An 18-year old man was arrested for burglary in the riots. He lives with his mother and eight-year old daughter and the mother has received a notice that if her son is convicted they will all be evicted. I personally have no doubt they will not follow through with this but should the sins of the son be visited on the mother and sister? I don't think so. Evict him. Tell his mom that allowing him to live or visit the premises will be grounds for eviction but I don't thin the mother and sister should be forced out.

British justice will prevail, unfortunately.

patrick

Unless there is something we are missing, I am in agreement with you.

David Cameron is a Christian, though, right? Isn't he just extending the precedent of Original Sin the other way along the family tree?

Sorry, McFate. That post makes no sense. I'm assuming it represents your political prejudices instead of the question at hand.

I'm saying that it is not an unprecedented moral position for a Christian to take. I don't disagree with you, patrickt, but I would be surprised if no one found it justifiable within some common interpretation of Christian morality. It is a common belief that original sin was legitimately handed down to all humanity for the sins of the two original members.

I do not know if this is the justification that David Cameron or the other members of Parliament take, however, but as the House of Commons has a very Anglican tradition and association, I would not be surprised to find that this concept pervades or fundamentally underlies part of British political moral culture, especially conservative moral culture.

I think it's wrong to evict any of them as I doubt it is done in other cases where one member of the family has been sent to gaol for theft or even murder.
Never heard of any other criminal case where the family was evicted from their public housing.

He should be charged with the offence. Not the family.