Yobs with Dogs: Another "needs" based allocation outcome
20/08/2009 0:39 am
Another totally expected story from an Inner London borough with 48% "social" (sic) housing allocated under the wonderful "needs" based allocation system:
10 pitbulls are seized in 'puppy farm' raid
19 August 2009
TEN pitbull terriers have been seized by police in a "dangerous dog" raid - including nine pups that could be worth thousands of pounds.
Around 15 police officers swooped on a suspected "puppy farm" in a ground-floor flat in Avenell Road, Highbury, just after 7am last Wednesday.
They found a three-week old litter of nine pit bulls and their adult mother.
The owner was unable to control the adult pitbull during the commotion and an expert handler from the Metropolitan Police's new Status Dogs Unit was bitten on the arm as the adult dog launched an attack to protect its pups.
The officer, who asked not to be identified, said: "The owner has wound the dog up and not got it on a lead. It was getting ready to lock its jaw but I managed to get it off."
Police also found substances thought to be cannabis and crack cocaine and two top-of-the range bicycles believed to be stolen.
They were acting on a tip-off from a builder employed by Islington Council, who claimed he was attacked by the dog as he carried out repairs at the flat last month.
Officers say the puppies - worth between £700 and £800 each - would probably have been bought by criminals to be used in organised dog fights or for protection and intimidation by drug dealers.
Sergeant Dean Akinola, who set up Operation Bark last month to target a rise in dog attacks in Islington, said breeding pitbulls was "a nice little earner" for people who are "probably on benefits".
He said: "Some of the dogs are forced to have several litters. The owners breed them to fight and for protection. I know of a drug dealer on my ward [Hillrise] who's using them for protection and intimidation, trained to his command."
It is not known whether the seized adult pitbull terrier will be destroyed. The fate of all 10 dogs will be decided in court.
Sergeant Akinola said: "It's a bit of a grey area. The dog is a banned breed but if the owner gets it chipped, neutered and insured and it's kept on a muzzle, he can keep it. However it's unlikely he can keep eight pups. It's entirely up to the court."
The Status Dogs Unit was joined by a specialist break-in team for the raid, as well as by community police officers and uniformed police from Highbury East Safer Neighbourhoods Team.
Inspector Andy Mariner, who is in charge of Safer Neighbourhoods Teams in the north of the borough, said: "It's surprising the limited knowledge of officers when it comes to dangerous dogs. But now Dean's pushing the message out with Operation Bark, Islington is top of the game. We
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
20/08/2009 1:32 am
Nice of you to prove that thoughts of you being a sick moronic fascist are proven by ur own words.
So Police break into a house THE SPECIALIST DOG BREAK IN UNIT and find a dog that doesnt have to be muzzled doing something entirely natural of any aniumal, humans included, protect its young.
Any surprise that the insurgent was attacked? No its the laws of nature.
Officers say the pups would PROBABLY - oh so its all hearsay then!! A sel-proclaimed UNIDENTIFIED officer at that!
The same UNIDENTIFIED officer goes on to speculate about OTHER dogs (could they have been in non-tenant housing?????)
Another officer who soes choose to identify himself talks AROUND the subject and SPECULATES on OTHER dogs to say these OTHER dogs could prove a nice little earner for those PROBABLY on benefits.
AND YOU SUMMISE THIS IS ALL DUE TO THE NEEDS BASED ALLOCATION SYSTEM THAT IS THE LAW!!!!
Just where do you get off, and wherever it is make it soon
20/08/2009 8:00 am
You extreme lefties always have to get so personal don't you? The crack dealing, dog fighting feral scum who get priority housing under the current basket case of an allocation system are a curse to their merit allocated older neighbours and to the general community. Yet you persist in defending the indefensible? And anyone who questions it is a "moronic fascist". You really are a deeply sad po-faced lefty ideologue aren't you? I have a right to post stories here that back up my position on allocations policy (which is now far more flexible following the Newham decision in the HoL) and if you don't like to hear it, well, tough.
20/08/2009 9:16 am
Now you see that's just crafty conflation again - criminal types live in social housing therefore social housing's to blame. Or social housing's too good for the likes of them (even though you've said previously you want to privatise it) so they should go and live somewhere else and leave the social housing to 'good folk'. Which would presumably dump all the undesirables into the private sector that you see as the saviour of housing. And what would your argument be then I wonder?
As for hurling insults you dismiss anyone who'd disagree with you as an 'extreme lefty'? When you've already made it clear that you regard that as an insult? Pot kettle sir, kettle pot.
20/08/2009 9:44 am
ILAG - im not going to comment on your response except to say this.
You have made your views known as to needs based allocations and its limitations and effects. So why not create a thread here on allocations or the better system you have in mind. Then the issue can be discussed without any need for personal slights or labelling.
You know i disagree with your opinion on the improvements you propose and im no fan of the current system either. So a genuine discussion oin issues is welcome and healthy for debate.
20/08/2009 9:49 am
ILAG, as someone who is far from an 'extreme lefty' perhaps you could explain to me what someone breeding dogs has to do with allocations policy. I am not familiar with priority being given to 'crack dealing, dog fighting feral scum'.
21/08/2009 7:54 am
You are familiar with priority being given to crack dealing, dog fighting feral scum. It's just called "needs" based allocation by the middle class hand-wringing sandal wearers who brought this curse into existence. The more so-called "problems" a criminal type has, the more likely the creature will be allocated a flat under the current system. The first criteria for allocation is being on benefits. Then add on additional points for any acts of random criminality (for which of course society is to blame, never the criminal). Add on more bonus points for a crack or heroin habit. Then, he presto, have a flat in a stable community of tenants who were allocated under the older Merit based system and make their life hell. Proceed to breed wolverines in order to sell on to other criminal types who have been similarly allocated and steal as many bikes as possible. This is the reality of "needs" based allocation in Islington.
In prime Central London, nobody should be allocated a social tenancy unless they are in work. We have two thirds of social tenants on benefits already, up from one third in the 1980's, and do not need to increase this percentage further. In my area, 60% of 16-34 year olds have NEVER worked. Even when the economy was good. This is unnacceptable. Work is the pre-condition for tenancy. Should the tenant loose their job this would NOT affect the tenancy. However being in work would be required to get one in the first place. A criminal records check would also be required. A record of street robbery, theft or violence against the person would disqualify.
London is the engine of the UK economy. London LA's should not be housing those who refuse to contribute and make life hell for those around that do. Those who choose to spend a lifetime on benefits in social housing can do it someone else where there is more accomodation available eg Hull.
21/08/2009 8:02 am
Over here, please.....
21/08/2009 10:47 am
Personally ive never venerated nurses the way that mainstream society tends to - Ive realised now that this positioned was wrong.
Professionally never liked the keyworker programme either, but i see now why the government wants them to be able to live in Islington.
Pity Grouchos not with us - he could advise us on whether leaseholders contracts contain a Sanity Clause
21/08/2009 10:54 am
Is it just me or does the self proclaimed voice of the Islington Leaseholder Action Group have an axe to grind. Must be damn near the handle by now.
I have great sympathy if the experience stated has been real, but really, seek therapy for the delusion that such experience is common. It really is not, honestly. There are nice people out there, leading responsible lives and making a valid contribution to society, and some of them are tenants of social housing.
Please ILAG, seek some professional help before you are consumed by your own reality. I worry for you. At very least, stop pretending to be a group and become a person; it must be so confusing for you.
21/08/2009 12:20 pm
Who's a loony?
The Islington Gazette reports the same story with an addendum.
A 34-year-old man is helping police with their inquiries about the possession of class A, B and C drugs as well as the possession of firearms.
This being Britain we are obliged to withhold judgement on the guilt or innocence of this individual.
But in practical terms I would rather side with the more jaundiced sic realistic view set out by Ilag.
And just as a matter of information Islington Council's housing department shares Ilag's view. They have begun to monitor tenancies where there are dangerous breeds of dogs present. They clearly believe there is a link between dogs, drugs, crime and anti-social behaviour ("feral scumbags", using Ilag's register).
Just who are the loonies?
21/08/2009 12:40 pm
The ones who think that effect A is caused by cause B when in fact the two are only accidentally related. And entertain a deep seated and prejudical hatred of a large swathe of the population.
As for dismissing the due process of law as what, a failure of an over-liberal state? God give me strength. No, of course not, let's be done with it and snatch people from their homes in the dead of night and convict them because we just don't like them. Hell why bother with courts, plenty of trees around Islington.
21/08/2009 2:10 pm
Wot. An anally-challenged logica positivist on Inside Housing ...still. It takes all sorts, I suppose.
I share Ilag's views. Or rather I share many of his assumptions and prescriptions. To confuse what he says with how he says it and then to collectively go off on one about sanity suggests you're criticising someone with criticism which could just as well be levelled at yourself.
In other words, in philosophical terms, you've disappeared up your own anus.
Strip out Ilag's theatrical turn of phrase and I defy you to find a nanomicro hair between his views and those of say, Anthony Giddens, Demos, Frank Field, John Healey and every social housing tenant facing a job with a dog.
I would strongly suggest you guys look at The Wire. It's all there, the really big issues of life and death. Pity is that you'd all self-evidentally pick up on the language rather than the meaning. (Omar is a hero of mine though he has a character flaw - other characters don't live long when he's around)
21/08/2009 2:29 pm
Just to point out that the Wire is in America and, also, FICTIONAL.
21/08/2009 3:50 pm
Yobs with dogs. And yobs with words.
The Wire. Fictional? Or even FICTIONAL. Well, I never.
Someone around here is just a tad literal.
The point I was making abouthe The Wire is that complex moral dilemmas (goodies being baddies/baddies being goodies) underpin a veneer of fruity street slang.
To pick up on the street slang is to miss the whole point. Is that literal enough for you, Castro?
Ditto Ilag. He has expressed views here which are mainstream. When everyone including Uncle Tom Cobbley and his dog is talking about the desirability of "mixed communities" or "affordable housing" you can bet these honeyed euphemisms are being deployed because they play better than talking about feral scumbags with killer dogs living on state-handouts, as Ilag opines.
I see no difference between the meaning of the two statements. The code of the former just requires a bit of work to be deconstructed.
By extension, for example, the desirability of a mixed community is predicated on the assumption that a monocultural/monotenured community is bad which is predicated on the assumption that a community made entirely of social housing is bad which is predicated on the assumption that such a community will be living on welfare which is predicated on the assumption that such a community will have low levels of education and so on and on ... which brings you close to Ilag's point of view and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.
21/08/2009 4:50 pm
Nurse! We've got another one. And this one's swallowed a dictionary and Idiot's Guide to Philosophy.
Your point is probably somewhere in amongst the trying to look clever but, to go back to the discussion, ILAG is a Thatcherite. I don't actually have any problem with that and I can see part of his argument on occasion. The language and imagery he uses is, almost without exception, divisive, over the top and ultimately counterproductive, but that's the way things are with most radicals.
What I still don't get is why needs-based allocation leads to social problems. ILAG's argument seems to be that the people most in need are the poorest, and the poorest people are scum. Is that understanding correct? It might be just a little bit of an over-generalisation, and I think the causality might be the other way around - that the most needy and alienated people often turn to crime and act in a way that others find unacceptable because of their circumstances.
But there's the rub I suppose. The right wing sees the causality one way, the left wing sees it the other and I'm in the middle wondering what a foreign TV programme has to do with anything...
21/08/2009 8:52 pm
"Needs-based" rather than "choice-based" letting - Sancho is making real progress this term in his use of English.
Either way, it's a mechanism for generating horrendous communities by crystallising the poor into social housing and make them poorer still.
Worse, it offers a perverse incentive for the marginal to join the poor - the higher the need the greater the priority.
"Choice-based letting" - doncha just luv NuLab for their Kafkaesque linguistic interventions. Worse than Thatcherite surely. She at least looked you in the eye and told you the score.
Sometime next year NuLab will be terminated with extreme prejudice. No doubt they will accept the vote as a positive endorsement of policy catastrophe.
22/08/2009 0:03 am
In Cambridge this week a man and his daughter were committed to trial after allowing their Rottweillers to cripple their postman.
If we extend the rationalle behind ILAG, Read, and the other stormtroopers, as well as sending all social tenants to the gas chambers we will have to send millionaire business and football club owners (and their daughters apparently) to their deaths as well.
How do people become so twisted into labelling all social tenants with the same brush. The dangerous dog owners on trial in Cambridge are not social tenants. Crime is not limited by tenure but mentality. Tabloid propaganda is there for entertainment, but some seem to make it their bible.
Stalinite, Hitlerite, Thatcherite, Blairite- each exgagerated the gap between rich and poor - each are failed philosophies.
Look to the history of Europe in the 30's. Being part of the in-crowd meant adding your voice to cast down the group of the moment. How many Communists who castigated the Jews realised that they were next on the death list, to be followed by the disabled, the elderly, the sick, the 'underserving' poor, the stocky, the brown haired.
Every time you join the popular acclaim: blame the single parents, blame the immigrants, blame the asylum seekers, blame Europe, blame the council tenants, etc; you add to the avoidance of the truth and hasten your own grouping being next in the firing line.
Wake up a realise that the real issue here is that our society has been so warped to prosper the smallest minority that the other 94% of us are kept at bay by turning on each other. Stop playing to the rules set by the Thatchers and the Blairs and start standing together with your neighbour instead of against him.
The argument can not be 'I have not got an affordable rented house so nobody else should have one'. It must be that everyone who wants an affordable rented house should have the choice of having one (like they did before 1979). This does not mean state control. It is not lefty lunacy. It is offering us all better options by extending choice to all.
The politics of achieving more for ourselves by climbing over the bodies of others is not only abhorent, but unsustainable. The politics of choice offers the opportunity to all. Are the tenant-bashers in these columns really so opposed to choice; do they really not want choice themselves; can they not understand that they can opt to choice without it being at the expense of others; has Murdoch really messed with you ability for rational thought so much?
Stop hating so much for pity's sake, and you will start feeling better.
22/08/2009 0:39 am
Another spaceman with a collection of plausible cliches.
Read the posts. Read the logic. Read the argument. And then tell us what you think. Not a pre-digested set of duff immutable truths that you, no doubt, trot out on each and every occasion.
"The politics of choice offers opportunity for all". Oh, shut up. Choice isn't choice, matey. It's a scam phrase used by the Labour Party to win votes.
"Choice-based" letting is, in reality, "needs-based" letting. We've got that far. Gettit. Go back. Read it. Castro has got that far.
And needs-based letting is a recipe for a social disaster which in some cities we've got. I don't know if Castro is with us yet on that one.
Now, I suggest a cold bath and while you're at it drown that merry band of screaming cliches and homilies of nonsense between your ears.
The pity is you're clearly not a stormtooper. A gerbil without a half-decent clause, more like.
22/08/2009 0:48 am
Apologies to Mr Read for making a submission beyond his comprehension.
I respect your option to continue your life without any choice, however, I will continue with my life to argue for choice to be extended as widely as possible.
(Note - this is nothing to do with the Labour rip off CBL, rationing dressed up as choice, but real choice in all aspects of a persons life, enabled choice, fair choice - I'll stop there because I would not wish to confuse you further)
22/08/2009 0:52 am
CW: "How do people become so twisted into labelling all social tenants with the same brush"
Who is labelling all social tenants with the same brush? Surely it is you. And the the Patrician Left. Society is to blame, never the actions of the individual. Come on, grow up, you're not a kiddy any more, are you?
I have quite clearly stated that that the majority of social tenants, allocated as they have been under the old Merit based system are perfectly decent and the very victims of the vermin that you middle class lefty idealogues have injected into their communities by your patronising hand-wringing all-criminal-scum-are-victims-of-Thatch mentality.
GQ: "prejudical hatred of a large swathe of the population."
What garbage. These scum are a tiny minority who have been given privilege to terrorise the large swathe of the population that you refer to. Thanks to the treacherous policy makers who think just like you. That will soon end however. As Michael says, sometime next year NuLab will be indeed terminated with extreme prejudice and that will indeed be a happy day for the vast majority of the law abiding tenant population.