It is still legal to squat.

An interesting site: SQUATTING the real story (http://www.squat.freeserve.co.uk/story/)

Any views on this?

Should the law be changed?

Are you a squatter or have been one?

The only rights squatters should have are the rights to have their scrounging asses kicked out of the house by its rightful owners. These people are nothing but criminals in my opinion and should be treated as such.

Originally posted by t020
The only rights squatters should have are the rights to have their scrounging asses kicked out of the house by its rightful owners. These people are nothing but criminals in my opinion and should be treated as such.
With empty houses staying empty and homeless families staying at great expense in B&B's because of the ineptitude of local and national government, not to mention absentee landlords and freehold associations, squatting can be a positive boon. In Brighton during the eighties, squatting was honed to a fine art, and much of the cultural dynamic in Brighton now emanates from these areas.

The rightful owners usually forget about their property when it is becoming derelict and expensive to maintain. They suddenly remember it is theirs when squatters have moved in, reconnected the power and water, replaced floors, toilets etc. Made the place habitable. Once evicted, the property turns to dereliction again.

This is a familiar, but not ubiquitous, tale. Not all squatters are good, but that is hardly surprising: not all High Court Judges, Priests or Deep Sea Divers are either.

You said it all Planerothyme but its unbelievable how many propertys are left to decay.
There are about 400.000 propertys empty in this country and i suppose a large amount of these are deralict so why not use the ones that fall into disrepair.
I have no problem with that.

Do squatters pay for their gas, electric, council tax and so on, or do they just think they can have that for free as well?

Originally posted by Classic Rock
Do squatters pay for their gas, electric, council tax and so on, or do they just think they can have that for free as well?
See phanny's post above. We had squatters move into a derelict property opposite us at our last address. The place was a mess with windows boarded up, mattresses in the garden, etc. It had been empty for years with no sign of the owners. The squatters tidied everything up, had all the utilities connected up, started paying rates, as they were then, kids went to the local schools and they all became part of the community. And, yes, they paid for all the utilities.

Several years later the owners came back, evicted them and made a handsome profit when they sold the house.

I agree, some squatters give the rest a bad name but they rarely move into properties where anybody gives a toss.

Originally posted by Classic Rock
Do squatters pay for their gas, electric, council tax and so on, or do they just think they can have that for free as well?
They cannot demand any squatters rights (such as they are post Thatcher) unless they have the utilities connected, which of course, they must pay for.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
They cannot demand any squatters rights (such as they are post Thatcher) unless they have the utilities connected, which of course, they must pay for.

Which of course, they SHOULD pay for too. They're already getting free accommodation. What about peoples rights, as opposed to squatters? What about the rights to expect free loaders to not get away with things when good people work for the money that gets them their houses?

Originally posted by t020
Which of course, they SHOULD pay for too. They're already getting free accommodation. What about peoples rights, as opposed to squatters? What about the rights to expect free loaders to not get away with things when good people work for the money that gets them their houses?
Good grief, this is getting to be like an episode of the self-righteous brothers....

No-one is suggesting that they shouldn't pay for utilities and services. The point I made is no-one gets utilities or services unless they are paid for. And having utilities on line is a point in the squatters favour, since they are showing themselves to be bona fide contributors to both utilities and council tax.

But the rights they have are effectively none, and in the final analysis, ownership of the property is good enough to effect an eviction under any circumstances.

This can however take time as trespass is unlawful not illegal, and hence is tried in civil cases between complainant and plaintiff, and is not prosecuted.

So squatters use laws dating back to the 14th century that guard against forced entry and unlawful eviction. But ultimately if challenged they will always lose the right to live in the property except in exceptional circumstances.

Of course you know all this because you read the article at the top of the thread too.

Having empty houses when there are people who are homeless makes no sense at all.

I'm all for people squatting. It gets them off the streets, it gives them somewhere somewhat more secure to live, most squatters are very respectful of the properties they are living in and, like others have said, actually improve them while living there.

People deserve a roof over their head. If the property will only stand empty otherwise then they may as well use it.

I've squatted in Utrecht and Amsterdam, both places were abandoned and a complete shambles until we moved in and practically rebuilt the places.

We paid for utilities (except power as we usually used generators which of course we provided) and lived there without hassle. In Utrecht the owner came back after years and was one of the most friendliest guys I've ever met. He let us stay there and just charged us a low rent.

Like Brighton, there's a huge squatter culture in the Netherlands. But unlike the UK, there isn't the "moral majority" with their standard cliched knee-jerk reactions.

I think I must have got something wrong about life in this country. I'm still young and learning about life, but from how I was brought up I came to understand that working hard at school and on to university will enable me to get a decent enough job to set things up for myself, like a house. From peoples views on this forum though, it would seem that a lot of people in England want to reward failure as opposed to success. They seem bitter with those who have been successful in life and want to see them taxed to the eyeballs to fund the failures. Give them everything - they can even steal peoples houses. It would seem that the best way for me to progress in this country is to become a drug addict that commits crime.

Originally posted by t020
I think I must have got something wrong about life in this country. I'm still young and learning about life, but from how I was brought up I came to understand that working hard at school and on to university will enable me to get a decent enough job to set things up for myself, like a house.

You got that wrong for a start.
It might do, but it might not - university degrees aren't what they used to be, so you'll probably need to do some postgrad to be taken seriously, especially if it's humanities.

(what do you say to an arts grad with a job? "can I have fries with that please?").

And even with your degree, we may enter the great depression as you hit the job market, and you might have to work your fingers to the bone gutting fish for 12 hours a day in Grimsby (in spite of your PhD in Keith Josephology) to pay for the extortionate rent on your hovel in down-at-heel Ecclesall.

It's a 'toe the line' philosophy - you've been indoctrinated with the social contract - and I fully expect that one day (maybe soon) you will actually come to question it, and whether it really does add up the way you've been told.

From peoples views on this forum though, it would seem that a lot of people in England want to reward failure as opposed to success. They seem bitter with those who have been successful in life and want to see them taxed to the eyeballs to fund the failures that never bothered trying.
You are seeing everything in terms of money. Big Mistake. You have been taught what constitutes success, and it seems to be all about what you can get for yourself. Part of your indoctrination as a consumer is to amass money to buy things with. Or better still amass debts to buy things with, until your labour belongs to someone else before you've even done anything with it.

Instead you should look for what Aristotle called Eudaemonia - a balanced life (literally to have a life possessed of good demons) of moderation. Of course it can never be fully established whether you have lived a eudaemon life until you are dead, so there's no way to check your 'score'. Being a success has nothing at all to do with money or status.


Give them everything - they can even steal peoples houses. It would seem that the best way for me to progress in this country is to become a drug addict that commits crime.

Them, who is this them? Part of your failiure to understand this point is that you are very fond of lumping people together. Squatters = Junkie thieves? No.

But until you start to question everything that has been taught to you, especially indoctrination by the establishment, all this will be a foreign world to you;hence your discombobulation.

Questioning does not mean rejecting. It means recognising that you have been indoctrinated, which in turn can lead you down all sorts of interesting, but not terribly profitable, avenues.

Just because you were so blinkered that you worked like a shire horse all your life, entitles you to precisely nothing. naff all.

Other people make different choices, choosing not to be a wage slave for instance. Choosing not to own a car, or watch TV. People choose to opt out of the consumer culture to the greatest degree afforded them both within and outside of the terms of their social contract. Get used to it, or forever be uptight.

Squatters see derelict housing, and instead of 'sponging off the social' for a council flat, they take matters into their own hands because no-one else is doing anything about it. They get somewhere to live, and the house gets a lease of life.

You can leave the house you know. Squatters don't move into fully furnished five bedroom houses whilst you are out buying Norman Tebbitt some small furry mammals to torture. I promise.

8) Nah Den Ace.......

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
You can leave the house you know. Squatters don't move into fully furnished five bedroom houses whilst you are out buying Norman Tebbitt some small furry mammals to torture. I promise.

:D ................heh heh heh!!!!!!!


"In order to find true happiness.................forget wealth and help people." Anon 2003 (seen on empty building on Arundel Gate).

Regards,

Spacehopper.

I think the reason there is such a bad view of squatters in this country is mainly down to media portrayal. After all, it's far easier to sell papers with a headline such as "Squatters defecated on my hamster", than "Squatters move into derelict house, and make the place rather nice". Yes, there are squatters who move into a property, are anti-social, cause a fracas, cause damage, and so on, but they are the minority. It's just unfortunate that we focus on that minority, as opposed to those who contribute positively to a community. "They're squatters, and therefore poor and scrounging scum". Erm, no.

I would also agree that money does not, in the least bit, equate to success and has nothing to do with being a "decent person". We (as a society, if you like) seem to have this twisted view that money equals success, and therefore the richer you are, the better person you are. Success should have little, if anything to do with the size of your bank account, and more to do with your character, your friends, and your actions. To me, someone who is noted for his or her humanitarian actions is far more successful than someone in the Forbes Top 10 Rich List for example.

On a personal level, I'll never be rich. I'll never be able to buy a 5-bedroom house in a "respectable" suburb, drive a Porsche/BMW/Jaguar/Bentley etc., and don't intend to get a mortgage. I'll never be a CEO, or an MD, because I intend to spend as much time as I can doing VSO, or something similar - helping others as much as I can. I'll probably never even be able to fully pay my overdraft, although I'll do my best. But does that make me a failure? Probably to some, but in my humble opinion, no. I measure my personal success by my friends, by whether or not I make others happy, and so on. I certainly don't measure my, or others' success by wealth, which I find (I’m sorry to say) incredibly shallow.

OK. I will now become a squatter. I will also live with a girl with 10 kids, and will take up burglary in my spare time, after I've had my daily dose of heroin. That way, I get a free house, tens of thousands in benefits, free goods through burglary (and if I get caught, what the hell, I'll get 'punished' with a few hours 'community service', or may even enjoy a foreign holiday). Seems like a sensible career option to me, and judging by most on this forum, I would be held in very high esteem indeed.

Originally posted by Hodge
Success should have little, if anything to do with the size of your bank account, and more to do with your character, your friends, and your actions. To me, someone who is noted for his or her humanitarian actions is far more successful than someone in the Forbes Top 10 Rich List for example.

and also


I certainly don't measure my, or others' success by wealth, which I find (I’m sorry to say) incredibly shallow.

Hear, hear!

I couldn't agree more!

Originally posted by t020
OK. I will now become a squatter. I will also live with a girl with 10 kids, and will take up burglary in my spare time, after I've had my daily dose of heroin. That way, I get a free house, tens of thousands in benefits, free goods through burglary (and if I get caught, what the hell, I'll get 'punished' with a few hours 'community service', or may even enjoy a foreign holiday). Seems like a sensible career option to me, and judging by most on this forum, I would be held in very high esteem indeed.
Well done t020. Perhaps now you'll see what life's like for those not born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths. Come back to the forum and let us all hear of your experiences.

Originally posted by t020
OK. I will now become a squatter. I will also live with a girl with 10 kids, and will take up burglary in my spare time, after I've had my daily dose of heroin. That way, I get a free house, tens of thousands in benefits, free goods through burglary (and if I get caught, what the hell, I'll get 'punished' with a few hours 'community service', or may even enjoy a foreign holiday). Seems like a sensible career option to me, and judging by most on this forum, I would be held in very high esteem indeed.

Erm...sorry mate, but I can't quite see how you've managed to come to that conclusion. I personally don't recall condoning burglary, benefit fraud or drug addiction - nor do I recall reading any other posts of that nature. It's a shame that you seem to have sorely misinterpreted the posts here, by the looks of your reply.

Originally posted by t020
OK. I will now become a squatter. I will also live with a girl with 10 kids, and will take up burglary in my spare time, after I've had my daily dose of heroin. That way, I get a free house, tens of thousands in benefits, free goods through burglary (and if I get caught, what the hell, I'll get 'punished' with a few hours 'community service', or may even enjoy a foreign holiday). Seems like a sensible career option to me, and judging by most on this forum, I would be held in very high esteem indeed.
t020, instead of repeating yourself or becoming a parody of yourself -
Originally posted by t020
They seem bitter with those who have been successful in life and want to see them taxed to the eyeballs to fund the failures. Give them everything - they can even steal peoples houses. It would seem that the best way for me to progress in this country is to become a drug addict that commits crime.

why not try and actually engage with the loose proposition that, by and large, a vibrant squatting culture is a positive social action?

Empty derelict houses are restored to habitable status at no expense to the taxpayer,

People priced out of the local housing market by the price raising culture can get somewhere to live without requiring housing benefit, and
Previously run down areas start to show signs of regeneration.

And ultimately, because they have very little protection under law, apart from some very old 14th century laws on forced entry, the owner of a property can take it back at any time.

All this made up nonsense about smack addicts having 10 kids, claiming tens of thousands in benefits AND "stealing people's houses" makes you sound like the worst kind of deliberately ignorant reactionary.

I know you disagree with what is being said about squatters here, but do me the courtesy of at least refuting some points, rather than the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "all squatters are thieveing sponging junkies".

The fact is that quite a lot of the squatters and ex squatters I know are nice, middle class, well educated people who simply don't buy into the consumer culture patterns that we do.

To my mind, the important thing is that one is aware of there actually being such a culture, rather than just swimming in it, oblivious to it as a fish is to water.

To my mind, why should some people have to pay mortgages for houses and others get them for free? Answer that and I may start listening. I'd rather a house be derelict than be filled with freeloaders.

Originally posted by t020
I'd rather a house be derelict than be filled with freeloaders.

Would you rather have a derelict house *and* people living on the street? Really??

Would you rather those people irritate you by presuming to offer you the chance to buy the Big Issue while you're so busy in conversation with your friend?

Why not just let them move into the house? Give it some character, improve it, give them somewhere to live, something to focus on, something to give them confidence to get back on their feet?

Originally posted by purplepippa
Why not just let them move into the house? Give it some character, improve it, give them somewhere to live, something to focus on, something to give them confidence to get back on their feet?

Why should they have it for free? If they can, I should be able to get a free house too - I could do up a derelict house and rent it out. Why should losers be rewarded?

Originally posted by purplepippa
Would you rather have a derelict house *and* people living on the street? Really??

Would you rather those people irritate you by presuming to offer you the chance to buy the Big Issue while you're so busy in conversation with your friend?


t020 I'd be really interested in your answers to these two questions too.

Originally posted by t020
To my mind, why should some people have to pay mortgages for houses and others get them for free? Answer that and I may start listening. I'd rather a house be derelict than be filled with freeloaders.
You may start listening t020? Well that would be a start.

Well the answer to your question is very simple:

If you want a nice house with all mod cons, and no risk of ever being thrown out providing you pay, in the area you want, of the size you want and with the features you want - get a mortgage.

If you don't really care too much about where you live or what kind of house you live in, you don't have much money, and you don't want to collect housing benefit, and if you believe that houses standing derelict are a wasted resource; If you believe in communal living, don't have the same need for domestic security (you could be evicted at any point) then you could become a squatter.

Why do people buy food from supermarkets and shops, instead of living off berries, dandelion roots and day old bread? Same reasons, convenience, security, choice, money.

Okay I guess t020 is entitled to his opinions as is everyone else on this forum guys.
I see quite a few old farmhouses rotting away in the middle of fields. I would love to fill up the gaps with dry stone walls, put a corrogated steel roof on top and move in. Would that be classed as squatting?? I've often wondered how much rent a farmer would charge me if I did that. I could live without electricity or just get a solar panel and some wind turbines for that, light a fire for warmth ( most of these places have open fires ) and collect rainwater and use riverwater for drinking. I've heard you can get those little tablets to purify the water.
I wonder if anyone knows of a place or any farmers willing to do it??

T020 - I have to say I agree with you.

Whether or not a house is derelict is of no relevance. It belongs to someone. How do you know the reasons for why it's derelict? The owner may not yet be in a position to renovate it at the moment. It may be subject of probate or dispute?

And if I choose to buy a house and let it fall into decay for no reason other than I want to - providing it's not causing a nuisance to others - it is MY business.

That's not to say I'm unsympahetic towards the plight of the homeless - but housing them is another issue. My home is MY home, and no one should have the right to move in and make it "better" for me.

Originally posted by BoroughGal
T020 - I have to say I agree with you.

Whether or not a house is derelict is of no relevance. It belongs to someone. How do you know the reasons for why it's derelict? The owner may not yet be in a position to renovate it at the moment. It may be subject of probate or dispute?

And if I choose to buy a house and let it fall into decay for no reason other than I want to - providing it's not causing a nuisance to others - it is MY business.

That's not to say I'm unsympahetic towards the plight of the homeless - but housing them is another issue. My home is MY home, and no one should have the right to move in and make it "better" for me.

I don't often disagree with you, BoroughGal, but I do on this issue.

I agree with you to the point that a person's home should be their home, but if a house is derelict and clearly no-one is living there, then it's hardly your 'home', is it? Just a building that happens to belong to you. If you have no use for it, rather than letting it rot, why not let a family who needs accommodation live there? If nothing else, if it's lived in and being looked after, that'll help raise the tone of the area?

StarSparkle

PS Very interesting old thread - if nothing else, it's shown that t020 has become SLIGHTLY more human over the last couple of years! :P

What would happen if the Middle Classes who effectivley control their own wage levels (managers, doctors, Police, business folk, professionals) decided to buy up all the housing stock with their spare money (for holiday homes, as investments or to be miserly landlords), leaving no affordable housing for the less well off?

Also what if because of the diminished housing stock the price of what was left rose too, making it impossible to buy a house unless you were another professional couple with few kids?

Oh wait a minute, it has happenned. The greedy b**tards, they'll be buying up all the air and wharehousing it next.

Originally posted by StarSparkle
I agree with you to the point that a person's home should be their home, but if a house is derelict and clearly no-one is living there, then it's hardly your 'home', is it? Just a building that happens to belong to you. If you have no use for it, rather than letting it rot, why not let a family who needs accommodation live there? If nothing else, if it's lived in and being looked after, that'll help raise the tone of the area?


But shouldn't it be MY choice whether or not I let this property out at a cheap price to someone?

EDIT: OMG! How old is this thread? I didn't realise? Where on earth did I pick this up from?? I'm so embarrassed! Ignore me!

Originally posted by Norbert
Oh wait a minute, it has happenned. The greedy b**tards, they'll be buying up all the air and wharehousing it next.

Yeah, and even if they don't need it or haven't got a use for it, they'll be damned if they'll let anyone else use it! :rolleyes: It's a matter of principle, don't you know! :rolleyes:

Well posted, Norbert - and sadly so true. :(

StarSparkle

Originally posted by BoroughGal
But shouldn't it be MY choice whether or not I let this property out at a cheap price to someone?

EDIT: OMG! How old is this thread? I didn't realise? Where on earth did I pick this up from?? I'm so embarrassed! Ignore me!

No worries at all, BoroughGal - like I said, it's been a real eye-opener reading T020s old posts on this thread, when he really was a foaming at the mouth right-winger. His time on Sheffield Forum definitely seems to have mellowed him somewhat - though it's all relative!

Regarding your point about the property being yours to rent out if you wanted - presumably if you wanted to do that, the house would be on the books of a letting agency, rather than going to wrack and ruin, like so many properties I see around, when no-one is living in them.

If you're not bothered enough about a property to a) live in it or b) rent it out, what do you care if someone thinks they can make a go of living there, rather than being out on the streets, or in some horrible, soulless b and b somewhere? Trying to bring up kids when you haven't even got a bathroom to yourselves?

StarSparkle

StarSparkle,

I'm aware that this is going to sound like I'm trolling, but I can assure you I'm not; the situation I am about to pose is 100% real, and it's my life.

I have a house that I own that I've not slept in for over a year. I call there occasionally to collect my post and check all is okay. Council Tax is paid along with water rates, mortgage and utility bills. I'm not staying there for a number of reasons, the main one being that I'm staying with my Mom who is about to undergo a course of chemo, and has been quite ill over the past few months.

Now some might argue that I should rent my property to a needy family. I don't want to. I don't know what's around the corner, and could find that I need to live there myself again soon.

The question I ask is what business is it of anyone elses why I don't live there myself? Just because I don't have much need for the property at the moment doesn't mean I won't soon. It's MY house, I pay for it, and I'm damned if I'm gonna let someone take something from me that's mine.

K x

Originally posted by Kristian

Now some might argue that I should rent my property to a needy family. I don't want to.

Speaking as someone who owns a house, and having rented part of it out in the past. I don't blame you for not wanting to rent it out.
Collecting rent and bills is often a right hastle, especially from people who aren't well paid.

Having said that, I intend to buy a house or half of one [with a landlord partner] in a few years and rent it out in addition to my own, purely for investment purposes for future income.

Originally posted by Kristian
StarSparkle,

I'm aware that this is going to sound like I'm trolling, but I can assure you I'm not; the situation I am about to pose is 100% real, and it's my life.

I have a house that I own that I've not slept in for over a year. I call there occasionally to collect my post and check all is okay. Council Tax is paid along with water rates, mortgage and utility bills. I'm not staying there for a number of reasons, the main one being that I'm staying with my Mom who is about to undergo a course of chemo, and has been quite ill over the past few months.

Now some might argue that I should rent my property to a needy family. I don't want to. I don't know what's around the corner, and could find that I need to live there myself again soon.

The question I ask is what business is it of anyone elses why I don't live there myself? Just because I don't have much need for the property at the moment doesn't mean I won't soon. It's MY house, I pay for it, and I'm damned if I'm gonna let someone take something from me that's mine.

K x

I hear you, Kristian - I don't think you're trolling at all - you make very valid and fair points.

The house you're talking about is very clearly your Home though, the place where you have actually been residing and intend to reside in again. As such it is legally and morally yours to stay in or not, as you choose.

I believe I said in an earlier posting that if a property is a person's Home, as opposed to being merely a property they own, that is a completely different situation to a house being empty and derelict for months on end with no change of use in sight. No reasonable person would suggest you should rent out your home in the circumstances you describe - that would be absurd.

Presumably if there was storm-damage done to the roof, or if a window or whatever got broken, you would have repairmen round there pretty quick to fix the house? That to me is not a house that has been abandoned - you are still taking care of it, and so it's not a suitable case whatsoever for arguing that squatters should take it over. Of course they shouldn't. I repeat, it's your home, and I'm certain you'll be keeping it in the same sort of condition as you normally do.

The houses that squatters would go for would typically not have been lived in for months, might have smashed/boarded up windows, perhaps they'd be graffitied, or missing parts of the roof, or the garden be overgrown and resembling a jungle, with goodness knows what vermin lurking.

Absolute eyesores that bring down the tone (not to mention the value) of other houses in the neighbourhood. In that situation, I'd say that squatters might be doing the rest of the street a favour!

I'm sorry if anything I said has offended you, Kristian - all I can say is that I really don't think your situation was the sort of situation I was referring to in my posts above.

An Englishman's home is his castle, after all! :thumbsup:

Cheers,

StarSparkle :)

PS I'm so sorry to hear about your Mom having been ill over the last few months, and the chemo she's about to undergo - I'd just like to say Good Luck and Best Wishes to her. Sparkle xx

Details of some of the previous squats in sheffield can be found here: http://www.myspace.com/sheffieldsquatters

For general squatting info see: http://www.squatter.org.uk

Having worked with some of the squats in Sheffield I have just been browsing through the forum archive to find any historic details of squats in the area and came across a thread which had been closed with this message:

SheffieldForum does not support or condone illegal or anti-social activity such as squatting therefore we've closed this thread and are removing contact details for the OP.

Squatting, in England and Wales, is not a crime. With a few exeptions, if you can get into an empty building without doing any damage, and can secure it, you can make it your home. The only time squatting is a crime is if you squat embassy premises. For anyone interested in the legalities of squatting see: www.squatter.org.uk

With regards to the comment about squatting being an anti-social activity, the largest squat in Sheffield in recent years was the MATILDA centre. The Matilda Centre was open to all, had weekly socials with various groups taking turn to do the cooking, a free of charge computer lab was created using recycled computers, there were film nights and gigs with local bands and artists, they ran bike maintenance workshops, had art exhibitions and many other community events. All of this was done by people volunteering their time and expertise free of charge to put their energies into creating a community space rather than just sitting on their backsides complaining about what other people offer them. Personally I would applaud all those involved and would not describe it in any way an anti-social activity.

isnt there something called squatters rights? i dont quite understand this - do they still have rights even if they didnt live there in the first place?

All that really exists of what is known as 'Squatters Rights' is the right not to be evicted except by a proper legal process and the fact that if a place is continuously squatted for 12 years or more it may become the property of the owners (adverse possession). However the rights gained through adverse possession are now much harder to enforce.

The emphasis in this case must be the "OR" in the official response. It may not be illegal but it damn well is anti-social. I would say that the MATILDA centre is the exception to the rule. But if people can do all this, what's wrong with paying rent ?

Why dont they just murder all the prisoners and let the homeless live in the prisons? kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

Some more "exceptions":

Sheffield Squatters: http://www.myspace.com/sheffieldsquatters

The Common Place: http://www.thecommonplace.org.uk/

Aspire: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/3344/

Ossory Road: http://www.ossoryroad.ownsthis.com/website/campaign/communal-living.htm

rampART: http://www.rampart.co.nr/

SCAN: http://scan.dorja.com/studio/scan/what.html

Christiana: http://www.christiania.org/main/lan.php?lan=gb

Presumably someone owns these properties, and so they'd probably consider it anti-social that someone else was using them without permission.

It is tantamount to theft afterall, even if there is a legal loophole surrounding it.

The emphasis in this case must be the "OR" in the official response. It may not be illegal but it damn well is anti-social. I would say that the MATILDA centre is the exception to the rule. But if people can do all this, what's wrong with paying rent ?

anti social is the blight of thousands of empty properties in every town and city while people are made homeless purely for greed, properties falling into disrepair

PROPER squatters look after properties and in most cases do them up.


yeah agent i was railing against that in the chat a while back.
thinking but squatting is not illegal, its a civil offence

AgentLesbos - can I suggest you re-read the phrase you quoted above and look up what 'anti-social' means?

Whether it's legal or not, it's still regarded by many as anti-social, and that's how we regard it here.

The Forum's a private site and so the issues of what's acceptable or unacceptable on here are set by the site owner and the Admin team to reflect what's acceptable to as broad a population as possible.

There is a major problem with unoccupied buldings; however that's a legislative issue and whilst there's not a problem about discussing the rights and wrongs of the subject, we will remove anything that is viewed as actively promoting squatting. This is the same pattern of Moderation we apply to other things like drug debates, etc.

AgentLesbos - can I suggest you re-read the phrase you quoted above and look up what 'anti-social' means?

Whether it's legal or not, it's still regarded by many as anti-social, and that's how we regard it here.

The Forum's a private site and so the issues of what's acceptable or unacceptable on here are set by the site owner and the Admin team to reflect what's acceptable to as broad a population as possible.

so by that means we cant go against the government, go against the police if their wrong, stick up for the homeless ?

tbh as ive said above.....i find the amount of derelict buildings and the rising homeless to be a bigger crime

so by that means we cant go against the government, go against the police if their wrong, stick up for the homeless ?

tbh as ive said above.....i find the amount of derelict buildings and the rising homeless to be a bigger crime

You obviously quoted me as I was editing.

See above. Nthing more to add.

joe with respect
as with all debates (see muslim and bnp threads) might be on dodgy ground however its a debate, you get those for, you get those against, which is what were doing.
the title is simpley putting the fact that was mistakenly stated last time that squatting ISNT illegal.
nor i dont think anti social, how can people finding homes be antisocial.....yet the same people will moan about beggers and homeless as being antisocial

Did those of you that have lived in squats, make any payments towards Council Tax etc?

Yeah, and even if they don't need it or haven't got a use for it, they'll be damned if they'll let anyone else use it! :rolleyes: It's a matter of principle, don't you know! :rolleyes:


StarSparkle

Just like most other property. I'm not using my car right at this moment, does that mean that someone else should be allowed to steal it?

Why should it be different for a house?

Squatting, in England and Wales, is not a crime.

Well it should be, the stinking tramps.

Did those of you that have lived in squats, make any payments towards Council Tax etc?

prolly not

then again its not a proper"straight" way of life, its a reaction against something

i pay tax and council tax yet i agree squatting is far better than people living rough and houses faling into disrepair...too far into disrepair

Well it should be, the stinking tramps.

ooh you bitch :P

just wait till we meet again :)

joe with respect
as with all debates (see muslim and bnp threads) might be on dodgy ground however its a debate, you get those for, you get those against, which is what were doing.
the title is simpley putting the fact that was mistakenly stated last time that squatting ISNT illegal.
nor i dont think anti social, how can people finding homes be antisocial.....yet the same people will moan about beggers and homeless as being antisocial

theft is anti-social and squatting is a form of theft.

aye it is

but you know what

occasionly theft is justified

you know, if i was in that position......id squat

ive eaten from bins

you do what you need to do to survive

must be cool to live in a black and white worl...this is legal, thats illegal
but it dont work like that

that's how the law works.

Not that i'm saying I wouldn't steal food if I was starving, I would. I wouldn't try and argue that theft is right though.

that's how the law works.

Not that i'm saying I wouldn't steal food if I was starving, I would. I wouldn't try and argue that theft is right though.

exactly
iy have enough, a roof then your gonna toe the line

if you have nothing, youll do what you need to survive

theres plenty of buildings out there that dont have owners, or owners they cant find, owners in prison.

shouldnt these houses be used and kept decent at all? by people who need em? who have nothing?
cos of greed should they be left to rot? and then maybe get destroyed

while developers make more £1000.000 houses?

ooh you bitch :P

just wait till we meet again :)

Ooh you are awful!

But I like you! :P :lol:

Ooh you are awful!

But I like you! :P :lol:
:P

thank god fer that :P

thought i was gonna get the meaks treatment :P

mel,

While the arguments for finding shelter, when needed, do have support, you have clearly stated in an earlier post that you consider squatting as a way of life as more of a reactionary statement.

Not quite the same thing.

mel,

While the arguments for finding shelter, when needed, do have support, you have clearly stated in an earlier post that you consider squatting as a way of life as more of a reactionary statement.

Not quite the same thing.

and?
thats the more extreme end yes

but im also arguing to people who are against theres also the lighter end, where people NEED to squat.

like everything in life theres light and extreme ends.

maybe people who are normally against would budge to "allow" squatting for needs...but yes i know the vast majority would be against squatting full time.
it all depends what type of life you live...im an anarchist / old punk so sometimes my thoughts are borderline, sometimes the legal side, sometimes the illegal

The TV program i watched about squatting showed a group of these crusties deliberately targeting run down council properties - then installing a colony of squatters before moving onto the next house.

Unfortunately the limited resources of most councils wont allow the simultaneous renovation of 1000 properties, therefore it stands to reason that there will always be some empty ones.

After entering 'without' causing any damage (i guess kicking in a back door doesnt count as damage) their first course of action is to change all the locks and silence the alarms.

The council then spend countless months and sackfulls of money trying to evict these people, money that could have been spent legitimately providing accomodation to the homeless. Who do you think ultimately pays for all this though?......who else, those who actually pay council tax in the first place!

I can never agree with squatting, maybe im too cynical, maybe im of the opinion that everyone can turn their lives around no matter how 'down on their luck' they may be. Perhaps if some of these squatters put as much effor t into finding themselves a job, instead of devoting all their talents into running websites / campains promoting squatting the problem wouldnt be so bad in the first place?

Purely my opinion

The TV program i watched about squatting showed a group of these crusties deliberately targeting run down council properties - then installing a colony of squatters before moving onto the next house.

Unfortunately the limited resources of most councils wont allow the simultaneous renovation of 1000 properties, therefore it stands to reason that there will always be some empty ones.

After entering 'without' causing any damage (i guess kicking in a back door doesnt count as damage) their first course of action is to change all the locks and silence the alarms.

The council then spend countless months and sackfulls of money trying to evict these people, money that could have been spent legitimately providing accomodation to the homeless. Who do you think ultimately pays for all this though?......who else, those who actually pay council tax in the first place!

I can never agree with squatting, maybe im too cynical, maybe im of the opinion that everyone can turn their lives around no matter how 'down on their luck' they may be. Perhaps if some of these squatters put as much effor t into finding themselves a job, instead of devoting all their talents into running websites / campains promoting squatting the problem wouldnt be so bad in the first place?

Purely my opinion

like everything in life theres good and bad
should capitalism be banned cos theres bad people involved?
should the police?
should democracy be banned cos theres people who push things?

and think about that last paragraph you said please? that sums your attitude up to such things

like everything in life theres good and bad
should capitalism be banned cos theres bad people involved?
should the police?
should democracy be banned cos theres people who push things?

and think about that last paragraph you said please? that sums your attitude up to such things

As i said, purely my opinion. I dont expect everybody to share it, but it does balance things out nicely - Yours good, mine evil :hihi:

AgentLesbos - can I suggest you re-read the phrase you quoted above and look up what 'anti-social' means?

Whether it's legal or not, it's still regarded by many as anti-social, and that's how we regard it here.

The Forum's a private site and so the issues of what's acceptable or unacceptable on here are set by the site owner and the Admin team to reflect what's acceptable to as broad a population as possible.

There is a major problem with unoccupied buldings; however that's a legislative issue and whilst there's not a problem about discussing the rights and wrongs of the subject, we will remove anything that is viewed as actively promoting squatting. This is the same pattern of Moderation we apply to other things like drug debates, etc.

The post I made was simply to correct an inaccuracy. The post I quoted stated that squatting was illegal - which it isn't. Whether or not it is an anti-social activity is a point which is open to debate. In my opinion it isn't and if anything the squats I have dealt with have provided something postive for the community.

The comparison with drug debates isn't really relevant as if I posted anything actively promoting the use of drugs I would be promoting an illegal activity.

One squat I dealt with recently was an empty warehouse which was awaiting demolition to make way for some flats being built. The demolition is not planned for approximatley two years and there is no planned use for the building in that time. The warehouse had been left poorly secured and had been broken into and used as a shooting gallery for a number of months. The squatters found the building open and evidence of the drug use that had been taking place there. They secured the building, arranged for someone to clear out the needles etc, cleaned up, carried out some repairs and a homeless man used it as temporary accomodation while waiting out the lengthy process of being rehoused by the council. The squatter was subsequently evicted and again left homeless. Passing the building recently it appears to have been broken into again and returned to its use as a shooting gallery. Personally if I was the owner of that building or an occupier of the adjacent buildings I know who I would have preferred to be in residence.

OK. I will now become a squatter. I will also live with a girl with 10 kids, and will take up burglary in my spare time, after I've had my daily dose of heroin. That way, I get a free house, tens of thousands in benefits, free goods through burglary (and if I get caught, what the hell, I'll get 'punished' with a few hours 'community service', or may even enjoy a foreign holiday). Seems like a sensible career option to me, and judging by most on this forum, I would be held in very high esteem indeed.

Not by me you wouldn’t. Having experienced drug-addicted squatters at first-hand, and had them steal everything they could lay their hands on, I have no time for them. SHELTER represented them and, with my agreement, accepted a fair rent on their behalf. They didn’t pay any of it, so sooner than take them through the courts I paid a couple of very obliging gentlemen to kick ’em out.

The SHELTER representative huffed and puffed but evetually backed off and disappeared. I did find some of my stuff in a second-hand shop and proved it was mine, but the coloured gentleman who owned the shop claimed he had no idea that it was stolen and had bought it in good faith, so no action from the law. I had to buy the stuff back from him!

PeterW: Technically these people were not squatters. By asking them to pay rent you have given them license to be there. This means that legally they were bad tenants who failed to pay their rent. In this case that actually works in your favour as evicting squatters by any means other than through applying to the courts for a possession order is illegal, however you are perfectly within your rights to give notice of eviction yourself and call bailiffs to remove non paying tenants as long as violence is not used.

PeterW: Technically these people were not squatters. By asking them to pay rent you have given them license to be there. This means that legally they were bad tenants who failed to pay their rent. In this case that actually works in your favour as evicting squatters by any means other than through applying to the courts for a possession order is illegal, however you are perfectly within your rights to give notice of eviction yourself and call bailiffs to remove non paying tenants as long as violence is not used.

Sorry, either you mis-read or I mis-wrote. They were originally squatters who brought in SHELTER just hours before I’d decided to have them thrown out. The SHELTER representative — a turd — pleaded their case so I agreed that I’d let the place to them, for a six-month period, at a fair rent which we agreed. They didn’t pay and were ‘moved’. If the SHELTER rep hadn’t been quick off the mark I’d have thrown them out anyway, illegally if necessary. It would have been worth it to get rid of them. They’d taken everything — even what was screwed down. Doors burned for fires etc. Floorboards pulled up for the same purpose. A right mess — and they still wanted to live in it!

In Holland we have a thing called anti-squatting, this is where landlords, know they properties will be empty for a while and to stop squatters getting in they arrange through anti-squatting agencies for people to live in their properties rent free for the time it will be empty, obviously they pay utilities, but its kind of squatting with permission. I personally think its a great idea especially as sqatting over here is very popular.

On the other side, I was at my mates house the other day, yes its a squat, shes a student and also works, they pay utlities and the house is made up of people who either work study or both, this house was one of the old amsterdam town houses, absolutely beautiful, because they made it like that, when they squatted it is was so run down it basically had no roof!!

In Holland we have a thing called anti-squatting, this is where landlords, know they properties will be empty for a while and to stop squatters getting in they arrange through anti-squatting agencies for people to live in their properties rent free for the time it will be empty, obviously they pay utilities, but its kind of squatting with permission. I personally think its a great idea especially as sqatting over here is very popular.

On the other side, I was at my mates house the other day, yes its a squat, shes a student and also works, they pay utlities and the house is made up of people who either work study or both, this house was one of the old amsterdam town houses, absolutely beautiful, because they made it like that, when they squatted it is was so run down it basically had no roof!!

well thats cool
as long as buildings are used and kept in good repair

the only thing id be wary of int hat respect, i dont think they pick homeless people off the streets to live there

Just read up on the legal side of this on Wiki and my head started to hurt.

Can someone explain the following.

1. If I own a summer house which is empty six months of the year, can a squatter effectively 'move in'

1a. Can he/she only move in if the door is ajar, or window open? Presumably they can't break in?

2. Surely by simply walking up to the front door of a vacant property, you are trespassing on private property? Or have I been watching too many TV shows?

1) no

2) yes (to the ajar question)

3) yes, but so what, it's not a criminal offence.

1) no

2) yes (to the ajar question)

3) yes, but so what, it's not a criminal offence.

Thanks - though a slightly abrupt response to question 3 - I was after all only asking, as I did not know.

1. If I own a summer house which is empty six months of the year, can a squatter effectively 'move in'

Answer from The Squatters Handbook (http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=33):

DISPLACED RESIDENTIAL OCCUPIER (`DRO')
Sections 7 and 12, Criminal Law Act, 1977

If you do not leave a house or flat after being asked to do so `by or on behalf of a displaced residential occupier of the premises' you could be guilty of an offence.

This part of section 7 is hardly ever used. It was supposedly brought in to prevent squatters moving into people's homes while they were on holiday or even out shopping! Since squatters don't do this, it shouldn't be a problem.

1a. Can he/she only move in if the door is ajar, or window open? Presumably they can't break in?

Legally any squatter should be able to enter the premises without causing criminal damage.

2. Surely by simply walking up to the front door of a vacant property, you are trespassing on private property? Or have I been watching too many TV shows?

Yes you have been watching too much TV otherwise your postman would be commiting an offence every day.

Squatters are, purely and simply, parasites. They should have no rights, human or otherwise. I've known 3 people who own properties that have been the victims of squatters.

Those law-evading scum left all of those properties in a dreadful state, with the bill being picked up by the victim – the property owner. If I were to fall victim to squatters I’d just make sure that I was formally recorded as being elsewhere, so that when a bunch of nice chaps turn up to break their legs and smash out their teeth with a hammer, I can claim ignorance. It wouldn't matter if it was a bunch of druggies or a family - I'd have the same done.

Squatters are one of the lowest forms of human life we suffer in this country.

Legally any squatter should be able to enter the premises without causing criminal damage.

But do they? Or do they break in and are the 'repairs' they make actually the ones they caused in getting in?

If your so thilthy rich that you can afford to leave a property vancant for such a long period of time then you deserve squatters.

Why? If a property is owned by one person who for many reasons might wish to keep it vacant, it is nevertheless their property. They bought it — they own it. They can do whatever they like with it. It’s no concern of any other person.

So, why should a squatter ‘borrow’ it without even asking?

If you owned a house with a big garden, woul you welcome squatters with a tent?
I doubt it. You want them out — and quick!

Squatters are irresponsible — even those who do these places up. If they can find the money to make their squat more than comfortable, they can find the money to but or rent their own property.

If your so thilthy rich that you can afford to leave a property vancant for such a long period of time then you deserve squatters.

I have a holiday home in another country - I'm certainly not "filthy rich", I'm just a working class professional (and not middle class as someone classed educated professionals earlier on this thread) Other than 1 maybe 2 visits per year - its empty. Does this mean I deserve squatters?

No, but it means you should think about renting it out for the other 50 weeks of the year :D

If your so thilthy rich that you can afford to leave a property vancant for such a long period of time then you deserve squatters.
I have a holiday home in another country - I'm certainly not "filthy rich", I'm just a working class professional (and not middle class as someone classed educated professionals earlier on this thread) Other than 1 maybe 2 visits per year - its empty. Does this mean I deserve squatters? I guess you would do according to some jealous little lefty toerags.

Smartarse, Ooops sorry Bartfarst, are you Nicholas van Hoogstraten in real life per chance.
:gag:.No, he was a but lefty for my likng.





No, but you do need certifying for not managing your property portfolio to is full potential. Why should he? If he doesn't want somebody else in his holiday home, and can afford that, it's his choice. I'd say he's obviously managed things very well indeed to be in a position to be able to afford to make the choice.

Squatters are irresponsible — even those who do these places up. If they can find the money to make their squat more than comfortable, they can find the money to but or rent their own property.

Using the example of Matilda (http://www.matilda.aktivix.org/) as it is the squat which I have the mosts recent experience with they had no money to do the place up with. People donated paint and materials and a number of people (http://www.matilda.aktivix.org/collectives/buildings/) donated their time to repair toilets and other unpleasant or labouring tasks. This was done because they believed that the place offered something postive to the community.

The building was empty, with no planned use other than sitting empty for 2 years awaiting demolition. The squatters presence for a year meant that the owners were saved the cost of maintenance, repairs and security. It meant that the place was not used as a shooting gallery or any other antisocial purpose. All in all the presence of squatters - certainly in this case - was not only a benefit to the community but also to the owners.

Using the example of Matilda (http://www.matilda.aktivix.org/) It meant that the place was not used as a shooting gallery or any other antisocial purpose. All in all the presence of squatters - certainly in this case - was not only a benefit to the community but also to the owners.

I’d consider squatting an anti-social purpose. And a benefit to the community? Yes, indeed — if it stopped them squatting next door to someone who worked for a living, had a house, paid rent or mortgage and led a respectable life. If that’s what you mean, I’m all for it.