[Closed] What a massive crock

Good!

Beyond belief.

Will have many fans on here no doubt

*waves*

yeah nottingham council were harping on about this in the news this morning....

so are they going to do the same to other families who smembers have committed

burglary
arson
vandalism
sexual offenses
affray
breach of the peace
gbh
abh
twoc

etc, etc

?

David Cameron : "I think for too long we have taken too soft an attitude to people who loot and pillage their own community"

Does that muppet have no shame whatsoever ? How can he allow himself to come out with such bollox suggesting that for too long we've been soft on looters ? And he makes it sound as if looting is a daily occurrence - ****.

Britain has never been "soft" on looters. This idiot is our prime minister ffs 😐

so are they going to do the same to other families who smembers have committed

burglary
arson
vandalism
sexual offenses
affray
breach of the peace
gbh
abh
twoc

We should do

how about

drunk and disorderly
possession.
jay walking.

Sounds good to me

jay walking.

Is that a crime in the UK or have you just picked it up from an old Kojak?

Speeding?
Non payment of TV licence?

What halfwit put the [i]"Can't do the time don't do the crime"[/i] tag ? 😀

This is not about a prison sentence, nor is it about the one who's done the crime being punished.

[u]That[/u] is the whole point of this thread......[i]Durrrr[/i]

Which half wit can't understand the meaning behind it? Oh that'd be you ernie

Heard the sound-bytes on this earlier, couldn't believe my ears. Leader of the council confirmed that when these families become homeless they are not eligible for any emergency housing because the eviction was somehow voluntary. The PM came on next with his full backing.

Reminds me of North Korea where they send the whole family to the concentration camp if any of them break the law.

Calls to bring back the workhouse will follow soon enough, prolly from the same ones that were suggesting National Service earlier in the week. It's like we've regressed 100 years.

Oh, so it was you Houns ! 😀

Isn't it about breaking the downward spiral and taking responsibility for your actions. If you can't bring you children up properly. The family is not going to be homeless, they have had the council tenency removed, they are now free to exercise their new found freedom and find another home in the private sector. Something they should have thought about before breaking the tenancy agreement.

So what happens to the evicted family- they end up in some shitty private let still paid for by the local authority.
Whats the point? Just to make Call Me Dave and the Daily (Hate)Mail feel good?

Thought for a second this was an F1 thread

Theft
Sex
Money
Possible corruption ...

But no a simple storey of British society

I predict more riots.

wow, that's some proper objective justice there. Meanwhile rich and powerful tax and expenses fiddlers point and laugh. What a joke. Proportionality my ass.

I think for too long we have taken too soft an attitude to people who loot and pillage their own community"

On issue how is this meant to help ? She was not even involved and he has not been convicted. Will be like a press version of hanging people from lamps

I suppose if the parent/guardian has been somehow complicit in the offences carried out, for example by being highly irresponsible in their attitude towards the offender's discipline and upbringing, and they have signed a tenancy agreement and are now in breach of that agreement then I could almost, in very clear and extreme cases, see a justification for eviction, even more so if the family is already known to the authorities.

Whether that's the case here I don't know but it feels quite arbitrary in its application and very wrong to me to force people out of their homes in what appears to be a vengeful & vindictive way.

How can he allow himself to come out with such bollox suggesting that for too long we've been soft on looters ?

I don't think he is referring specifically to looters but to the outcome relative to the crime, in which case he is correct. Irrelevant of their excuse they are in the wrong. In this specific case, the parent should also be responsible for the actions. The parent of the Olympic hopeful took her daughter to face her actions and it will no-doubt result in her not appearing at the Olympics. = fairness

You simply cannot accept what they did as being acceptable based on a dislike of the ruling political party. What would you propose as a suitable punishment? Jail is not going to do anything other than cost us more money.

I wish there was an easy answer to this, but unfortunately the problem is now three it four generations deep and simply removing the parents income stream is not the final answer but will be more affective long term than jailing them.

You read the last line of that report.

Action = consequence. Yes, the parents are contemplating that now but is that not the case with every crime that had gone to court?

Love it how the first word in the article is "conservative"

I don't think he is referring specifically to looters but to the outcome relative to the crime, in which case he is correct.

No. He was specifically referring to looters. The quote was very clear, and I heard him say it myself on Radio 4 news. Read it again, it couldn't be clearer :

[b][i]"I think for too long we have taken too soft an attitude to people who loot and pillage their own community"[/i][/b]

If he had meant to say something else, then he would have said something else - obviously.

In this specific case, the parent should also be responsible for the actions.

Bit a knee jerk reaction from the PM but there is some sense in what he says, in that parents have to take responsibility for their children.

I've just come back from the local shops and there are at least 15 kids hanging around, a few who were definitely well under 10 ranging to 14 or 15 max. WTF are kids that age doing out after 10pm ?

On my mobile so don't have full cut and paste etc.

Ernie,
Yes, but he is obviously not classing burglars and drug dealers in the same light, that are obviously free to carry on as previous?
Any change of law will be overuling and will apply to all. The opportunity is there and as politicians, they will take it.

Junkyard, I agree whole heartedly, but I also assume your 17 year old would not feel the same due to their upbringing and would not be allowed out of the house if riots were taking place?

Agree with ernie, this idea that Britain is a soft touch forlooters is farce.

I can't see that making these people homeless is likely to assist. This all throws into rather stark relief the fact that (like it or not) a proportion of welfare is the price everyone else pays for a quiet life. You give the dim, strong, violent guy a house, because you really don't want him to start thinking he needs yours.

simply removing the parents income stream is not the final answer but will be more affective long term than jailing them.

If you remove an income stream (or increase housing costs) from someone who has shown criminal tendencies, I would have thought the most obvious response would be an increase in criminal behaviour.

Actually, that's far too polite. It's as ****ing obvious as the bright blue arse of a baboon that if you cut the benefits of burglars they're going to be doing more burglary.

I actually don't think a local council will be able to ride roughshod over established tenancy law, and I imagine that a decent judge will sling this out. Making people homeless is a big step and unless the tenant is continuing to perpetrate some kind of crime/tenacy breach (as in not payment of rent, trashing the property or carrying out criminal enterprise from the property) then I think it would come under a judges discretion. Assuming its an AST, then in tenancy law there are mandatory and discretionary grounds for eviction. I feel sure that when this has died down a proper tenancy judge will not allow this to go ahead. I also think the counciller who announced this intention probably knows this and is just spouting this rhetoric to score a few points.

Ernie,
Yes, but he is obviously not classing burglars and drug dealers in the same light, that are obviously free to carry on as previous?

The topic being discussed was the looting. Cameron was talking about looting. Britain has never been "soft" on looting, never mind about "for too long".

And you don't deny that this is the case kevj, you are simply defending Cameron's right to say something which is patently untrue.

The reason he said it I have no doubt, is that he gave no thought whatsoever to what he was saying. I'm sure he thought to himself, "I'm a Tory, so I must say that we've been too soft on looters" ....it'll show them how tough I am. Unfortunately however, it's complete bollox. This what happens when you engage your jaw without bothering with your brain.

But for me the cherry on the icing was the "for too long" comment - as if to suggest that Britain had been experiencing problems with looting for years ..... what a **** 😀

can someone go through David Camerons back catalogue. Find some minor misdemeanour. Maybe he farted in front of The Queen, surely that's proportionally equal to nicking water from lidls?

look, DC is a posh, naive, priviledged bloke with no idea about ordinary people living ordinary lives. Why the hell he was chosen to represent the population I have no Idea. What I am sure of is he has no ****ing clue and just reads stuff that sounds good.

If you remove an income stream (or increase housing costs) from someone who has shown criminal tendencies, I would have thought the most obvious response would be an increase in criminal behaviour. Actually, that's far too polite. It's as **** obvious as the bright blue arse of a baboon that if you cut the benefits of burglars they're going to be doing more burglary.

Baboons arses are pink.

Yes, I agree. There lies the problem. Years of not providing for themselves has spawned a feral individual which will rob themselves temporarily rich. How do you propose we fix this? You have to start somewhere and why not start now and give the people who house the ferals a reason to question what they do?

so making "feral "people homeless will stop them being feral how exactly?

Baboons arses are pink.

[img] [/img]

As blue as the Blue-rinse Brigade at Tory Party conferences.

How do you propose we fix this?

Basically all the wet liberal stuff. But with a random shoeing thrown in every few months, just to keep the bastards on their toes 🙂

This is disgusting. Don't even have the words for it. Innocent til proven guilty? Who cares about that. Not actually guilty of any offence at all? So what, your son possibly is, we'll treat you like a criminal anyway.

David Cameron's comments are a joke but the real sickness is in the council here. Hopefully when it goes to court, it'll go before a sane judge and he'll throw it in their faces. But frankly that leaves the best-case scenario still being taxpayer's money and court time wasted.

Seems like if you want to fuel tensions, this is the way to do it.

Why the hell he was chosen to represent the population I have no Idea

Based on the 80's if the weather is good then expect more disruption this.weekend 🙁

EDIT,

As you did.

Again, if you address the bigger problem, then yes, this has been avoided for years. otherwise people who commited serious crimes would still be inside were they belong.

It is sickening that people who have no personal links with these people who commit senseless crimes appear to defend them based on left political views.

How do WE fix this? Caring for them will not work. Hating them makes them worse?

I recently watched a documentary about ex cons in America who fight fires and have a common cause. I appreciate we so not provide this tobut we also don't provide a way out.

Basically all the wet liberal stuff. But with a random shoeing thrown in every few months, just to keep the bastards on their toes

lol. I like that!

really dont know what to say about this, cameron is a disgrace springs to mind,
even sadder that people are actually stupid enough to think this is a good idea (and some of them even post on stw)

I'm really struggling to comprehend how anyone could think that this was a good idea - even if the 17 year old was subsequently found guilty 😕