Posted on August 12, 2011

Rioter’s Family First to Be Kicked Out of Council House Because of Son’s ‘Looting’

Kirsty Walker, Daily Mail (London), August 12, 2011

An alleged rioter’s parent faces being the first in the country to be thrown out of their council house because their son was ‘involved in uprisings’.

After David Cameron called for tough justice for looters, Wandsworth Council today handed the family an eviction notice.

The tenant’s son has appeared in court accused of taking part in rioting close to Clapham Junction railway station on Monday night.

The case could be the first of many across the country as councils pore over charge sheets to see if people in their homes have been involved in civil disorder.

Wandsworth Council leader, Councillor Ravi Govindia, said: ‘We are determined to take the strongest possible action against any tenant or member of their household responsible for the truly shocking behaviour perpetrated on local homes and businesses earlier this week.

‘This council will do its utmost to ensure that those who are responsible pay a proper price for their conduct. Ultimately this could lead to eviction from their homes.

‘Our officers will continue to work with the courts to establish the identities of other council tenants or members of their households as more cases are processed in the coming days and weeks.

‘Most residents on our housing estates are decent law-abiding citizens who will have been sickened at the scenes they witnessed on their TV screens this week. Many will have seen their places of work trashed at the hands of these rioters. As much as anything else we owe it to them to send out a strong signal that this kind of violence will not be tolerated.’

The council said tenancy agreements mean all tenants, their household members and visitors are forbidden from a range of criminal and anti-social activities, and breaching the agreement can make them liable to eviction

Mr Govindia added: ‘When you move into a council property, you have to agree to comply with certain tenancy conditions. If you break those conditions you risk losing your home.

‘There is no room on our estates for people who commit violent crimes, who show no consideration for their neighbours or harass, threaten, intimidate or cause disturbance to others.’

A fresh wave of councils yesterday announced that they would kick out tenants convicted of rioting.

And Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith ordered plans to be drawn up to remove benefits from those found guilty of violent disorder.

He acted after a petition calling for the thieves to lose all their welfare handouts became the first to be passed to Parliament under a new scheme.

It gathered more than 100,000 signatures–the threshold to trigger a Commons debate.

Sources said juries could be given the power to decide whether handouts are axed, or the benefits system could be reformed so payments are automatically stopped if the recipients are convicted of certain crimes.

Mr Cameron told MPs that town halls would see their powers strengthened and hinted he could throw his weight behind measures to take away benefits.

During an emergency session of Parliament yesterday, the Prime Minister added: ‘To the lawless minority, the criminals who’ve taken what they can get, I say this: We will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done.’

At present, town halls can evict those that cause trouble locally. But Housing Minister Grant Shapps wants to extend this to those that travel to other areas to break the law.

He has added the plans to a consultation launched last week into tackling ‘neighbours from hell’.

Anyone who is jailed automatically loses their benefits. But Mr Duncan Smith wants to extend the sanction to those who receive non-custodial sentences.

The local authorities which said they wanted to evict tenants convicted of violence included Nottingham, Manchester, Salford, Westminster, Wandsworth, Greenwich and Hammersmith and Fulham.

Councillor Paul Andrews, Manchester City Council’s executive member for neighbourhood services, said: ‘Most people who live in our properties respect their neighbours and play by the rules. Those who do not, and who are found to be involved in this sickening criminal activity, could find their tenancies at risk.’

In Salford, council leader John Merry added: ‘We need to make sure these people understand their actions do have consequences, and the consequences for some of them could mean they lose their homes.

‘This is not a decision we take lightly, but we really must take a stand.’

Nottingham council leader Jon Collins said the authority would seek to evict anyone directly involved or whose children had been involved in disturbances. He said: ‘Parents have a responsibility to control the young people living in their home.

‘If young people living in your home have been involved in the violence over the past few days, they are putting your tenancy at risk.’

Mr Shapps said: ‘Regular people would say if you’ve gone out and you have caused such devastation to other peoples communities there is no reason why you should continue to get all the benefits, the privileges from the state that you currently enjoy.’

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also hinted that he could support the measure.

‘I think it’s right to say if you go out and break the law and you destroy the community in which you live, why should you simply assume that you are going to continue to be supported in living in the way that you are in that community?’ he said.

But there are fears that evicting council house tenants is likely to mean the culprits will simply move to another area and join the housing list there. Officials were unable to say yesterday how they would prevent this.

On benefits, a source said: ‘Iain Duncan Smith has asked his department to look for an effective way to sanction those responsible. We want to look at sanctioning those that get non-custodial sentences. They need to realise there are serious consequences to their behaviour.’

The source added that the benefits could only be taken away from adults, so would not affect the mothers and fathers of children convicting of looting.

If the policy is adopted it is likely any cut in benefits would be temporary and take into account an individual’s needs and offence.

The petition calling for benefits to be taken away dwarfed others on the Government’s e-petition website and has been formally passed to a backbench committee which will decide whether it should be debated.

Yesterday the website repeatedly crashed because so many were trying to access it.

The petition, submitted by Stephen Mains, says: ‘No taxpayer should have to contribute to those who have destroyed property, stolen from their community and shown a disregard for the country that provides for them.’

18 responses to “Rioter’s Family First to Be Kicked Out of Council House Because of Son’s ‘Looting’”

  1. GenX ANZAC says:

    Street looting will possibly disqualify these families from looting the UK welfare system, ironic.

    Here’s hoping this happens.

    The great thing about trying to prove theories on racial differences with blacks specifically is all you have to do is sit back and wait for them to screw themselves.

    There is honesty in actions.

    The part of the equation I find infuriating is the media, the leftists, the politicians and the corporate world’s deceptive reaction.

    The leftists like to say that it’s the right wing’s attitudes that make blacks behave badly, so if you remove you remove all of the right’s legitimacy in public discourse the left’s utopian vision can then be realised, but it’s the left wings lies that create and feed the need for the clarity of the right wing.

    Funnily though, long after the White left and right arguments and physical bodies have returned to the dust, blacks who inherit the earth will still revert back to their basic programming of foraging for food, seeking heat and screwing themselves.

  2. Stop the Madness says:

    Can anyone say where the foreign rioters come from? I am speaking not only of the actual rioters but their parents as well. Hopefully they and their families will go back to where they came from.

  3. patthemick says:

    Well it’s a get tough policy but wont work because if you push them onto the streets they will simply become criminals. The best solution is to deport the aliens and let the home countries deal with them but don’t expect that to happen.

  4. Anonymous says:

    The devil, as they say, is in the details.

    Let’s see how good the authorities are at enforcing this new edict.

    Already I see some backpedalling: “How do we prevent them from applying for subsidized housing in other jurisdictions?”

    Methinks this will be the excuse used to simply shuffle the miscreants from one housing jurisdiction to another: “We didn’t they had been thrown out from another housing estate”.

    It will take some effort to keep track of the miscreants; unfortunately “civil” servants nowadays are not known for their diligence except for harassing law abiding taxpayers.

  5. Crystal says:

    I love it! I think some public housing agencies in the US have the same thing. I live in Nashville and one grandmother was evicted from her public housing apartment after her grandson was arrested for shooting and killing innocent bystander. Her grandson was living in the apartment with her.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This all sounds great but since these people making their living by receiving handouts what is to replace it? Quite a morass created by a too liberal welfare system. It would be similar here if this approach was to be taken.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Okay, so you put the 1,900 arrested rioters out of their council houses, along with their families. I can’t think of a better way to start the next round of riots. They’re actually putting them out on the streets. So unless they already know that they will get new houses in another district, just play musical chairs (council houses), we ought to see more rioting in about a week, or whenever a critical mass of outed families gather up.

    The authorities are just not going far enough. They insist on putting the guilty parties and their families out in the street, but not out of the UK, which is where they should be headed. If they are white, they should not only loose their council house, but pay a fine and go to jail. After all, whites are capable of reform in most cases and it’s their association with the non-whites that allowed them to fall so far.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Naturally, they’ve singled out the white kid to make an example of.

  9. Crystal says:

    Answer to #4. Do a background check. In fact, every person that applies for public housing in the US, has a criminal background check done and if there is a previous conviction, especially for drug offenses, they are denied housing.

  10. Yorkshireman. says:

    Councils in UK have had this power of eviction on the grounds of anti-social behaviour for many years but have not implemented it, mainly because many local authorities are left-wing and run by non-Whites. This is why so many estates are blighted with several generations of the same crime ridden families who could, and should have been ejected years ago bringing relief to the the majority of other residents who fear burglary, vandalism, car theft and drug induced intimidation on a daily basis. However, it’s not so simple as these evicted families being granted housing elsewhere as they must first apply in their ‘new’ area and join the waiting list at the bottom. Meantime, it’s true that they could look for private housing (assuming landlords will accept them) then apply for housing benefit to pay their rent if they are unemployed at the new locality but having already being evicted elsewhere will not help. These looting young criminals will now realise there are far reaching family implications apart from individual punishment through the courts and parents may now start to monitor the whereabouts and general behaviour of their offspring including the effects of ‘rap’ and violent video games. Tossing their ‘blackberries’ and mobile phones into a bucket of water would be a good start.

  11. JasonC says:

    ‘Councils in UK have had this power of eviction on the grounds of anti-social behaviour for many years but have not implemented it, mainly because many local authorities are left-wing and run by non-Whites.’ – Partly true, most employees are incompetent the sort of people who work here would not be employed in the private sector.

    Lack of capability.

    Anti social behavior (ASB) law was change by Labour, it used to be that if you have been arrested you could face eviction. Period.

    However too many council house tenants were being arrested (!) and evicted so the law had to be changed. An arrestable offence had to ‘carry a potential prison sentence (so low level crimes get ignore ineffect) and the offence also had to have taken place in the vicinity of the home.

    Vicinity has not been defined in law.

    See the problem ?

    I riot in another borough chances of being evicted are very low.

    So I riot outside my house, goes to court, then its upto the judge to evict me.

    ‘Im say sorry sir, ive been taken lessons in behaviour management’, says rioter. There fore, by and by the judge will give him a warning that if he does it again THEN they will be evicted. If the rioter has a good solicitor the eviction threat will only hang over them for a year.

    Even so if the judge has a bad day and orders them out they can appeal, good behaviour from here on etc chances they get a way without being evicted.

    Butttt even if they appeal and lose the family will turn up at social services who on the whole will rent a house for them… Because Troubled home, young family etc etc.

    I know a case where they were evicted in the morning by the afternoon social services rehoused them in the same street via a private letting.

    Another case which cost £40,000 (yes forty thousand pounds) the judge agreed that yes the family had committed ASB but refused to evict them because ‘No one had confirmed that the miscreant (my words) had a mental health problems or not’. Their offence, kept knocking on the neighbours (adjoining living room) wall and that cost £40k.

  12. Question Diversity says:

    Confirmation that the mother is white:

    When I first read that they’d be kicking rioters and looters out of public housing, I figured that they would mostly kick out whites and the kind of whites who were by no means innocent but were relatively minor rioters and looters, and leave the blacks and other minorities alone.

  13. JasonC says:

    They already know that they will get new houses in another district – Not the case, 1996 Housing Act put an end to that kind of behavior.

    Good councils will run a check on which will show up the court order, so even if they escape that it is a an offence to lie on a housing application form. Oddly Judges view that as a serious offence and eviction often follows.

  14. Robert From Australia says:

    To Poster #12. The mother is Spanish or Portugese (European white) from the name. Her son is milky white. With a name like Clarke, he most assuredly has a indigenous white British father as the kid has nothing but northern European features. However his girfriend, (pictured with him) is a mulatto.

  15. Flaxen-headed Strumpet says:

    I’m always amused when Limey bureaucrats, bobbies, politicians, and judges start in with all of their prissy pontificating prattle and posturing about consequences and punishment.

    I seriously doubt that any of this will come to any significance.

  16. Ted says:

    One of the posters made the comment THEY SINGLED OUT THE WHITE KID.

    As far as I am concerned any white who runs with blacks is really Not White he is a light skinned black who wants to reunite with a tribe and live among them.

    I say recognize these (whites) for what they are and STOP considering them one of US.

    They are (blacks) at heart, By Their Own Choice…

  17. Dacia Coume says:

    Government’s decision to grant financial aid for the affected community is a generous act. Those who own shops damaged in London riots will have a relief fund, as Prime Minister of the UK David Cameron has promised 20 million pounds to help compensate their damages. The total damage from looting and pillaging of several shops throughout England is said to total more than 100 million pounds.Related article I read: Prime minister pledges relief fund for shops hit by London riots . Damages cost as a net loss is really a burden.

  18. Anonymous says:

    The family in question consists of a mother and her son from Spain. She has been on benefits since her arrival in England.