Reality Check.....
Posted in: Discussion | On the ground
02/10/2009 2:34 pm
Just thought I'd post this to allow many residents who take an interest in ASB and other matters, often just what it involves to get successful outcomes is "getting rid" of prolem neighbours and others who harass and distress whole communities. It's incredibly simplistic to look at ASB and other incidents and then point the finger at housing officers etc as "letting" things happen, the truth is without residents willing to stand up, and give evidence where appropriate, things will continue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8285451.stm
The case of Fiona Pilkington, who killed herself and her disabled daughter after a decade of taunts and abuse by youths at their home in Leicestershire, left many people shocked at how neighbours can treat each other.
Some Bolton residents, though, have shown the scourge of anti-social behaviour can be successfully tackled - but only after a lot of hard work and even some personal danger.
It began for Sharon Hodgkinson as it might for any of us.
Large groups of rowdy teenagers had gathered outside her home; she closed the curtains and hoped they would go away.
But they did not and instead their numbers swelled. Often there were thirty or forty young people, kicking footballs, shouting, drinking, taking drugs, playing music and abusing passers-by.
It often went on until the early hours of the morning.
"It was like sleep deprivation," remembers Sharon.
Her children could not go out to play. Whenever she set foot out of the door, she would be shouted at.
Their car alarm was regularly set off. If she asked the troublemakers to go elsewhere, they would tell her that this was their street, and it was she who should go.
Life on Shackleton Grove in Bolton became miserable.
Frustratingly slow
So Sharon, a mother of six, contacted the anti-social behaviour team at Bolton At Home, the Housing Association responsible for council houses in the town.
Fortunately for her they listened, and provided a sympathetic ear 24 hours a day.
But dealing with anti-social behaviour is time-consuming and frustratingly slow, as Sharon was to discover.
First she was given a diary to record what happened, when it happened, and how she felt about it.
"One of the questions that always cropped up when I was writing how I felt was: 'Why do the police seemingly do nothing?'" Sharon said.
"It left me with a feeling of being very vulnerable. You'd call the police, they'd come, they'd have words with them and perhaps move a group of youths off the street.
"But you'd know full well that as soon as the police were gone, they'd soon be back."
She was also given a video camera and started to record particular local residents who seemed to be causing most of the trouble.
The problem was that the more she did, the more of a target she became. She started to get death threats, windows of both her house and her car were smashed.
Sharon showed me one of the videos she filmed. It
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this discussion
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
02/10/2009 6:04 pm
Even more reason to implement the Localis proposals. The secure and assured tenancy must go. If all tenants had AST's instead then all the council would have to do to remove these vermin is hand out a 28 day notice to quit. Job done. No need for witnesses to come forward and risk their lives to testify before a reluctant and spineless judiciary and no need for the LA or RSL to spend a fortune on barristers to get possession. We need to get back to the situation that existed prior to the Rent Act and the Housing Acts of the 80's and 90's when, in the Golden Age of council housing (from the 40's to the 70's), the LA could evict on 28 days notice and estates were not the no-go areas they are today. It's time to remove the recently created sacred cow of the secure and assured tenancy. Nothing else will prevent future occurences of same.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
03/10/2009 11:22 am
With regard to Ilags post, you or more or less claiming that everyone in Social Housing is vermin. By getting rid of secure tanancies, that is in effect what your saying. With regard to the distressing case mentioned. People have just got to stand up to people. When are people in this country going to realise, that the Police are only here for powers of arrest, and not to restore Law and order. What happened would not occur where I live, for the simple reason I would kick the little shits ass and then when the dad comes round I would kick his ass.
And then when the Police nick me, I would lie to them. No Jury in the land would convict.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
03/10/2009 12:18 pm
No of course they are not. As stated in posts passim, the majority of the older merit allocated tenants are perfectly decent which shows that the old allocation system worked. Why should they have to suffer violence, intimidation and even death from their recent "needs" allocated neighbours when the tenancy regime can be changed to ensure the monsters are removed immediately?
In terms of the vigilantism you propose, this is highly commendable although inadvisable. If you feel able to stand up to the scum then this is great. However bullies tend to pick on the weakest and those most unable to fight back. In addition if you were to "kick the little shits ass" all the family has to do is call the Police and then they will be after you on some sort of child cruelty rap. You can be sure there would be a Police response then and it would be you they would be after. After years of battering by the bleeding hearts and PC brigade, the Police now love nothing more than going after a soft target and people who defend themselves make perfect targets. Needless to say they would be supported by some hand-wringer from Social Services as doubtless the family will be "known" to them and you would be the criminal. The CPS would seek the maximum penalty (there are no juries in magistrates courts) and on conviction the RSL would then be spurred into issuing a Notice Seeking Possession against you in order to protect the scum family from those who defend themselves against them.
Therefore, whilst admirable, your proposed course of action, under the current regime, would not be advisable!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
03/10/2009 3:50 pm
One of the few areas of consensus i have with ILAG from previous posts is that 95% of tenants are law abiding and the problem element is only 5%. What I also agree with him on is that it is too difficult to rid social housing of these problem tenants - and by extension a way has to be found to get rid of them.
But i strongly disagree that it is the allocation or admission system that is at fault. It is the exit system not the entry element that is the problem.
The solution cannot lie with either the entry system or with the tenure document or the landlord. The only way even for ILAGs proposal to take effect is a change in the law - Hence the key to a solution only lies with the judiciary and if that were to be considered could it be applied retrospectively - I strongly doubt it. How would the law allow the significant reduction of security that would affect negatively the law abiding 95%? That is madness.
Here is where the change of view needs to happen. It cant be right for 5% of the tenants to create misery for the 95%, surely there is a greater good legal argument here. Yet it cant achieve that at the expense of the greater good.
This is the extreme flaw in ILAGs thinking and proposal as it would penalise the 95%. Yet he persists in blaming all societal ills on needs based allocation as opposed to his myopic and highly arbitrary vision of allocation by personll choice and prejudice of housing officers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply




