Not even two years into the coalition’s rule and already much of the national discourse is about finding and punishing “the enemy within”. Who apparently consist of the disabled, immigrants, students, social housing tenants, blacks, ‘whites who have become black ‘, benefits claimants, and generally anyone who can be described as being in the low end of the socioeconomic scale.

Nice nation the coalition is making, I must say. In full sarcasm.

The appalling loophole we need to close is the one that lets callous councils kick out entire families because one member is accused (or even convicted) of a crime. Mass punishment for unproven allegations – how very progressive!

What about pointed sticks!
That’s surely going to be next.

Chaise is right on the collective punishment thing there. Mind you, that is using rules that were not introduced under the coaliton, believe it or not…

But the original articule somehow passes over the key bit where they show that it is OK to inherit a social tenancy as if it were private property. Seems a bit odd to me – if you are going to justify inheritance of tenancies, then are you not simply engaged in privatisation of social housing?

@ 4 Watchman

“the original articule somehow passes over the key bit where they show that it is OK to inherit a social tenancy as if it were private property. Seems a bit odd to me”

The alternative is evicting rent paying tenants as soon as the become bereaved.

Looking forward to the Conservative Party’s introduction of policies to make inherited wealth illegal, as inheriting any privilege or property seems to be so anathema.

@ 4 Watchman

“Chaise is right on the collective punishment thing there. Mind you, that is using rules that were not introduced under the coaliton, believe it or not…”

True, it’s only in focus because of the connection with the riots. But it needs sorting out, regardless of who’s to blame.

“But the original articule somehow passes over the key bit where they show that it is OK to inherit a social tenancy as if it were private property. Seems a bit odd to me – if you are going to justify inheritance of tenancies, then are you not simply engaged in privatisation of social housing?”

I assume you inherit the USE of it, which isn’t the same as taking ownership. And I’m not sure there’s any reason to boot the rest of the family out just because the person who was originally awarded use of the property has died. Presumably they still need it. Also bear in mind that we’re probably talking about bereaved pensioners most of the time.

And I’m not sure there’s any reason to boot the rest of the family out just because the person who was originally awarded use of the property has died. Presumably they still need it.

That’s a bit of a presumption isn’t it? Let’s imagine that Frank Dobson died (God forbid). Do either his spouse or his offspring ‘need’ his council house? I mean, he’s been earning a stack of money for a long long time now. He doesn’t ‘need’ it – why should they?

M,

The alternative is evicting rent paying tenants as soon as the become bereaved.

I suppose living in the world of James Bond must make one see things in absolutes only – you do realise it is quite possible to let people stay put for a while, but not to renew tenancies (or only to renew once within a short time), so long as alternative suitable accomodation is available. None of that seems very difficult to arrange for a normally efficient system (so it might beat most councils…).

Chaise,

I assume you inherit the USE of it, which isn’t the same as taking ownership. And I’m not sure there’s any reason to boot the rest of the family out just because the person who was originally awarded use of the property has died. Presumably they still need it. Also bear in mind that we’re probably talking about bereaved pensioners most of the time.

If all you inherit is the USE of the house (legally I think this might still be the ‘fruits’ of the house – you don’t have ownership or possession but do have the rights to the benefits) then a key issue is indeed whether it is still needed. Considering that councils have to allocate houses by family size, if a family becomes smaller the need to use the particular house has gone.

I suppose this is a major philosophical divide. Some here see the role of social housing as the state providing shelter for all who need it, regardless of circumstances. Others, like me, seem to see the role of social housing as providing shelter for all who need it, but only as long as they need it. Social housing is part of the welfare system, and that is meant to be a safety net. It is not necessarily meant to be the nicest or kindest option either – it is to ensure people have the bare minimum. Ultimately, if you think that the role of the state is to provide housing, feel free, but this is beyond simply providing welfare and social security – and it risks giving the state undue power.

@ 8 Tim J

“That’s a bit of a presumption isn’t it? Let’s imagine that Frank Dobson died (God forbid). Do either his spouse or his offspring ‘need’ his council house? I mean, he’s been earning a stack of money for a long long time now. He doesn’t ‘need’ it – why should they?”

Article says that “full checks” are carried out before inheritance is authorised. To be honest, I’d need more information before I could say whether or not this is handled properly.

@ Watchman

I don’t disagree with you. It really depends on what happens to the occupants if they’re kicked out. There’s a very good case for moving individuals into one-bed flats to make way for a family that need the space. What worries me is the idea of someone going up to an old lady and saying “Sorry to hear that your husband’s dead, but the house was in his name, so you better get on the phone to Homes4U”.

Unfortunately the Telegraph article isn’t linked in the OP, so I can’t see exactly what the fuss is about.

More council/social homes of the right size and proportion for everybody’s needs (single people/childless couples, larger families, older people or disabled residents with the need for carers to stay, separated parents without custody but visits from children, parents with adult student children who return during holidays etc) would mean this isn’t even an issue. It must be so hard to give up on a home when devastated by grief/divorce etc, but a home close by to family and contacts might eventually ease a transition to a smaller home, when tenants are ready. But never, ever, force people without negotiation and allowing for local ties to be maintained.

Under occupancy and inherited social housing?

Buckingham Palace, Windsor Palace, Balmoral, Sandringham?

Class war is alive and kicking and it is the ruling elites that are doing the kicking

Buckingham Palace, Windsor Palace, Balmoral, Sandringham?

Class war is alive and kicking and it is the ruling elites that are doing the kicking

Nice moronic contribution – I am not sure on Buckingham Palace, but the rest are family property, not state property, by any definition of the law. Strangely, being the descendants of absolute monarchs makes you very rich…

Chaise,

What worries me is the idea of someone going up to an old lady and saying “Sorry to hear that your husband’s dead, but the house was in his name, so you better get on the phone to Homes4U”.

Firstly, I would ask why the hell a social house would only be in the name of one occupant – this is particularly odd (or a relic of a different age) if it is the case. Tenure should be for all inhabitants, but should be subject to renewal, same as any other tenurial arrangement.

Secondly, apart from a straw man set up by some of the commentators here, has anyone actually suggested evicting the berieved immediately?

@ 15 Watchman

I don’t know. I could do with more information here, the article seems to assume knowledge that I for one lack.

I work for an RSL and charity that provides housing for the elderly. If one half of a couple dies, we can move the survivor to a single-person unit; but this is never done in a hurry, involves full consultation with the tenant and the tenants’s family, a needs assessment involving other agencies, etc. For example, if the double unit was ground-floor, the only available single units are first floor, and the surviving partner has mobility problems, then obviously we let them stay put. And even if they are moved, they get £1000 in compensation + all expenses for the move. I don’t know about local authorities, but I’d imagine most housing associations have similar move-on policies.

I don’t know what happens in other housing organisations where there is an adult son or daughter living with a parent who dies. It certainly does not seem unreasonable to me to move the daughter/son on to a single-person unit, providing it is done sensitively and with appropraite compensation. After all, if the house was privately owned, it might well have to be sold to share the proceeds with siblings or to pay estate duty.

I don’t know. I could do with more information here, the article seems to assume knowledge that I for one lack.

On past experience around here, when I can’t check the sources, they don’t say what the author claims (they often don’t when I can…).

As this is a new guest in my experience, I could be wrong, but the lack of evidence to back up the assertions is always a bit worrying.

“we see the government promoting the eviction of the bereaved. It may be a Big Society, but it certainly isn’t a caring one.”

In my experience – see @ 17 above – that’s simply not true. And if it is true anywhere, it pre-dates the coalition.

What the Housing Act 1985 essentially does is try to strike a balance between keeping publicly built housing available for those who need it and not disrupting families harshly.

The solution it reaches is a single succession- either from joint tenant to joint tenant (think spouse or civil partner) on the death of one, or where the tenancy was only ever held by one person (perhaps a single mum), to a close relative who has resided with that person in the year preceding his or her death. In effect a carer, most likely.

Councils and Housing Associations already have legal powers to obtain possession orders where a household suddenly becomes smaller- but only if a property suitable for the succeeding tenant’s needs is available. As 17 points out, such transitions are more often handled in a less confrontational way- and so they should be.

It strikes me that the Act reaches quite an elegant solution. What puzzles is that this piece of legal machinery (legislated by a Conservative Government, let us remember) is suddenly part of a media storm to justify changes that are not needed. I repeat, social housing providers can compel downsizing already.

Under existing laws a widow or widower usually keeps the home until their death, then it returns to the diminishing public housing pool. The “reforms” bruited in fact are designed to draw attention away from the true issue- the lack of new public housing.

I have had experience of local authority social housing within a central London council and the process is near enough identical to that described by Tax Obesity in 17 above,

In one case I dealt with recently which concerned an adult son who lived with his father in a 3 bedroomed flat (the mother had died years earlier and his sister had left home also years before), when the father died, the council gave the son extra housing points and 6 months during which the son could ‘bid’ (Choice Based Lettings) for a one-bedroomed flat. I am happy to say that the son found a flat nearby that he was happy with.

In another case, a woman lived with her father and her adult daughter in a 4 bedroomed flat. (These are as rare as hen’s teeth and hugely in demand as most of the social housing was built with 3 bedrooms – mum &/or dad in one bedroom, son and daughter with separate bedrooms – or 2 sons/daughters sharing a bedroom and the child of the opposite sex also with a bedroom.) When her father died, she was given priority points + 6 months to bid for a 2 bedroom flat and she found one in the same area. She would have preferred to stay in the 4 bedroom of course – but it simply could not be justified. A couple with 6 young children was then allocated the 4 bedroomed flat.

I don’t understand what else can and should be done.

@15. Watchman: “Firstly, I would ask why the hell a social house would only be in the name of one occupant – this is particularly odd (or a relic of a different age) if it is the case. Tenure should be for all inhabitants, but should be subject to renewal, same as any other tenurial arrangement.”

One name on the rent book is entirely consistent with the way that ordinary people live their lives. If Jo and Pat fall in love, and Pat moves into Jo’s home, nobody asks for the tenancy paperwork to be changed. At the time of moving in it is premature, and by the time that Jo and Pat’s relationship becomes established as a partnership, everyone has forgotten about the tenancy and separate bank accounts and… Or there is an assumption that a “common law relationship” provides legal protection.

John’s examples @21 show a housing authority acting with respect, which may be all that is required in the majority of cases.

Apologies to Nathaniel Mathews @20 for failing to note his considered and informed post.

@ 9 Watchman

Sorry. I wrote that comment in a hurry. I should have said “danger” instead of “alternative”. What I meant was that great care should be taken not to tell bereaved people to leave their homes.

…but it’s already the reality rather than mere danger. A friend of mine lost her council house when her father died. She was told to leave before the funeral.

I also realise that I was misusing “eviction” to mean “termination of the tenancy”.

“living in the world of James Bond”

I slipped while entering my name, but perhaps I’ll keep it.

There aren’t many votes in protecting social housing I afraid.

The rich turn their nose up at it and the Co-alition( sorry Tory majority) is exploiting the jealousy of those who are struggling to pay their mortgage. The few votes in inherited tenacies mean they are a easy target for the disgusting slime that is running the country.
Typical nasty party.

‘ 1 cyclux- nice list you forgot environmentalists ( including the RSPB who are Marxists apparently), public sector workers, Europhiles and of course the least favourite minority-mn travellers.

left wing priests are also in the firing line

ANY MORE TO JOIN IN.

@26. tigerdarwin: “ANY MORE TO JOIN IN.”

Stop shouting, please. It scares the CofE vicars and Women’s Institute members.

@ 27 It was meant as a Yodel

However I have another one badgers.

There is going to be some serious badger culling. There rural core vote is desparate for this so they must be confident if they feel they can do this.

All that detoxification and they are about to slaughter Brock whatever next.

Brocks are fighters mind but i don’t think even they can stand up to the stench that comes out of the Tories backsides.

The problem with this proposal is that everyone can see and sympathise with the old woman kicked out of the apartment she has lived in for decades, but no one can imagine the family living in emergency accommodation waiting for a proper sized home. Yes, it looks cruel. It is cruel. But on the other hand, why keep a family of four homeless so that an older woman can live in a large home all by herself?

2. Chaise Guevara

The appalling loophole we need to close is the one that lets callous councils kick out entire families because one member is accused (or even convicted) of a crime. Mass punishment for unproven allegations – how very progressive!

I don’t agree with kicking someone out over an allegation, but a zero tolerance policy for drugs in the US seems to be working there. I don’t see why anyone convicted of an actual offense should continue to get a council house. Nor do I see a problem with kicking their family out either. They failed to raise the child properly and if they are evicted it means other young boys in that Estate won’t go the same way. Harsh but entirely appropriate.

Chaise @11:

“There’s a very good case for moving individuals into one-bed flats to make way for a family that need the space.”

And what if the ‘individual’ doesn’t agree, or feels it would be seriously to his/her detriment to do so? Especially since in most people’s experience of them, “one-bed flats” are usually to be found where councils/HAs tend to put their most ‘problematic’ tenants.

When my father died in 1988, the tenancy passed to my mother. When she died a decade later, the biggest worry I had was the possibility of losing occupancy of the home I had lived in for nearly 15 years by that time. Luckily a local housing officer reassured me even before my mother’s funeral that I could stay put (in a three-bedroomed house! Disgraceful!).

There’s something that most of you are not taking into account. The place you live in is far more than a mere machine à habiter. There is still, I’m glad to say, the concept of a home. Unfortunately, this has been lost in the niagara of property porn and ‘market value’ obsession which has deluged civilised society here for a generation or more. I would have been psychologically devastated to have had to move out, and it would have had nothing to do with being in mourning at the time; I would feel the same way now, having lived here for nearly thirty years.

But then, of course, tenants of social housing are easy targets for social engineers who deny being social engineers (e.g. Wandsworth council), for the scum media, and for pols and pundits who can’t see further than bricks and pound signs.

SMFS @29:

“I don’t see why anyone convicted of an actual offense should continue to get a council house.”

Even if they’ve been living there for ten, twenty, thirty years? So a criminal conviction – in addition to all the other problems it brings, which I’ve banged on about before here – should also carry compulsory homeless with it as a punishment? Should we be asking Kenneth Clarke to put it in the sentencing guidelines? Y’know, just to formalise it?

And why should social housing tenants be thereby treated disproportionately harshly? Do you not think that so-called ‘owner-occupiers’ (actually, it’s the bank that owns it, far more often than not) should also have their homes taken off them? Or is it just so easy for you to kick those you consider beneath your contempt when they’re already down?

“Nor do I see a problem with kicking their family out either.”

No, I can’t see why you would. Collective punishment as well. You’d be a real hoot in a theocracy.

”I don’t see why anyone convicted of an actual offense should continue to get a council house. ”’

So simple isn’t it- not

It is illegal under international law to punish family members for the criminality of one. Its within collective punishment . The Nazis used to do it as did Pinochet.

Failed to raise their family properly. what a load of bloomin garbage. If a middle class kid goes out and deals drugs and gets nicked for it have they been poor parents?: They won’t be kicked out of their house will they.

Should the parents of a kid who kills a passenger in a car, often the children of the more affluent, be chucked out of their house?

No you are talking about punishing only poorer people and that is the sort of stinking garbage that was practised under Pinochet in Chile and in Francos Spain.

As a parent to teenagers, which you obviously aren’t i can tell you you can do everything right and they still err.

Pompous IDS type lecturing should be shoved into the cesspit of idiocy where it belongs

@29. So Much For Subtlety: “I don’t see why anyone convicted of an actual offense should continue to get a council house. Nor do I see a problem with kicking their family out either.”

So you have a circle then? Evict Family X from their home because they are anti social. Family X become homeless, so the council that evicted them gives them a new home. And perhaps Family X acts up again…

The houses in which Family X may not be the problem. Nor the neighbours. If Family X is the problem, sort out Family X. And protect the unfortunate neighbours — which may explain the existence of social workers.

@30. The Judge: “The place you live in is far more than a mere machine à habiter.”

I have no respect for those who interlace Latin expressions in their argument in order to demonstrate their intellectual superiority. As with the Brownshirts, I would place them against a wall and shoot them; QED.

@30. The Judge: “And what if the ‘individual’ doesn’t agree, or feels it would be seriously to his/her detriment to do so?”

It is a bugger of a problem, and those who think that it is easy may be deceiving themselves.

Self deception is normal: the UK does not have enough homes yet we do not make it easy to build homes.

Speaking from personal experience my relative went through many hoops so that he could remain in his family home of 40 odd years.He looked after his elderly mother and had his own family living with him.Its not as easy as the Tories make out.

But thats no surprise

English you must now mention who’s problems this will be, housing is devolved.

In Wales you sign an agreement on housing which states what you get , who can have the house and who can live in the property afterwords.

Most people I know who have a two bedroom house are allowed to stay in one of the others dies or leaves, so family friend can stay. Three bedroom houses depends on how many times family members stay, disability, and care.

But it has always been like this for god sake

“I have no respect for those who interlace Latin expressions in their argument in order to demonstrate their intellectual superiority”

So, ceteris paribus, French expressions, like ‘ machine à habiter’, are all right then?

Watchman, The question is where you draw the line of criminality that leads to eviction. Most motoring infractions are crimes. Are you proposing kicking people out of their homes if a family member is caught speeding? How about drink driving? Careless driving? If not careless driving, how about causing death by careless driving, where the culpability is the same but the consequences are more severe? Do you mean convictions or would a caution be enough to trigger eviction?

The problem with the collective punishment approach is that as so many aspects of life are controlled by the criminal law that eviction becomes a lottery. There are many people on this blog who would agree with evicting “Tram Lady” (I’m not one of them). Isn’t the danger that this becomes an issue of being in favour of evicting families not because they commit crimes, but because they have committed crimes that the people calling for eviction consider to be more serious than others?

@ 29 SMFS

Others have beaten me to it regarding mass punishment, disproportionate retribution, and counterproductiveness. However:

“They failed to raise the child properly and if they are evicted it means other young boys in that Estate won’t go the same way. ”

So presumably you could produce evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the parents of each individual young offender were personally responsible for their kid’s crimes, in such a way that they could have foreseen and prevented? It couldn’t possibly EVER be due to the kid having genetic mental conditions that put him/her at high risk of antisocial behaviour, or that they’d fallen in with a bad crowd at school, which their parents could not have known about or prevented?

Evidence for every single case. Beyond reasonable doubt. Proving preventable negligence. Taking into account other possible causes. So NOT some vague stats about irresponsible parents being more likely to have criminal kids. Put up or shut up.

Y’see, I can think of several families I knew during my youth who had very different children. A good friend of mine was often breaking the law, starting fights, being antisocial for the hell of it. He was frequently in trouble at school and occasionally with the police.

His sister, raised by the same people in the same environment, was virtually a saint. So perhaps his parents should be given a medal for raising her and sent to jail for raising him? Or perhaps, once again, you’re supporting your ludicrous prejudices by declaring a one-size-fits-all explanation so simplistic that a 12-year-old would dismiss it?

@ 30 The Judge

Yes it is disgraceful that you are living in a three bedroomed council house.

No doubt people have emotional ties to their homes but this is no reason to keep people underoccupying or have a subsidised home if they do not need financial suupport.

Many people who are not fortunate enough to live in social housing have to move home due to changed circumstances.

You should be moved.

Really interesting points made in response to my original post. Apologies for not providing the link to the Torygraph – here it is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8072078/More-than-90000-live-in-inherited-council-homes.html

Many posters have set out some of the additional detail I alluded to, perhaps too briefly, in my OP. Only one succession / inheritance can happen. This can be succession to the tenancy in another location – a smaller flat, but also ground floor / more accessible is often provided. It counts as inheritance if you were a joint tenant, or if your partner / parent was the sole tenant, & you replace them. Due to scarcity, the kind of checks carried out are very thorough, & include driving licence containing the address, names on bills for the last few years at the property, being on electoral roll, and so on – there are people who will try & claim they were looking after their parent, but if they can’t prove residence, they are asked to leave. As posters have said, all about balance.

But the real issue is why are we attacking 90,000, mostly elderly widows, rather than solving the problem of not having enough affordable rented housing? Even if we kicked them all out it would hardly make a dent in the numbers of people desperate to rent at affordable rent levels. That applies to Bob Crowe & Frank Dobson – kicking them out only frees up 2 properties. It’s all a (deliberate?) distraction from the real problem.

31. The Judge

Even if they’ve been living there for ten, twenty, thirty years?

No. Not even if they have been living their ten, twenty, thirty years. It is not their house. They have no right to it. It is ours.

So a criminal conviction – in addition to all the other problems it brings, which I’ve banged on about before here – should also carry compulsory homeless with it as a punishment? Should we be asking Kenneth Clarke to put it in the sentencing guidelines? Y’know, just to formalise it?

No, a conviction would not bring homelessness with it. Any home owner would be perfectly free to continue to own their own home. But those people who have been given the right to occupy one of our homes for a period would lose that right. That would not mean they would be homeless in all cases either.

And why should social housing tenants be thereby treated disproportionately harshly? Do you not think that so-called ‘owner-occupiers’ (actually, it’s the bank that owns it, far more often than not) should also have their homes taken off them? Or is it just so easy for you to kick those you consider beneath your contempt when they’re already down?

They are not. Every prison conviction carries with it a variety of consequences. People lose jobs, friends – so why not council houses? No I don’t. But people who live in council houses are a special case. They are taking money from me. I think I am entitled to something in return. Like obeying the law.

tigerdarwin

It is illegal under international law to punish family members for the criminality of one. Its within collective punishment . The Nazis used to do it as did Pinochet.

No Pinochet did not. And the Nazis only used it decades after the Communists did. Covering up for Stalin? They are not being punished. They are having a privilege withdrawn. Something they have no actual right to is being taken away because they have not fulfilled their side of the social compact.

Failed to raise their family properly. what a load of bloomin garbage. If a middle class kid goes out and deals drugs and gets nicked for it have they been poor parents?: They won’t be kicked out of their house will they.

Yes they have. Terrible parents.

As a parent to teenagers, which you obviously aren’t i can tell you you can do everything right and they still err.

I am inclined to think not. Children grow up with the values of their parents. In an environment their parents choose. If they do not choose properly and leave the TV to educate their children in values, things may go wrong.

Charlieman

So you have a circle then? Evict Family X from their home because they are anti social. Family X become homeless, so the council that evicted them gives them a new home. And perhaps Family X acts up again…

At some point they realise this is getting them nowhere and stop offending.

The houses in which Family X may not be the problem. Nor the neighbours. If Family X is the problem, sort out Family X. And protect the unfortunate neighbours — which may explain the existence of social workers.

We cannot solve the problem of Family X. Nor do we want to live in the sort of society that tries. The houses may not be the problem, but losing them may well be the solution. As it seems to be in the US. Social workers do f**k all. They certainly cannot help the neighbours.

SMFS.

How do you propose to “lose” family X? Unless they are going to be housed somewhere where they don’t have neighbours, thenthey will always be a problem to somebody, and moving them on does nothing to solve rather than displace this.

Do you mean “lose” as a euphamism?

@ Judge

I agree with all that – but surely it’s still better to put the individual in a one bed and give the small house to a family, than to leave the individual in the house and try to sqeeze the family into a one-bed? Someone’s attachment to their home is less important than several people’s need for basic quality of life.

I’m talking about meeting needs, not about kicking people out for the hell of it. If there’s nobody on the waiting list, or other properties are available, by all means leave people where they are. And there should always be an adjustment period.

40. Chaise Guevara

So presumably you could produce evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the parents of each individual young offender were personally responsible for their kid’s crimes, in such a way that they could have foreseen and prevented? It couldn’t possibly EVER be due to the kid having genetic mental conditions that put him/her at high risk of antisocial behaviour, or that they’d fallen in with a bad crowd at school, which their parents could not have known about or prevented?

Why would I need to? Even ignoring the grossly offensive implications of what you’re saying, we know there is no evidence of genes being responsible for anything. What is more we know Britain used to be intensely law abiding. Now it is not. 150 years ago it was not either. British people don’t change their genes much, or didn’t before the modern period, but they do respond differently to different social and legal environments. As Theodore Dalrymple often says, where is this wrong crowd? Who has ever seen it? The boys who get in trouble are kind of by definition the wrong crowd. It is not some passive, nebulous anonymous group. It is the little thugs who ought to be kicked out of their free houses.

Y’see, I can think of several families I knew during my youth who had very different children. A good friend of mine was often breaking the law, starting fights, being antisocial for the hell of it. He was frequently in trouble at school and occasionally with the police.

His sister, raised by the same people in the same environment, was virtually a saint. So perhaps his parents should be given a medal for raising her and sent to jail for raising him? Or perhaps, once again, you’re supporting your ludicrous prejudices by declaring a one-size-fits-all explanation so simplistic that a 12-year-old would dismiss it?

The environment is not the same. One is a daughter, one is a son. One is older, one is younger. The parents should be held responsible for what they have managed to produce. Certainly *I* should not be blamed. Nor their neighbours. The buck has to stop somewhere. Catholic parents usually raise Catholic children. Hasidic Jews, Hasidic children. Muslim parents, Muslim children. And criminal parents usually raise criminal children. It is one of the strongest indicators we have – so much so that Blair promised to do something about it.

44. sean4thedefence

How do you propose to “lose” family X? Unless they are going to be housed somewhere where they don’t have neighbours, thenthey will always be a problem to somebody, and moving them on does nothing to solve rather than displace this.

Do you mean “lose” as a euphamism?

I did not say to lose the family. I said to lose the house. They will be housed somewhere. Presumably every city would have one sink estate where all the dregs ended up. Good. Sad for them. Better for everyone else. But let them sort it out. The trouble of finding a new place – of queuing, of searching, of rejection – will serve as a deterrent.

Ideally we would not have any council housing at all. We would just give people vouchers. And then this problem would go away.

46. So Much For Subtlety

Are you seriously suggesting that ALL criminal children/teens have criminal parents? Are you sure? Evidence?

@47. So Much For Subtlety: “I did not say to lose the family. I said to lose the house. They will be housed somewhere. Presumably every city would have one sink estate where all the dregs ended up. Good.”

That’s clear then. You don’t just desire to perpetuate eviction/rehousing circles, but you believe that ghettos are a good thing.

@43. So Much For Subtlety: “We cannot solve the problem of Family X. Nor do we want to live in the sort of society that tries.”

Adjacent to the crime fiction shelves in bookshops is the section for crime fact. This comprises gangster boast biography alongside lurid descriptions of crime. There is a sub-section of ex-gangster biographies where the author says “what I did was fucking stupid”. Criminality is almost always stupid (“master criminals” are an invention) and criminals know it at the back of their minds. They don’t know how to change their behaviour.

Funnily enough though, government does try to change the behaviour of Family X. You may have spotted uniformed men and women around town, not soldiers but a civil legal body called the Police. The police (and justice system) cannot solve every behavioural problem, so we have social workers (who cannot make people change their behaviour against their wishes). Reality is that we live in a society where government intervenes in personal/family behaviour; as a liberal I acknowledge intervention and question when it is inappropriate.

SMFS. So if Blair said it, it must be true?

Harold Shipman and Ted Bundy’s parents weren’t convicted criminals, but they did some fairly extreme criminal acts. Are you saying that if someone commits a crime this, of itself, is enough to infer that their parents must be criminals? I have clearly misunderstood your general stance on these things, which I misapprehended as being somewhat libertarian. You seem to be suggesting a trans generational criminal liability that transcends the more traditional concept of “innocent until proven guilty”.

Have I misunderstood you? I do hope so.

@ 46 SMFS

“Why would I need to?”

I belong to this weird cult that believes claims should be substantiated. I forget that some people aren’t members.

“Even ignoring the grossly offensive implications of what you’re saying”

“Ignoring” here presumably meaning “alluding to, but not actually pointing out cos I made them up”.

“we know there is no evidence of genes being responsible for anything.”

Very true. That’s why a cat is equally as likely to give birth to kittens as it is to puppies. You total loon.

“What is more we know Britain used to be intensely law abiding. Now it is not.”

Did it? Did you find this out in the same place that they told you genes don’t do anything? As ever, it’s impossible not to just take your word for it.

“150 years ago it was not either. British people don’t change their genes much, or didn’t before the modern period, but they do respond differently to different social and legal environments.”

Genes? What have they got to do with it? We all know genes aren’t responsible for anything. Must rush, my goldfish is giving birth to a panda!

“As Theodore Dalrymple often says, where is this wrong crowd? Who has ever seen it? The boys who get in trouble are kind of by definition the wrong crowd. It is not some passive, nebulous anonymous group. It is the little thugs who ought to be kicked out of their free houses.”

Um, who said it was some passive, nebulous group? It’s whatever group of kids had a bad influence on the child in question. The point that you are as ever willfully missing is that parents don’t have total control over their children’s upbringing. There are other factors like, y’know, legal and social environments.

“The environment is not the same. One is a daughter, one is a son. One is older, one is younger. The parents should be held responsible for what they have managed to produce.”

So the only constant variable thus mentioned is the parents… and yet they’re what’s responsible for the difference. Good thinking, Batman.

“Certainly *I* should not be blamed. Nor their neighbours. The buck has to stop somewhere.”

Actually, no it doesn’t. I know you need to find someone to blame for absolutely everything, so you can indulge in one of your hate fantasies about them being thrown in jail / strung up / shot by the police, but I don’t share your illness.

This would be a lot easier for you to understand if you knew about genes and stuff.

“Catholic parents usually raise Catholic children. Hasidic Jews, Hasidic children. Muslim parents, Muslim children. And criminal parents usually raise criminal children. It is one of the strongest indicators we have – so much so that Blair promised to do something about it.”

Yeah, except I specifically said that vague stats of these kinds wouldn’t do. You’re talking about punishing people, so you need to PROVE that they’ve done something to deserve it, not just point out that they’re in a shifty-looking demographic.

I fucking love it when you say something so stupid that, when challenged, you have no choice but to throw all reason, logic and basic bloody biology out of the window so you can continue on your ignorant rant of the day, like a malfunctioning bigoted robot.

50. sean4thedefence: Have I misunderstood you [ie SMFS]? I do hope so.

You did misunderstand SMFS. SMFS is old school reactionary combined with a touch of social liberalism. That is a bad recipe.

@46. So Much For Subtlety: “What is more we know Britain used to be intensely law abiding.”

Thus confirming that you have never read Dickens or kitchen sink drama of the 1950s. Your political position, SMFS, is based on a hypothesis of history and society of which you have no comprehension.

48. Claire

Are you seriously suggesting that ALL criminal children/teens have criminal parents? Are you sure? Evidence?

No. Why are you wasting my time?

Charlieman

That’s clear then. You don’t just desire to perpetuate eviction/rehousing circles, but you believe that ghettos are a good thing.

We have ghettos already. The question is whether they are going to be half the Estates in Britain or some smaller number.

Adjacent to the crime fiction shelves in bookshops is the section for crime fact. This comprises gangster boast biography alongside lurid descriptions of crime. There is a sub-section of ex-gangster biographies where the author says “what I did was fucking stupid”. Criminality is almost always stupid (“master criminals” are an invention) and criminals know it at the back of their minds. They don’t know how to change their behaviour.

Bollocks. Crime is a young man’s game. Books are written by older men. When the stupidity of their actions has become clear and they have gone straight (or more likely when the hormones that drive actions that are rewarded in a variety of ways die down and other priorities take over). They are published by pathetic little publishing houses who know a good formula when they see it – a formula which requires the modern equivalent of a death bed confession. Just as people taken to be hanged were expected to repent, so too are low lifes that get their books published. That way the readers can get their rocks off to the violence and crime while feeling morally uplifted. It says nothing about what the criminals really think at the time they are committing crimes. It is asinine to even suggest they do.

What is more we know criminals can change their behaviour because by the time they are 40 or so most of them have. They do not need therapy. They need to stop committing crime.

Funnily enough though, government does try to change the behaviour of Family X. You may have spotted uniformed men and women around town, not soldiers but a civil legal body called the Police. The police (and justice system) cannot solve every behavioural problem, so we have social workers (who cannot make people change their behaviour against their wishes). Reality is that we live in a society where government intervenes in personal/family behaviour; as a liberal I acknowledge intervention and question when it is inappropriate.

The police are not even remotely interested in changing the behaviour of Family X. They are interested, to varying minor degrees, in arresting Individual A and Individual B for Crimes L and M. What the family does or does not is irrelevant. The justice system does not punish families either. And social workers are a huge waste of time that could not even begin to solve the problems of anyone in this country much less the underclass’. The government does intervene. That does not mean they succeed. My point is as valid as it ever was. The idea that anyone can serious suggest the True Crime Porn section of a book shop is actual evidence is a little strange.

sean4thedefence

So if Blair said it, it must be true?

No but if the soft-on-crime Labour Party supported it, there must be something to it. And we did have a debate on it at the time so a little googling would produce some of that debate if you were interested.

Harold Shipman and Ted Bundy’s parents weren’t convicted criminals, but they did some fairly extreme criminal acts. Are you saying that if someone commits a crime this, of itself, is enough to infer that their parents must be criminals? I have clearly misunderstood your general stance on these things, which I misapprehended as being somewhat libertarian. You seem to be suggesting a trans generational criminal liability that transcends the more traditional concept of “innocent until proven guilty”.

I see it is logical fallacy day here at LC. No I am not. Clearly. As any fool can see. Criminals usually have criminal offspring. This does not mean all criminals do. You have misunderstood haven’t you? And I am suggesting no such thing. As much as you want to believe I am.

Chaise Guevara

I belong to this weird cult that believes claims should be substantiated. I forget that some people aren’t members.

No I don’t think so. You are either asserting, in the face of all evidence, that there are genes responsible for crimes or you are wasting my time. If the former you are making a claim on par with claiming the Earth is flat. Either way you are wasting my time. But if you like, make a positive assertion that there are genes that cause crime and I will point out the enormous body of literature that says you are wrong. As you were not making that claim but only putting forward an asinine suggestion, why would I bother to prove a damn thing?

“Ignoring” here presumably meaning “alluding to, but not actually pointing out cos I made them up”.

You go to any Sociological conference you like and assert that crime is driven by genes and you will see how offensive some people find those sort of comments. People have been assaulted for saying that facial expressions are genetic. It is obvious what the offense is, and again I see no reason to explain it.

Very true. That’s why a cat is equally as likely to give birth to kittens as it is to puppies. You total loon.

Taking a comment out of context and distorting it is very grown up. I feel pity for whatever school it is that has hired you.

Did it? Did you find this out in the same place that they told you genes don’t do anything? As ever, it’s impossible not to just take your word for it.

Yes it did. No. Good to see you are cottoning on. If you just accepted that I am invariably right this would save a lot of time.

Um, who said it was some passive, nebulous group? It’s whatever group of kids had a bad influence on the child in question. The point that you are as ever willfully missing is that parents don’t have total control over their children’s upbringing. There are other factors like, y’know, legal and social environments.

You did. Again you are refusing to consider actual cases. The bad crowd in this case is not merely the friends, and it is always someone else isn’t it?, it is this actual child. Parents don’t have complete control, but they have enough. That is why single teenage Asian mothers are in somewhat sort supply even if their children go to the same crap schools White children do.

So the only constant variable thus mentioned is the parents… and yet they’re what’s responsible for the difference. Good thinking, Batman.

The way that a parent treats an older child is different from the way they treat a younger. Again in an effort to be a smart arse you have missed the point. Like to try again?

Actually, no it doesn’t. I know you need to find someone to blame for absolutely everything, so you can indulge in one of your hate fantasies about them being thrown in jail / strung up / shot by the police, but I don’t share your illness.

Yes it does. Someone is to blame. If we want to solve this or any other problem the only way to do so is to start by identifying the problem. Not society. In this case, the parents. The neighbourhood. The schools. And fix those.

This would be a lot easier for you to understand if you knew about genes and stuff.

Says the person who thinks there are criminal genes.

Yeah, except I specifically said that vague stats of these kinds wouldn’t do. You’re talking about punishing people, so you need to PROVE that they’ve done something to deserve it, not just point out that they’re in a shifty-looking demographic.

Vague is a nice word isn’t it? It means you can ignore what you like. They are not being punished. They are having a privilege withdrawn. They have no right to my money for their housing. If we want to withdraw it, we can. We should.

I fucking love it when you say something so stupid that, when challenged, you have no choice but to throw all reason, logic and basic bloody biology out of the window so you can continue on your ignorant rant of the day, like a malfunctioning bigoted robot.

I am glad to have a fan. Let me know next time and I will do it again.

53. Charlieman

Thus confirming that you have never read Dickens or kitchen sink drama of the 1950s. Your political position, SMFS, is based on a hypothesis of history and society of which you have no comprehension.

Well I am in good company on LC then. And of course when I said 150 years ago it was not law abiding, how does this show an ignorance of Dickens? The kitchen sink dramas of the 1950s? Do tell. Which of these do not show that Britain was an intensely law abiding society at that time?

@ SMFS

“No I don’t think so. You are either asserting, in the face of all evidence, that there are genes responsible for crimes or you are wasting my time. If the former you are making a claim on par with claiming the Earth is flat. Either way you are wasting my time. But if you like, make a positive assertion that there are genes that cause crime and I will point out the enormous body of literature that says you are wrong. As you were not making that claim but only putting forward an asinine suggestion, why would I bother to prove a damn thing?”

Because you’re straw manning me, and well you know it. I’m not saying there’s a mugging gene that makes people go out and mug people. I am saying that one can be genetically inclined in certain ways that makes one more likely to commit crime. You might have a shorter temper than average, for example, or, at the other end of the spectrum, you might have a genetic mental disorder that means you find it difficult to emphasise with other people. Crime rates are linked to intelligence, and that definitely has a genetic component. And so on.

In other words, genetics make up some of the many variables that combine to generate an individual’s likelihood of causing crime. Your ongoing inability to see any shades between black and white is screwing with you once again.

As for me making a claim equivalent to saying the Earth is flat, the idea that a child is a blank slate was thrown out long ago. You’re the flat-Earther here.

“You go to any Sociological conference you like and assert that crime is driven by genes and you will see how offensive some people find those sort of comments. People have been assaulted for saying that facial expressions are genetic. It is obvious what the offense is, and again I see no reason to explain it.”

Oh, so you’re offended on behalf of other people, then? Stop arguing from offense, it’s pathetic. I might as well bang on about how offensive it is to tell parents that have genuinely tried everything they can that their children’s crimes are entirely their fault.

“Taking a comment out of context and distorting it is very grown up.”

You have a history of making ludicrous claims and being expected to be taken seriously. In truth, I assumed that your claim that “genes aren’t responsible for anything” was a reference to another conversation in which you were annoyed that a leftwinger refused to accept the possibility of race as a driver of certain abilities or deficiencies, or some such. Turn out it was a barefaced lie. So what? If you’re going to talk total bollocks, what do you expect?

“I feel pity for whatever school it is that has hired you.”

Are you just picking words at random now? WTF are you talking about? What school?

“Yes it did. No. Good to see you are cottoning on. If you just accepted that I am invariably right this would save a lot of time.”

LOL.

“You did.”

Gosh, another barefaced lie. Who’da thunk it?

“Again you are refusing to consider actual cases.”

No, I was talking about actual cases. You started talking about “nebulous groups” and then lied and said it was me.

“The bad crowd in this case is not merely the friends, and it is always someone else isn’t it?, it is this actual child.”

Of course the child’s part of the bad crowd, you moron. And they affect their friends as much as their friends affect them; it’s a vicious circle in many cases, like social groups where everyone drinks too much but thinks it’s fine because everyone else drinks too much too. (Oh! There’s a genetic component to how much people tend to drink, too! And high drinking rates are correlated with – you guessed it – crime!)

Imagine two identical twins of unremarkable temperment, sent to different schools. One makes friends with a bunch of badly behaved kids, and the other makes friends with a bunch of well-behaved kids. Who do you think is more likely to end up behaving poorly?

“Parents don’t have complete control, but they have enough. That is why single teenage Asian mothers are in somewhat sort supply even if their children go to the same crap schools White children do.”

How do you determine that they have “enough”? At what point does one have enough influence over someone to determine FOR CERTAIN whether or not that person will turn to crime, to the point where it would be fair to hold them accountable should that happen?

“The way that a parent treats an older child is different from the way they treat a younger. Again in an effort to be a smart arse you have missed the point. Like to try again?”

Ah, another vague statement. Which child is going to turn to crime, then? The older or the younger?

“Yes it does. Someone is to blame. If we want to solve this or any other problem the only way to do so is to start by identifying the problem.”

Indeed. Only you’re going to come up short if the problem doesn’t have an individual culprit.

“Not society. In this case, the parents. The neighbourhood. The schools. And fix those.”

…And now you’re contradicting yourself. One moment the parents are to blame, the next the neighbourhood and schools have an influence too! Which is it? If the “blame” is spread wide, then you can’t know it’s the parents’ fault in each situation. If the “blame” rests on the parents alone, then you’re lying about the schools.

“Says the person who thinks there are criminal genes.”

Nah, that’s another lie by you. Actually, it’s one of the previous ones repeated.

“Vague is a nice word isn’t it? It means you can ignore what you like. They are not being punished. They are having a privilege withdrawn. They have no right to my money for their housing. If we want to withdraw it, we can. We should.”

Disagree, but it’s still a de facto punishment. You’re saying we should use this one thing (their children’s crimes) as the reason for withdrawing the privilege. Hence they are being punished for that one thing.

55. Chaise Guevara

Because you’re straw manning me, and well you know it.

It is rank hypocrisy to be complaining about that now. What goes around Chaise.

I’m not saying there’s a mugging gene that makes people go out and mug people. I am saying that one can be genetically inclined in certain ways that makes one more likely to commit crime. You might have a shorter temper than average, for example, or, at the other end of the spectrum, you might have a genetic mental disorder that means you find it difficult to emphasise with other people. Crime rates are linked to intelligence, and that definitely has a genetic component. And so on.

Then you ought to be able to show some evidence that would suggest this was the case. Tempers are, as far as I know, genetically determined in any particular way. Testosterone perhaps. But by all means, if you have evidence. Empathise is what you probably mean. Are you sure there is any evidence that would even suggest this was genetic? Crime has an odd relation with intelligence. I would not be so sure if I were you.

In other words, genetics make up some of the many variables that combine to generate an individual’s likelihood of causing crime. Your ongoing inability to see any shades between black and white is screwing with you once again.

That would be interesting if you had any reason to think it is true. And you don’t.

As for me making a claim equivalent to saying the Earth is flat, the idea that a child is a blank slate was thrown out long ago. You’re the flat-Earther here.

I am not saying that children are blank slates. Nor has that idea been thrown out. It is still enormously popular in the social sciences. I am saying that crime is not something we have genetic evidence for.

You have a history of making ludicrous claims and being expected to be taken seriously.

I expect to be judged according to what I say.

In truth, I assumed that your claim that “genes aren’t responsible for anything” was a reference to another conversation in which you were annoyed that a leftwinger refused to accept the possibility of race as a driver of certain abilities or deficiencies, or some such.

So much for your judgement.

Turn out it was a barefaced lie. So what? If you’re going to talk total bollocks, what do you expect?

It was not a bare faced lie. I assume you need to twist and distort because you know you’re going to lose again. It is pathetic. Grow up.

No, I was talking about actual cases. You started talking about “nebulous groups” and then lied and said it was me.

No you were not. You were avoiding blaming the child or the parent by assigning blame to various anonymous groups – the wrong crowd being typical.

Of course the child’s part of the bad crowd, you moron. And they affect their friends as much as their friends affect them; it’s a vicious circle in many cases,

Then you either agree with me that the child is the problem or you are again wasting my time. I am going with the latter. It is a vicious circle. So it needs to be broken by removing these children from their Estates. And schools. Simple.

(Oh! There’s a genetic component to how much people tend to drink, too! And high drinking rates are correlated with – you guessed it – crime!)</i.

Imagine two identical twins of unremarkable temperment, sent to different schools. One makes friends with a bunch of badly behaved kids, and the other makes friends with a bunch of well-behaved kids. Who do you think is more likely to end up behaving poorly?

The question is why they were making friends with anyone. Imagine two identical Asian twins sent to different schools. One makes friends with a bunch of other dorks. The other is socially ostracised because he won’t hang out and drink. He is regularly beaten up. But he does his homework.

How do you determine that they have “enough”? At what point does one have enough influence over someone to determine FOR CERTAIN whether or not that person will turn to crime, to the point where it would be fair to hold them accountable should that happen?

Asian crime rates suggest Asian parents have enough. Which in turn suggests that underclass parents choose not to exercise their influence. Nor do I need certainty as no one is being punished.

Ah, another vague statement. Which child is going to turn to crime, then? The older or the younger?

No idea. Changing the subject?

Indeed. Only you’re going to come up short if the problem doesn’t have an individual culprit.

I am not so sure. But then again most problems do, or at least a large number of individual culprits at worst.

Disagree, but it’s still a de facto punishment. You’re saying we should use this one thing (their children’s crimes) as the reason for withdrawing the privilege. Hence they are being punished for that one thing.

They are not being punished. You may think it is a de facto punishment. I do not. All sort of privileges are withdrawn when people do not earn them. There is no reason not to add this one – as long as it works. And the US seems to show it does. Good for everyone involved.

“It is rank hypocrisy to be complaining about that now. What goes around Chaise.”

Not really. You made a claim that was flat-out ludicruousness, more unscientific than Christian Scientists. Whereas you took a reasonable and true statement by me and misrepresented it so you could wring your hands and complain about offence.

“Then you ought to be able to show some evidence that would suggest this was the case.

[...]

That would be interesting if you had any reason to think it is true. And you don’t. ”

Here’s one. As you admit, drinking rates are connected with crime. Here’s the first three relevant-looking Google results for “drinking rates genetic”:

http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/genetics/a/genome_map.htm

http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/spring05/mcguem/psy8937/readings/true1999.pdf

So there we go, a connection between genetics and crime on the very first variable I tried, taking me two minutes.

“I am not saying that children are blank slates. Nor has that idea been thrown out. It is still enormously popular in the social sciences.”

Then you’re saying that they’re blank slates in all of the many variables affecting liklihood of criminality. That’s oddly convenient and specific, isn’t it? (And also disproven – see above) I’d love to hear about these scientists who still subscribe to the idea of blank slates, by the way, given that we now know quite a lot about how the brain works.

“I expect to be judged according to what I say. ”

Be careful what you wish for.

“It was not a bare faced lie. I assume you need to twist and distort because you know you’re going to lose again. It is pathetic. Grow up.”

No, I interpret your words as stated, you make up lies. We’ve been through this, stop projecting.

“No you were not. You were avoiding blaming the child or the parent by assigning blame to various anonymous groups – the wrong crowd being typical.”

I wasn’t avoiding anything. You’re the one who wants blame to sit on one pair of shoulders only. Not sharing your ludicrous close-mindedness and confirmation bias, I’m prepared to consider multiple variables. Try it sometime. I’m quite happy to blame the parents where that’s actually fair.

“Then you either agree with me that the child is the problem or you are again wasting my time.”

It’s actually quite hard to adjust downwards so much that I can communicate with someone who doesn’t understand the concept of shades of grey. The child may be part of, or all of, the problem. The friends may be part of, or all of, the problem. It’ll change for specific instances because, unlike you, I’m not talking about nebulous groups. Or creating stupid false dichotomies.

“I am going with the latter. It is a vicious circle. So it needs to be broken by removing these children from their Estates. And schools. Simple.”

Uprooting the family and taking children out of school is what we call a disproportionate response.

“Oh go on. Evidence that there is any genetic component to drinking at all.”

See above.

“This ought to be fun. It is those damn Irish isn’t it?”

You’re so far up against the wall you need to imply racism on my part, I see. It’s PC gone mad.

“Drinking is correlated with various social disorders. Not exactly a life time of crime – although I am sure that a life time of crime is associated with drinking.”

Good, I’m right then. And we’re not talking about a lifetime of crime, are we? Many families are being evicted because their child committed a single (proven) offence. But either way, I’ve given you evidence for the genetic connection to drinking rates, and you believe drinking correlates to a lifetime of crime, so problem solved.

“The question is why they were making friends with anyone.”

People like to have friends. But to run with the sense of the question: like does attract like to an extent, but the makeup of your friends is affected by the available pool of potential friends. If school A has 5% of pupils who would qualify as troublemakers, and this percentage is 50% at school B, twin B is far more likely to become friends with people who will encourage poor behaviour.

“Asian crime rates suggest Asian parents have enough.”

Unpack that so that it actually answers my question. It’s meaningless as is. Assuming you mean that Asians tend not to commit crimes and tend to raise kids who don’t commit crimes, that only suggests that upbringing has an effect. Not that the effect is so strong that the parents should be held personally responsible in all cases.

“No idea. Changing the subject?”

You said that parents treat older and younger children differently, suggesting that this could affect crime rates. If you don’t have any idea HOW this affects crime rates, it suggests you’re making it up. So if you don’t know of a tendency for older/younger kids to commit more crime, you should at least be able to explain how the two things are connected.

“I am not so sure. But then again most problems do, or at least a large number of individual culprits at worst.”

Yep, absolutely. Some don’t, though. Earthquakes, for example. More relevant to the discussion, genetic mental disorders.

“They are not being punished. You may think it is a de facto punishment. I do not. All sort of privileges are withdrawn when people do not earn them.”

It’s a negative effect imposed on someone as a result of perceived poor behaviour on their part. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to use the word “punishment” to describe that: it’s the concept, not the arrangement of letters, that I’m interested in.

“There is no reason not to add this one – as long as it works. And the US seems to show it does. Good for everyone involved.”

Does it? How so?

BTW, you still haven’t explained your comment about schools hiring me. Was it some odd metaphor?

The underoccupancy issue has come about because there’s a serious shortfall in available housing for those that really need it (and a waiting list that is growing day by day). Build more and underoccupancy becomes less of an issue.

I don’t see evictions related to the summer riots as anything but a misstep by the government.

57. Chaise Guevara

Here’s one. As you admit, drinking rates are connected with crime. Here’s the first three relevant-looking Google results for “drinking rates genetic”:

The first two are in fact reporting the same work by the same man who has made the amazing discovery that East Asians don’t process alcohol very well. That does not prove much. Because East Asians also do not report alcohol abuse, or any other social problem, very much either. But on the other hand, do they regularly, night after night, get so drunk they cannot walk straight? Yes they do. See the Tokyo Subway on any Friday night. Would we call this alcoholism in the West? Yes we would. But they do not. So he has linked a cultural tendency not to complain with a gene that makes processing alcohol more difficult. Big deal.

<i.So there we go, a connection between genetics and crime on the very first variable I tried, taking me two minutes.

Not a connection. A correlation. Nor have you found it with crime.

Then you’re saying that they’re blank slates in all of the many variables affecting liklihood of criminality. That’s oddly convenient and specific, isn’t it? (And also disproven – see above) I’d love to hear about these scientists who still subscribe to the idea of blank slates, by the way, given that we now know quite a lot about how the brain works.

No, I am saying it is hard to know what is inherent and what is not. Calling for caution in making stupid claims.

No, I interpret your words as stated, you make up lies. We’ve been through this, stop projecting.

No you don’t. You take them out of context and distort.

I wasn’t avoiding anything. You’re the one who wants blame to sit on one pair of shoulders only. Not sharing your ludicrous close-mindedness and confirmation bias, I’m prepared to consider multiple variables. Try it sometime. I’m quite happy to blame the parents where that’s actually fair.

We have been through the fact that I am not blaming one person only. Just mainly. You are willing to consider any variable except the individual. Rather than blame someone you are looking to society above and his genes below. It is rather cute really.

Uprooting the family and taking children out of school is what we call a disproportionate response.

No it isn’t. Or rather if you think it is, can you explain why? We know this works too – banning criminals from going back to their old neighbourhoods has been shown to work in the US to prevent re-offending.

Good, I’m right then. And we’re not talking about a lifetime of crime, are we? Many families are being evicted because their child committed a single (proven) offence. But either way, I’ve given you evidence for the genetic connection to drinking rates, and you believe drinking correlates to a lifetime of crime, so problem solved.

Sorry but where has any family been removed because of a single offence? I love you slipped that “proven” in there – given the average thief commits some 140 offenses in the year before they are jailed. You have not shown any such thing. You have some nebulous assertions by a scientist. Who is not even claiming causation very strongly.

If school A has 5% of pupils who would qualify as troublemakers, and this percentage is 50% at school B, twin B is far more likely to become friends with people who will encourage poor behaviour.

All other things being equal. Like parents who will tolerant such friends. Again we come back to parental attitudes. The solution here is simple – School A needs to get rid of its 5%. As does Schools C, D, E, F and so on. And send them to School B until it is 100% troublemakers and everyone else can have a happy life.

Unpack that so that it actually answers my question. It’s meaningless as is. Assuming you mean that Asians tend not to commit crimes and tend to raise kids who don’t commit crimes, that only suggests that upbringing has an effect. Not that the effect is so strong that the parents should be held personally responsible in all cases.

I am sorry you do not understand it but it is not meaningless. Too complex perhaps, for such a simple statement. Upbringing has an effect strong enough to outweigh the fact these children usually get the sh!t schools. No an effect but a strong effect. Which is clearly not working with White parents. Why do you think that is not enough? Parents can make the difference. Why deny it?

You said that parents treat older and younger children differently, suggesting that this could affect crime rates. If you don’t have any idea HOW this affects crime rates, it suggests you’re making it up. So if you don’t know of a tendency for older/younger kids to commit more crime, you should at least be able to explain how the two things are connected.

I said they were treated differently, proving they did not have the same environment. Your inference is your problem, not mine.

It’s a negative effect imposed on someone as a result of perceived poor behaviour on their part. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to use the word “punishment” to describe that: it’s the concept, not the arrangement of letters, that I’m interested in.

I will go with a negative effect. Much like being an alcoholic and not turning up for work. Gets you fired. Not a punishment. Gets you divorced. Also not a punishment. You tend to lose the children in the settlement. Also not a punishment. The list goes on.

Thanks for shearing your thinking with us.