London's Burning

[DanaC]

What really pisses me off abot these evictions and benefit penalties, is this: many of the rioters are young, many are still children. So, they're saying that if such children have rioted then their families will be evicted from their social housing. Why? Because they've proved themselves unworthy of that social housing. Since they have acted in such a way, why should tax payers in these communities foot the bill for their housing?

Trouble is, that if there are children in the family (and in most of these cases it appears to be the case) then the local authority has a statutary duty to ensure the safety and security of those children and to assist any struggling families in building that safe and secure family environment. All kicking them out of council houses will do, is force a bunch of families into expensive private accomodation that will make it een harder for them to survive as a family, or simply onto the street or friend's floors.

The local authority will then have to deal with that situation as part of its 'corporate parent' responsibility, and the whole exercise will end up costing the counil, and therefore the council tax payers of that area several times more than the cost of allowing them to stay in their council/social rent house.

Whilst one part of the council authority is exercising its right to evict, a different part of the same council will be left to try and deal with the family in whatever context that ends up being. It is just a way of looking tough and decisive, that solves absolutely nothing, and exacerbates problems in families that are already probably struggling for internal cohesion against a range of negative pressures.

To me this just seems bizarre and retrograde. What makes more sense, as far as i can see, is yes to prosecute those caught in criminal acts. And also to censure the parents who allowed their children to become involved. But censure really is only part of the answer when dealing with families. Those who became involved need educating and working with, to help them become part of a community they apparently feel apart from. I have no problem with short prison sentencnes for the worst offenders, but most of these youngsters could be best dealt with by enforcing some kind of community service, possibly helping in the clean up and repair task in the areas where rioting occurred.

This knee-jerk response is ridiculous and actively works against resolving the core problems at play.

There are all sorts of reasons why I object to this stuff that are more political in nature. The fact that only one class of the multi-tiered rioting crowd can actually face this kind of penalty for instance, but there are also very real pragmatic concerns with this. Bearing in mind the potential ramifications of eviction and benefit sanctions, it is even more disturbing to consider the speed with which these people are being tried and sentenced. Courts running all night, solicitors pulling 14 hour shifts. speedy decisions are not necessarily the best decisions. And conveyor belt justice may not be robust.