This really bothers me

[loganberrybunny]

Public

What does? Something from this BBC report about looters etc potentially being deprived of benefits. (They already are if jailed, incidentally.) That's a wider subject for another time, but what makes me uncomfortable right now is this:

On Friday, Wandsworth Council served a tenant with an eviction notice after that person's son appeared in

Comments

[mavinmaverick]

I agree. Plus, they're looking to punish the parent(s) for the crime of the kid. That's something we do here in the US, and sometimes it makes sense, but depending on how old the kid in the riot was, and how involved (instigator or follower?), then it's likely the tenant didn't even know the kid was out there. If were facing eviction for something my kid did, I'd have to kick that kid's arse all the way to military school!

I'm kind of bothered by the idea of taking away benefits from the people who are rioting. On one hand, yes, there needs to be some kind of punishment for acting like a moron, but aren't these people rioting because they're getting shafted in the first place? How does more shafting alieviate that situation?

There needs to be some kind of reform in the benefits system (likely in the immigration system as well, from what I understand). In that, the US and England are very similar. We have too much money going to the wrong places, and no one is willing to make the necessary adjustments.

[loganberrybunny]

Plus, they're looking to punish the parent(s) for the crime of the kid.

Yes, that too. In some cases, the rioters themselves are parents, which prompts the question of what happens to the children.

I'd have to kick that kid's arse all the way to military school!

I know that was said tongue-in cheek, but what worries me is that people are apparently in all seriousness suggesting that looters should be impresssed into the Army. Why do they think the Army would want them? They want people who are already disciplined and trained these days: our military is shrinking in any case.

likely in the immigration system as well

One of the hottest hot potatoes there is, and eventually I may feel brave enough to write about it! I think part of the problem the US has is that, for Constitutional reasons, you're now one of a small minority of nations that still has birthright citizenship. We haven't had that for decades, but if anyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen then of course their (prospective/expectant) parents will be even

[mavinmaverick]

I would guess the kids would go to relatives or be in the custody of the state (another tax-payer expense!).

I certainly see the desire to have the most dedicated, upstanding citizens in the military, but when it comes to fighting wars it almost seems like a senseless waste of good people's lives, when there are some folks who could just use the discipline of a military life to make up for their crimes. That's not for everyone, and there are some people who wouldn't make it in the military, but it would put some folks to good use where they're otherwise just drains on society.

Yeah, immigration is a hot button issue here too, and that birthright hooey is a big part of it. I wish we would get rid of it. I could say a lot more too, but I have no desire to start a battle in your journal! LOL

[jhall1]

Another report I read said that the looter in question is eighteen. If that's correct, then he would legally be an adult, and I don't see how his parents could be held responsible for his actions. If he was fourteen, say, it might be different.

[xolo]

It sounds like the eviction proceedings are expected to take long enough in any case that the conviction (or aquittal) will take place before any possible eviction. In a case like that, I don't see a problem with starting presumptive proceedings, since they can be halted before any harm is done.

[mavinmaverick]

It may take awhile, but like Logan said, it sets a bad precidence. It assumes guilt before the justice system can do it's work. It might be naive to think that the system should work as intended, but that's a naivety that I would like to retain...the more people who do, the more likely it will work properly. Even starting the eviction proceedings does harm to the system, and to the people who are being accused.

[xolo]

I can't see this being so terribly different than the accused being held in custody until trial. That too is a presumption of guilt (or at least of an intent to flee), and arguably has worse and more lasting consequences than beginning a legal procedure which can be called off before anything permanent has been done.

In an atmosphere of continuing unrest and the possibility of violence, it's important for the state to show that they're taking the matter seriously, both to intimidate the lawless, and to reassure the law-abiding. Beginning to clear in advance the bureaucratic hurdles necessary to imposing punishment on those convicted shows a strong intent to follow though.

[mavinmaverick]

I see your point, but the difference here is that they're looking to evict the parent(s) of a kid (who may not even be a minor) who may have done something. If the parents themselves were the ones who were accused, I'd probably be more inclined to agree with you. But that they're being punished with potential action for having a stupid kid, just doesn't sit very well with me.

[mcgillianaire]

I read about this the other day and it upset me as well. Typical knee-jerk reaction of a Tory-led council.