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

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Thanks for the generalised insult there. Why do you feel it OK to call us "Limey's". Would you go up to a black dude and call him the "N word"?

Anyhoo, the rest of your post made no sense. Who exactly from the Royal Family has been appointed to a Government position? And can it with the pro-gun talk. Honestly, you Americans seem to think the answer to life's ills is always found at the end of the barrel of a gun.....




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


LIzard, while I agree that if someone wants to bed down in a genuinely disused building, crack on, but this is not what we see is it? I could, if I was so inclined, trawl through the web and find many stories of ordinary people who have gone away, only to come back and find that either someone has set up home in their house or worse, someone has actually rented it out, then to get the kick in the nads that they are the ones with no legal recourse!

It's all very well taking the high road and saying this is all about the "rich" (and there may well be an element of truth in that!), but ordinary people are being diddled. What would you suggest is the best way to deal with that sort of situation?

IN fact, here's a good one for you.. How would YOU feel if someone did that to you? You came back from hols to find a bunch of Lithuanians have "rented" out your home from some 3rd party?
edit on 31/8/12 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


LIzard, while I agree that if someone wants to bed down in a genuinely disused building, crack on, but this is not what we see is it? I could, if I was so inclined, trawl through the web and find many stories of ordinary people who have gone away, only to come back and find that either someone has set up home in their house or worse, someone has actually rented it out, then to get the kick in the nads that they are the ones with no legal recourse!

It's all very well taking the high road and saying this is all about the "rich" (and there may well be an element of truth in that!), but ordinary people are being diddled. What would you suggest is the best way to deal with that sort of situation?


You're right, I bet you could pull a hundred stories. I don't doubt you.

The sad truth is. I bet I could find none.

None.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


What would you suggest is the best way to deal with that sort of situation?


Again. I don't know. But i certainly won't take the stance of all X is Y.

People are people. I've been the first person to mention the imperfections of this unregulated culture, but again I'll reiterate, it's just a result of modern times. Squatting isn't a new thing. It's occurred since the dawn of time, for better or worse.

Why make it criminal?

A friend even suggested it's the conservatives way of digging back at the activists who often dwell in these surroundings, a way to disable potential discord.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
S&F Mr Lizard


I'm astonished at some of the replies in this thread.

They're not doing this for the owners of the properties!! what the hell makes people believe that!! They dont give a toss about anyone...except the bankers.
House prices...its all about house prices and big fat profits for the bankers.

CAMERON IS A SCUMBAG



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I don't think I understand what you're saying...

Care to elaborate on that point please?



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Again, someone taking a highly opinionated stance on an issue that has been doing the rounds since long before Cameron and chums. Squatting has been a problem for years and was made worse by section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977:


" it is an offence for a person, without lawful authority, to use or threaten violence to secure entry to premises against the will of those inside. The offence is committed where the person who uses or threatens such violence knows that there is someone inside the premises who is opposed to the entry which can include someone who
may themselves be a trespasser....."

Which essentially sanctions unlawful entry, provided that those who gained said entry can prevent the rightful owner from getting back in.

Yes, some rich folk got diddled recently, but over the years there have been many cases of ordinary folk, like you and me, being done over and people have been campaigning for years to have the law changed. Is this not what a "democratic" Government is about? I'm sure if you took a poll (a proper one, not one of your like minded friends) you'd find there was overwhelming support for this.

What is ironic is the Head lady from the Squatters Rights Association (odd that they are "homeless" yet have a Union!) saying this law is unjust. I wonder how she would feel if I decided to squat in her house today? She would be in a tough pickle, wouldn't she? If she stands by her convictions, she must allow me to take over her home, otherwise she is a hypocrite. I wonder what she would do....



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Lizard, it is also worth pointing out (as you have mentioned about disused industrial/commercial buildings) this law only covers squatting in residential buildings.

Were you aware of that? If not, does this not change your stance at all?

How can it be justified that someone is allowed to take over property which does not belong to them?

Would you, by logical extension, allow someone to rifle through your bag on the train and take what they please? Theft is theft, be it a house or a phone.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Again, someone taking a highly opinionated stance on an issue that has been doing the rounds since long before Cameron and chums. Squatting has been a problem for years and was made worse by section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977:


" it is an offence for a person, without lawful authority, to use or threaten violence to secure entry to premises against the will of those inside. The offence is committed where the person who uses or threatens such violence knows that there is someone inside the premises who is opposed to the entry which can include someone who
may themselves be a trespasser....."

Which essentially sanctions unlawful entry, provided that those who gained said entry can prevent the rightful owner from getting back in.

Yes, some rich folk got diddled recently, but over the years there have been many cases of ordinary folk, like you and me, being done over and people have been campaigning for years to have the law changed. Is this not what a "democratic" Government is about? I'm sure if you took a poll (a proper one, not one of your like minded friends) you'd find there was overwhelming support for this.

What is ironic is the Head lady from the Squatters Rights Association (odd that they are "homeless" yet have a Union!) saying this law is unjust. I wonder how she would feel if I decided to squat in her house today? She would be in a tough pickle, wouldn't she? If she stands by her convictions, she must allow me to take over her home, otherwise she is a hypocrite. I wonder what she would do....


As Mr Lizard pointed out, MOST squaters do NOT invade a home thats in use, they look for abandoned properties, of which there are MANY, usualy left empty for the purpose of future profits.

Tell me, being as we have massive unemployment and many thousands of homless people (some so desperate they might invade YOUR home) why doesnt the government pay the unemployed to build new CHEAP homes for those who need them???
I worked on several housing projects and the average build cost was 28k yet they sold for 130k (12 years ago) so if we did put people to work building cheap homes what would that do to the housing market?
Thats why they wont build them and thats why we have squaters



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Isn't trespassing already illegal in the UK or no?



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


There isn't a shortage of homes, but a shortage of money to buy said homes. People can still rent. Like I said, the concept of owning your own home only caught on the 80's, ironically by a Conservative Government allowing people to buy their Council homes for next to nothing!

I personally rent as I cannot afford a deposit, but the concept of forcing my way into a property where I have no legal right to be is totally alien to me. If someone needs a home, they only have to pop down the council, they will be sorted out.

Why does it matter if the property is unused? By that logic, if you don't use your car for a week, by rights I can have it. After all, not everyone can afford a car so I should have one (your one) for free, shouldn't I?

As for "massive" unemployment, not really. It's actually coming down. And the housing bubble is as much our parents generations fault for seeking a quick buck and viewing houses as investment vehicles, not homes, all of which was allowed (promoted in fact..."end of boom and bust"..
) by a Labour Government..But let's bash the Tories as that's cool, yeah? Yes, they are a bunch of tossers, but aren't they all?

Where do you propose all these "cheap houses" get built? We would need millions to effectively bring down the average price to levels everyone could afford and that would put a large chunk of society into negative equity causing financial hardship for many or even creating more homelessness as Banks foreclose.

As you will no doubt learn, it isn't just as simple as "build more homes..yeah!". For example, by local council wants to build 7,500 new homes by 2015 with 40% going to local people as "affordable housing".. All being held up by the residents campaigning against it, who ironically are the parents of the young people who cannot afford to buy because the prices are so high!

Like I said in a previous post, it isn't just those "evil Tories", but our own parents and grandparents who have used the housing market to make a ton of money, then cash it all in to live the high life leaving nothing for their own kids to inherit to enable them to buy a home, all the while sitting their bitching about how poor little Tommy can't move out as house prices are so high!!



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Short answer... Yes.

It is illegal.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


That is one helluva loop hole. Makes one wonder how it hasn't been plugged already? Simply give the police power to remove/charge for tresspassing.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


That's what they have now done.

It has taken years precisely because of people (like the Squatters Rights Association - a Union for the homeless?) saying it is unjust and defending said action, coupled with political weak-will.

If I had a spare £5000 cash to pay the fine, I'd go and squat in the leader of the Squatters Rights associations house and force them to make a choice, either they stick to their principles and let me live in their home or they call the Police to have me evicted. It would be interesting to see their reaction and I am pretty sure they would turn out to be hypocrites.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Here's the difference between the UK and the US (from an impartial viewpoint, as my profile says, I'm Canadian). In the UK, someone can move into your house illegally and there's nothing you can do about it. In the US, you can call a few buddies with rifles, storm the place and take back your legally owned property. I can tell you which I'd rather live in, and here's a hint: it's not the one where any dirtbag can kick you out of your own home with no consequences.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethetruth
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I remember a place in Wales called the teepee village were homeless people had made teepee's to live in ,,so they was not squatting but still the police and council didn't like it ,,the last time i heard they was trying to close it and make them leave



they're still there as far as i know


found an old thing about it too:
www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 




Now, if you poor down trodden Limeys had some guns left you might be able to do something to stop the totalitarian set of your ugly goverment....


Well what a surprise - some misinformed septic with a hard on for guns blaming everything and anything in UK society on our gun laws.

For the record - anyone in the UK can own a gun provided certain criteria are met - and many UK citizens do own guns.

And please show me how your Second Aemendment is helping to stop the 'totalitarian set' of your government because the last time I looked there wasn't that much difference between the two.



.only the IRA and criminals remain armed......


The IRA disarmed many years ago.

The vast majority of criminals in the UK are unarmed.



It very plain that the house of Lords is a left over from feudalism,


Yes, but where's the relevance?

Is it ok for me to pick some random fault with USA society / government etc in response?



and its appalling that people get appointed to goverment BECAUSE THEY ARE ROYALTY.....FOR LIFE!...thats just sick....


Which royal has been appointed to government?



Like i said too bad you gave up your only defense against a totalitarian goverment which it apears we are all gonna get sooner or later.....


I really don't see what defence a Glock might be against the weaponry at the disposal of a totalitarian government determined to surpress it's people.

And I also don't know why so many Americans are obsessed with UK gun laws?

Why don't you post your thoughts about gun control in one of the numerous threads on the subject and leave this thread for those who want to discuss squatting and related issues.

For clarity; do you support the right to squat and propose that squatters should take up arms against this repressive legislation - if not then I really fail to see what point you are attempting to make?
edit on 1/9/12 by Freeborn because: Spelling, grammar, clarity etc



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Of course the practice of squatting in people's houses needed to be criminalised.
The previous laws were an anachronism and needed updating.
People's properties required legal protection from such practices.

But this legislation goes much further - it makes squatting in old, disused and abandoned properties a criminal offence.

What should be made a criminal offence is the fact that we have at least 650,000 unused properties in the UK standing idle and unoccupied whilst we have people who genuinely can not afford housing.

Most councils no longer provide adequate number of affordable housing and many can not afford the extortionate amounts charged by many private landlords etc.

Yes, there are some who abuse the system and like the Benefit System as a whole it requires an overhaul, but this legislation punishes and criminalises the many for the actions of a few.

And perhaps as a society we should start looking at root causes and ask exactly why there are so many homeless and people who genuinely can not afford house prices and costs.

The over inflated house market has caused immeasurable suffering to many in this country and has helped contribute to the current economic mess we are currently in but it is merely reflection and result of the type of society we live in where profit is everything and compassion is viewed as a weakness.
edit on 1/9/12 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadeWolf
 


if somebody kicked down your door, that'd be breaking and entering... a criminal offence... i know you were speaking fippently but you seem to have failed to understand the situation. this is about people occupying abandoned buildings. Often landlords come to an agreement with squatters, based on them maintaining the building for a set period. i also know of a time when a local property developer wanted to build yuppy flats on the site of a community centre which he had let fall into disrepair. the community squatted it to prevent him doing this and now it still stands as a public building. this would be impossible now... very complicated subject really...



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BMorris
 


i'm sorry about that, but as a previous poster explained there ae bad apples every where. I have never heard of anyone squatting a house that was already owned/lived in by someone else.
Using the old "section SIX" you cannot break into a building, you lolse all "squatters rights and the police will kick you out straight away. You will be arrested for breaking and entering.
The law was already changed.
Once you had a building, they had to take you to court. this took about 6 monthes and then you usually got evicted. The law changed about two years ago.
Up until today, A judge simply had to order an eviction notice to evict the squatters and the police could remove you at once. Now it's a criminal offence
It seems that non residential property is as open to squat as before according to the police.
www.urban75.org... iminal-offence-in-the-uk-notes-and-advice/






top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join