Make rioters homeless is the public call - but is this a disturbing turn of events?

Public anger at the recent events in London and across England's cities is to be expected. Minority groups ran amok through our communities and in doing so left everyone unsettled. Those in communities directly affected suffered fear and loss. Suddenly our safe high street can no longer be taken for granted.


In response to the looting, fire bombing and damage to property the Local Government Association has announced that many local authorities have stated that council tenants who are rioters will be evicted. On the surface this may seem reasonable. After all, why should someone who is dependent on their community for their home, attack their community and still expect a roof over their head?

However tempting a solution such an idea may appear on the surface, just like the rioters, councillors and MPs need to be aware of the long term consequences of their actions.


A number of questions need to be considered. Firstly, council homes have only one named tenant. Are the threats of the politicians actually enforceable? What of the knock-on effect if they are? It is not unusual for anti-social behaviour to occur within a community on any given day. Are we saying that all people who commit anti-social behaviour any where, any time could be evicted? Even for one off events, when usually a pattern of behaviour is required? Or is this a special case? What about the families of those involved who may have nothing to do with the events that occured? Parents may be responsible but many teenagers take little heed of their parents. There are plenty of other influences the Government considers acceptable which affect the behaviour of young people - violent computer games being just one.

Punish those involved properly through the justice system, but making them homeless is another matter. Why only target those in social or rented housing? One law for the rich and another for the poor?Do politicians want to create this impression when people are acutely aware of the social exclusion of the poor?
If someone leaves council housing where do they go? Into private accommodation? How does shunting someone along, and possibly breaking up families, help?

One councillor was quoted as stating that, according to existing tenancy contracts, tenants cannot create a noise or a nuisance without risking loss of their tenancy. This is reasonable in a home environment but taken further and we open up a can of worms. Are we saying that people have no right to make a noise or create a nuisance? What about the right of civilians to protest? How many students or trade unionists marching in the streets of London recently to fight for their education, their pensions and their right to a decent income could be accused of "making a noise", or "being a nuisance"? How many of those live in social housing> Many social housing tenants are also public sector workers. Assumptions have been made that the rioters were all unemployed, council-tenant youths. How true is this?

Are we saying it is OK for the Government to act any way they want but it is not OK for civilians to protest?

Some rioters were opportunist looters but this was not the case for all. The multitude of CCTV cameras covered looters but also many who caused damage and then moved on.  For them this was not an act of greed or need, but an act of systematic defiance against society.

The media do not help. It appears that the violence of the rioters paid off and escalated as word got out. The level of media coverage given to recent peaceful street protests pales into insignificance when compared to that given to the rioters. The Fire Brigade Union have complained that they have had no coverage at all at their protests about the loss of fire services. Both ironic and worrying in the circumstances.

So, if public protest is ignored and more aggressive protest is illegal and could lead to homelessness, what voice do the poorer people of England have? Homeless and without a voice, what will they do next?