It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Squatting to become a criminal act. Homeless fears grow. [UK]

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+1 more 
posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:38 AM

So once again our near useless right-wing government have taken a step backwards and have decided to criminalise squatting (during a housing crisis may I add) and will make it easier for the police to enforce these rules on squatters.

This has provoked fears of mass homelessness and criminal records for those who have nowhere to live.

The cost of evicting everyone who currently lives in a squat could reach £790m if they instead started claiming housing benefits, according to a report commissioned by Squatters Action for Secure Housing (Squash).

So it seems having a roof over your head is now a criminal act, whereas it used to be just a civil problem. Even with millions of empty and abandoned properties and homelessness, it seems the government wish to pander to the wealthy as opposed to the poor,.

This is a disgrace and just shows how out of touch or government really are. Instead of actually dealing with the logistics of the problem, they are doing nothing more than putting on a show of force, that ultimately will benefit only a tiny few and harm many, many people.

And before people come here saying landlords have rights, yes they do. Those rights could have been solved in a civil court. Now it has become criminal and not only wastes police resources and time, but solves absolutely nothing.

What a horrid country we live in sometimes.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:42 AM
Its because squatters are now squatting in the elite's properties lol.

Back in the day squatters used to squat in old council flats, run down estates....warehouses. Now they squat in £5m homes with pools, cinema's etc.

The law has been changed to protect the per usual

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:44 AM
reply to post by mr-lizard

The US is going through the same issue!! Come together with others in the same situation- Find a national Park where you can camp for free!! Combine Transportation resources to work!! We have Tent cities going on here in the US..we will do whatever we have to do to SURVIVE!! You are not alone!! Join a gym near can take showers there. NC

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:44 AM
reply to post by mr-lizard

It's the people who go on holiday to find that drug addicts and selfish scum bags have moved into their family home who deserve to be kicked out. Those living in abandoned buildings should be allowed to remain as they are looking after the property to a certain extent, especially if the building is going to be left empty for long period of time.

I'm for equality of all men and women but to take something that is not yours no matter what, is morally wrong.
edit on 31-8-2012 by dodgygeeza because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:52 AM
reply to post by dodgygeeza

Well the previous law already made a distinction between squatting in occupied homes and abandoned homes. Now it's just made people intro criminals.

Why, do we have empty properties in this day and age? That's the bigger question.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:57 AM
yes thats a perfect solution, give criminal records to people already struggling to make it, make them finding good employment even harder...

Glad to know its not just the US that has its head up its own ass when it comes to ridiculous legislation.
edit on 31-8-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:58 AM
reply to post by mr-lizard

Absolutely! If I were made homeless I would do the same thing and move into the nearest abandoned property, screw what anyone says. Next they'll be putting the homeless into concentra... I mean shelters to make up for it.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:01 AM
considering how many unoccupied boarded-up houses, shops and offices there are, it's a travesty that people aint allowed to use them without fear of prosecution. What's even worse is what has happened to the social housing stock, which is still being depleted now, let alone what happened under thatch.
a few years ago i needed to apply for social housing and was told there was no chance of me even getting somewhere whith my partner and toddler. In my area the council stock was something like 1000 homes (in a metropolitan area, a fraction of what it used to be) in total, with zero availablity and crazy waiting lists. Affordable housing for those getting back on their feet or just starting out just doesnt exist in the uk.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:11 AM
Also related:

Don't forget it was the tories who are in the process of making it incredibly difficult for vulnerable people under the age of 25 to apply for housing benefit and financial security when looking for homes.

The prime minister has suggested that people under the age of 25 could lose the right to housing benefit, as part of moves to cut the welfare bill.

So, being homeless is not only now considered morally corrupt (and criminal), but god forbid you try and find some shelter or security or better yourself by looking for genuine, legal support as you try and find a legit home.

Info about the housing market.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:23 AM
Bout Bloody time!!

Did you know Squatters had more rights than home owners?

If you went to stay in Australia for 6 months, and returned to find your home Squatted upon, you couldn't ask them to leave, because they were protected by Squatters rights!! LMAO


That was of no concern however...

By the way, this is coming from somebody who been screwed by the government, I'm under 25, and looking for a home and more income.. But I wouldn't bloody squat somebodies house!
edit on 31-8-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:42 AM
reply to post by mr-lizard

This is about preventing people squatting in people's homes. I totally support this action. There has been a big rise in squatters targetting homes of people on holiday, or homes that are clearly having work done to them and are therefore currently unoccupied. What gives anyone the right to move themselves into such properties? It doesn't cover public buildings, etc.

However, the problem i have with this is that i can see it also being applied to "homes" that have been left for years. If something is unoccupied for that long, it does make it fair game in my mind (unless empty for a very good reason).


Many squatters in this country are homeless by choice - they choose not to pay rent, etc, rather than being properly homeless. Much further info on this available from charities like Shelter.

Those genuinely homeless cases won't be massively affected by this either way.
edit on 31-8-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:52 AM
There are so many different issues at play here, there really is no simple right and wrong. I hope they have discretion clauses in the law to address this, else its just another step backwards into victorian times.

For example, opportunists who enter someone's home when they are on holiday and take it over, that is criminal, regardless of how rich the owners are. It is their home which they have a right to.

But people who are genuinely homeless and find a derelict building somewhere, especially when it is being used as some form of tax dodge, then the government should be doing something about the owner rather than just criminalising the squatter. The owner is costing the state, and contributing towards the negativity of this country, the squatter is costing the state nothing as they are not even claiming benefits.

The government need to start doing something about the corrupt rich who are abusing the system and causing the homelessness of people, and forcing them into such desperate situations. But that would mean prosecuting their own, and we all know that will never happen.

# the government, they are a bunch of corrupt, evil hypocrites who just keep on targetting the vulnerable groups whilst ignoring why they are in those situations.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:38 AM
Its rubbish that squatters move into other peoples property while they're on Holiday. That is just misinformation put out there. I squatted all over the u.k for many years. Often getting peppercorn contracts to maintain buildings. The group i was involved with usually squatted Warehouses and industrial buildings. One building known as the "factory" in East london we had for 4 years. we had storage for soundsystem and trucks on the ground floor, A recording studio, A tattoo studio, a sauna, a Massive kitchen and bedrooms for 20 people. we ran courses for the local youth including, music, climbing, programming, electronics, french, spanish,mathematics and cookery.
The reason the gov is trying to close the squats is that it brings groups of people together who are powerless on their own. The government is scared by the politics of the squatter just as they were scared of the new age travellers. They have not got the manpower anyway. No squat parties for years according to the law. But they still happen, and 9 times out of 10 the police get sent packing.
I bet under Common law the right to squat is untouched.
Do not sign anything and I bet you are untouchable.
I'll be back in the u.k in a couple of monthes and if can't find anywhere to live until my next paycheck i WILL be Squatting.

edit on 31-8-2012 by discolo because: can never remember how to paste a video

edit on 31-8-2012 by discolo because: still cant #ing figure it out?????????

edit on 31-8-2012 by discolo because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2012 by discolo because: i was doing it right I think. i wish this computer had valves in it, you knew where you were with valves....

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:46 AM

Originally posted by mr-lizard

So once again our near useless right-wing government have taken a step backwards and have decided to criminalise squatting (during a housing crisis may I add) and will make it easier for the police to enforce these rules on squatters.

One of the best things they've done!

And if you disagree, next time you go out I'll pop round, move in, throw out all your possessions and see how you like it

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:51 PM
yeah... because not being able to afford a house means you have the right to someone else's house.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by Sinny

Yeah I remember a similar story several years ago. This elderly gentleman went for a walk and when he came back there were people inside his home claiming squatters rights. The police sided with the family "living" there and the poor guy was forced to live somewhere else and go through the process of evicting them which took months. It was ridiculous.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by Dnepropetrovsk

I know plenty of squatters who have IMPROVED run down, abandoned houses. Any decent squatter will NOT move into an occupied, family home of any sort. Most real squatters occupy buildings that have been left abandoned by owners.

There may very well be a few Daily mail type shock and horror stories of immigrants squatting in peoples homes, but that is massively rare and mostly constitutes breaking and entering, tresspassing and burgalry.

Real squatting is not about that at all. And is simply about making good use out of non-occupied abandoned space.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by mr-lizard

Just because nobody is there does not mean that it is theirs.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by discolo


Take what back? Property that is not yours to begin with?

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 01:16 PM
And even if you disagree in the morality of squatting, you've got to admit there's a huge grey area,

* A group occupying an already occupied house whilst the owner goes away on Holiday, is idiotic and stupid, I'll be the first to admit. But this is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage and does not accurately reflect the squatting community.

* A group occupying an abandoned office project, repairing and salvaging items to improve the building, and keeping people safe, dry and fed is a totally different issue. And is the more common form of squatting.

* A group occupying an abandoned house, untouched for years by a landlord or owner is also more common, and again only reflects a percentage of the squatter groups.

So you can see, some of the more Daily Mail style comments cannot surely apply to all the different types of squatters. Although to be fair, if you're willing to already tar everyone with the same brush and fail to consider the varying aspects of squatting, then quite frankly I'm wondering why you are even bothering to debate on a forum.

However, if you're willing to keep an open mind and accept that not all squatters are here to steal your homes and kick your grandparents out of their houses, then let's debate.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in