Not really, if they had to break in it was illegal and could be removed... If they got in through an open window that was not considered illegal.
Scrapping of squatters' rights.
- Thread starter Nightglow
- Start date
Not really, if they had to break in it was illegal and could be removed... If they got in through an open window that was not considered illegal.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I'll condone it.
If someone really has no money, and I mean no money (not they have money but spend it on crack or booze etc) then sure. In the same way I wouldn't eat squirrels but if I found myself in a situation, Bear Grylls style, where it was eat a squirrel or die I'd eat the furry rodent.
Call me a square but if it comes down to a choice between someone dying and a minor breaking of society's rules I'll take the former everytime.
Is easy to talk about right and wrong whilst completely ignoring the outcomes of sticking to such a steadfast attitude.
To be honest if a squatter came into my home while I was on holiday, **** the legal implications, I'd break in, throw them out into the front garden and kick the **** out of them. No one comes into my house without my permission.
Yes people fall upon hard times and if a friend ever did, I'd take them in.
Hell, a friend of a friend even.
I used to let a guy sleep in the library I worked at, at night when I was minding it because I knew he was just a guy who had fallen on hard times (spoke to the local college about it), student finance messed his application up and he quite simply had nowhere to live or any money until it came through. Nice enough guy, if you asked him to leave it'd be no problem, thanks for letting him stay etc.
But at the end of the day, it's unacceptable to steal space. A lot of squatters are ***** scum who don't want to work, or drug addicts stealing and ****ing people over to feed their habits.
Yes people fall upon hard times and if a friend ever did, I'd take them in.
Hell, a friend of a friend even.
I used to let a guy sleep in the library I worked at, at night when I was minding it because I knew he was just a guy who had fallen on hard times (spoke to the local college about it), student finance messed his application up and he quite simply had nowhere to live or any money until it came through. Nice enough guy, if you asked him to leave it'd be no problem, thanks for letting him stay etc.
But at the end of the day, it's unacceptable to steal space. A lot of squatters are ***** scum who don't want to work, or drug addicts stealing and ****ing people over to feed their habits.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I wonder how many of those apposed to the new law would tolerate squatters moving into their own home?....
These days there are plenty of charities that actively work with/for the homeless and some are more focused on things like drug-users and alcoholics which caused them to be homeless in the first place. They shouldn't be stealing to feed themselves when there's plenty of places that offer help.
Don't say they're clueless because ignorance isn't an excuse.
Squatters rights still shouldn't exist. Just because you're homeless doesn't mean you should end up owning a house because you stole one. That's a theft of 6 integer figures! Jesus christ that's just wrong on every level.
Like I say, the government or council should use some of the money they waste of pointless things to offer owners of unused homes some money to allow them to house these homeless people. Saves on building new council homes and benefits the home owner. Win win.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
But does this actually happen in reality? I'm sure there are rare cases of squatters breaking into to someone's house whilst they are on holiday but I'd be shocked if this wasn't the exception rather than the rule.
Squatters Will Break Into Your House When On Your On Holiday! Sounds like a classic Daily Mail headline.
I'd suspect the vast, vast majority of squatters target dis-used or abandoned buildings. I'm not condoning the practice, but let's not distort the issue by using highly unlikely scenarios designed to be emotive arguments.
In part, I agree with this. There are grounds to argue that there are people who genuinely need the right to shelter even if we can't provide it legitimately.
However, if you refuse to leave someone's home upon their return and wreck their house you aren't just doing what's necessary to survive. You're being a knob. You don't rape the squirrel before eating it, then not give it back to the owner of the squirrel. or apologise. I have no sympathy for that kind of person.
ABOUT ******* TIME! Seriously, this is one of the things that always made my blood boil... a few houses and apartment blocks near where I lived had squatters, and they completely trashed the place... breaking windows and even writing "**** YOU" on the outer walls in paint! Squatters who break and enter premises are scum and should be prosecuted regardless of their bening or otherwise intentions.
So... just because a house stays unused, that means people have the right to break in and loot it, claiming it as their own? Property is property and it is still owned by someone... no-one has ANY right to break in and live there, regardless of how long it stands empty!
That is not a homeowners problem, that is government problem. Homeles speople would no more be able to live in and afford the homes they squat in under any normal circumstances, so why should things be any different now?
if the government really wants to help thins, then create more government-funded homeless shelters that house many people with very basic living standards and food served every day. It is not the property-owning taxpayer that needs to sort it out.
Last edited:
Fantastic news, get those darn hippies
why?
Tell the council it's abandoneded they can add it to their list and can even force the owner to sell it.
why?
Tell the council it's abandoneded they can add it to their list and can even force the owner to sell it.
Oh, I do agree - sorry if I wasn't clear. I just don't think the penalties will deter those who feel that they have no other option.
Squatters generaly do have other options.
Squatters are almost always life style choices, not homeless people.
Whether the food rots or not is irrelevant to the analogy. If you prefer, say Mr Rich Bloke sticks all the food in a freezer and keeps it forever.
The point is that buying power should not give you the right to deny basic human necessities to others.
Not saying it's likely at all, if it did happen that would be my reaction.
Thing is, even abandoned buildings, where I used to do a bit of urban exploration (take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but a set of footprints), you see what squatters will do to grand old buildings just in need of some tlc.
If they quite simply treated these places with respect I wouldn't have a problem, but I've seen incredibly intricate carved stairwells smashed up and vandalised, beds of needles and excrement, vomit etc. Crap smeared up the walls.
Fantastic stained glass tributes smashed into a thousand pieces by junky scum.
It's just not acceptable, these buildings which carry so much history. Granted a lot of the time, scumbag developers will buy architecturally incredible buildings, knock them down and build faceless ****boxes out of cardboard but keeping them viable for restoration as long as possible sound be a priority, that entails keeping squatters out.
Anything like closed factorys though, fair game I reckon.
You would have whatever rights society collectively agrees to grant its citizens.
Caporegime
Correct, I assume the cases of squatters breaking into someone’s house vs those living in abandoned buildings are somewhat fewer.
However you need to consider the following fact, if the building is abandoned in the first place, who's actually going to report squatters living in it? So business as usual then?
This law is designed to protect those high profile media cases, of which several have happened recently, it's ridiculous that someone could force your door lock, then 1 hour later a squatter comes along and 'claims' the house was unlocked, moves in and it takes the owner 4 months and many many thousands of pounds in legal fees to get the home back.
Soldato
Finally a positive story on this subject. About time this happened!
Seemed completely backward that it was legal.
+1 this!