Wednesday, 16 May 2012

Reality Check.....

Posted in: Discussion | On the ground

02/10/2009 2:34 pm

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this discussion

Sort: Newest first | Oldest first

Author

Message

Harry Lime

Harry Lime

Posts: 164

02/10/2009 2:36 pm

Oops, sorry the pasting of the whole article clearly exceeded the allowed post size!! anyway, the link again......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8285451.stm

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Posts: 104

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

regjoe

regjoe

Posts: 19

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

Posts: 104

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

Joe Halewood

Joe Halewood

Posts: 243

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

regjoe

regjoe

Posts: 19

03/10/2009 4:32 pm

Good Point Ilag, but I don't really see an alternative. In this case the Council, Asbos, the courts and Police were a joke. So one could argue vigilantism is the only answer.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

regjoe

regjoe

Posts: 19

03/10/2009 4:41 pm

Good Point Ilag, but I don't really see an alternative. In this case the Council, Asbos, the courts and Police were a joke. So one could argue vigilantism is the only answer.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Rate this topic

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

You must be signed in to rate.

Post a Reply

You must sign in to rate this topic or make a post

sign in register

Why not register?

Registration allows you to sign up for newsletters, comment on articles, add posts in the forums, quiz our panel of experts, and save articles and jobs in the My IH section.

Register now

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters

Most active members

Most recent posts

  • From Chris, 27/04/2012 11:42 am in The maddly twittering twit

    With the games fast approaching, has anyone heard anymore from the Hairbrained Minister on this one of his many explosions in the media?

  • posted Anonymously, 27/04/2012 11:39 am in Does the 'Hastoe Experience' spell the end for Shapps 'Great Idea'?

    The proposal was batty from the outset. More about media column inches than any real positive for housing, but then that describes the Minister rather well I think.

  • From Chris, 26/04/2012 1:04 pm in Housing Action Collapse - the shape of things to come?

    I would tend to agree with you on this Jono. Indeed, from a Christian basis Jesus teaches that if you have something another person needs then you should give it to them, having faith that God will see to your own needs. This is not as silly as some may consider it in an ideal sense because if everyone behaved that way we would each be looking out for each others' needs and nobody would be left wanting.

  • From F451, 03/01/2012 3:28 pm in Minister needs to stop whinging!

    Apologies for the missing 'P' - I think someone must have taken it!

  • posted Anonymously, 03/01/2012 1:10 pm in Something seriously wrong with recruitment

    In some cases, departments could have been merged and several managers laid off, and the positions being advertised are for a single manager to oversee a wider area - so the picture may not be as simple as you make out.

  • From F451, 19/12/2011 12:05 pm in Council Housing is not subsidised

    It has always struck me as a little odd how desparate the Blue People are to cling to the notion of subsidy as another hammer to beat tenants with - yet they refuse to digest the fact that the financial arrangement has now been reveresed, or to accept the fact that many other parts of life is subsidised, but because this supports private sector profit appears to be acceptable.

  • From F451, 19/12/2011 11:09 am in Tenancy: where do I stand?

    The other side of these questions is - why were such matters not made clear before the ballot to chose the new landlord (or was there no choice offered, and no ballot taken - so tenants were just treated like so much cattle and sold to their new owners?)

  • From F451, 09/12/2011 4:08 pm in Announcing - nothing

    The other point about this flurry of callers is that people are still game for the something for nothing culture introduced by Thatcher and perpertuated by Blair.

  • posted Anonymously, 17/11/2011 2:18 pm in How Green is that Council

    Council leader Tony Ball, “It is about being involved and getting what is best for the borough because some development of the site is inevitable.”

  • From F451, 04/11/2011 1:38 pm in Protest Banned from Canary Wharf

    @Mr Reasonable