Should British Government take benefits/housing off rioter's?

[bodie]

I think it is unfair to do so.  I also think it's 'asking for trouble'.

Wandsworth Council has already started eviction proceedings
to one family.  The sixteen year old at the root of this has not
even been to court yet!  I thought you were thought of by law
as innocent until proven guilty! 

Apart from his mother he has a seven year old sister who will now
have to lose her home. I don't understand how a supposedly
civilised society can impose such punishment to a little girl.
It stinks.   

[The_Chosen_One]

People should not consider unemplouyment benefits and public housing to be an automatic right. Sure , these people are poor and in need, but should this necessarily force them into rioting? Here we have people who are on the streets and receiving benefits (which are meant to be paid for people looking for work) and they don't riot. Maybe things have degenerated in the UK to a point where they think they have no other option, but it makes you wonder why all other countries aren't experiencing the same thing. Being poor cannot be the only reason, but the government and councils are probably sick of having to try and fix something that mauybe these people should be sorting out themselves. You make of your life what you can, and if you fail to do so, then why should people help them if they won't help themselves?

Anyway, that's my view. You don't have to agree, but it's what I believe.

[bodie]

It is a right.   It is a Human Right.

It could be argued that if we take benefits off anyone convicted of certain crimes we will
be saving money.

The reality is their poverty will have an effect on our society  (unless you are Richard Branson
and can afford your own island)  The streets will be less safe,  crime will rise and you will breed
another generation of criminals!

How do you expect people to act who have no stake in society or their community? 

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Meh, the measure will lead to further civil unrest down the road. I mean what do you expect when you force unruly people to become destitute by cutting their funds and evicting them from their homes? They'll steal and squat to just survive then.

[Al Swearegen]

OK. I think we have to look at two things.
Firstly is due process. I am a firm believer in this. It is fair. If they have been identified but nothing actually proven then it doesn't mean they have done anything wrong but nor does it mean they haven't. To fast-track this process and make a punishment against them over a accusation or a belief without hard evidence and due process and a right to defend their innocence is simply wrong.
Secondly IF they are found to be wrong then why ought the government give them benefits of a citizen when the repayment is far from appreciative or fair.
If after work I decided to burn down my workplace I can not expected to have them relocate my workplace with the other misplaced employees on the basis that in other respects I was a fine worker and this activity was after hours and nothing to do with work itself.
As to whatever hardship they may bring on themselves and their loved ones ....well they may have wanted to think about that BEFORE they started throwing molotov cocktails.
All of this is a moot point until they go through due process. Before that any action against the presumed guilty is wrong on every level.

['Butterflies']

Taking away their home anf income is not a reasonable punishment. It will only make things worse.
They should be punished if found guilty, but in a propotionatr manner.

@Steve. You really seem to think that imposing fear is best way to run a society.
It sounds really funny, when its coming from such a cowardly crybaby as yourself.

[The_Chosen_One]

It is a right.   It is a Human Right.

It could be argued that if we take benefits off anyone convicted of certain crimes we will
be saving money.

The reality is their poverty will have an effect on our society  (unless you are Richard Branson
and can afford your own island)  The streets will be less safe,  crime will rise and you will breed
another generation of criminals!

How do you expect people to act who have no stake in society or their community?

Governments have to act for the good of the whole electorate, so when they make decisions that are going to be tough, someone is bound to be hurt. How are they meant to make decisions on what to do if they are hamstrung because of economic cuts, society running rampant and an increasing level of poor who aren't contributing to the taxation and welfare system? I guess there is no easy fix, but the govt were elected by a majority and given a mandate to do what they can. Somebody is bound to be hurt, but those in office  have to try something.

[The_Chosen_One]

Taking away their home anf income is not a reasonable punishment. It will only make things worse.
They should be punished if found guilty, but in a propotionatr manner.

@Steve. You really seem to think that imposing fear is best way to run a society.
It sounds really funny, when its coming from such a cowardly crybaby as yourself.

At least my country isn't tearing itself apart and having to struggle with violence on the streets. Sure tells you something there, doesn't it.

[Al Swearegen]

Taking away their home anf income is not a reasonable punishment. It will only make things worse.
They should be punished if found guilty, but in a propotionatr manner.

@Steve. You really seem to think that imposing fear is best way to run a society.
It sounds really funny, when its coming from such a cowardly crybaby as yourself.

At least my country isn't tearing itself apart and having to struggle with violence on the streets. Sure tells you something there, doesn't it.

Oh...fuck!

['Butterflies']

OK Steve, why dont you tell us what it shows us.

I think you might be a bit confused about things.
 My countrys government acts the way you appear to be supporting, so you use my governments failed policies, that you appear to support, to prove that you are right.

Are you really this dumb?

[bodie]

If the people of Britain want tougher sentences then it should be debated
and decided on in the usual way.

At the time of the offence the official punishments or maximun
sentences should be the only ones imposed.   Bringing in surprise
'new ones'  is unfair.  I would never support taking benefits or housing
away.

Hold on!  didn't David Cameron say he was expecting the courts to deal
with these rioter's in a tough way?   Just to show how efficient Cameron
run's his machine -  here are the first wave of sentences
a one day sentence  -  (is that a piss take) the man didn't even have to go to
                                 prison as he had been in 'custody'
10 week custodial
16 week custodial

Is it just me, or is that lenient?  Hardly a deterrent is it!

Have already said why i wouldn't take away benefits but i would support
some sort of community service in order for them to continue receiving
benefit.  I would favour this over prison anyway.  Particularly with
first offences.  I am in favour of a complete overhaul of the judicial system.
 

[odeon]

I'm leaning towards yes, if they are proven guilty. If you think it's OK to destroy other people's homes, why should the state provide one for you?

[midlifeaspie]

People should not consider unemplouyment benefits and public housing to be an automatic right. Sure , these people are poor and in need, but should this necessarily force them into rioting? Here we have people who are on the streets and receiving benefits (which are meant to be paid for people looking for work) and they don't riot. Maybe things have degenerated in the UK to a point where they think they have no other option, but it makes you wonder why all other countries aren't experiencing the same thing. Being poor cannot be the only reason, but the government and councils are probably sick of having to try and fix something that mauybe these people should be sorting out themselves. You make of your life what you can, and if you fail to do so, then why should people help them if they won't help themselves?

Anyway, that's my view. You don't have to agree, but it's what I believe.

Are you taking another unpopular position already?  After telling everyone you were quitting the site again and again?   

This will only end in even more tears.

['Butterflies']

I'm leaning towards yes, if they are proven guilty. If you think it's OK to destroy other people's homes, why should the state provide one for you?

But guilty of what?

If someone is guilty of burning down a building, then send them to jail. If someone stole a pair of trainers in the looting, then a much lesser punishment. Maybe a fine, maybe community service.

Why should their families be made homeless just to punish the offender.

The people who are found guilty of crimes should be punished for those crimes. Making people homeless and destitute is cruel and unusual punishment as far as I can see.

[odeon]

I'm leaning towards yes, if they are proven guilty. If you think it's OK to destroy other people's homes, why should the state provide one for you?

But guilty of what?

If someone is guilty of burning down a building, then send them to jail. If someone stole a pair of trainers in the looting, then a much lesser punishment. Maybe a fine, maybe community service.

Why should their families be made homeless just to punish the offender.

The people who are found guilty of crimes should be punished for those crimes. Making people homeless and destitute is cruel and unusual punishment as far as I can see.

I didn't actually consider innocent people getting evicted--I was thinking about some cunt who was happy to have the state fund his living while he was out rioting and burning down homes. But no, I don't think a 16-yo's family should have to suffer, just the 16-yo.

And no, I didn't suggest that a pair of stolen trainers should equal eviction.

I do think strong measures should be taken, however.