It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police getting powerful enough to eviict people from their homes

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Well people, it's happened again.
I know it talks about anti social behaviour, but it has the potential to turn nasty.

I SAID POTENTIAL ALRIGHT!!!!



PRIVATE householders will be evicted from their homes for failing to halt antisocial behaviour under plans announced yesterday by Tony Blair to restore respect in society. A network of 50 units, including residential “sin bins” for the most disruptive families, is to be set up by the end of the year to help to improve parenting. Families who refuse help face evictions and the loss of their housing benefit, or initially a fine if they live in private homes.



It just doesn't seem right to me...




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   


news.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/12/12/udealer.xml

"The Government was also allowing police and local authorities to evict people from homes used for drug dealing, Mr Blair said.

"I want to get to the situation where it is really hard for these people to operate locally," he said."


Could you please cite your source's. Thank you.

[EDIT] After reading a few more new's article's it appear's that this new law is being put into effect to make people responsible for their own action's.



news.bbc.co.uk...

"For example, somebody spitting at an old lady in the street would not be prosecuted because it used too much police time and the only result was a fine."


Like this example. Yes someone spitting on the elderly SHOULD get in trouble for it. Now people will THINK about what they are going to do. I fail to see the concern over being a good person in society.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mashup

It just doesn't seem right to me...


Try living next door to one of these socially disfunctional individuals..


To be honest, in the long term it is probably for the safety for the individual causing the trouble as much as the prevention of anti-social behaviour.

Everyone has a right to live in there own homes.

However, if what you do inside or around your own home affects the welfare of others around you then I believe that this action of eviction should be encouraged.

Might I add that this would only occur if repeated reports of anti-social behaviour occurs and have received multiple warnings by police. If hints of this kind cannot be taken seriously or adhered to, then the occupants of the house have no excuse if they are evicted regardless if they own the home.

Things could turn nastier if a whole neighbourhood was annoyed by one household causing anti-social behaviour.

[edit on 11/1/06 by Klepto]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Another article.



uk.news.yahoo.com...

"The prime minister has pledged that problem families will be evicted from their homes for up to three months."

""People have to know that if they are making life hell for others, they are going to pay the price," Blair said in his first new year interview."

"There's a duty to respect the rights of those who live around you."

"People who come in at two or three in the morning, playing music in a destructive way, abusing anyone who dares to take them on that is just not acceptable. They must learn to behave properly to other people. "

[EDIT - Forgot to add this bit]

"But Blair said it is based on a similar scheme already in use in Scotland which is showing good results."


I think this pretty much sums it up. Now if the USA can just adopt this.


[edit on 11-1-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The source which I used in the original post is The Times newspaper.

I know it's good to sort out anti-social behaviour, fining them and giving them community service is good.

But evicting them for a while to a "sin bin" area just sounds...odd.

I completely agree something should be done about it.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
After reading a few more article's, one in which I posted here the eviction process is only for 3 month's. Enough time for people to think about their action's. I think it's a rather good plan of action.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
From the article in the lead post: "A network of 50 units, including residential “sin bins” for the most disruptive families, is to be set up by the end of the year to help to improve parenting."

Mmmmm..... I wonder where these residential "sin bins" will be built? Not close to peace loving ordinary folk I hope

Chemical sterilisation of some of these "parents" should be mandatory to stop them pumping out more potential ASBO cases and increasing the drain of funds in the welfare system.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
i can see both positive and negative things with this ruleing, but, just kicking someone out of their home is not the solution, that just moves the problem some where else, and anyway, what ever these people have done, they have the right to their home, and taking that away is not right at all, whos to say that im being anti social because i have my music a bit loud, and mow my grass to early in the morning, fair enough these rules can be used to stop anti social behaviour, but can also be used against decent and law obiding people.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
"Sin Bin" is probably just some crappy buzz word the Labour spin doctors and press department came up with. Perhaps, with their patronising attitude thought that something along the lines of "temporary housing units for anti-social groups" or similar didn't sound funky enough.

However - in spite of the name - at the end of the day, the idea sounds pretty good. As other members have said, you try living next to these god awful families. Some of them are lower than scum and have no respect for the neighbourhood and community that they live in...let alone themselves or their homes.

I expect Human Rights lawers have pound signs in their eyes at the time of me writing this...Flicking though law books just to see when they can make their quick first buck.

It'll probably be extremely hard to evict such families. A lot of consideration will be taken and it will probably go to a crown court judge for a decision and that's after the extremely lengthly task of obtaining evidence has been completed.

ASBO's CRASBO's and ABC's are exactly the same, you can't dish them out without solid evidence of the persons behaviour.

This 'solution', would probably be the very last decision though. I'm sure there would be a long line of alternative methods to solve the situation before the eviction would ever be considered.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I lived over someone who could be considered a problem family. The father worked at night and the teenage daughter would have “people” over. There was at least three times where they played music nonstop for 5 days! One time for three days during new years! At the time my wife was pregnant and that worked badly. I could not get one good night of sleep. I called the copes so many times they told me to stop calling them. When they did come the people would not open the door and they could not make them open the door. I understand why someone would want a law like that. But also I have three toddlers and I have been accused of a noise problem. It got so bad that if my kids were playing in the front room for a short time they would bang on the ceiling. And what about people who work at night and sleep during the day? Being in a rental home there should be a mediator policy before eviction. But I fear that people will use this law to help big business take over “low income housing” and move out people who might have different culture activities.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
"loss of their housing benefit"


is that a bristish way of saying their home ownership, or do they live in a gov't susidized complex kinda deal ?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Might be a council estate which is built by the council (who don't have a great deal of money) so the flats (apartments) are cheaper and the council tax contributes paying for these council estates.

I think that's how it works anyway.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Syrinx,

Could you please edit your post to include your source? Make's it easier for people to reply when they can read the quote from the originating article.

"Loss of their housing benefits" is just abit way to vague to reply to.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mashup
Might be a council estate which is built by the council (who don't have a great deal of money) so the flats (apartments) are cheaper and the council tax contributes paying for these council estates.


More or less. The majority of these families live in council owned property, meaning they cannot afford to buy their own house. Instead of them living on the street, the council offer them housing. Most of them then decide to smash the place up, live in their own filth under the illusion, "Doesn't matter, the council with pay for it/repair it/re-house us".

If you dare to bite the hand that feeds you...Especially when it's good enough to provide you with a roof over you and your families heads at no cost to you.

- edited to include quote before I got told off


[edit on 11/1/2006 by FactoryLad]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
People keep telling me how out-of-control kids are these days. I always say, "Look at their role models. Like Cheney, Nixon, Halliburton, Enron. The way kids see it, anything goes if you can get away with it. So what else can we expect?"

You wanna clean up the world, start at the top. Otherwise it's just tools for mass manipulation and population control.





posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Right, and parental guidence and lack of discipline has nothing to do with it?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Right, and parental guidence and lack of discipline has nothing to do with it?


This is it at the end of the day. Mom and dad refuse to work. Decide to drink execisvely at home in front of the kids. Can't be bother to do the washing, clean the dishes, clean themselves sometimes. Might do drugs in front of the kids. Doss around all day because they haven't got a job. Send the kids out to the corner shop for fags becuse Trisha is on and they can't be arsed to go out.

The list is endless. What do you get at the end of it? Monkey see...Monkey do.

The kids I see, 12...13 years olds, drink, smoke, smell like they need a wash...and they demand "respect" due to the crap they listen to or see on the telly.

They haven't got a clue what respect is all about. And the problem? Look at mom and dad. It's a never ending circle.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Right, and parental guidence and lack of discipline has nothing to do with it?


You're obviously not a parent. FYI - once kids reach about 12 or 13 they decide their parents know dick all.

Then the kids start looking around to see who's winning, and how they're pulling it off. ...And guess who they see? Cheney, Nixon, Halliburton, Enron and all the big boyz. And they see them all getting rich by lying, cheating, and stealing.

You wanna clean up the world, start at the top - just like I said. Parents barely have a hope in Hades of fighting a tide like that - and those who manage are just being good tools for mass manipulation and population control.



Originally posted by FactoryLad

Monkey see...Monkey do.

The kids I see, 12...13 years olds, drink, smoke, smell like they need a wash...They haven't got a clue what respect is all about. And the problem? Look at mom and dad. It's a never ending circle.



Monkey see monkey do is RIGHT - and kids aren't stupid. They know their parents have no power - and they know bloody well who DOES have the power.

So that's who they copy - the Halliburtons, and Cheneys, and Enrons because that's who has the power and makes the rules. Take a real good look around and tell me I'm not wrong.







[edit on 11-1-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Depends on the child really. I know some people who are dicks but the parents are nice, hard working people.

Sometimes the parents are seen as old fashioned and quite conservative so the kid rebels and becomes the teenage alcoholic.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mashup
Depends on the child really.


My point is that "bad" kids' behavior just reflects the dominant values of our world - and copies the rich and powerful people who make the rules.

You want to change the kids, then change the world and the rules they follow. Cuz they didn't bloody make them up outta nowhere. But you start talking more laws for population control and I get right PO'd.






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join