Squatting becomes a criminal offence in UK tomorrow, "Immediate crackdown"

Lollipops23 wrote: »

How anyone could do that is beyond me. I've never understand how squatters have rights, if you don't own a property you can't go in, simples.

Therein lies the rub. Some people have a difficulty with agreeing with the concept of land ownership (the entire Native American peoples springs to mind, to them the concept of land ownership is as alien as owning the sky or the sun, but I digress).
Don't get me wrong as a property owner I'd be livid if I came home one day only to find a huge steel door had been installed at my apartment and there were squatters inside. I'd want the heavies around immediately. But you have to remember that squatters aren't crack-heads or thieves or drug dealers. They don't "target" peoples' homes for invasion. They move into what they deem legitimately abandoned properties. In Amsterdam I knew of a rundown canal-side warehouse that was rat infested and a regular shoot-up haunt for addicts. Squatters moved in and cleaned the place up and took up residence there. I went to an amateur play that they put on and was well impressed with what they had done to the place. The play was dull but that's besides the point. They had the upper section all painted and turned into little mini flats and they had plants and ornaments everywhere. There was about 15 of them living there. The neighbours preferred this than rats and junkies I can assure you.
People rail against squatters rights but they have no problem with Traveller's rights. I don't see the difference.
I hope I never have to squat but I think it's a very sacred and historical right of free people and abolishing it is one more step towards dismantling fundamental protections that the government and the rich wish to strip away in order to strengthen their position over the populace.

Incidentally, stripping away the rights we all have but few of us exercise is an ideal way of testing the waters for further restrictions that will affect more and more of us.

Don't be so quick to support the abolition of certain rights just because it doesn't affect you personally. And don't be so quick to lambaste and denigrate squatters out of misplaced fear that hoards of them are waiting in the wings for the right moment to come round and dispossess you of your Tupperware.

westendgirlie wrote: »

About time the law was changed from Civil to Criminal. Squatters don't give a damn about damaging a house.

Many moons ago I went to a house party in an art student area of South London. This beautiful 4 storey Georgian house was completely trashed. Original fireplaces ripped out, graffiti/art everywhere. But the worst thing I saw was walking up the stairs to the 2nd floor......They had knocked an entrance through the wall into the adjacent 4 storey Georgian house :eek:

I wonder how the squatters I encountered would feel now, 20+ yrs on about their own properties being trashed like above.

Is this any different to you leaving your car for days on end in a rough neighbourhood? It would be wrecked or stolen and you'd be called the fool. The owners of these properties abandoned them, or maybe they just died. Now I can't say that I agree with the places being wrecked. But who would wreck a place where they are going to live? Only scumbags do that. I've known squatters in the past and many of them have had legitimate jobs that they go to and then come back "home". They don't want to live in filth and squalor.
Do you know if it was the squatters in these Georgian houses that tore out the fireplaces? I'm guessing it was some wide-boy who knows the value of such things.

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

This is a change in the law to facilitate the interests of banks ie. repossessed properties. Now the banks don't have to pay private security to mind their "investments" the state takes on the role, taxpayer foots the bill. If this was being done with the common interest of all property owners, it would have been done long ago.

Eventually anything which conflicts with the interests of big business will be criminalized.

EXACTLY

Are all you "smash the squatters" bubbleheads so happy now to have the state act as the banks' bouncers and you foot the bill?

smash wrote: »

You seem to be confused. You can't claim squatters right in your own property.

The bank owns it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You own it when you get the deeds.

smash wrote: »

The state is stepping in to help people/organisations regain proper ownership of their goods that others have recklessly and selfishly taken possession of.

No they are NOT.

This law could have been effected decades ago. Why? Because back then people enjoyed certain rights and protections from the government and from large corporations. As we enter the new Gilded Age and as banks consolidate more and more of the world's resources and assets, it becomes more and more important for them to protect those asset from the proles and that includes you, pal.

longhalloween wrote: »

there was a story a while ago about a man on SW (or whatever his country's equivalent was) who was squatting in a vacant derelict house. He spent all his extra money repairing and refurnishing the house and making it livable.

When he was found out the owners decided to rent it to him at an absurdly low rate on the condition that he continued his work.

That's the kind of squatting I would encourage.

Unfortunately most squatters aren't this industrious and prefer to wreck the place, leave graffiti and dirt everywhere and move on when the place gets too trashed.

Can you give proof of this sweeping assertion?

I've never squatted but I've been in several and all of them have been more well appointed and maintained than many kips I've visited where the residents have been say students or welfare recipients who know they'll be moving on soon and couldn't give a fcuk or know that they'll be re-housed once the place becomes unliveable.