The story was all about a family losing their council house because of unsociable behavour. And that was it. Why is this headline news? :confused:

Are some of our taxes not spent on council departments whose very job it is is to evict problem families from council houses. SO the headline should really have been 'Council department does what its supposed to do on this occasion'. And it still wouldnt have been interesting news.

The Star should stick to classifieds and deaths, as they dont have a clue what news is.

38 Pence wasted ,people are better off coming on here to get the news,it is not as biased to the blue third of the city.

it's a load of ****e that paper anyway so what do you expect! :D

38 Pence wasted ,people are better off coming on here to get the news,it is not as biased to the blue third of the city.

and it's not as thick as the blunt end either

Its a warning to other families who cause anti social behaviour and what could happen - certainly worthy of big publicity. The family will also have had an impact on their neighbours and surrounding community so it will have been a headline.

The story was all about a family losing their council house because of unsociable behavour. And that was it. Why is this headline news? :confused:

Are some of our taxes not spent on council departments whose very job it is is to evict problem families from council houses. SO the headline should really have been 'Council department does what its supposed to do on this occasion'. And it still wouldnt have been interesting news.

The Star should stick to classifieds and deaths, as they dont have a clue what news is.

One of the things that councils are always being criticised for is not taking action against people who make other people's lives a misery. The necessary proof is often hard to get, and can take a long time to substantiate. The courts have also been known to give second and third chances. So to actually get an eviction will be a reason for the neighbours in the area to celebrate.

At one time housing staff only needed to get repairs done, collect rent, remind people to tidy their gardens (although why take a house with a garden if you don't want to look after it I'll never know?) and have a word if tenants were being a nuisance. Government legislation around allocations of social housing has been partly responsible for concentrations in some areas of anti-social behaviour. Changing attitudes have played a part too, people who know all their rights but don't even consider they may have responsibilities! Horrible for the decent residents, and very time consuming for all the agencies than have to get involved. Has anyone ever considered why owner occupied estates don't need intervention from housing professionals, yet council housing needs huge departments to support it?

Its a warning to other families who cause anti social behaviour and what could happen - certainly worthy of big publicity. The family will also have had an impact on their neighbours and surrounding community so it will have been a headline.

I agree with this. If it helps to advertise the fact that you cant get away with this kind of behaviour, I'm all for it.

Has anyone ever considered why owner occupied estates don't need intervention from housing professionals, yet council housing needs huge departments to support it?

Owner occupiers have reason take more pride in their houses, and unsociable behavour is stemmed via police and court orders i would have thought.
In other words owner occupiers are able to deal with it off their own back

it's a load of ****e that paper anyway so what do you expect! :D

It's good for cutting up into small squares, hanging on a peice of string (of a certain length) and hanging up near the toilet - when you've run out of bog paper.

Its a warning to other families who cause anti social behaviour and what could happen - certainly worthy of big publicity. The family will also have had an impact on their neighbours and surrounding community so it will have been a headline.

As I understand it, the council has a legal duty to house anybody who is homeless, especially "priority needs" and people who've been evicted. So, from the moment they've been evicted the council will have to rehouse them, so the the total effect of all this action and expense is that they have to move house? (little more than an inconvenience, if that).

I'm in no way an expert in this area, that's just my understanding of it. Perhaps someone knows whether this is correct or not?

Owner occupiers have reason take more pride in their houses, and unsociable behavour is stemmed via police and court orders i would have thought.
In other words owner occupiers are able to deal with it off their own back

Nearly right - most owner occupiers do look after their homes and gardens. Many of the problems are about how people are grouped together. Because of lettings policies being based on 'need' many tenants in social housing have mental health problems, poor household and parenting skills, drug and alcohol addictions, etc. Now I'm not saying these problems don't exist on private estates, but in very different proportions. Its one of the reasons that no large council estates have been built for years - and any new large private estates have to have some 'affordable housing'.

The police don't deal with anti social behaviour any differently on private estates. Again its proportional, although crime does occur in more 'affluent' areas, its usually nowhere near as prevalent as in more deprived areas.

i read recently of a similar situation where a nuisance family were evicted by a council and the only place they could re-house them was about two hundreds yards from the original property on the same street !! :D

As I understand it, the council has a legal duty to house anybody who is homeless, especially "priority needs" and people who've been evicted. So, from the moment they've been evicted the council will have to rehouse them, so the the total effect of all this action and expense is that they have to move house? (little more than an inconvenience, if that).

I'm in no way an expert in this area, that's just my understanding of it. Perhaps someone knows whether this is correct or not?

It's possible that they would be deemed as 'intentionally homeless' and therefore wouldn't receive priority, but each case is decided upon its own circumstances.

i read recently of a similar situation where a nuisance family were evicted by a council and the only place they could re-house them was about two hundreds yards from the original property on the same street !! :D

So the family? in question on this thread wont actually be 'evicted' they are just being moved elsewhere?

Why arnt they told to get themselves down to the supermarket to find some card board?

Do we actually want to live in a society where there are never ending last chances? No skid row? No ultimate situation to force people to better themselves?

I dont see the council washing their hands after umpteen warnings as being cruel or unjust. Surely the threat along with the odd example would act as a incentive for the vast majority of others to buck their ideas up.

Or do we throw Darwin in the bin and keep on helping them when they have repeatedly proven themselves unworthy of council aid?

The story was all about a family losing their council house because of unsociable behavour. And that was it. Why is this headline news? :confused:

Are some of our taxes not spent on council departments whose very job it is is to evict problem families from council houses. SO the headline should really have been 'Council department does what its supposed to do on this occasion'. And it still wouldnt have been interesting news.

The Star should stick to classifieds and deaths, as they dont have a clue what news is.

think yourself lucky, the local paper today here featured the news of

a chimney in whitby caught fire
plant pots stolen of doorstep
and a metal rod stolen from a graveyards fence

think yourself lucky, the local paper today here featured the news of

a chimney in whitby caught fire
plant pots stolen of doorstep
and a metal rod stolen from a graveyards fence

I quite like the idea of living in a place where the worst crime is the theft of a plant pot. I wouldn't like it if it was my plant pot though :hihi:

it's a load of ****e that paper anyway so what do you expect! :D

I wouldn,t go that far, the sheffield star has been around years and gets the older generation out to go and fetch it, so it does have its uses. I like it for the local football and the sunday league results on a monday, you don,t see anything like that in most local papers.:)

I quite like the idea of living in a place where the worst crime is the theft of a plant pot. I wouldn't like it if it was my plant pot though :hihi:
aye, just think if I was the plant pot, no more posting on SF :(

The story was all about a family losing their council house because of unsociable behavour. And that was it. Why is this headline news? :confused:

Are some of our taxes not spent on council departments whose very job it is is to evict problem families from council houses. SO the headline should really have been 'Council department does what its supposed to do on this occasion'. And it still wouldnt have been interesting news.

The Star should stick to classifieds and deaths, as they dont have a clue what news is.

So they are an anti-social family and losing their free house - WHATS THE STORY ? its like someone bein banned from a pub for stupid behaviour quite right too !!! let them get a taste of roughing it that teach em a lesson ...

Scum bags, deserve everything they get, I love it how the mother tries to justify the behaviour of her chaved up, waste of a life sons. She then said after all the stress SHE cant wait to move as if she is the victim.

They should be turfed out onto the street, that should shake the ASB out of their sorry asses.

Pity we don't have 'life on Mars' 1970's style policing for these lowlifes, a good seeing to in the back of a van would sort em out. If it didn't it would give us a sense of justice.

Another rant over

Just for a bit of clarity, I think this (http://www.thestar.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=58&articleid=2850012) is the story.

my aunty as been thrown in a trampy bed n breakfast with 4kids, the star dint want 2 no. this is an hard workin woman whos split with her husband and no wer else 2go. the council are just as usless 2. takin over 5month and she still asnt been given priority

The sheffield Coucil are rubbish 4 sure!!!!!

The sheffield Coucil are rubbish 4 sure!!!!!

Is this the same council from whom you rent your home? The same council without which you'd be homeless? The same council which has just refurbished your school?

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you, or in this case houses and educates you.

good riddance the whole family are trouble

my auntys kids should be at gleadless valley school but she can't get them there thanks to council so they now out of school

Just for a bit of clarity, I think this (http://www.thestar.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=58&articleid=2850012) is the story.

I like the quotes in the article...... :hihi:

"i'm not threatening - just tell her to 'f' off when I see her."

complete scum of the earth these people. - white trash!

Is this the same council from whom you rent your home? The same council without which you'd be homeless? The same council which has just refurbished your school?


They are a council which we pay to provide those services. If someone thinks they are "rubbish" they are entitled to hold that opinion. Just because the council provide essential services it doesn't put them beyond critisism.

Having said that, I wonder how many of the critics voted for someone else last week?

Nearly right - most owner occupiers do look after their homes and gardens. Many of the problems are about how people are grouped together. Because of lettings policies being based on 'need' many tenants in social housing have mental health problems, poor household and parenting skills, drug and alcohol addictions, etc. Now I'm not saying these problems don't exist on private estates, but in very different proportions. Its one of the reasons that no large council estates have been built for years - and any new large private estates have to have some 'affordable housing'.

The police don't deal with anti social behaviour any differently on private estates. Again its proportional, although crime does occur in more 'affluent' areas, its usually nowhere near as prevalent as in more deprived areas.

When families are moved on due to anti-social behavour problems they have to go somewhere. Sometimes when they can't be rehoused in council accommodation private landlords are used. More worrying still, even when using private residential areas there seems to be areas where these families tend to be concentrated leading to an unfair burden on those they live around. Owner occupiers are left in a difficult position as to whether to take action knowing success is unlikely and the consequence may be having to declare any action when trying to sell.