the face of it that is, of course, a completely ridiculous sentence. However the sentence was not, in reality, for stealing a bottle of water, it was for being part of the mob. I think we have to try and understand why they are throwing the book at people in courts, even if it results in outrageously unfair individual sentences. A complete breakdown in law and order, which happened in multiple locations at the same time, is a serious problem and the authorities are bound to do whatever is within their power to try and prevent that recurring. But that is precisely why I think it would be completely counter-productive to take punishment outside the courtroom, whether in terms of starting eviction proceedings or withdrawing benefits etc. These people are already being punished more harshly than anybody else would be in the same circumstances. That is enough.
I totally agree with Douglas about the moral panic issue/There are over a million young people living in Greater London apparently – of whom only a tiny proportion took part in the riots. It is simply preposterous to draw conclusions about the whole of society from the actions of a relatively small number of people. What we are seeing is lots of people who had pre-formed opinions about single parents, black culture, discipline in schools etc using the riots to further their own agenda. And on the other side people arguing that the cuts are to blame are being equally silly.
#9 by Cameron on August 15, 2011 - 10:27 am
Arg, David’s talking about going after human rights and a health and safety culture. So that’s the Tories great legacy, attacking human rights and creating a poor health and unsafety culture.
I absolutely agree that kicking people out of council houses is a mad idea that doesn’t even look legal (presumably part of why he’s attacking human rights) as it’s against human rights – the right to shelter.
#10 by Indy on August 15, 2011 - 12:53 pm
Yeah because the rioters adhered to a health and safety approach at all times lol.
#11 by Don Francisco on August 15, 2011 - 12:25 pm
I’d be suprised if the idea amounted to anything, there are lots of legal safeguards against it. But it all serves the tories to keep the authoritarian agenda on the headlines and against any attempt to understand why the riots happened in the first place.
#12 by Iain Menzies on August 15, 2011 - 1:11 pm
Not wanting to intrude on a Tory bashing but…
This isnt a policy as such….its the law. There is no suggestion that just because someone has been naughty they should be evicted, rather than local authorities should exercise the powers that they have as part of a tenancy agreement with residents that allows eviction on the basis is generally making life hellish for their neighbors.
I can think of at least a half dozen families that would fall into that category in the town i grew up in (in North Lanarkshire) even if there wasnt rioting. No one is suggesting that they should be made to live on the streets, but if they are homeless then the local authority would be resposible for giving them alternative accommodation. Or they could go into a private let….and really if someone treats their community with such disrespect would it be such a bad thing if they had to move? is that really an unreasonable consequence of such stark criminality?
Just remember before you object to this what your objecting to isnt a Tory policy, but rather that tenants should be held to a lease.
#13 by Jeff on August 15, 2011 - 2:11 pm
Iain,
I consider it a policy rather than a law because someone somewhere has taken a decision to evict large swathes of people rather than blindly follow some rulebook somewhere. The councils involved could have kept people in place or evicted them, that’s their choice.
You do make a good point that one of the reasons for this is to punish individuals for the detrimental impact that they have had on their local community (ugh, there’s that word again). I can go along with this to a certain extent, break up groups that are up to no good by dispersing them geographically but are families being rehoused in a controlled, caring, compassionate manner or have letters been sent out telling them to get the heck out of there? My impression is that it is closer to the latter and that, whether it’s ‘the law’ or not, is really quite abhorrent if it’s resulting in increased homelessness.
#14 by Indy on August 15, 2011 - 2:49 pm
Yes they can – and should – evict people who makelife hell for their neighbours. Whether or not that anti-social behaviour takes place in the context of a riot. And they also, have the right to evict someone who is involved in criminality.
But looking at the first case that came to prominence at Wandsworth Council they served an eviction notice on the mother BEFIORE THE SON WAS FOUND GUILTY OF ANY OFFENCE. He pled not guilty when charged and was remanded in custody.
So they served an eviction notice on the basis of him being arrested and charged – not on the basis of him being found guilty. They have pre-empted the decision of the court. What happens if the boy is found not guilty? Will they stop eviction proceedings?
That is extremely dodgy surely – legally as well as morally.
#15 by Tony on August 15, 2011 - 11:54 pm
Due to the time it might take to do it I reckon they are just getting the wheels in motion, and would rescind any application should said person be found not guilty. As then they would not have a legal justification, morally I don’t see much difference to other anti-social type behaviours proscribed in tenancy agreements. Harsh but if you have ever lived in schemes they are badly needed as some people believe they have licences to behave like arseholes.
#16 by Indy on August 16, 2011 - 8:43 am
As I said I am all for evicting arseholes but I have never heard of a case where the council/housing association started eviction proceedings on the basis of the son of the tenant being arrested and charged and not on the basis of him being convicted. Presumably if there was a background with this family, if they were the subject of an anti-social behaviour order for example or if the boy had a history with the police, that would have been indicated, But they presented the decision as being taken solely on the basis of the fact that he had been arrested in connection with the riots.
#17 by Tony on August 16, 2011 - 9:52 pm
Canny say I’ve heard of it before either…………………..but with all the availlable evidence this is seemingly what is happening. I reckon there has got to be some kind of history there, got to be but you never know the anger thereabouts is palpable, hence we have all the talk of benefit cuts, clean up/chain gang type stuff which no serious politician would have advocated a fortnight ago.
#18 by Derick fae Yell on August 15, 2011 - 7:15 pm
not only legally dodgy, but completely illegal. I believe the term is ‘collective punishment’.
However, the headline is the thing. And the predictable refusal of the judiciary to follow through evicting people because of the actions of their relatives will be reported, if at all, on ‘page 94’
#19 by Observer on August 15, 2011 - 7:17 pm
Calm down dears, the COURTS will make the decision on whether any family gets evicted, not the Prime Minister, or the Councillors who are pushing this through to try & look tough.
It is extremely unlikely that any court will evict when the other members of the families involved are wholly innocent of anti-social behaviour *in the vicinity* of the tenancy.
The tenant is responsible for the behaviour of household members when they have control over it. That is what it says in the missive & that is the only thing the Councils can found upon. You cannot suddenly change the rules to make tenants responsible for household members criminal behaviour wherever it occurs. That’s not how it works.
But just to be on the safe side perhaps we should send down Mike Daily – he would sort these eejits out.
#20 by Observer on August 15, 2011 - 7:28 pm
A riot is in no way comparable with anti-social behaviour as a breach of tenancy. A tenant who allows anti-social behaviour to cause nuisance to their neighbours has to go through a process. That is sometimes frustrating for their neighbours, but nonetheless that process exists to prevent homelessness.
The tenant needs to be given a warning & allowed the opportunity to resolve the anti-social behaviour. Quite clearly that is not something that could be done in these cases because a riot was a one off (we hope). The Court will expect to see that the Council as landlord has taken steps (such as involving social services) to prevent the eviction which is a last resort, not a first resort.
They could make the household members found guilty of rioting sign good behaviour contracts or something like that, which might be a good idea.
But I would bet you London to an orange we won’t be seeing any evictions.
#21 by Barbarian on August 15, 2011 - 8:01 pm
You only need to look at how difficult it is to evict “unsociable” families up here in Scotland. My friends have one such familiy in close proximity, who were moved there after a previous eviction.
To date, the police have been called around 40 to 50 times; 2 dogs have been removed; 2 cars; at least one window pane and one mini motorbike.
In 6 months.
Because there are children of school age, it is nigh on impossible to evict them at the present moment, and they are causing pure hell for their neighbours.
That case above is to me a case where eviction is justifiable. Simply tossing a family out on the street because a child was involved in the riots is heavy handed and as Observer points out, not going to happen.
#22 by Tony on August 15, 2011 - 11:49 pm
The orange will win Observer, there will be evictions but those evicted will not neccesarily be homeless.
As it is judged that they have not intentionally made themselves homeless they will be eligible to be housed elsewhere, court evicted is not classed as intentional. In the meantime it will be hostels and b&b’s till such time as the same authority or another provides them with accomodation. A costly business for the council and destabilising to say the least for the family concerned.
I know of several incidents of evictions. One single mother could not control her boys and was eventually moved and now lives in a different part of Glesga. Another, the boyfriend had drugs in the house and she was evicted, not her crime but it was in the tenancy agreement regarding such matters. Rioting and smashing up local businesses would I am certain fall within the parrameters of anti-social behaviour.
#23 by Indy on August 16, 2011 - 8:52 am
When you say he had drugs in the house do you mean he was dealing? Because eviction is 100 per cent justified if that was the case in my view and is not the same as the case we are discussing, as far as we know.
#24 by Tony on August 16, 2011 - 9:47 pm
He was but not from the house.
To put it in perspective, I come from a rough area, but I have plenty of backup. My sister’s pal’s boy of 16 was keeping some guy’s stash under his bed for him. He wasn’t dealing but his ma would have been evicted nevertheless. She was too scared to interfere so I did.
I know the case is not the same but the principle is. Someone living officially in property and named on tenancy agreement is commiting the crime that within the remit of the tenancy agreement may well result in eviction.
#25 by Observer on August 16, 2011 - 1:37 pm
Err if you get evicted for anti-social behaviour you are most certainly intentionally homeless. The way around that is to go and live with your mum or other relative, then they put you out of the house & you are assessed as being homeless from that set of circumstances.
The whole thing is ludicrous, evicting families doesn’t solve any problems, it just moves it around.
However, I do not believe that the courts will issue decrees for eviction because asking for them isn’t reasonable in all the circumstances, the tenant has not had a chance to control the anti social behaviour, & the missive doesn’t say that the tenant is responsible for criminal behaviour of a household member away from the vicinity of the tenancy.
If courts do give into pressure (& it seems they have been instructed to issue custodial sentences to anyone involved in the rioting, or even to people who received stolen property) & issue decrees I will then bet you another orange that any such judgements will be overturned on appeal.
All the government are actually doing here is risking more anti-social behaviour, creating a potential gravy train for lawyers, & making a fool of themselves.
#26 by Tony on August 16, 2011 - 9:39 pm
Being evicted by court order is not intentionaly making yourself homeless. By it’s very nature you have no choice in the matter any more.
Also legally for tenant to have any chance of keeping property or appealing decision they would have to sign some sort of agreement not allowing family member subject to conviction in their property.
This is all in the gift of the housing association/authority. Apart from that i agree with you.
#27 by CassiusClaymore on August 16, 2011 - 2:59 pm
I wonder how much social housing could have been built with £12 billion – the cost, so far, of Broon’s amazing decision to sell the UK’s reserves of gold.
That’s £12,000,000,000……and counting.
CC