Forums65
Topics76,361
Posts1,033,315
Members14,578
|
Most Online16,551 Feb 2nd, 2024
|
|
5 members (2 invisible),
9,740
guests, and
374
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 991
Guardian
|
OP
Guardian
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 991 |
Article Mother fearing eviction chooses £1m council house over son accused of looting as he is remanded rather than bailed to her home A mother yesterday allowed her teenage son to be jailed over rioting allegations rather than run the risk of being evicted from her £1million council house. Della Collins refused to let the family home be used as a bail address when 19-year-old Jermaine Collins appeared before magistrates in London. It left the court with little option but to jail the youngster overnight ahead of a final decision on his fate today 9 kids and dosnt work she must be raking in tax payers money, she obviously votes labour, and people wonder why we are billions o pounds in debt!!!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,350 Likes: 20
Wiki Master
|
Wiki Master
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,350 Likes: 20 |
I fail to see the link to your sensationalist subject title, also some of the 9 kids are over 18 so she probably isn't claiming for them.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn https://ddue.uk
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 118
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 118 |
......she obviously votes labour
Hmmm, you seem to be making a few assumptions there Sir! I'm not suggesting there should be no anger over stories like this, but the Dail Mail loves nothing better than to have some titbit for Middle England to be outraged at. Regarding the article itself, I'm not sure I understand when it states: ‘She [the lad's mother] said that if her son is convicted of an offence she will lose her council house so she is not able to offer a bail address.’ If it is correct that the mother will face eviction if her son is convicted, why does that depend on whether he is bailed from her address meanwhile? Surely the sanction would, if it applies at all, also be applicable if he was convicted from custody, or am I missing something? As for the bigger picture, well, I agree that proportionate punishment needs to be dealt out, comensurate with the seriousness of the offence, including all the aggravating features. However, whilst it may prove popular at first thought to evict people or stop their benefits, the question has to be addressed as to what happens then - where do they live & how do they feed & clothe themselves & their families? I agree it's tempting to say sod 'em, they deserve it, but the fact is they still have to exist somewhere, and I can't help feeling that unless David Cameron and whoever else is advocating this tough justice can explain how this is actually going to work in practice, it will prove to be no more than opportunistic rhetoric.
Last edited by 24424m; 19th Aug 2011 8:12pm.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 907
Guardian
|
Guardian
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 907 |
......she obviously votes labour
Hmmm, you seem to be making a few assumptions there Sir! I'm not suggesting there should be no anger over stories like this, but the Dail Mail loves nothing better than to have some titbit for Middle England to be outraged at. Regarding the article itself, I'm not sure I understand when it states: ‘She [the lad's mother] said that if her son is convicted of an offence she will lose her council house so she is not able to offer a bail address.’ If it is correct that the mother will face eviction if her son is convicted, why does that depend on whether he is bailed from her address meanwhile? Surely the sanction would, if it applies at all, also be applicable if he was convicted from custody, or am I missing something? As for the bigger picture, well, I agree that proportionate punishment needs to be dealt out, comensurate with the seriousness of the offence, including all the aggravating features. However, whilst it may prove popular at first thought to evict people or stop their benefits, the question has to be addressed as to what happens then - where do they live & how do they feed & clothe themselves & their families? I agree it's tempting to say sod 'em, they deserve it, but the fact is they still have to exist somewhere, and I can't help feeling that unless David Cameron and whoever else is advocating this tough justice can explain how this is actually going to work in practice, it will prove to be no more than opportunistic rhetoric. Nail on the head! You articulated far better than I could the stupidity of knee-jerk, Daily Mail appeasing responses by the government to the riots.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,615
Forum Addict
|
Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,615 |
£1m council house, must be London then.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,350 Likes: 20
Wiki Master
|
Wiki Master
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,350 Likes: 20 |
If that is her son's home address then she can lose her tenancy, presumably she is stating it is not his home address.
To put things in perspective, the average house prices in Camden show that she lives in a house significantly below average price if her house is truly worth £1m (her house being either a semi or end-terraced)
Camden average house prices (source BBC, based on data from the land registry)
Detached £2,225,942 Semi-detached £2,786,888 Terrace £1,151,840 Flat £501,562
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn https://ddue.uk
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 991
Guardian
|
OP
Guardian
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 991 |
i think the article said he had been dossing at a mates house
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 118
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 118 |
If that is her son's home address then she can lose her tenancy, presumably she is stating it is not his home address.
Right - with you now! The lad is 19 years old and living away from the parental home, so under the mother's tenancy agreement, where anti-social behaviour by anyone living at her address can affect her tenancy, the argument is that this sanction couldn't apply in this case, unless he was bailed to that address. To be honest, that reasoning still seems arbitrary to me, as surely the relevant issue is where the son was living at the time of the alleged offence, not presently? Back to the substantive issue, I watched David Cameron's interview on Northwest Tonight, and when Gordon Burns posed the question as to where would people go if they were evicted from their homes (& by implication, what would they do if they lost benefit), the Prime Minister replied something along the lines of " Well they should have thought of that before they went out rioting". On one level, I agree with David Cameron, as I suspect many people who are angry, outraged or scared by what has happened do too, as there has to be (and be seen to be) proportionate consequences for actions in any just society. The problem is, when considering the issue of consequences, what would be the impact on society as a whole of evicting people from their homes and denying them even a basic income? The government really has to make a clear decision as to what relationship with mainstream society such individuals should have, and this is where things get tricky. For example, would the government advocate the notion of a purpose-built ghetto {effectively a poor house}, where those without accomodation or income for reasons of criminality can be corralled and contained in the most basic of circumstances, with no relationship with the rest of society? In our knee-jerk anger right now, this may appear like just deserts, but in the longer term, is this really a desirable outcome for society, or even politically acceptable? I certainly wouldn't profess to have the answers, but my fear is that despite all the tough talk, neither have the politicians, and the consequences of such a policy have not been sufficiently thought through.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 887
Wise One
|
Wise One
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 887 |
Don't you think it strange that this and previous riots have always happened under a Tory Government? Just to put you correct on one thing hysterical Tony, the biggest friend of the benefits mob was your blessed Margaret Thatcher. She is the one who fiddled the unemployment figures by allowing millions to claim Incapacity benefit or whatever it was called then.
I remember talking to one chav girl way back then and saying what a shower the Tories were and she replied that as far as she was concerned, they were the best thing since sliced bread because her benefits were so good.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good headline though
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,600
Wiki Addict
|
Wiki Addict
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,600 |
Thease pms are full off promises but never happens.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 391
Old Hand
|
Old Hand
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 391 |
All the goverments who are in powere, say what ever they think people want to hear, but does it ever happen, not usually. I voted for this tory goverment, because they said they were going to make it more worthwhile for people in work, and not so beneficial for people on benefits. well that didnt work since they came in powere, my husbands paying lots more tax and national insurance. his yearly increment at work has been suspended. and familyy allowance has been capped for three years or so. so in effect, he is back to what he started on, wage wise 6 years ago. due to all the financial stress and pressure this has put a strain on our relation ship so much so, im gouing to be a goverment statistic claiming income support, and the odd thing is, im going to be no worse off than i am now. how bizzare is our society.
|
|
|
Click to View Topic.
|
|
Posts: 14,350
Joined: July 2008
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|