The allegory

If society gave out free doughnuts to the starving then the starving would be grateful. At first. But, if society continued to hand out only doughnuts then the people reliant on that would become discontent. Man can not live on doughnuts alone. Despite receiving things from society, the needy would have cause for complaint because they would still suffer malnourishment, scurvy, mood swings etc. This is not such a ridiculous example if one considers that one of the most infamous sayings in history is “Let them eat cake“. Despite uncertain origins, that well known phrase represents the well off neither understanding or caring for the problems of the poor.

So what’s my point? Well, during the winter I personally saw people waving signs out of their Wandsworth Council provided homes that declared they were suffering from severe mould within their dwellings. The BBC reported this problem hence the flags and signs being used to attract attention and to shame the council for not acting. The Council’s blanket answer was to turn the heating up and open windows. Having the heating on 24 hours a day is not environmentally friendly nor is it necessarily conducive to pleasant living and having the windows open all day during the middle of winter is not necessarily good for your health – although pneumonia to some may  be preferable to the furry growths that the mould causes.  This problem was not restricted to Wandsworth, residents of Plymouth Council housing schemes voted for an independent firm to take over management of the estates after the council claimed it didn’t have enough money to fix major damp problems.

 Fire safety is a serious issue too. The Lakanal Estate fire in Camberwell killed six people, including three children, on 3 July 2009. Although an investigation is still underway, investigations of another building in the block have shown many ‘botched modifications’ that could lead to the easy spread of fire. It seems highly likely that the deaths were preventable. In a recent Guardian article, it was claimed that three quarters of all social housing blocks could be unsafe in terms of fire risk.

And of course, estates commonly have gang and criminal cultures that make them dangerous and unsafe places to live. The government has been very quick to point this out and to blame the riots on these ‘types’. But there are many people who live on estates, surrounded by gangs and criminals of all sorts, who will feel frightened and possibly angry about it. As Yoda says, “Fear is the path to the darkside. Fear leads to anger”. We know that the looting and rioting included many people who were athletes, teaching assistants and other non-typical gang-bangers. These opportunists were people who live alongside gangs, drug dealers and other criminals, not habitual criminals themselves. Could they have been angry about not being protected from crime?

As Ravi Govindia of Wandsworth Council says, “Having the long-term security of a council flat or house is a privileged position that, as the waiting lists show, many people aspire to.” But, is social housing the hallowed ground that would inspire long waiting lists? Or is it simply that the private sector is so bad that even an unhealthy, firetrap amongst criminals is preferable to the unhealthy firetrap being rented to you someone who ought to be a criminal. According to Shelter, 7.4 million homes in England fail to meet the Government’s Decent Homes Standard, 1.4 million children in England live in bad housing and 654,000 households in England are overcrowded. Perhaps social housing is popular because the private sector is so bad.

So, although popular, the reality of council housing can be an unhealthy, unsafe, threatening place where the landlord ignores concerns or fails to act while complaining about costs. If you were worried about being burned alive, freezing to death, catching diseases or being shot on your doorstep and no one was doing anything about it, would you not be angry, disrespectful?

I am not excusing looting or rioting. I am merely addressing the attitude that people should be grateful for society’s cast-off cake, even if what they need is a home cooked meal.

The courts are handing down prison sentences to convicted rioters that are on average 25% longer than normal, according to the Guardian looking at 1,000 riot-related cases dealt with so far by magistrates. This is part of the tough sentencing that David Cameron, Eric Pickles and other top Conservatives are backing to the hilt.

As an example, Michael Gillespie-Doyle was sentenced on the 16th August after pleading guilty to burglary during the riots in Manchester. After an initial wave of looters ransacked a Sainsbury’s, Gillespie-Doyle entered the shop to steal. The police entered the shop as Gillespie-Doyle was ‘reaching out’ for cigarettes and alcohol. Despite showing remorse, the judge sentenced him to 2 years saying, “I have no doubt at all that the principal purpose is that the courts should show that outbursts of criminal behaviour like this will be and must be met with sentences longer than they would be if the offenses had been committed in isolation. ” He then added that the normal sentencing guidelines “can properly be departed from.”

It is clear from what the judge said that he is intent upon being extra hard on the rioters and looters that are caught in order to make up for the crime carried out by all rioters. This means that someone who was in an empty shop, considering stealing, gets punished for all the arson and violence that happened. Is that justice?

David Cameron has said: “What happened on our streets was absolutely appalling behaviour and to send a very clear message that it’s wrong and won’t be tolerated is what the criminal justice system should be doing”,  ”They decided in that court to send a tough sentence, send a tough message and it’s very good that courts are able to do that,”

He was talking about the four year sentences given to two young men who started Facebook groups to ‘incite riots’. This is clearly a case of ‘tough sentencing’ but is it proportionate to the crime? Their riots didn’t happen. The sentencing is being compared to a different case one year ago when a man was jailed for four years for being convicted of 24 charges of making, possessing and distributing indecent images of children. He was found with 100,000 images. It may be that the answer is to have tougher sentences on pedophiles but the sense of disproportion of the riot sentences is based on what has been the case rather than what should be the case.

Apart from the lengthy sentencing, one of the major reasons for a sense of injustice is that the punishments are not standardised. This undoubtedly comes from departing from the sentencing guidelines. While two people are sent to prison for four years for inciting riot on Facebook, Joshua M. who was arrested for using Facebook to incite people to attack and loot a local shop in a different town was let off with writing an apology. In fairness, the cases are different – the first two cases involved setting up Facebook events whereas Joshua merely posted a lot of comments on his profile. But none of their intended riots happened and the shopowner targeted by Joshua must still have been terrified with the prospect of being attacked. The gulf between sentences is extraordinary. Again, this example does not necessarily show that the 4 year sentences were too long but perhaps that a letter of apology is too little. What it does show is some people being made an example of and others being treated leniently.

Other examples of unequal sentencing happened between those early and those later on in this wave of ‘speedy justice’. David Attoh was one of the first convicted  after being caught with two stolen Burberry t-shirts. He was told the two days he’s spent in prison while awaiting sentencing was enough. Perhaps the difference between Attoh and Gillespie-Doyle (2 years) is that the judge thought enough of Attoh to say “you have a bright future ahead of you” or perhaps it’s because tougher sentences have been handed out as public outcry has followed the initially lighter sentences. Regardless, the difference between two days and two years will fuel the sense of injustice for many.

The post-code, arbitrary lottery of judging extends to whether bail is granted or not. Alexis Bailey, the school worker arrested in Richer Sounds in Croydon has been granted bail until his sentencing at a later point. On the other hand, 18 year old Daniel Sartain-Clarke who was arrested coming out of Curry’s in Clapham is remanded in Feltham until mid-september after being denied bail. Bail decisions depend upon the defendant but in these cases, bail would normally be granted and the only difference is that Sartain-Clarke was prosecuted in a different borough and at a later date.

Sartain-Clarke’s family are at the centre of controversy over evictions of families related to rioters. Once again there is an inequality with sentencing. If two families live in housing block, one renting privately, the other renting from the council and both have one member who was involved in the riots, then the courts have the option of adding extra punishment to the one in social housing. Is it justice to add extra sentencing to someone based on their social class or situation? Fair for the taxpayer but unfair on society.

Cries of ‘collective punishment’ have been made in relation to the Sartain-Clarke case because his mother is the one served with the eviction notice and his 8 year old sister would be evicted too. But the collective punishment extends to the fact that each of those that are caught and convicted will be punished for all of those that took part.

The courts, police and prison services should be applauded for dealing with such an unprecedented level of work. Their’s is generally a thankless task and they are working overtime to restore law and order. However, this “speedy justice” that David Cameron is so proud of and would like to see rolled out all the time, quite clearly is not Justice in terms of punishments that meet the crime, equality in punishment and punishments that try to resolve a problem.

It is wrong to punish a shoplifter for the crimes of an arsonist. It is wrong to evict a child because of what her brother has done. It is wrong to ‘depart from sentencing guidelines’. It is wrong to punish someone ‘to send a message’ because all that means is that unfair punishment is allowed when it’s for the greater good.

Unfair punishment breeds a sense of injustice, widens social divisions and will see further riots, crime and violence in future.

The truth is, evicting problem tenants is not fair on society . It simply moves the problem elsewhere, to ferment until it erupts again later.

Further, there is no guarantee that the rioters have been problem tenants. I live in a housing block in Wandsworth. I have no problem neighbours. But it would not surprise me if one of the children living in this block had been involved. I don’t need them evicted. I want them to know that they did something wrong and I want them encouraged not to do it again. Shunting them off to the outskirts of London isn’t going to help them or society.

The punishment of people on benefits or in social housing is simply unfair. My block is part private, part council. Imagine there were two children, from different families in my block who had both been involved in looting. Both being convicted, one would be punished by eviction for the whole family while the other would get to stay in their homes. Where’s the equality?

For the evicted families, it could be young children, elderly relatives, mothers or babies evicted, forced from their homes just for the actions of one junior member. This is collective punishment. It’s frowned upon by the Geneva Convection and it should be frowned upon here.

Govindia claims that tenants sign up to this type of punishment when they take the lease. But this is no argument. We sign up to all sorts of small print when taking out a mobile phone contract but if they then turned round and tried to charge £1000 after a missed £50 payment, it would be seen as unfair and an illegal contract – despite it being signed by both parties. The banks have recently shown this to be true – they’ve had to refund disproportionate charges that were in the contract but turned out to be illegal.

Showing his faith in the private sector, Govindia says, “It is nonsense to suggest that if an eviction order is granted the family will end up on the streets. They will simply have to do what millions of other people, often on low incomes, already do: find accommodation in the private rental market. If they are on housing benefit they will continue to receive it and it will go to any landlord willing to rent them accommodation.”

But, he is ignoring the complex situation brought about by cuts in housing benefit and increases in rental prices. In an article in the Guardian last week, it was reported “For some landlords, the cuts to benefit levels have proved the final straw. A spokesman for the letting agent Move2 in Wandsworth, south London, said landlords on its books were unwilling to let to housing benefit tenants because of rates going down.”

Forcing people out of their social housing will mean that they have great difficulty in affording and finding accommodation in the private sector. This difficulty is reflected in the long waiting list for social housing.

Of course, evictees will be able to find accommodation somewhere. But where? Will it be a better environment for them? Will it encourage them to pull their socks up? Or will it simply increase a sense of marginalisation and injustice? I would certainly expect it will increase the sense of injustice for the 8 year old threatened with eviction by Wandsworth Council.

Ravi Govindia may be about to find out that his actions are not as supported as he would like. A protest is being organised (not by this author) to take place outside his home tomorrow. There are 630 people registered to attend.

Using a different approach, a petition against the eviction has received 1300 signatures at time of writing.

And the council isn’t united. Tony Belton, the leader of the Labour councillors in Wandsworth has said, ”Why should an eight-year-old kid suffer for that?” ”Supposing he did do what he is accused of doing, he should pay the price for that. Not someone else.”

Ravi Govindia appeared publicly to announce that Wandsworth were to be the first to evict a rioter. At the time it fitted well with the cries for all rioters to lose all benefits and other such knee jerk calls for revenge. Now he is having to justify his decision. Hopefully he will eventually come to realise that it is unpopular, unwarranted and unjust.

The problem is, the woman they’re evicting had nothing to do with the riots – her son was the one (allegedly) involved. And what about the innocent 8 year old girl who will also be kicked out on the street?

Wandsworth know this but want to act hard for their own political gain. They want to make a strong stand for the public limelight. They wanted to be the first to evict someone.

It’s not on. Regardless of how you’d like to punish the rioters, why on earth should you punish their innocent family?

Join with me in telling Wandsworth that it’s not on. Punish the guilty, leave the innocent alone.

The need for Justice and Accountability

Undoubtedly, there is a need for justice in the aftermath of the riots. The country has seen looting without apparent political motive and quickly decided that while there may be underlying social problems that need investigated, the main motivation for the rioters was greed. It is generally agreed that robbery, thuggery and ‘criminality’ need to be stamped out through swift and effective justice.

Gangs, criminals and society at large need to know they will be held accountable for criminal behaviour. Early on in the riots, the police were accused of standing back while the looting went on. More riots sprang up as lack of arrests during disorder in Tottenham and especially Clapham Junction showed that the police were not ready to collar troublemakers. Where there is seeming impunity, there is an invitation to join in. Worse, there is an enticement to push the boundaries further. To prevent decent, any sense of impunity needs to be quashed, accountability needs to be brought to all involved and the message needs to be sent, “We’re watching, we don’t approve and we’ll catch you.”

The courts are working around the clock to bring about both Justice and Accountability. There have been over 1200 arrests and the courts are processing and convicting as many as they can, as fast as they can in an avalanche of “speedy justice” that has been praised by the Prime Minister. As David Cameron says, “If we can have that sort of speedy justice … at this time, why can’t we have speedy justice all of the time.”

Possible punishments

But questions are being asked about how best to punish those convicted during this wave of speedy justice. There are only 2000 prison places left in the country and some people say that prison both doesn’t reform the convict and costs far too much money.

One proposition that is getting a lot of support is to withdraw all benefits from those that were involved in looting or rioting. A petition to this effect has received over 180,000 signatures on the Government’s e-petitions website and thus it will be considered for a debate in parliament. On the other hand, a reactionary petition for rioters not to lose their benefits has barely 2000 signatures.

The basic point for withdrawing benefits seems to be that criminals are waiving their rights to the benefits of society when they break their social contract. Further there is the question of taxpayers’ money which is under such tight constraints at the moment.

Basic rights and the social contract. 

Is it possible for someone to break their social contract sufficiently to no longer have the right to basic food and shelter? If someone is a danger to society then they are imprisoned but they retain the right to food, clothing and shelter. If prison is not considered necessary then they are punished in some other, less harsh way like house arrest, curfews, community service and probation. Freedoms are restricted but rights to the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter are not. That goes for all criminal action, from murder to shoplifting.

The principals of humanism state that all humans have certain inalienable rights. If someone is lazy, dirty, smelly, uneducated, from a lower class, of foreign birth or even has a criminal history, they have enough humanity inherent within them that they are accorded certain rights that all humans have. It is impossible for anyone to waive these rights just as it is impossible for anyone to take them away.

If it could be guaranteed that the convict would get a job and an affordable place to live  then you could argue that withholding benefits was simply forcing someone to take responsibility for themselves BUT, how easy is it to get a job in the current economic crisis, if you have a conviction, have no money and are homeless?

Withdrawal of housing and benefits would mean making people homeless and destitute. That is not something anyone deserves and it is not something that we have the right to do.

Cruel and unusual punishment

It is highly suspicious that new methods of punishment are being sought. There have been riots before and benefits have not been withdrawn. Criminal activity, has never seen the withdrawal of benefits before, as mentioned above, even when the person is imprisoned their benefits are altered, not removed. Is there such little faith in the criminal justice system that we need new punishments? Or is there a mob baying for revenge and who are being tantalised by the wicker man labelled ‘scroungers’?

Britain has spent some time trying to reduce class differences and in general to become more equal and more fair. In fact, in the most recent general election, both Lib Dems and Labour, ran a campaign that mentioned fairness in their key slogan and George Osborne was campaigning on that ideal in the run up. So where is the equality, and the fairness in implementing a punishment that can only be meted out on one group in society? For looters, rioters or other criminals who live in private accomodation, their houses cannot be taken away from them but for those in social housing, an extra punishment would exist. Anyone with a job might be able to keep it and their income but someone on jobseekers allowance would have their income stripped. Where is the fairness and equality?

David Cameron has said that fairness is giving people what they deserve. Does anyone deserve to be kicked out onto the street and stripped of their income?

Collateral damage – punishing the innocent

But the most important issue is surely the knock on effect for dependents and other relatives of the criminal. Take away someone’s benefits and you take away the means to feed their children. Kick them out of their house and you make a whole family homeless. There is currently a petition on the Government’s website calling for the parents of rioters to lose their benefits. It only has 200 signatures compared with the 180,000+ calling for rioters to lose their benefits but its aims have already been enacted by Wandsworth Council.

Wandsworth Council are happily boasting of being the first council to file for the eviction of a rioter from their council home. However, the tenancy holder is the mother of the rioter and so the punishment is being meted out on her. Other councils say they are keen to follow suit and David Cameron has said “For too long we’ve taken a too soft attitude towards people that loot and pillage their own community. If you do that you should lose your right to the sort of housing that you’ve had at subsidised rates.”

What seems to be being confused here is the current legislation that is in place to evict ‘neighbours from hell’ and a desire to break up the gang culture that has been associated with the riots. The people involved in the riots range from hardened gang members to graphic designers. They do not all come under the “neighbours from hell” category even if they have, once, caused problems for society. And if not all rioters are gang members, what is the benefit of breaking up these estates? Will the problem not simply fester there, unresolved, and potentially spread to the new ghettos that pop up to house the benefits-deprived?

Penny pinching

It is hard not to imagine that the motivation for this financial penalty is not a quest for justice but brought about by all the talk of the country’s finances, deficit and need for austerity. Is the country so strapped for cash that it must withdraw support for the most marginalised? Surely this would only increase the margin. If we are producing a criminal class in some of our estates, where people feel harassed by police and segregated from society, how will it help matters to kick them onto the street and take away their means of living? That is not the beginings of an excuse for criminal behaviour, but ‘justice’ based on punishment rather than rehabilitation only serves to foment further problems.

Unrealistic private sector ideology

Cameron says that those evicted will ‘have to get housing in the private sector‘ but it is hard to see how this would happen if they’ve lost their wage replacement benefits too. Also, where will those people have to move to in order to find affordable accomodation? Will this mean children changing schools? Hours of commuting on buses because they can’t afford trains or the tube?

Stripping people of their income benefits forces them onto the labour market. With record numbers of unemployed and economic growth happening at a minimal pace, it’s unlikely that a homeless, ex-convict would be getting a job anytime soon.

But then as Cameron says, they “should have thought of that before they started burgling”.

The bottom line

The truth is that this desire to withdraw benefits and housing goes against the premise of the welfare state, humanism and common decency. All people deserve to have the means to feed, clothe and shelter themselves regardless of what they have done. The penny pinching rhetoric has gone too far and given fuel to uncaring, unthinking, short sighted desires to punish and have revenge. For the innocent mother in Wandsworth who is losing her home, justice is not being done. She is being marginalised further than she already is and her child who was guilty will see that injustice and blame the system as well as his or herself.

But on the brightside, Wandsworth has shortened the housing list by one and started it’s programme of forcing those in social housing to enter the private market.

Take action

To help the innocent woman in Wandsworth who is going to lose her home, you can sign a petition to Wandsworth Council telling them not to evict the families of criminals.

To rival the petition calling for withdrawal of benefits, you can sign a Direct Gov e-petition asking NOT to remove all benefits from convicted rioters.