Will this encourage better parenting in the future?

[R1Geezer]

I wonder how many of the thieving pond life realised they'd be punishing their immediate families?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14509779
Do you think local authorities are right to enforce their tenancy rules?

[sandyRoe]

So, apart from collective punishment, the sins of the children are visited on the innocent parents, we are also going to get retrospective punishment.
The Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights will have something to say about that.

[daisya]

I question '"innocent parents", surely they had a hand in bringing their children up? IMO children are only as good they've been brought up, parents should know they have the responsibility of their children and should be brought to book when required.

[R1Geezer]

The idea is that the parents actually do some parenting and possibly, horror of horrors, may even teach the little darlings right from wrong. Perhaps when others see what happens when you don't bring them up properly they might, just might, get their ar5e in gear and furnish some offspring that are fit to live with humans.

[Gromit]

Council or social housing is a privilage which is unfortunately taken for granted. Any anti social behaviour regardless of the riots, which affects the local community should be punished. If that means having to move then so be it.

However, there seems to be an assumption that the rioters are council housed doleites. However, there seem to be many working, reasonably off people appearing in court. Maybe those if convicted of robbing, should have their TVs an cars confiscated. Otherwise, it would appear you would be punishing the poorest off rioters more than the middle class ones.

[Count-A-Strong]

So come on Sandy, what would you do?

[sandyRoe]

I wouldn't give two young men, who foolishly called for chaos in Norfolk and Warrington on Facebook, 4 years in prison.
I wouldn't threaten to evict from council property the parents of anyone convicted in the riots.
And I wouldn't make changes in council regulations to be used retrospectively to enforce those threats.

[R1Geezer]

so that's what you would not do, care to tell us what you would do?

[Barmaid]

Sandyroe, I do not think it is retrospective. Most council tenancies include a provision which allows for evicition if the tenant or anyone living there is convicted of an indictable offence.

In addtion, the Housing Act 1985 provides grounds to evict if the court thinks it is reasonable to do so and if the tenant or any occupier is guilty of any act which is capable of causing harassment or alarm to anyone in the locality or is convicted of an indictable offence in the locality.

These provisions have been available for a few years and are regularly used.

[sandyRoe]

Barmaid, this is from a BBC website.
At present, local authorities can apply them only if troublemakers are involved in disorder in their local area.

But Community Secretary Eric Pickles is planning a 12-week consultation on whether powers should be extended to allow councils to punish those convicted of what he called "riot tourism" in other areas.

It is believed that many people who got involved in the riots and disorder travelled some distance to do so.

If it is to be used against the families of people who have already been arrested how can it be anything other than retrospective?

I'm asked, 'What would I do?'
I don't know. I don't pretend to have any answers to this.

[R1Geezer]

you don't have any answers, but you tell us not to punish the perpetrators, presumably you are some sort of anarchist!

[askyourgran]

I don't know how these people have the cheek to bleat on about their human rights. The parents will now face up to the fact that their sprogs are thieving bstards and are bringing home their shame and it's going to cost them, for a change. The only problem with kicking them out of their council homes is where will they go? Not all of them will be in council property, but I hope they find a decent punishment for them all. My guess is that some of those 'loving' parents will disown their kids, they will think it's easier to do that.

[sandyRoe]

I haven't said that the guilty should go unpunished. I'm saying that the innocent shouldn't be punished.

[Gromit]

They wanted to riot in Northwich (smirk), not Norwich.

[askyourgran]

Maybe sandyRoe, the parents will take more notice of their kids and make sure that the punishment they have had to take for their misdeeds, isn't going to happen again. It maybe too late to start teaching them right from wrong, but at least they will pay for the consequences of not bringing their children up decently in the first place. Shi***ng on their own doorstep isn't done.

[sandyRoe]

Is that in posh Cheshire? No wonder they got such draconian sentences.

[R1Geezer]

but sandy you said you wouldn't have given those guys 4 years for incitement, that is a crime.

[sandyRoe]

The punishment should fit the crime.
4 years for stupidity doesn't seem fair or just.

[R1Geezer]

they'll do 2.

[sandyRoe]

Still far too long.
There's an ugly lynch mob mentality has developed. Politicians, Judges, the press, all baying for blood.
I think custodial sentences are the answer in some cases, but not all.

[Buenchico]

R1Geezer:
Please allow me to tell you about David and Lee. (Genuine names, genuine people. I used to teach both of them).

David joined our school, at the age of 14, because the school down the road had thrown him out and no other school would take him. He was the most naturally gifted mathematician that I have ever met (and I've known quite a few university professors). He was also incredibly 'personable'. (He had the ability to 'turn on the charm' in an instant. If I was his age I could easily see how I could have wanted David to be my best friend).

Unfortunately, David had terrible parents. For example, David left home to go to school on a Thursday morning, but he didn't turn up for school and didn't arrive home on Thursday evening. Most parents would have been panicking an hour or two after their son should have arrived home. David's parents didn't even bother to tell the police that he was missing until the following Monday!

David was also a 'rogue' and a thief. The police attributed the theft (or, more accurately, the 'twocking') of 14 different vehicles to David in a SINGLE NIGHT!

Lee, on the other hand, was one of the most delightful young people whom you could wish to meet. He was a delight to teach, hard-working, with regular attendance and wonderful, supportive parents.

However Lee, very briefly, fell under David's charismatic spell. (As I've said, I could see myself doing that if I'd been their age). David persuaded Lee to join him in an attempted burglary, where they both got caught by the police.

So now I have to consider your question as to whether throwing such families out of their homes would encourage better parenting.

I can't see that evicting David's family would have done anything to improve his (pathetic) parenting. (They'd have probably simply disowned him and left Social Services to 'pick up the pieces'). On the other hand, Lee already had 'near perfect' parents. (His actions left his parents stunned. They ensured that he was punished but, at the same time, they made sure that he knew that they still loved him and cared for him).

While I broadly support the right of local authorities to enforce their tenancy rules, I hope that what I've written might illustrate why I don't believe in simplistic solutions for achieving better parenting.

Chris