| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Cllr Govindia wants to evict rioters | |
| Posted by: | Roland Gilmore | |
| Date/Time: | 17/08/11 13:13:00 |
| Don't know why you think I've hi-jacked the thread Ian. You've posted 10, I've posted 7 times! Thanks for copying Cllr Govindia's statement Sian. I don't think anyone would disagree with his statements about WBC council tenants being entitled to live peacefully but the social engineering mechanism he is proposing is sure to fail in the courts although eviction for rent arrears is a justified reason for eviction proceedings in the case highighted earlier. It is noticeable that he does not say he has taken counsel's advice on his proposal. Effectively, he is proposing punishment for members of a family who had nothing to do with the riots and looting and that is just one reason why he is bound to fail. Someone posted previously that the tenancy clause he is referring to was obviously created as a deterrent to anti-social and criminal behaviour on WBC estates yet we have heard from one WBC tenant how WBC appear to be selective in how they apply that tenancy condition. To think that WBC can create a new law with punishment that supercedes and is in addition to common law is absurd. There is an obvious case in contract law but if Cllr Govindia thinks that contract law will prevail, he is in for shock. Cllr Govindia's sentiments are sound but his action will be costly for all of us and ultimately unenforceable in the majority of cases. I think it was David Davis who first brought the notion of social housing being viewed as a priveledge to the fore, creating the idea of a new priveledged class. It seems Cllr Govindia has followed that lead. Is anyone really fooled by that notion? |