How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter


11:30 am - January 20th 2012

by Cllr Leonie Cooper    


      Share on Tumblr

Yards of coverage were devoted to the August rioters and the severity of their sentences.

As a Wandsworth Councillor, I have the entirely dubious honour of being associated with the Council that rushed to serve the first Eviction Notice on a Council tenant – only 4 days after the riot in Clapham Junction.

But the tenant served with the Notice was not the alleged rioter – it was his mother, and his 8 year old younger sister.

Maite de la Calva, the Mother of Daniel Sartain-Clarke, decided to go public on her situation, and has spoken at local meetings, and received support from Liberty and Defend Council Housing.

As local Councillors, we complained that Notice had been served before anyone in the family had been taken to Court, that it was insane to punish not only the mother but also the young sister – especially when no-one in private rented housing or owner-occupiers were facing eviction.

Local Housing Associations all announced that they would not be evicting any tenants accused or convicted of rioting or looting – so Council tenants suddenly became the only group of people subject to legal process twice over. David Cameron waded in, supporting the idea that eviction on top of fines, jail & community service was a good thing.

Daniel has now been convicted, of shoplifting, but not rioting. He has received a custodial sentence.

The punishment Daniel needed, according to the Council, was for his mother & sister to spend from 12th August 2011 until 19th January 2012 worrying about whether he had not just let them down but had made them homeless too.

Thankfully, and no doubt after some good legal advice, the Council has finally backed down, after 5 months of hell for a local Community Worker and her small daughter.

No doubt both Daniel Sartain-Clarke and Antony Worrell-Thompson will both be in Wandsworth soon – Daniel after serving his sentence, and Antony Worrell-Thompson enjoying the delights of the Priory. But if anyone doubted that there is one rule for the rich & famous, and a completely different one for ordinary people – and their families, this case surely proves it.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Leonie Cooper is a Labour Councillor, and co-chair of Labour SERA.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Crime ,Local Government

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Clearly, collective punishment is utterly pernicious and the main emphasis of this article should have been the disgrace that Cameron, and others, were prepared to encourage it.

However this story would have had considerably more traction if the threat of eviction had been actually been carried out.

Does anyone know of any instances where it has been?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at about Wandworth ‘backing down’ and all the rest here, beyond a bit of political mischief. Or is the suggestion that riot offences don’t constitute ASB?

As I read this, a tenant is responsible in their agreement for the behaviour of members of their household as a pretty standard part of any Council Tenancy, and there is a protocol to deal with it. This was all addressed under the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 and the ASB Act 2003.

Wandsworth have gone through the protocol, the Tenant has given certain undertakings, and the case has been resolved short of eviction.

It’s a standard thing; Nottingham, for example, issued 106 eviction notices to City Homes tenants in 2008 related to ASBO.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/eviction_from_city_homes tenancy

You can have a go at whoever it was for grandstanding, but that’s about it.

3. Chaise Guevara

@ 2

“You can have a go at whoever it was for grandstanding, but that’s about it.”

Putting innocent people in fear of eviction goes beyond “grandstanding”. It’s knowing cruelty to someone who isn’t responsible for the situation and lacks the power to fix it.

4. Chaise Guevara

@ OP

Let’s face it, this all happened because Cameron and local councils both wanted to look “tough” on crime, regardless of the fact that toughness is not the same as fairness or sanity. The hope of extra votes for acting like a hardman obviously overrules the downside of hurting innocent and vulnerable people.

Bright side: hopefully this nonsense has brought to light the fact that the unreasonable rules that allowed councils to do this should be scrapped, for the reasons given by you and by Pagar above.

5. Chaise Guevara

One other thing (apologies for multi-posting): the fact that evictions based on guilt-by-association are allowed in the rules is no excuse, unless council staff are forced by the law to evict the family of convicted (and suspected!) criminals, which I very much doubt. The fact that you CAN do it doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. Anyone prepared to throw an eight-year-old out on the street for her brother’s sins is a terrible human being, and with any luck that will be reflected the next time these councils come up for election.

Are you saying that teenagers should bear full moral responsibility for their actions ? If not, should their parents bear some of the responsibility ?
In this case the Council applied the ordinary rules about tenancy, I only wish more Councils would use their powers in this respect.

Are you saying that teenagers should bear full moral responsibility for their actions ? If not, should their parents bear some of the responsibility ?

@ Paul Barker

Have you brought up children?

What legal sanction do you think is available to parents to control teenage children?

“I’m going out to loot some shops with my mates.”

“Oh no you’re not.”

What happens next?

8. Chaise Guevara

@ 6 Paul

In addition to the point made by Pagar, this is an example of a council trying to make an *eight-year-old child* suffer the consequences of her teenage brother. Is THAT fair?

In any case, I know some families whose children are very different in terms of their behaviour. There’s been no obvious reason that this is down to the kids getting different upbringings – it’s been a mystery to everyone who knows them. Suggesting that the kids are just different.

Can you show that, in cases like these, the parents have failed one child but not the other, in a way that they could realistically have predicted and avoided?

Even if you could, which you can’t, I don’t think we should punish people on the assumption that the “blank slate” theory is true.

9. Chaise Guevara

@ Pagar

“What legal sanction do you think is available to parents to control teenage children?”

It’s worth noting (and I’m not necessarily talking about Paul personally here) that people who claim that the threat of legal penalties have no effect on behaviour often also think that the penalities a parent can threaten their child with should give them 100% perfect control.

“and no doubt after some good legal advice”. Possibly, but merely competent legal advice would have told Wandsworth that they had no chance of any judge ruling in their favour as no doubt Liberty made very clear to the council.

@pagar I am not sure if you realise how your comment comes across. Do you really want somebody to be wrongly evicted?

@Matt Wardman You are conflating issues. You are perfectly correct in thinking that council tenants (and indeed housing association tenants) are generally responsible for the behaviour of their households (and indeed their visitors), but only in regard of said household members and visitors in the locality and then only so far as can be reasonably forseen. The point about Locality is that the law is concerned with housing management, not with punishing people. This is under housing legislation not the Acts you mention. You assert that Wandsworth ‘have gone threough protocol’, but without giving any source to back up your claim. Nottingham City Homes is Nottingham City Council’s Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) that manages around 29,500 properties so 106 eviction notices in a year is not a vast number. In many of those cases the behaviour complained of will have been that of the tenant him or her self. The leader of Wandsworth rushed out a press release in relation to this matter and that is grandstanding. As for how Wansworth formulates policy see my blog post here:
http://deptfordmisc.blogspot.com/2011/11/wandsworth-housing-policies.html

@Chaise Guevara “the unreasonable rules that allowed councils to do this should be scrapped” In the real world you cannot change the rules every time some petty official abuse them. Most social landlords act responsibly, balancing the rights of tenants accused of anti-social behavior with the rights of those affected. Obviously there are failures such as the London Borough of Lewisham’s truly inept ALMO Lewisham Homes who persistently fail to deal with anti social behaviour. See:
http://crossfields.blogspot.com/2010/04/antisocial-behaviour-anyone.html

@Chaise Guevara “the fact that evictions based on guilt-by-association are allowed in the rules”. They are not, which is why Wandsworth have had to drop this nonsense.

@paul barker “In this case the Council applied the ordinary rules about tenancy,” Wrong, whatever the son did or did not do it was not in the locality, so the Council (specifically the council leader) did not apply the rules.

13. So Much For Subtlety

3. Chaise Guevara

Putting innocent people in fear of eviction goes beyond “grandstanding”. It’s knowing cruelty to someone who isn’t responsible for the situation and lacks the power to fix it.

Well they probably lack the power to fix it, but of course the parents are entirely responsible for the situation. God knows no one else is. The child? You? Me? I think not. This is a situation where there is no society, there are just people. And the main people involved in teaching a child right and wrong are the parents. These parents failed. Why should they be allowed to continue to take money from the rest of us?

Chaise Guevara

Let’s face it, this all happened because Cameron and local councils both wanted to look “tough” on crime, regardless of the fact that toughness is not the same as fairness or sanity. The hope of extra votes for acting like a hardman obviously overrules the downside of hurting innocent and vulnerable people.

They are not looking tough on crime. They are being tough on crime. Or they would if the evictions went forward. As they should be. What innocent and vulnerable people? The younger sister perhaps. But not the mother. Not the boy involved. The only innocent people who have lost their homes have been those burnt out by the riots.

Chaise Guevara

One other thing (apologies for multi-posting): the fact that evictions based on guilt-by-association are allowed in the rules is no excuse, unless council staff are forced by the law to evict the family of convicted (and suspected!) criminals, which I very much doubt.

There is no guilt-by-association. The parents failed in their primary responsibility. They did not raise law-abiding children. If they have violated their side of the social contract why should the rest of us continue to reward them for it? I think all social housing contracts ought to have a clause pointing out that if anyone resident in the home commits a crime they will be evicted.

The fact that you CAN do it doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. Anyone prepared to throw an eight-year-old out on the street for her brother’s sins is a terrible human being, and with any luck that will be reflected the next time these councils come up for election.

And yet that brother was willing to take part in actions that threw other people out on to the streets.

14. Leon Wolfeson

@13 – Because of course children always follow parental direction. And have fully developed decision-making faculties.

And of course it’s appropriate to punish people based on something unproven in court, and without making it dependent on non-return, another possibility for adults.

Moreover, the council is still responsible for housing them, as a family with children, so you’re actually COSTING the taxpayer cash. As well as dramatically increasing the chances of more criminal activity in future.

You should be evicted from your house for your attacks here on disabled people. After all, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,

15. Chaise Guevara

@ 10 Bill

“In the real world you cannot change the rules every time some petty official abuse them.”

If the rules are open to abuse, that suggests you should at least review them, no? I’m not saying you should abandon rules that aren’t perfect. But when evidence of abuse is presented to you, that should be factored into your assessment of the rule in question.

16. Chaise Guevara

@ 13 SMFS

I don’t think the parents can be assumed to be responsible. They may very well be responsible as a matter of fact, but it’s not something we can assume. AFAIK, no compelling evidence is being presented of what exactly these parents did wrong, unless it’s tautological: “their child broke the law, which was their fault, because their child broke the law, therefore…”

Parenthood does not include complete domination of a child’s will. Therefore a parent is not automatically responsible for their children’s actions.

You seem to have a desire to lay blame and exact punishment, regardless of whether this is appropriate. You say: “of course the parents are entirely responsible for the situation. God knows no one else is. The child? You? Me?”. The answer is that the child is the one who chose the child’s actions, but that we don’t force children to pay for their mistakes with the rest of their lives. We show compassion and allow the child some leniency, in the hope that they’ll be more responsible when they grow up, as most people are. There isn’t a set amount of responsibility to go around.

“And yet that brother was willing to take part in actions that threw other people out on to the streets.”

I’m really trying to find a point in that statement, but it eludes me. Are you saying that the local council should strive to be as irresponsible as a teenage looter? I hope not, but I’ve no idea what your point is otherwise.

17. So Much For Subtlety

16. Chaise Guevara

I don’t think the parents can be assumed to be responsible. They may very well be responsible as a matter of fact, but it’s not something we can assume. AFAIK, no compelling evidence is being presented of what exactly these parents did wrong, unless it’s tautological: “their child broke the law, which was their fault, because their child broke the law, therefore…”

Children are by definition not responsible. This is why they can’t vote or drink or have sex – and why they are not held responsible if they kill people. If they are a bit older, they are held to a lesser standard than the rest of us. So if they are not responsible, someone else must be. Who? It is not tautological. It is self evident. Parents have an obligation to raise law abiding children. Properly socialised children. These parents failed. If we need to discuss this further, we need evidence that they did not fail. Because the primary obligation is on them, the presumption must be that they failed. If they think they did not, they need to provide good reason why not.

Parenthood does not include complete domination of a child’s will. Therefore a parent is not automatically responsible for their children’s actions.

You don’t need complete domination to be largely responsible. An employer does not have complete domination over the thoughts and behaviour of every single employee. But if one of them has so much as two minutes of stupidity that results in sexually suggestive language being directed at a woman, it is the employer who is held liable. I assume you have no problem with this law. Why do you insist on an insanely different standard for actual criminal behaviour?

You seem to have a desire to lay blame and exact punishment, regardless of whether this is appropriate.

Crimes have occurred. Not Acts of God. Thus someone is to blame. By all means, let’s punish the children, if that is what you want. Although I tend to think that is a little harsh. Most of the time. But if not them, who? It is always appropriate to punish crime.

The answer is that the child is the one who chose the child’s actions, but that we don’t force children to pay for their mistakes with the rest of their lives. We show compassion and allow the child some leniency, in the hope that they’ll be more responsible when they grow up, as most people are. There isn’t a set amount of responsibility to go around.

Then we should. Because actually there is no point showing leniency. On the whole, if a child has seen the inside of the justice system, they will be in the system for the rest of their lives or until they turn 40 or so. We are utterly unable to do a damn thing for them so we may as well lock them up. All they have to offer the rest of us is violence and prison rape. Reducing that to prison rape is not a triumph but it is better than the alternatives.

However even if we accept that is not a sensible solution and there is not a fixed amount of responsibility to go around, that does not make the question go away. Would holding parents responsible force parents to be more responsible – and maybe make children more responsible too? It seems so based on America’s experience of expelling people from social housing there.

We need to change every social lease – and every condition of social benefits – with a no crime clause. Any violation and they should lose the benefit.

18. Leon Wolfeson

@17 – “Parents have an obligation to raise law abiding children.”

Really? Cite the law.

“It is always appropriate to punish crime.”

Right then, in that case I’ll be reporting your hate crimes. You specifically requested me to do so, after all.

“Reducing that to prison rape is not a triumph but it is better than the alternatives.”

Oh yes, I’m sure that’s what you feel is appropriate for the lower classes.

“Any violation and they should lose the benefit.”

And then they turn to crime to eat. Well done! Moreover, your rights as a citizen should depend on your not committing a crime. And you’ve committed hate crimes. You therefore should have no rights by your own logic. QED.

19. Chaise Guevara

@ 7 SMFS

See what I mean? You’re not happy until the blame has been pinned on someone. You’re saying that children are not responsible agents. I’d tend to assume that if a non-responsible agent does something bad, then nobody’s responsible. Unless the parents can be shown to have knowingly or through negligence caused this behaviour.

Let’s say an asteroid fell out of the sky and killed a houseful of people. Who would you put in jail for their murder? SOMEONE must be responsible, right? (And no, I don’t think that’s equivalent, I’m point out how silly this policy of demanding responsibility is). Responsibility should be assigned based on *whether people are actually responsible*, not because you’ve got 10 units of responsibility going spare and you need someone to carry it.

Why different standards for the workplace and parents? Well, first, I don’t think employers would actually be held accountable for the action itself, they’d just be liable for failing to create a reasonable working environment. Second, despite employment law, it’s easier to choose your employees than your children. Finally, I suspect the application of these laws ARE often unfair on employers.

Oh, and don’t tell me you think it’s harsh to punish the child. I’ve seen you on here before claiming that trouble-makers in school should be kicked out of the school system entirely, permanently wrecking their future because they couldn’t keep quiet in class when they were 12. You don’t fool me.

“Daniel has now been convicted, of shoplifting, but not rioting. He has received a custodial sentence.”

I think we can assume that Daniel wasn’t able to claim any evidence of good character then? Was this just an unusually harsh punishment, (leaving the eviction business aside), or does Daniel have a string of convictions that might explain getting a custodial for shoplifting?

“if anyone doubted that there is one rule for the rich & famous, and a completely different one for ordinary people – and their families, this case surely proves it.”

It may do but until we know a bit more about Daniel we can’t say that it does.

21. Anon E Mouse

Are you seriously comparing someone pinching some cheese from Tesco with violent destruction and rioting?

Stupid political bias spoils an otherwise interesting article. Shame.

Agree with you over the family but it’s disingenuous to claim that Daniel S-C was not convicted of rioting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084808/Daniel-Sartain-Clarke-looted-shop-London-riots-jailed-11-months.html

And rather unpleasant to link this criminal low-life with Anthony Worrell-Thompson. Both seem to have been dealt with properly by the criminal justice system.

Typical of Labour to spoil a good point by gratuitous nastiness.

Falco @20:

“I think we can assume that Daniel wasn’t able to claim any evidence of good character then? Was this just an unusually harsh punishment, (leaving the eviction business aside), or does Daniel have a string of convictions that might explain getting a custodial for shoplifting?”

If you follow GaryJ’s link (OK, so it’s to the Heil), you’ll see that he was done for burglary, not shoplifting. Hence the sentence, although I can’t imagine that a first-offender of 18 would get a custodial (or, at least, a custodial of that length) unless it had been part of the recent tendency for the judiciary to see themselves as the vanguard of class warriors (cf. Woollard, Fernie, Ibrahim, etc.).

As for evidence of good character, an awful lot was made of the youth’s voluntary work and his devoutness. This makes me wonder whether – had he not had a god (or, at least, the right god) on his side, so to speak – he would have got more than 11 months (i.e., probably home on a tag just after Easter).

Back to the issues raised by the OP, what makes the situation unjust is that the sanction which Wandsworth – and a number of other councils, including Labour ones – was quite clearly busting a gut to want to impose is one which can never be applied to so-called ‘owner-occupiers’. There are, if I recall correctly, ways in which mortgagees (for such they really are, for the most part) can be evicted for ASB or outright criminality, but the circumstances in which this may happen are very tightly circumscribed, and so it seldom happens.

Which means that tenants – already thought of in our property-bubble era as being in some intrinsic way ‘inferior’ – are massively more vulnerable to the most punitive sanction of all in this field: homelessness. This is not just, and in the end it is completely counter-productive socially and financially. And that’s to leave out the emetic effects of witnessing the avid glee displayed by well-paid council bosses, councillors, the media and proto-Randian obsessives such as our own SMFS display with a force and regularity which suggests incipient sociopathy.

The facts are:
* Daniel Sartain-Clarke was arrested for theft from a shop that had been looted two hours previously on 8th August 2011.
* My understanding is that following arrest, Sartain-Clarke spent time on remand and then on bail outside London.
* Sartain-Clarke’s mother was advised that the council were considering eviction in September 2011, before Sartain-Clarke was tried.
* Sartain-Clarke was found guilty of theft in January 2012 and sentenced to 11 months imprisonment.

On the basis of those facts, we can determine that the headline of this blog post “How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter” is incorrect. Wandsworth Council “went after” Sartain-Clarke’s mother before Sartain-Clarke was convicted.

On reasonability, Wandsworth Council’s actions were disproportionate. The alleged and subsequently convicted offender no longer lived at the family home. The council did not present any evidence of anti social behaviour by the family beyond an arrest for theft outside the area where they lived. Had Sartain-Clarke not been caught in the act and confessed his guilt, Wandsworth Council’s actions would have made prosecution more difficult.

And if there had been reasonable cause to believe that Sartain-Clarke was a menace to his neighbours, Wandsworth Council could have advised Maite de la Calva that a condition of her tenancy was that Sartain-Clarke did not live at her home.

Credit, as always, to Liberty and the pro bono lawyers who helped Maite de la Calva.

@17. So Much For Subtlety: “Parents have an obligation to raise law abiding children. Properly socialised children.”

I would change the first sentence to “Parents have an obligation to *try to* raise law abiding children.” With that caveat, I think that SMFS may be making a valid point, although perhaps for the wrong reasons…

It isn’t a legal obligation, Leon, but it is part of the social contract between citizens, and between citizens and state. I would not recommend the child rearing methods advised by Hobbes or Rousseau. Society has moved on. However my desires, very liberal ones, are that my fellow citizens raise their young ones so that they are not “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes). As a liberal, I don’t wish to impose child rearing methodologies on others (there are utilitarian arguments too, around the fashionability and popular decline of such methodologies). All I can ask is that parents understand that their rights come with an obligation (by manners and responsibility, not law).

@19. Chaise Guevara: “Unless the parents can be shown to have knowingly or through negligence caused this behaviour.”

That is why I changed SMFS’s argument to: “…*try to* raise law abiding children.” The contract is to make an effort, within your abilities, but it does not demand perfection.

26. Leon Wolfeson

@25 – I was objecting to SMFS, not debating what /should/ be.

I also argue that we don’t have a society-wide social contract any more. The government has burned it. My own community has an internal social contract, where you can participate on various levels, but that’s entirely different…

But anyway – as to actual actions, I agree that given the criminal in question was an adult, potentially not allowing him to return would be the most they should have done. However, given the crime wasn’t local…I find even that arguable.

@23 – Come now, SMFS is an outright randroid.

27. So Much For Subtlety

19. Chaise Guevara

See what I mean? You’re not happy until the blame has been pinned on someone. You’re saying that children are not responsible agents. I’d tend to assume that if a non-responsible agent does something bad, then nobody’s responsible. Unless the parents can be shown to have knowingly or through negligence caused this behaviour.

Someone needs to be punished. No one will be of course, but someone should. Why does that offend you? We can agree that children – assuming that applies in this case – are not responsible. Nor are dogs. If my dog savages a passing jogger, are you really saying that I am not responsible? I cannot be sued? I have no obligation to keep him locked up? Take him to obedience class? Make sure he is properly socialised? Even if he is known to be vicious? Even if he is a Bull Terrier? Interesting. I don’t know about you but I grew up around large animals and there was a generally accepted responsibility that you needed to make sure your animals were cared for properly. If you let a cow out on to the road and some driver slammed into it at 3 am going 70 mph, generally people thought you had to share some of the blame. You think not?

Let’s say an asteroid fell out of the sky and killed a houseful of people. Who would you put in jail for their murder? SOMEONE must be responsible, right? (And no, I don’t think that’s equivalent, I’m point out how silly this policy of demanding responsibility is). Responsibility should be assigned based on *whether people are actually responsible*, not because you’ve got 10 units of responsibility going spare and you need someone to carry it.

An asteroid is an act of God. As I specifically pointed out. This is not an act of God. Someone needs to be responsible for these children. If not their parents, who? Why do you think that? Again with the sexual harassment complaint. If I run a company, and I have a clear no-sexual-harassment policy and I make all my employees undertake mandatory sexual harassment seminars to make sure they know they cannot do it, and one single employee makes one single drunken comment to a woman, I would be held liable. In what sense am I responsible? Are you going to condemn this law? Or do you have a reason for thinking that parents, who are responsible and are in charge of the day-to-day discipline and socialisation of their children, have less responsibility that someone sitting in an office that could be hundreds of miles away?

Why different standards for the workplace and parents? Well, first, I don’t think employers would actually be held accountable for the action itself, they’d just be liable for failing to create a reasonable working environment. Second, despite employment law, it’s easier to choose your employees than your children. Finally, I suspect the application of these laws ARE often unfair on employers.

Why do you think they are not responsible for the actions? You can throw your children out of the home any time you like. What is more, more often than not, their values are your values. You can’t say that about employees.

Oh, and don’t tell me you think it’s harsh to punish the child. I’ve seen you on here before claiming that trouble-makers in school should be kicked out of the school system entirely, permanently wrecking their future because they couldn’t keep quiet in class when they were 12. You don’t fool me.

That is not a punishment. Nor is there the remotest suggestion that such an action would wreck their future. You may think it will cut them off from the chance, as tiny as it is, of a middle class lifestyle but even that is not true. They will not go to Oxbridge it is true, but their chance for a good life is about the same as anyone else’s.

Nor do I think I say entirely. Usually I say I prefer a cascade of worse and worse schools until they end up in a Reformatory.

28. Leon Wolfeson

@27 – Yes, you need to be punished for your hate crimes, criminal. Thanks for calling kids the same as dogs, though.

“You can throw your children out of the home any time you like.”

Yea, you try that under 16.

And of course, one mistake MUST wreck lives. Well, you’ve made your mistake. You belong in jail according to your own ethics.

29. Anon E Mouse

@28 – Leon Wolfeson

I’ve followed your posts for months and months now…

I just need to ask what’s wrong with you?

30. Leon Wolfeson

@30 – Easy. BNPer.

I’m a leftist who dosn’t believe in eugenics or collective punishment, and does believe in fairness and tolerance.

And yes, I’m sure you’ve been stalking me on the internet…

31. Anon E Mouse

@30 – Leon Wolfeson

Your dishonest smearing speaks volumes Wolfy.

What’s wrong?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/zNCuUguc

  2. Jonathan Calder

    How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/zNCuUguc

  3. Nemesis Republic

    RT @libcon: How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/hF7EV0bv

  4. Owen

    How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/zNCuUguc

  5. Neville Farmer

    How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/zNCuUguc

  6. Lambeth NUT

    How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/zNCuUguc

  7. Rob

    How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/zNCuUguc

  8. Patron Press - #P2

    #UK : How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/GIub04PQ

  9. sean bastable

    #UK : How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/GIub04PQ

  10. Alex Braithwaite

    How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lrUwD7bF via @libcon

  11. Dad Who Writes

    How I loath this vicious petty gov and their cronies. How Wandsworth Council went after a rioter's mum and 8yo sister http://t.co/wL0DbbFn

  12. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/Vgf1PvBw

  13. InterUncut

    Tory-run council wanted to punish convicted rioter, so they went after his mother and 8yr old sister http://t.co/fnHohBH1 (by @leonieC)

  14. C&W Labour

    Tory-run council wanted to punish convicted rioter, so they went after his mother and 8yr old sister http://t.co/fnHohBH1 (by @leonieC)

  15. Donna Taylor

    welcome to the big society: local council went after the family of a convicted rioter | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ZcR2GlbK via @libcon

  16. Kat

    How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/oxy5DjLP via @libcon

  17. Bob Farrell

    Stay classy Wandsworth! How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter: http://t.co/MUCQuXgL

  18. Johnny Saxophone

    Tory-run council wanted to punish convicted rioter, so they went after his mother and 8yr old sister http://t.co/fnHohBH1 (by @leonieC)

  19. LeonieC

    See my piece on Liberal Conspiracy, plse RT How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/W6vqHaHg via @libcon

  20. ste

    Tory-run council wanted to punish convicted rioter, so they went after his mother and 8yr old sister http://t.co/fnHohBH1 (by @leonieC)

  21. Nicolas Chinardet

    How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/WBDJIGW9 #allinthistogether not! HT @edwardclarke

  22. Retribution for the riots: some common sense at last | Red Brick

    […] press: a good update from Wandsworth Labour Councillor Leonie Cooper here. Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]

  23. Martin Whelton

    Great piece by #Labour GLA candidate @LeonieC on how Wandsworth Council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/jLFv2lwc

  24. Brnch Sec Ruth H

    Tory-run council wanted to punish convicted rioter, so they went after his mother and 8yr old sister http://t.co/fnHohBH1 (by @leonieC)

  25. Wandsworth Council Backs Down Over Rioter Eviction « labourinwandsworth

    […] http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/01/20/how-a-local-council-went-after-the-family-of-a-convicted-rio… Advertisement LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); LD_AddCustomAttr("theme_bg", "ffffff"); LD_AddCustomAttr("theme_border", "bc0404"); LD_AddCustomAttr("theme_text", "000000"); LD_AddCustomAttr("theme_link", "bc0404"); LD_AddCustomAttr("theme_url", "00447c"); LD_AddCustomAttr("LangId", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Autotag", "religion"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Autotag", "celebrities"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Autotag", "technology"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "daniel-sartain-clarke"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "eviction"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "maite-de-la-calva"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "riots"); LD_AddSlot("wpcom_below_post"); LD_GetBids(); Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. By Helen Godwin Teige, on January 19, 2012 at 5:46 pm, under Uncategorized. Tags: Daniel Sartain-Clarke, eviction, maite de la calva, Riots. 1 Comment Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Justice for a rioter and his family? […]

  26. Mark Gillespie

    Tory-run council wanted to punish convicted rioter, so they went after his mother and 8yr old sister http://t.co/fnHohBH1 (by @leonieC)

  27. Ian Bertram

    How a local council went after the family of a convicted rioter http://t.co/AHiYIJqD via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.