Former Salvation Army citadel now being squatted by Occupy Sheffield

[Penistone999 10]

Standing up to the "big bad" Salvation Army are we now Occupy Sheffield ?

targeting "another soft target" you make my blood boil!

 

If you want to stand up to the bloody banks and capitalism why not target them instead of folk that do good.

 

They have targetted "soft touches" as their places of choice to doss for a reason. They know full well they can use the human kindness of the cathedral to drag out their eviction.

[soft ayperth 11]

Standing up to the "big bad" Salvation Army are we now Occupy Sheffield ?

targeting "another soft target" you make my blood boil!

 

If you want to stand up to the bloody banks and capitalism why not target them instead of folk that do good.

 

Excellent point. My feelings entirely. At least on my side of the pond the protesters targeted the institutions that they opposed. I call it cowardice.

[Penistone999 10]

I call it cowardice.

 

Exactly . They pick on the Dean of the cathedral knowing full well , because of his role in society and his christian beliefs, he wont give them any Grief in the short term.

[onewheeldave 22]

My translation is that the owner of the citadel has agreed to this on the understanding that you are leaving. However according to this press release you are in fact intending on staying and have no intention at all of honouring the end date agreed with the owner in court. I wonder what the owner would make of this statement that the agreed end date isn't an end date at all but in fact you view this only as a date by which you expect to have negotiated an agreement to stay.

 

Did you tell the court that you didn't view this as binding and were in fact planning on staying when they accepted this agreement of a negotiated end date? Seems rather dishonest to me.

 

No- the statements clear:

 

Occupy Sheffield have come to an agreement with the proprietor of the

Citadel of Hope building. At the application for Possession hearing

taking place at Sheffield County Courts on 18th January, both parties

will agree an end date for the occupation set for one month’s time. This

stay of execution will enable negotiations to continue between the

occupiers and the proprietor, to determine if there can be a proper

legal basis for the use of the building. This agreement, which has only

been possible due to direct and open discussions between Occupy

Sheffield and the proprietor, will be ratified by tomorrow’s court

proceedings.

 

negotiations to continue between the

occupiers and the proprietor, to determine if there can be a proper

legal basis for the use of the building

 

i.e. they will continue talking to the owner to see if he/she will agree to legal use after the months up- obviously, if he/she won't, they've said they'll leave.

[onewheeldave 22]

Standing up to the "big bad" Salvation Army are we now Occupy Sheffield ?

targeting "another soft target" you make my blood boil!

 

If you want to stand up to the bloody banks and capitalism why not target them instead of folk that do good.

 

And, the owner is most definitly not the salvation army.

[Badlittlepup 10]

No- the statements clear:

 

Occupy Sheffield have come to an agreement with the proprietor of the

Citadel of Hope building. At the application for Possession hearing

taking place at Sheffield County Courts on 18th January, both parties

will agree an end date for the occupation set for one month’s time. This

stay of execution will enable negotiations to continue between the

occupiers and the proprietor, to determine if there can be a proper

legal basis for the use of the building. This agreement, which has only

been possible due to direct and open discussions between Occupy

Sheffield and the proprietor, will be ratified by tomorrow’s court

proceedings.

 

negotiations to continue between the

occupiers and the proprietor, to determine if there can be a proper

legal basis for the use of the building

 

i.e. they will continue talking to the owner to see if he/she will agree to legal use after the months up- obviously, if he/she won't, they've said they'll leave.

 

NO, NO, NO. It CLEARLY says that Occupy agreed in court to an end date for the occupation.

 

Subsequently Occupy have released this statement saying that they do not see this as a commitment to an end date but instead an opportunity for negotiation to allow them to stay.

 

In court Occupy gave a firm commitment to leave. In this statement they back track on that. Nothing was said in court about negotiations or conditions, a commitment was made to LEAVE!

 

EDIT: It will be interesting to see if this is ratified tomorrow by the court bearing in mind this statement.

[alchemist 37]

NO, NO, NO. It CLEARLY says that Occupy agreed in court to an end date for the occupation.

 

Subsequently Occupy have released this statement saying that they do not see this as a commitment to an end date but instead an opportunity for negotiation to allow them to stay.

 

In court Occupy gave a firm commitment to leave. In this statement they back track on that. Nothing was said in court about negotiations or conditions, a commitment was made to LEAVE!

 

EDIT: It will be interesting to see if this is ratified tomorrow by the court bearing in mind this statement.

 

You aint accusing occupy of bending the truth are you Bad? Shame on you As if occupy would EVER bend the truth!!!!

[Badlittlepup 10]

Occupy London booted out by the High Court pending appeals.

 

Considering that they actually have a reasonable justification for the site they had chosen I think things are looking bleak for OSC.

[Captain_Scarlet 10]

The consequences of using a fine building which has been empty for ages? they should be congratulated..

If they paid rent or purchased yes, they would be congratulated.

[Penistone999 10]

If they paid rent or purchased yes, they would be congratulated.

 

Which will never happen because they are just your run of the mill Squatters .

[onewheeldave 22]

NO, NO, NO. It CLEARLY says that Occupy agreed in court to an end date for the occupation.

 

Subsequently Occupy have released this statement saying that they do not see this as a commitment to an end date but instead an opportunity for negotiation to allow them to stay.

 

 

??

 

They have agreed to an end date for the occupation of the Citadel.

 

They are going to continue negotations "to determine if there can be a proper

legal basis for the use of the building".

 

This would require the owners approval and have to satisfy council legal requirements, it will also probably involve a nominal rent.

 

It would then no longer be an occupation/squat.

 

If the owner, when the agreed occupation end date arrives, does not consent, they will, the above statemwnt says, as agreed, leave.

[Badlittlepup 10]

??

 

They have agreed to an end date for the occupation of the Citadel.

 

They are going to continue negotations "to determine if there can be a proper

legal basis for the use of the building".

 

This would require the owners approval and have to satisfy council legal requirements, it will also probably involve a nominal rent.

 

It would then no longer be an occupation/squat.

 

If the owner, when the agreed occupation end date arrives, does not consent, they will, the above statemwnt says, as agreed, leave.

 

If the owner has agreed this with the understanding that there is an END date why would he be then negotiating terms? It seems he's made one agreement and Occupy understand they have made quite another. The agreement made with the landlord only refers to leaving. It's just Occupy who are bringing up the subject of staying.

 

In addition given Occupy's previous form I would expect their idea of compromise to be dismissing anything the the owner requests while refusing to cave in over any of their own demands. If they don't get this 'agreement' to stay I would be very surprised if they left voluntarily as they'll probably blame the breakdown of negotiations on the landlord and use it as an excuse not to shift.