The ArgusMike Weatherley attacked at University of Sussex (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Mike Weatherley attacked at University of Sussex

This live event has finished

Latest

  • Mike Weatherley was mobbed by students and pro-squatting protesters
  • Reports suggest rocks were thrown at the Hove MP

5:27pm

4:59pm

 
Clarification about items thrown from someone at the scene.

3:23pm

There were reports Mike Weatherley's staff felt they could not leave the building safely.

They have been escorted out to a van by Sussex Police.

3:21pm

University of Sussex student Nick Chowdrey

Filmed what he believed to be members of the Brighton Squatters Network chanting and chasing after the the police van.

3:15pm

The Argus: Students crowd around a police van where MP Mike Weatherley was sheltering

Picture by Fjolla Iberhysaj of Mike Weatherley being mobbed by protesters at the University of Sussex once he was inside a police van.

3:13pm

Police bundled the Hove MP into a van after protesters threw rocks.

3:09pm

3:07pm

Mr Weatherley, who sponsored anti-squatting laws through Parliament was due to speak about the new legislation before he was confronted by protesters.

3:05pm

Reports from the University of Sussex campus say Hove MP Mike Weatherley was mobbed by pro squatting protesters at the Media, Film and Music building.

Comments (121)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:17pm Wed 14 Nov 12

StyleCop says...

I blame the greens... like beiruit out there!
I blame the greens... like beiruit out there! StyleCop
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Algeria Touchshriek says...

Shows what utter filth and scum left wingers.

I hope the police catch each and every one of them and, if students, are immediately expelled from the University.

Utter, utter scum.
Shows what utter filth and scum left wingers. I hope the police catch each and every one of them and, if students, are immediately expelled from the University. Utter, utter scum. Algeria Touchshriek
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Kiddon72 says...

Is this the "soul" that the university is at risk of selling ?

One would like to think that these so called educated students understood the concept of democracy instead of which they demonstrate mob rule.
Is this the "soul" that the university is at risk of selling ? One would like to think that these so called educated students understood the concept of democracy instead of which they demonstrate mob rule. Kiddon72
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Wed 14 Nov 12

DaveAlmighty says...

£10 says 95% of them are art and drama students.
£10 says 95% of them are art and drama students. DaveAlmighty
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Wed 14 Nov 12

wietraurig says...

Having watched the video above, I conclude that this is a storm in a teacup. A few students shouting at a police van, then standing around chatting and drinking coffee. Not quite the violent conflagration suggested by the headline.
Move along please, nothing to see here...
Having watched the video above, I conclude that this is a storm in a teacup. A few students shouting at a police van, then standing around chatting and drinking coffee. Not quite the violent conflagration suggested by the headline. Move along please, nothing to see here... wietraurig
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Crystal Ball says...

So "Peaceful protests" now escalates to assault with weapons?

If students, were they supposed to be at a lecture or "off sick"? Same goes for those that might have jobs but chose not to be there for this purpose.

Lots of faces on camera to trace perpetrators.
So "Peaceful protests" now escalates to assault with weapons? If students, were they supposed to be at a lecture or "off sick"? Same goes for those that might have jobs but chose not to be there for this purpose. Lots of faces on camera to trace perpetrators. Crystal Ball
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Honey68 says...

this is our future generation? as frustrated as they may be, is this really the behaviour of supposedly intelligent people? I think not!
this is our future generation? as frustrated as they may be, is this really the behaviour of supposedly intelligent people? I think not! Honey68
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Wed 14 Nov 12

sbiscorrupt says...

Hardly surprising if you pick on the vulnerable and then crow about it...
Hardly surprising if you pick on the vulnerable and then crow about it... sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dhamallamafarmer says...

Algeria Touchshriek wrote:
Shows what utter filth and scum left wingers.

I hope the police catch each and every one of them and, if students, are immediately expelled from the University.

Utter, utter scum.
But Wetherley is suppose do t be left wing since he's a member of the Labour Party. Think of it like a snake biting its own tail.
Nothing for right wing reactionary ignorami to get worked up about, move along & please don't step on the flowers.
[quote][p][bold]Algeria Touchshriek[/bold] wrote: Shows what utter filth and scum left wingers. I hope the police catch each and every one of them and, if students, are immediately expelled from the University. Utter, utter scum.[/p][/quote]But Wetherley is suppose do t be left wing since he's a member of the Labour Party. Think of it like a snake biting its own tail. Nothing for right wing reactionary ignorami to get worked up about, move along & please don't step on the flowers. dhamallamafarmer
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Wed 14 Nov 12

PorkBoat says...

Turn the hoses on them!
Turn the hoses on them! PorkBoat
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Wed 14 Nov 12

wietraurig says...

dhamallamafarmer wrote:
Algeria Touchshriek wrote:
Shows what utter filth and scum left wingers.

I hope the police catch each and every one of them and, if students, are immediately expelled from the University.

Utter, utter scum.
But Wetherley is suppose do t be left wing since he's a member of the Labour Party. Think of it like a snake biting its own tail.
Nothing for right wing reactionary ignorami to get worked up about, move along & please don't step on the flowers.
He's many things, but I'm fairly sure he isn't a member of the Labour party...
http://www.mikeweath
erleymp.com/
[quote][p][bold]dhamallamafarmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Algeria Touchshriek[/bold] wrote: Shows what utter filth and scum left wingers. I hope the police catch each and every one of them and, if students, are immediately expelled from the University. Utter, utter scum.[/p][/quote]But Wetherley is suppose do t be left wing since he's a member of the Labour Party. Think of it like a snake biting its own tail. Nothing for right wing reactionary ignorami to get worked up about, move along & please don't step on the flowers.[/p][/quote]He's many things, but I'm fairly sure he isn't a member of the Labour party... http://www.mikeweath erleymp.com/ wietraurig
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Wed 14 Nov 12

ya basta says...

"Reports suggest rocks were thrown at the Hove MP" - I'll believe it when I see proof.

Did Weatherley's office tell you that? Wouldn't be the first time they've lied. Like the time they said an "anti-semitic campaigner" threw glitter on Nembeth. Campaigner turned out to be Jewish.

Oh and Weatherley didn't just "sponsor anti-squatting laws through Parliament". He wrote the anti squatting bill.
"Reports suggest rocks were thrown at the Hove MP" - I'll believe it when I see proof. Did Weatherley's office tell you that? Wouldn't be the first time they've lied. Like the time they said an "anti-semitic campaigner" threw glitter on Nembeth. Campaigner turned out to be Jewish. Oh and Weatherley didn't just "sponsor anti-squatting laws through Parliament". He wrote the anti squatting bill. ya basta
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Fercri Sakes says...

Sussex University has a history of anti-establishment movements and I don't see why the current times, where the rich have been systematically raiding the wealth of the middle and lower classes, should be any different.

And as to the question if this is the behavior of intelligent people then yes, it seems like they're thinking for themselves and not buying the usual rhetorical claptrap right-wing politicians say.

Does seem like a storm in a tea cup though.
Sussex University has a history of anti-establishment movements and I don't see why the current times, where the rich have been systematically raiding the wealth of the middle and lower classes, should be any different. And as to the question if this is the behavior of intelligent people then yes, it seems like they're thinking for themselves and not buying the usual rhetorical claptrap right-wing politicians say. Does seem like a storm in a tea cup though. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dhamallamafarmer says...

sbiscorrupt wrote:
Hardly surprising if you pick on the vulnerable and then crow about it...
I have to disagree, if you're going to legislate against many of society's most vulnerable and marginalised members you hardly expect them to get all uppity and act up do you? You certainly don't expect them to have support from nice, educated, middle class citizens.
We lost all our money to the bankers and we want it back from the unemployed, tax rises on those on middle to low incomes and spending cuts. We don't expect those we're screwing to answer back! (I know Wetherley is Labour but still,
he's an MP, he's one of Them, not one of Us.)
[quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: Hardly surprising if you pick on the vulnerable and then crow about it...[/p][/quote]I have to disagree, if you're going to legislate against many of society's most vulnerable and marginalised members you hardly expect them to get all uppity and act up do you? You certainly don't expect them to have support from nice, educated, middle class citizens. We lost all our money to the bankers and we want it back from the unemployed, tax rises on those on middle to low incomes and spending cuts. We don't expect those we're screwing to answer back! (I know Wetherley is Labour but still, he's an MP, he's one of Them, not one of Us.) dhamallamafarmer
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Wed 14 Nov 12

John Steed says...

cretins
cretins John Steed
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Wed 14 Nov 12

wietraurig says...

dhamallamafarmer wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
Hardly surprising if you pick on the vulnerable and then crow about it...
I have to disagree, if you're going to legislate against many of society's most vulnerable and marginalised members you hardly expect them to get all uppity and act up do you? You certainly don't expect them to have support from nice, educated, middle class citizens.
We lost all our money to the bankers and we want it back from the unemployed, tax rises on those on middle to low incomes and spending cuts. We don't expect those we're screwing to answer back! (I know Wetherley is Labour but still,
he's an MP, he's one of Them, not one of Us.)
How many times, he's not flipping Labour!
http://www.mikeweath
erleymp.com/
[quote][p][bold]dhamallamafarmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: Hardly surprising if you pick on the vulnerable and then crow about it...[/p][/quote]I have to disagree, if you're going to legislate against many of society's most vulnerable and marginalised members you hardly expect them to get all uppity and act up do you? You certainly don't expect them to have support from nice, educated, middle class citizens. We lost all our money to the bankers and we want it back from the unemployed, tax rises on those on middle to low incomes and spending cuts. We don't expect those we're screwing to answer back! (I know Wetherley is Labour but still, he's an MP, he's one of Them, not one of Us.)[/p][/quote]How many times, he's not flipping Labour! http://www.mikeweath erleymp.com/ wietraurig
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dhamallamafarmer says...

wietraurig wrote:
dhamallamafarmer wrote:
Algeria Touchshriek wrote:
Shows what utter filth and scum left wingers.

I hope the police catch each and every one of them and, if students, are immediately expelled from the University.

Utter, utter scum.
But Wetherley is suppose do t be left wing since he's a member of the Labour Party. Think of it like a snake biting its own tail.
Nothing for right wing reactionary ignorami to get worked up about, move along & please don't step on the flowers.
He's many things, but I'm fairly sure he isn't a member of the Labour party...
http://www.mikeweath

erleymp.com/
Now why did I think he was Labour, explains a lot about why I didn't get a reply to a certain email I sent about his colleague & scruffbag Simon Kirby!
[quote][p][bold]wietraurig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dhamallamafarmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Algeria Touchshriek[/bold] wrote: Shows what utter filth and scum left wingers. I hope the police catch each and every one of them and, if students, are immediately expelled from the University. Utter, utter scum.[/p][/quote]But Wetherley is suppose do t be left wing since he's a member of the Labour Party. Think of it like a snake biting its own tail. Nothing for right wing reactionary ignorami to get worked up about, move along & please don't step on the flowers.[/p][/quote]He's many things, but I'm fairly sure he isn't a member of the Labour party... http://www.mikeweath erleymp.com/[/p][/quote]Now why did I think he was Labour, explains a lot about why I didn't get a reply to a certain email I sent about his colleague & scruffbag Simon Kirby! dhamallamafarmer
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Wed 14 Nov 12

theleftygiraffe says...

Mike Weatherly deserves pretty much everything that he gets, he's a nasty piece of work who's out there to make the sure those without housing stay without housing, presumably so he can then introduce a tax on them or something.

I'd rather be a left-wing scum bag student than a tory.
Mike Weatherly deserves pretty much everything that he gets, he's a nasty piece of work who's out there to make the sure those without housing stay without housing, presumably so he can then introduce a tax on them or something. I'd rather be a left-wing scum bag student than a tory. theleftygiraffe
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Wed 14 Nov 12

ya basta says...

Its been illegal to squat in a used property since 1976.

Weatherley's new law means simply stops people using empty building that are boarded up and left to fall into disrepair by their owners.

The country has a massive housing crisis and all he's done is keep empty unused buildings, empty and unused.

He should have wrote a law chastising people who leave buildings to fall apart when there are thousands who need homes.
Its been illegal to squat in a used property since 1976. Weatherley's new law means simply stops people using empty building that are boarded up and left to fall into disrepair by their owners. The country has a massive housing crisis and all he's done is keep empty unused buildings, empty and unused. He should have wrote a law chastising people who leave buildings to fall apart when there are thousands who need homes. ya basta
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Wed 14 Nov 12

leobrighton says...

Typical thick stupid comments on the Arsegas website. Some of you even think he's Labour
Typical thick stupid comments on the Arsegas website. Some of you even think he's Labour leobrighton
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Alan Duffy says...

Good for him, supporting/writing anti squatting laws, let the great unwashed get jobs, and stop relying on the rest of society to help them out.
Good for him, supporting/writing anti squatting laws, let the great unwashed get jobs, and stop relying on the rest of society to help them out. Alan Duffy
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Wed 14 Nov 12

wereallgonnadiesomeday says...

He's a Tory and I support the cause of the protesters. The more protesting the better I say! Many of the people in the film however are just Sussex employees whom had to evacuate the building as he ran in there to escape.

I don't agree with those that tried to physically attack him but you always get a few idiots within any group of people, anywhere.

You should always expect public protest as a politician and it should be celebrated as part of living within a democracy. Power to the people! Keep up the peaceful protesting! (to those that did this)
He's a Tory and I support the cause of the protesters. The more protesting the better I say! Many of the people in the film however are just Sussex employees whom had to evacuate the building as he ran in there to escape. I don't agree with those that tried to physically attack him but you always get a few idiots within any group of people, anywhere. You should always expect public protest as a politician and it should be celebrated as part of living within a democracy. Power to the people! Keep up the peaceful protesting! (to those that did this) wereallgonnadiesomeday
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Wed 14 Nov 12

leobrighton says...

Oh and I'm with the students on this one he deserves it
Oh and I'm with the students on this one he deserves it leobrighton
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Wed 14 Nov 12

AmboGuy says...

Squatters have been throwing missiles at police and anyone who doesn't agree with them for years. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.
Squatters have been throwing missiles at police and anyone who doesn't agree with them for years. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Dave in Hastings says...

Good for the students. Let's hope we start to get some real reaction from the masses to the corruption of the ruling elite in this country and globally. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath. Too many people are completely politically ignorant, and have bought the Daily Mail / Sun / Torygraph line that it's all the fault of benefit scroungers, while the very few at the top cream off all the wealth for themselves.
As a sign of this ignorance, I point you to the people above, who think a raving right winger like Weatherley is Labour. Gawd help us!
Good for the students. Let's hope we start to get some real reaction from the masses to the corruption of the ruling elite in this country and globally. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath. Too many people are completely politically ignorant, and have bought the Daily Mail / Sun / Torygraph line that it's all the fault of benefit scroungers, while the very few at the top cream off all the wealth for themselves. As a sign of this ignorance, I point you to the people above, who think a raving right winger like Weatherley is Labour. Gawd help us! Dave in Hastings
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Well I'm firmly on the side of the protestors. Glad to see some people have still got a bit of spirit.
Well I'm firmly on the side of the protestors. Glad to see some people have still got a bit of spirit. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dhamallamafarmer says...

Dave in Hastings wrote:
Good for the students. Let's hope we start to get some real reaction from the masses to the corruption of the ruling elite in this country and globally. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath. Too many people are completely politically ignorant, and have bought the Daily Mail / Sun / Torygraph line that it's all the fault of benefit scroungers, while the very few at the top cream off all the wealth for themselves.
As a sign of this ignorance, I point you to the people above, who think a raving right winger like Weatherley is Labour. Gawd help us!
Aha ha ha, the very reason I thought he was a Labour MP was from a story I read in this august organ some months ago! Garbage in Garbage out...
[quote][p][bold]Dave in Hastings[/bold] wrote: Good for the students. Let's hope we start to get some real reaction from the masses to the corruption of the ruling elite in this country and globally. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath. Too many people are completely politically ignorant, and have bought the Daily Mail / Sun / Torygraph line that it's all the fault of benefit scroungers, while the very few at the top cream off all the wealth for themselves. As a sign of this ignorance, I point you to the people above, who think a raving right winger like Weatherley is Labour. Gawd help us![/p][/quote]Aha ha ha, the very reason I thought he was a Labour MP was from a story I read in this august organ some months ago! Garbage in Garbage out... dhamallamafarmer
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Wed 14 Nov 12

The Baron Pepperpot says...

it's the GREENS, my cat has done a whoopsee on the carpet, my car as broken down, it's warm when it should be raining and it gets dark early.. and now this. It's the GREENS I tell ya... err...
it's the GREENS, my cat has done a whoopsee on the carpet, my car as broken down, it's warm when it should be raining and it gets dark early.. and now this. It's the GREENS I tell ya... err... The Baron Pepperpot
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Wed 14 Nov 12

The Baron Pepperpot says...

PorkBoat wrote:
Turn the hoses on them!
Oh that's a poor one, and I was so looking forward to your contribution..
[quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: Turn the hoses on them![/p][/quote]Oh that's a poor one, and I was so looking forward to your contribution.. The Baron Pepperpot
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dhamallamafarmer says...

Aha ha ha! Did you report me for upsetting you just for suggesting that you take a moment and let other people catch up rather than getting all petty and 'frustrated?'
Oh & I meant he was a right wing coat, what did you think I meant? Naughty you!
Poor kitten, don't you think we'll ever be friends?
Aha ha ha! Did you report me for upsetting you just for suggesting that you take a moment and let other people catch up rather than getting all petty and 'frustrated?' Oh & I meant he was a right wing coat, what did you think I meant? Naughty you! Poor kitten, don't you think we'll ever be friends? dhamallamafarmer
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Mark22 says...

As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.
As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus. Mark22
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Wed 14 Nov 12

wereallgonnadiesomeday says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Squatters have been throwing missiles at police and anyone who doesn't agree with them for years. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.
Is there a scale of those who are branded "scum of the earth"? If so, where is Jimmy Saville and Margaret Thatcher on this scale, compared to said squatters? Just wondering...
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Squatters have been throwing missiles at police and anyone who doesn't agree with them for years. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.[/p][/quote]Is there a scale of those who are branded "scum of the earth"? If so, where is Jimmy Saville and Margaret Thatcher on this scale, compared to said squatters? Just wondering... wereallgonnadiesomeday
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Poccypoc says...

What a bunch of thugs and scroungers?! If I had a watter cannon lorry, I'd drive up there and hose these parasites into the sea.

I've never voted Conservative, but why should we pay our mortgages and rent and these wasters get everything for nothing?
What a bunch of thugs and scroungers?! If I had a watter cannon lorry, I'd drive up there and hose these parasites into the sea. I've never voted Conservative, but why should we pay our mortgages and rent and these wasters get everything for nothing? Poccypoc
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Poccypoc says...

Poccypoc wrote:
What a bunch of thugs and scroungers?! If I had a watter cannon lorry, I'd drive up there and hose these parasites into the sea.

I've never voted Conservative, but why should we pay our mortgages and rent and these wasters get everything for nothing?
Water, sorry.
[quote][p][bold]Poccypoc[/bold] wrote: What a bunch of thugs and scroungers?! If I had a watter cannon lorry, I'd drive up there and hose these parasites into the sea. I've never voted Conservative, but why should we pay our mortgages and rent and these wasters get everything for nothing?[/p][/quote]Water, sorry. Poccypoc
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Wed 14 Nov 12

wietraurig says...

dhamallamafarmer wrote:
Aha ha ha! Did you report me for upsetting you just for suggesting that you take a moment and let other people catch up rather than getting all petty and 'frustrated?'
Oh & I meant he was a right wing coat, what did you think I meant? Naughty you!
Poor kitten, don't you think we'll ever be friends?
Nope -- didn't report you. Sorry to disappoint you.

I agree with your description of him, as it happens. I'm just not daft enough to put it in a post, which will then get deleted.

Suspect we won't be friends though.
[quote][p][bold]dhamallamafarmer[/bold] wrote: Aha ha ha! Did you report me for upsetting you just for suggesting that you take a moment and let other people catch up rather than getting all petty and 'frustrated?' Oh & I meant he was a right wing coat, what did you think I meant? Naughty you! Poor kitten, don't you think we'll ever be friends?[/p][/quote]Nope -- didn't report you. Sorry to disappoint you. I agree with your description of him, as it happens. I'm just not daft enough to put it in a post, which will then get deleted. Suspect we won't be friends though. wietraurig
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Mark22 says...

furthermore rocks WERE thrown so those speculating should not pass judgement on such things
furthermore rocks WERE thrown so those speculating should not pass judgement on such things Mark22
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dhamallamafarmer says...

Poccypoc wrote:
Poccypoc wrote:
What a bunch of thugs and scroungers?! If I had a watter cannon lorry, I'd drive up there and hose these parasites into the sea.

I've never voted Conservative, but why should we pay our mortgages and rent and these wasters get everything for nothing?
Water, sorry.
Because homeless people begging on the streets while derelict buildings crumble and rot is a far more attractive image of Merrie Olde England than those who have helping out those who have not.
[quote][p][bold]Poccypoc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poccypoc[/bold] wrote: What a bunch of thugs and scroungers?! If I had a watter cannon lorry, I'd drive up there and hose these parasites into the sea. I've never voted Conservative, but why should we pay our mortgages and rent and these wasters get everything for nothing?[/p][/quote]Water, sorry.[/p][/quote]Because homeless people begging on the streets while derelict buildings crumble and rot is a far more attractive image of Merrie Olde England than those who have helping out those who have not. dhamallamafarmer
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Kiddon72 says...

Mark22 wrote:
As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.
Sadly Mark it is not the sensible students like yourself that will be thought of when Sussex university is mentioned.
The university will be remembered for it's idiots and not its graduates.
[quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.[/p][/quote]Sadly Mark it is not the sensible students like yourself that will be thought of when Sussex university is mentioned. The university will be remembered for it's idiots and not its graduates. Kiddon72
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Wed 14 Nov 12

sbiscorrupt says...

Mark22 wrote:
As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.
There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society...

Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy!
[quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.[/p][/quote]There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society... Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy! sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Hovite says...

I’m pretty sure that 75 % of comments posted in the Argus are submitted by people with a really strong chimpanzee gene. Oh well, that’s evolution for you.
I’m pretty sure that 75 % of comments posted in the Argus are submitted by people with a really strong chimpanzee gene. Oh well, that’s evolution for you. Hovite
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dhamallamafarmer says...

wietraurig wrote:
dhamallamafarmer wrote:
Aha ha ha! Did you report me for upsetting you just for suggesting that you take a moment and let other people catch up rather than getting all petty and 'frustrated?'
Oh & I meant he was a right wing coat, what did you think I meant? Naughty you!
Poor kitten, don't you think we'll ever be friends?
Nope -- didn't report you. Sorry to disappoint you.

I agree with your description of him, as it happens. I'm just not daft enough to put it in a post, which will then get deleted.

Suspect we won't be friends though.
I'm bitterly crushed, trying to have a conversation & someone butts in & has things deleted. Touchy.
& of course it's impossible to say anything too inflamatory since bad words get starred out.
It's a shame we won't be friends, I could use someone to pick up on every time I make a mistake. I wouldn't even be one of those needy friends since it happens so very very rarely.
[quote][p][bold]wietraurig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dhamallamafarmer[/bold] wrote: Aha ha ha! Did you report me for upsetting you just for suggesting that you take a moment and let other people catch up rather than getting all petty and 'frustrated?' Oh & I meant he was a right wing coat, what did you think I meant? Naughty you! Poor kitten, don't you think we'll ever be friends?[/p][/quote]Nope -- didn't report you. Sorry to disappoint you. I agree with your description of him, as it happens. I'm just not daft enough to put it in a post, which will then get deleted. Suspect we won't be friends though.[/p][/quote]I'm bitterly crushed, trying to have a conversation & someone butts in & has things deleted. Touchy. & of course it's impossible to say anything too inflamatory since bad words get starred out. It's a shame we won't be friends, I could use someone to pick up on every time I make a mistake. I wouldn't even be one of those needy friends since it happens so very very rarely. dhamallamafarmer
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Mark22 says...

sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.
There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society...

Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy!
Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.
[quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.[/p][/quote]There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society... Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy![/p][/quote]Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself. Mark22
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Rotters says...

Great video! Well done Sussex students - good show! :)
Great video! Well done Sussex students - good show! :) Rotters
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Wed 14 Nov 12

sbiscorrupt says...

Mark22 wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.
There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society...

Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy!
Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.
That's the spirit....get worked up about something!

I assume you aren't studying history, as if you were you might happen to notice that many of our current 'leaders' took part in demonstrations...

Many became the establishment, but some did some good along the way...

But if you think 'peaceful discussion' is the only way, then I guess you condemn every revolution that has ever happened...
[quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.[/p][/quote]There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society... Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy![/p][/quote]Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.[/p][/quote]That's the spirit....get worked up about something! I assume you aren't studying history, as if you were you might happen to notice that many of our current 'leaders' took part in demonstrations... Many became the establishment, but some did some good along the way... But if you think 'peaceful discussion' is the only way, then I guess you condemn every revolution that has ever happened... sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Wed 14 Nov 12

pjwilk says...

Honey68 wrote:
this is our future generation? as frustrated as they may be, is this really the behaviour of supposedly intelligent people? I think not!
So are our present rulers and leaders doing such a fantastic job,i think not.They are good at filling there own pockets and fiddling their expenses.
[quote][p][bold]Honey68[/bold] wrote: this is our future generation? as frustrated as they may be, is this really the behaviour of supposedly intelligent people? I think not![/p][/quote]So are our present rulers and leaders doing such a fantastic job,i think not.They are good at filling there own pockets and fiddling their expenses. pjwilk
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Mark22 says...

sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.
There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society...

Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy!
Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.
That's the spirit....get worked up about something!

I assume you aren't studying history, as if you were you might happen to notice that many of our current 'leaders' took part in demonstrations...

Many became the establishment, but some did some good along the way...

But if you think 'peaceful discussion' is the only way, then I guess you condemn every revolution that has ever happened...
I do in fact study History, and am aware of that vague yet correct in part statement. Yet whilst i am also in support of demonstrations of almost every kind, the actual debate has to come first and those demos should be peaceful and get the points across well. Denying students the chance to get involved in the discussion is not rational, it's just upsetting. Furthermore i said that peace is the way forward, yes i do actually believe in peace. I have also studied the French and Russian revolutions extensively and can, without any doubt, state that this small violent protest has nothing to do with such incredible events whatsoever. You sound extremely ignorant of such things so i refuse to give you the honour of replying to your vacuous comments anymore. There's debate, and then there's throwing stuff, not many reasoned people are for the latter.
[quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.[/p][/quote]There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society... Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy![/p][/quote]Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.[/p][/quote]That's the spirit....get worked up about something! I assume you aren't studying history, as if you were you might happen to notice that many of our current 'leaders' took part in demonstrations... Many became the establishment, but some did some good along the way... But if you think 'peaceful discussion' is the only way, then I guess you condemn every revolution that has ever happened...[/p][/quote]I do in fact study History, and am aware of that vague yet correct in part statement. Yet whilst i am also in support of demonstrations of almost every kind, the actual debate has to come first and those demos should be peaceful and get the points across well. Denying students the chance to get involved in the discussion is not rational, it's just upsetting. Furthermore i said that peace is the way forward, yes i do actually believe in peace. I have also studied the French and Russian revolutions extensively and can, without any doubt, state that this small violent protest has nothing to do with such incredible events whatsoever. You sound extremely ignorant of such things so i refuse to give you the honour of replying to your vacuous comments anymore. There's debate, and then there's throwing stuff, not many reasoned people are for the latter. Mark22
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Lord Tilford says...

Had squatters in one of my barns once; **** nuisance and expense they were too.
I owe Weatherley a bottle of Vieille Reserve for getting this bill through!
Had squatters in one of my barns once; **** nuisance and expense they were too. I owe Weatherley a bottle of Vieille Reserve for getting this bill through! Lord Tilford
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dawind says...

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.".....JFK
's "Address on the First Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress,"
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.".....JFK 's "Address on the First Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress," dawind
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Hovite says...

Agree completely Mark22

As you say; denying students the chance to get involved in the discussion is not rational.

At least MW is trying to reach out to a younger generation and encouraging them to get invloved in politics by rational debate.

Too much chimpanzee gene in most of the comments on here.
Agree completely Mark22 As you say; denying students the chance to get involved in the discussion is not rational. At least MW is trying to reach out to a younger generation and encouraging them to get invloved in politics by rational debate. Too much chimpanzee gene in most of the comments on here. Hovite
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Southamptoncandoone says...

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Weatherley's assault on squatters smacks of ignorant vilification by an out of touch Tory seeking to protect his wealthy friends' interests.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Weatherley's assault on squatters smacks of ignorant vilification by an out of touch Tory seeking to protect his wealthy friends' interests. Southamptoncandoone
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Wed 14 Nov 12

gaz scott says...

Shame we can't persuade him to fly to Australia to eat disgusting things, get buried alive and all the other things that pass as entertainment these days.

He's a Tosser get him out of here!

But for now this is sufficient humiliation albeit to a smaller audience.
Shame we can't persuade him to fly to Australia to eat disgusting things, get buried alive and all the other things that pass as entertainment these days. He's a Tosser get him out of here! But for now this is sufficient humiliation albeit to a smaller audience. gaz scott
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Wed 14 Nov 12

PorkBoat says...

Hovite wrote:
I’m pretty sure that 75 % of comments posted in the Argus are submitted by people with a really strong chimpanzee gene. Oh well, that’s evolution for you.
How dare you! I find that highly offensive. My Grandfather was a Gibbon, and my Great-Grandmother was an Orang-Utan.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: I’m pretty sure that 75 % of comments posted in the Argus are submitted by people with a really strong chimpanzee gene. Oh well, that’s evolution for you.[/p][/quote]How dare you! I find that highly offensive. My Grandfather was a Gibbon, and my Great-Grandmother was an Orang-Utan. PorkBoat
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Wed 14 Nov 12

tooned_in says...

squatting is illegal but those caught are never really prosecuted as they have no fixed abode & alot Im guessing have no jobs to pay compensation/fines from......Im just waiting till the laws are made even softer as they are bound to be then im selling up and squatting too, my mortgage is £950 per month I could use that for my social fund...yes please!!!
squatting is illegal but those caught are never really prosecuted as they have no fixed abode & alot Im guessing have no jobs to pay compensation/fines from......Im just waiting till the laws are made even softer as they are bound to be then im selling up and squatting too, my mortgage is £950 per month I could use that for my social fund...yes please!!! tooned_in
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Wed 14 Nov 12

true-brightonian says...

Young people who occupy empty properties are doing a wonderful service for the country. They are lowering the housing benefit bill and therefore lowering the deficit. They should be congratulated. Far better they live in an empty space for free rather than reply on the taxpayer to line the pockets of private property, hostel and B&B owners. Given that we are headed for triple-dip recession, it is high time some thought went into the vast number of empty retail spaces that line our streets. I don't see shoppers returning to the high-spending days of a few years ago any time soon. Why not use these shops to house the poor and homeless for free and lower the huge burden on the tax payer that is a result of an enormous housing benefit bill (all of which goes to private, wealthy landlords and does not help the poor).

These so-called squatters are a good example of people who don't just sit around waiting for handouts from the state, unlike private landlords who exploit the housing benefit system and rip off both their tenants and the taxpayer.
Young people who occupy empty properties are doing a wonderful service for the country. They are lowering the housing benefit bill and therefore lowering the deficit. They should be congratulated. Far better they live in an empty space for free rather than reply on the taxpayer to line the pockets of private property, hostel and B&B owners. Given that we are headed for triple-dip recession, it is high time some thought went into the vast number of empty retail spaces that line our streets. I don't see shoppers returning to the high-spending days of a few years ago any time soon. Why not use these shops to house the poor and homeless for free and lower the huge burden on the tax payer that is a result of an enormous housing benefit bill (all of which goes to private, wealthy landlords and does not help the poor). These so-called squatters are a good example of people who don't just sit around waiting for handouts from the state, unlike private landlords who exploit the housing benefit system and rip off both their tenants and the taxpayer. true-brightonian
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Hovite says...

PorkBoat wrote:
Hovite wrote:
I’m pretty sure that 75 % of comments posted in the Argus are submitted by people with a really strong chimpanzee gene. Oh well, that’s evolution for you.
How dare you! I find that highly offensive. My Grandfather was a Gibbon, and my Great-Grandmother was an Orang-Utan.
Ok, 10 out of 10 for your witty retort.
[quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: I’m pretty sure that 75 % of comments posted in the Argus are submitted by people with a really strong chimpanzee gene. Oh well, that’s evolution for you.[/p][/quote]How dare you! I find that highly offensive. My Grandfather was a Gibbon, and my Great-Grandmother was an Orang-Utan.[/p][/quote]Ok, 10 out of 10 for your witty retort. Hovite
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dawind says...

Criminalising squatting was an ideological act. An attack against democracy.

One of the reasons why the bill passed with little more than a whimper on the part of the general population is because of the media image which has been so meticulously cultivated against the squatting phenomenon; squatters are nearly always portrayed as dirty follicley-challenged layabouts ready to swarm and colonise a house the moment its occupants take an extended weekend in the Costa Del Sol.
The media is riddled with stories about how home owners return home from holidays only to be barred from entering their own premises by a group of straggly haired malingerers.

In reality, however, the image of some woolly liberal government, full to the brim with pc largesse, prepared to exile people from their homes in order to facilitate the whims of vagrants – is little more than a reactionary myth. The squatting laws were always specific on this point; those who squatted would be protected by certain rights against eviction only with the proviso that nobody was living in the property in the first place, and that there was no possibility of it being occupied by its owners in the imminent future.

The law to criminalise squatting is about something else entirely. Supermarkets are often compelled to destroy food because they are caught in the unrelenting vortex of competition; if they give away the leftover surplus, the value of future sales is damaged. Likewise, in the case of the property market, houses are sometimes left empty by landlords and investors in order to drive prices up.

Inevitably a conflict emerges between genuine human need – the need for food, the need for shelter – and the imperatives of a social system driven by competition and the accumulation of profit. For this reason we should understand squatting not as some arbitrary phenomenon but as a profoundly political act; i.e. the endeavour to assert the priority of human need in the geo-political space – over and against the incursions of the market.
The squatting phenomenon traces its roots to the agrarian communists ‘The Diggers’ who, in 1649 when food prices spiked at an all-time high, made the move to resist the enclosures and occupy common land so they could plant vegetable crops – no doubts with the rather humble agenda of ensuring their own survival. They were forced from the land by the threat of army intervention, but not before being branded amoral and promiscuous (charges regularly levelled against the squatters of today).
Criminalising squatting was an ideological act. An attack against democracy. One of the reasons why the bill passed with little more than a whimper on the part of the general population is because of the media image which has been so meticulously cultivated against the squatting phenomenon; squatters are nearly always portrayed as dirty follicley-challenged layabouts ready to swarm and colonise a house the moment its occupants take an extended weekend in the Costa Del Sol. The media is riddled with stories about how home owners return home from holidays only to be barred from entering their own premises by a group of straggly haired malingerers. In reality, however, the image of some woolly liberal government, full to the brim with pc largesse, prepared to exile people from their homes in order to facilitate the whims of vagrants – is little more than a reactionary myth. The squatting laws were always specific on this point; those who squatted would be protected by certain rights against eviction only with the proviso that nobody was living in the property in the first place, and that there was no possibility of it being occupied by its owners in the imminent future. The law to criminalise squatting is about something else entirely. Supermarkets are often compelled to destroy food because they are caught in the unrelenting vortex of competition; if they give away the leftover surplus, the value of future sales is damaged. Likewise, in the case of the property market, houses are sometimes left empty by landlords and investors in order to drive prices up. Inevitably a conflict emerges between genuine human need – the need for food, the need for shelter – and the imperatives of a social system driven by competition and the accumulation of profit. For this reason we should understand squatting not as some arbitrary phenomenon but as a profoundly political act; i.e. the endeavour to assert the priority of human need in the geo-political space – over and against the incursions of the market. The squatting phenomenon traces its roots to the agrarian communists ‘The Diggers’ who, in 1649 when food prices spiked at an all-time high, made the move to resist the enclosures and occupy common land so they could plant vegetable crops – no doubts with the rather humble agenda of ensuring their own survival. They were forced from the land by the threat of army intervention, but not before being branded amoral and promiscuous (charges regularly levelled against the squatters of today). dawind
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Wed 14 Nov 12

true-brightonian says...

A well-written and fairly balanced piece on squatting in the UK. Apparently the UK has close to 1 million empty properties: www.aljazeera.com/in
depth/features/2012/
11/20121157222096424
8.html
A well-written and fairly balanced piece on squatting in the UK. Apparently the UK has close to 1 million empty properties: www.aljazeera.com/in depth/features/2012/ 11/20121157222096424 8.html true-brightonian
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Hovite says...

dawind wrote:
Criminalising squatting was an ideological act. An attack against democracy.

One of the reasons why the bill passed with little more than a whimper on the part of the general population is because of the media image which has been so meticulously cultivated against the squatting phenomenon; squatters are nearly always portrayed as dirty follicley-challenged layabouts ready to swarm and colonise a house the moment its occupants take an extended weekend in the Costa Del Sol.
The media is riddled with stories about how home owners return home from holidays only to be barred from entering their own premises by a group of straggly haired malingerers.

In reality, however, the image of some woolly liberal government, full to the brim with pc largesse, prepared to exile people from their homes in order to facilitate the whims of vagrants – is little more than a reactionary myth. The squatting laws were always specific on this point; those who squatted would be protected by certain rights against eviction only with the proviso that nobody was living in the property in the first place, and that there was no possibility of it being occupied by its owners in the imminent future.

The law to criminalise squatting is about something else entirely. Supermarkets are often compelled to destroy food because they are caught in the unrelenting vortex of competition; if they give away the leftover surplus, the value of future sales is damaged. Likewise, in the case of the property market, houses are sometimes left empty by landlords and investors in order to drive prices up.

Inevitably a conflict emerges between genuine human need – the need for food, the need for shelter – and the imperatives of a social system driven by competition and the accumulation of profit. For this reason we should understand squatting not as some arbitrary phenomenon but as a profoundly political act; i.e. the endeavour to assert the priority of human need in the geo-political space – over and against the incursions of the market.
The squatting phenomenon traces its roots to the agrarian communists ‘The Diggers’ who, in 1649 when food prices spiked at an all-time high, made the move to resist the enclosures and occupy common land so they could plant vegetable crops – no doubts with the rather humble agenda of ensuring their own survival. They were forced from the land by the threat of army intervention, but not before being branded amoral and promiscuous (charges regularly levelled against the squatters of today).
But there wasn't a Tescos with loyalty points, social security, child allowance, NHS or housing benefit in 1649.
[quote][p][bold]dawind[/bold] wrote: Criminalising squatting was an ideological act. An attack against democracy. One of the reasons why the bill passed with little more than a whimper on the part of the general population is because of the media image which has been so meticulously cultivated against the squatting phenomenon; squatters are nearly always portrayed as dirty follicley-challenged layabouts ready to swarm and colonise a house the moment its occupants take an extended weekend in the Costa Del Sol. The media is riddled with stories about how home owners return home from holidays only to be barred from entering their own premises by a group of straggly haired malingerers. In reality, however, the image of some woolly liberal government, full to the brim with pc largesse, prepared to exile people from their homes in order to facilitate the whims of vagrants – is little more than a reactionary myth. The squatting laws were always specific on this point; those who squatted would be protected by certain rights against eviction only with the proviso that nobody was living in the property in the first place, and that there was no possibility of it being occupied by its owners in the imminent future. The law to criminalise squatting is about something else entirely. Supermarkets are often compelled to destroy food because they are caught in the unrelenting vortex of competition; if they give away the leftover surplus, the value of future sales is damaged. Likewise, in the case of the property market, houses are sometimes left empty by landlords and investors in order to drive prices up. Inevitably a conflict emerges between genuine human need – the need for food, the need for shelter – and the imperatives of a social system driven by competition and the accumulation of profit. For this reason we should understand squatting not as some arbitrary phenomenon but as a profoundly political act; i.e. the endeavour to assert the priority of human need in the geo-political space – over and against the incursions of the market. The squatting phenomenon traces its roots to the agrarian communists ‘The Diggers’ who, in 1649 when food prices spiked at an all-time high, made the move to resist the enclosures and occupy common land so they could plant vegetable crops – no doubts with the rather humble agenda of ensuring their own survival. They were forced from the land by the threat of army intervention, but not before being branded amoral and promiscuous (charges regularly levelled against the squatters of today).[/p][/quote]But there wasn't a Tescos with loyalty points, social security, child allowance, NHS or housing benefit in 1649. Hovite
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Andy R says...

Weatherley and "his people" have form for spinning and exaggerating events, mainly to feed his own highly developed sense of his own importance. So it will be interesting to see what actually happened when the dust settles.

Obviously a highly incriminating video there. Lots of people likely to be up on charges of "aggravated standing around looking at a police van".....
Weatherley and "his people" have form for spinning and exaggerating events, mainly to feed his own highly developed sense of his own importance. So it will be interesting to see what actually happened when the dust settles. Obviously a highly incriminating video there. Lots of people likely to be up on charges of "aggravated standing around looking at a police van"..... Andy R
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Wed 14 Nov 12

sbiscorrupt says...

Mark22 wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.
There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society...

Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy!
Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.
That's the spirit....get worked up about something!

I assume you aren't studying history, as if you were you might happen to notice that many of our current 'leaders' took part in demonstrations...

Many became the establishment, but some did some good along the way...

But if you think 'peaceful discussion' is the only way, then I guess you condemn every revolution that has ever happened...
I do in fact study History, and am aware of that vague yet correct in part statement. Yet whilst i am also in support of demonstrations of almost every kind, the actual debate has to come first and those demos should be peaceful and get the points across well. Denying students the chance to get involved in the discussion is not rational, it's just upsetting. Furthermore i said that peace is the way forward, yes i do actually believe in peace. I have also studied the French and Russian revolutions extensively and can, without any doubt, state that this small violent protest has nothing to do with such incredible events whatsoever. You sound extremely ignorant of such things so i refuse to give you the honour of replying to your vacuous comments anymore. There's debate, and then there's throwing stuff, not many reasoned people are for the latter.
oh well...

Maybe that old statement is correct after all...

"What we learn from history is that we don't learn from history"...

So you go and get upset if it helps...

And then think of that when your expensive education ends up costing you far more than you are able to comprehend right now...

But sadly the people who Weatherley has condemned don't have that luxury do they!
[quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.[/p][/quote]There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society... Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy![/p][/quote]Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.[/p][/quote]That's the spirit....get worked up about something! I assume you aren't studying history, as if you were you might happen to notice that many of our current 'leaders' took part in demonstrations... Many became the establishment, but some did some good along the way... But if you think 'peaceful discussion' is the only way, then I guess you condemn every revolution that has ever happened...[/p][/quote]I do in fact study History, and am aware of that vague yet correct in part statement. Yet whilst i am also in support of demonstrations of almost every kind, the actual debate has to come first and those demos should be peaceful and get the points across well. Denying students the chance to get involved in the discussion is not rational, it's just upsetting. Furthermore i said that peace is the way forward, yes i do actually believe in peace. I have also studied the French and Russian revolutions extensively and can, without any doubt, state that this small violent protest has nothing to do with such incredible events whatsoever. You sound extremely ignorant of such things so i refuse to give you the honour of replying to your vacuous comments anymore. There's debate, and then there's throwing stuff, not many reasoned people are for the latter.[/p][/quote]oh well... Maybe that old statement is correct after all... "What we learn from history is that we don't learn from history"... So you go and get upset if it helps... And then think of that when your expensive education ends up costing you far more than you are able to comprehend right now... But sadly the people who Weatherley has condemned don't have that luxury do they! sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Wed 14 Nov 12

pekkers says...

Mr Weatherley wont stand up for the police, he still expects them to be there when he calls, I hope he'll be reviewing how much he values their support today!!!?
Mr Weatherley wont stand up for the police, he still expects them to be there when he calls, I hope he'll be reviewing how much he values their support today!!!? pekkers
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Wed 14 Nov 12

lordenglandofsussex says...

These are the same kind of scum that turned into Blair, Brown, etc.
These are the same kind of scum that turned into Blair, Brown, etc. lordenglandofsussex
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dawind says...

Hovite wrote:
dawind wrote:
Criminalising squatting was an ideological act. An attack against democracy.

One of the reasons why the bill passed with little more than a whimper on the part of the general population is because of the media image which has been so meticulously cultivated against the squatting phenomenon; squatters are nearly always portrayed as dirty follicley-challenged layabouts ready to swarm and colonise a house the moment its occupants take an extended weekend in the Costa Del Sol.
The media is riddled with stories about how home owners return home from holidays only to be barred from entering their own premises by a group of straggly haired malingerers.

In reality, however, the image of some woolly liberal government, full to the brim with pc largesse, prepared to exile people from their homes in order to facilitate the whims of vagrants – is little more than a reactionary myth. The squatting laws were always specific on this point; those who squatted would be protected by certain rights against eviction only with the proviso that nobody was living in the property in the first place, and that there was no possibility of it being occupied by its owners in the imminent future.

The law to criminalise squatting is about something else entirely. Supermarkets are often compelled to destroy food because they are caught in the unrelenting vortex of competition; if they give away the leftover surplus, the value of future sales is damaged. Likewise, in the case of the property market, houses are sometimes left empty by landlords and investors in order to drive prices up.

Inevitably a conflict emerges between genuine human need – the need for food, the need for shelter – and the imperatives of a social system driven by competition and the accumulation of profit. For this reason we should understand squatting not as some arbitrary phenomenon but as a profoundly political act; i.e. the endeavour to assert the priority of human need in the geo-political space – over and against the incursions of the market.
The squatting phenomenon traces its roots to the agrarian communists ‘The Diggers’ who, in 1649 when food prices spiked at an all-time high, made the move to resist the enclosures and occupy common land so they could plant vegetable crops – no doubts with the rather humble agenda of ensuring their own survival. They were forced from the land by the threat of army intervention, but not before being branded amoral and promiscuous (charges regularly levelled against the squatters of today).
But there wasn't a Tescos with loyalty points, social security, child allowance, NHS or housing benefit in 1649.
Hovite...I was making a political point. Such as "people who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society” is part of a political agenda ie those at the bottom of the heap are there because of the actions of those at the top.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dawind[/bold] wrote: Criminalising squatting was an ideological act. An attack against democracy. One of the reasons why the bill passed with little more than a whimper on the part of the general population is because of the media image which has been so meticulously cultivated against the squatting phenomenon; squatters are nearly always portrayed as dirty follicley-challenged layabouts ready to swarm and colonise a house the moment its occupants take an extended weekend in the Costa Del Sol. The media is riddled with stories about how home owners return home from holidays only to be barred from entering their own premises by a group of straggly haired malingerers. In reality, however, the image of some woolly liberal government, full to the brim with pc largesse, prepared to exile people from their homes in order to facilitate the whims of vagrants – is little more than a reactionary myth. The squatting laws were always specific on this point; those who squatted would be protected by certain rights against eviction only with the proviso that nobody was living in the property in the first place, and that there was no possibility of it being occupied by its owners in the imminent future. The law to criminalise squatting is about something else entirely. Supermarkets are often compelled to destroy food because they are caught in the unrelenting vortex of competition; if they give away the leftover surplus, the value of future sales is damaged. Likewise, in the case of the property market, houses are sometimes left empty by landlords and investors in order to drive prices up. Inevitably a conflict emerges between genuine human need – the need for food, the need for shelter – and the imperatives of a social system driven by competition and the accumulation of profit. For this reason we should understand squatting not as some arbitrary phenomenon but as a profoundly political act; i.e. the endeavour to assert the priority of human need in the geo-political space – over and against the incursions of the market. The squatting phenomenon traces its roots to the agrarian communists ‘The Diggers’ who, in 1649 when food prices spiked at an all-time high, made the move to resist the enclosures and occupy common land so they could plant vegetable crops – no doubts with the rather humble agenda of ensuring their own survival. They were forced from the land by the threat of army intervention, but not before being branded amoral and promiscuous (charges regularly levelled against the squatters of today).[/p][/quote]But there wasn't a Tescos with loyalty points, social security, child allowance, NHS or housing benefit in 1649.[/p][/quote]Hovite...I was making a political point. Such as "people who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society” is part of a political agenda ie those at the bottom of the heap are there because of the actions of those at the top. dawind
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Hovite says...

Find me the MW parasite quote then dawind.
Find me the MW parasite quote then dawind. Hovite
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Lady Smith says...

It's OK: they only hit him on the head, so they missed his brain by about 2 and a half feet...
It's OK: they only hit him on the head, so they missed his brain by about 2 and a half feet... Lady Smith
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Wed 14 Nov 12

AmboGuy says...

wereallgonnadiesomed
ay
wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Squatters have been throwing missiles at police and anyone who doesn't agree with them for years. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.
Is there a scale of those who are branded "scum of the earth"? If so, where is Jimmy Saville and Margaret Thatcher on this scale, compared to said squatters? Just wondering...
Hmmm interesting question. I'd put squatters just below Jimmy Saville and Margaret Thatcher and i'd give them 87 % on the Scum-ometer.

They're get extra scum points for throwing missiles, offensive smell, loud parties that keep the neighbours up all night and bad dreadlocks.

I hope that answers your question.
[quote][p][bold]wereallgonnadiesomed ay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Squatters have been throwing missiles at police and anyone who doesn't agree with them for years. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.[/p][/quote]Is there a scale of those who are branded "scum of the earth"? If so, where is Jimmy Saville and Margaret Thatcher on this scale, compared to said squatters? Just wondering...[/p][/quote]Hmmm interesting question. I'd put squatters just below Jimmy Saville and Margaret Thatcher and i'd give them 87 % on the Scum-ometer. They're get extra scum points for throwing missiles, offensive smell, loud parties that keep the neighbours up all night and bad dreadlocks. I hope that answers your question. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Wed 14 Nov 12

funkyyoyo says...

if you want ti live in a property,get off your backside and get a job like the rest of us do,as far as im concerned well done mike in changing the law
if you want ti live in a property,get off your backside and get a job like the rest of us do,as far as im concerned well done mike in changing the law funkyyoyo
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Wed 14 Nov 12

stir up says...

This lot are the same type who took part in the London riots. They are given a place at uni., and then abuse the system by doing as little work as they can.Brighton before the Uni came to town was a lovely place to live and work in, now it has become infiltrated by lots of far left wing and green party studens, that is why the green party got into power, probably most who voted them in have left the town so do not have to suffer their madness policies.If any of these so called students are caught even if it was not rocks they want the book thrown at them. I do hope they are convicted because in later life if they want to travel the world they will find that many countries do not allow people in if they have a criminal record, particularly so USA. If they are from overseas sling them out of the UK even if it means ignoring the EU do gooders who think they should run the UK laws.
This lot are the same type who took part in the London riots. They are given a place at uni., and then abuse the system by doing as little work as they can.Brighton before the Uni came to town was a lovely place to live and work in, now it has become infiltrated by lots of far left wing and green party studens, that is why the green party got into power, probably most who voted them in have left the town so do not have to suffer their madness policies.If any of these so called students are caught even if it was not rocks they want the book thrown at them. I do hope they are convicted because in later life if they want to travel the world they will find that many countries do not allow people in if they have a criminal record, particularly so USA. If they are from overseas sling them out of the UK even if it means ignoring the EU do gooders who think they should run the UK laws. stir up
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dawind says...

@ Hovite.
The very fact that he supports the status quo, in parliament, should give you a clue.
@ Hovite. The very fact that he supports the status quo, in parliament, should give you a clue. dawind
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Hovite says...

You're talking rubbish dawind,

Pigeon holing him, attaching a parasite quote to him. Spouting your own propaganda and political spin.

He is against fox hunting and badger culls and does a lot of good work, he certainly doesn’t deserve to be attacked.
You're talking rubbish dawind, Pigeon holing him, attaching a parasite quote to him. Spouting your own propaganda and political spin. He is against fox hunting and badger culls and does a lot of good work, he certainly doesn’t deserve to be attacked. Hovite
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Wed 14 Nov 12

juleshove says...

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Well I'm firmly on the side of the protestors. Glad to see some people have still got a bit of spirit.
Its not spirit to attack someone in numbers. Its low life ignorant cowards who do things like that.
[quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: Well I'm firmly on the side of the protestors. Glad to see some people have still got a bit of spirit.[/p][/quote]Its not spirit to attack someone in numbers. Its low life ignorant cowards who do things like that. juleshove
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

gaz scott wrote:
Shame we can't persuade him to fly to Australia to eat disgusting things, get buried alive and all the other things that pass as entertainment these days.

He's a Tosser get him out of here!

But for now this is sufficient humiliation albeit to a smaller audience.
I think everyone can guess who the tosser is in your comment and its certainly not Mike Weatherly
[quote][p][bold]gaz scott[/bold] wrote: Shame we can't persuade him to fly to Australia to eat disgusting things, get buried alive and all the other things that pass as entertainment these days. He's a Tosser get him out of here! But for now this is sufficient humiliation albeit to a smaller audience.[/p][/quote]I think everyone can guess who the tosser is in your comment and its certainly not Mike Weatherly Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

Funny how all the posters above supporting the rabble seem incapable of stringing a decent sentence together and can only spout invective.

Probably the result of whatever passed for education in the Blair / Brown years. Of course Labour were so wonderful weren't they !
Funny how all the posters above supporting the rabble seem incapable of stringing a decent sentence together and can only spout invective. Probably the result of whatever passed for education in the Blair / Brown years. Of course Labour were so wonderful weren't they ! Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Wed 14 Nov 12

jarmonesque says...

lordenglandofsussex wrote:
These are the same kind of scum that turned into Blair, Brown, etc.
Thats right, the Tory Party always say that Blair was the best Conservative prime minister Labour have ever had, which aligns him with scum like weatherley. Glad we now have a leader in Miliband with a proper left wing heritage, his father Ralph being a hero of mine when I studied at Sussex.
[quote][p][bold]lordenglandofsussex[/bold] wrote: These are the same kind of scum that turned into Blair, Brown, etc.[/p][/quote]Thats right, the Tory Party always say that Blair was the best Conservative prime minister Labour have ever had, which aligns him with scum like weatherley. Glad we now have a leader in Miliband with a proper left wing heritage, his father Ralph being a hero of mine when I studied at Sussex. jarmonesque
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Wed 14 Nov 12

jarmonesque says...

lordenglandofsussex wrote:
These are the same kind of scum that turned into Blair, Brown, etc.
Thats right, the Tory Party always say that Blair was the best Conservative prime minister Labour have ever had, which aligns him with scum like weatherley. Glad we now have a leader in Miliband with a proper left wing heritage, his father Ralph being a hero of mine when I studied at Sussex.
[quote][p][bold]lordenglandofsussex[/bold] wrote: These are the same kind of scum that turned into Blair, Brown, etc.[/p][/quote]Thats right, the Tory Party always say that Blair was the best Conservative prime minister Labour have ever had, which aligns him with scum like weatherley. Glad we now have a leader in Miliband with a proper left wing heritage, his father Ralph being a hero of mine when I studied at Sussex. jarmonesque
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Fercri Sakes says...

Poccypoc wrote:
What a bunch of thugs and scroungers?! If I had a watter cannon lorry, I'd drive up there and hose these parasites into the sea.

I've never voted Conservative, but why should we pay our mortgages and rent and these wasters get everything for nothing?
Are you talking about politicians and the royal family?
[quote][p][bold]Poccypoc[/bold] wrote: What a bunch of thugs and scroungers?! If I had a watter cannon lorry, I'd drive up there and hose these parasites into the sea. I've never voted Conservative, but why should we pay our mortgages and rent and these wasters get everything for nothing?[/p][/quote]Are you talking about politicians and the royal family? Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Fercri Sakes says...

Idontbelieveit1948 wrote:
Funny how all the posters above supporting the rabble seem incapable of stringing a decent sentence together and can only spout invective.

Probably the result of whatever passed for education in the Blair / Brown years. Of course Labour were so wonderful weren't they !
That's funny. It looked to me that it was the other way around and the people moaning about "scroungers" and "get a job" were the more illiterate.
[quote][p][bold]Idontbelieveit1948[/bold] wrote: Funny how all the posters above supporting the rabble seem incapable of stringing a decent sentence together and can only spout invective. Probably the result of whatever passed for education in the Blair / Brown years. Of course Labour were so wonderful weren't they ![/p][/quote]That's funny. It looked to me that it was the other way around and the people moaning about "scroungers" and "get a job" were the more illiterate. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Wed 14 Nov 12

qm says...

Mark22 wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.
There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society...

Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy!
Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.
Well put young man, eloquent, articulate and way more polite than many of us would manage under the circumstances!!
[quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.[/p][/quote]There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society... Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy![/p][/quote]Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.[/p][/quote]Well put young man, eloquent, articulate and way more polite than many of us would manage under the circumstances!! qm
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Wed 14 Nov 12

dawind says...

Hovite wrote:
You're talking rubbish dawind,

Pigeon holing him, attaching a parasite quote to him. Spouting your own propaganda and political spin.

He is against fox hunting and badger culls and does a lot of good work, he certainly doesn’t deserve to be attacked.
Are you an idiot Hovite@
I have not ascribed a quote to MW.
Of course I'm pursuing a political agenda. So are you. And so is MW and anyone else who takes part in a public discussion. I've not 'pigeon holed' him, he does that himself by being an MP. Of course I don't condone any attack on anyone but when one concocts a piece of legislation that criminalises the result of actions rather than the cause of them then the mob might get a bit uppity! And then of course all bets are off.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: You're talking rubbish dawind, Pigeon holing him, attaching a parasite quote to him. Spouting your own propaganda and political spin. He is against fox hunting and badger culls and does a lot of good work, he certainly doesn’t deserve to be attacked.[/p][/quote]Are you an idiot Hovite@ I have not ascribed a quote to MW. Of course I'm pursuing a political agenda. So are you. And so is MW and anyone else who takes part in a public discussion. I've not 'pigeon holed' him, he does that himself by being an MP. Of course I don't condone any attack on anyone but when one concocts a piece of legislation that criminalises the result of actions rather than the cause of them then the mob might get a bit uppity! And then of course all bets are off. dawind
  • Score: 0

8:07pm Wed 14 Nov 12

true-brightonian says...

Although I personally do not agree with Mr. Weatherley's politics, one cannot help but admire him as a politician. Under the guise of a "debate", he lures his enemies into his trap, then pretends to be shocked when he is "attacked". Cue huge media furore, who only bother reporting on this kind of thing if violence is on the cards. Both Weatherley and the Media feign outrage at the violence, but both know nothing would have been reported if there had simply been a genuine debate.

The end result of these Machivellian tactics? The mob is on the side of Mr. Weatherley, genuine debate is silenced and so forth. I seems Mr. Weatherley has studied his history well, and used the old right wing populist tactic of setting up or provoking retaliation, finding an already disliked minority to blame and then reaping the rewards. It's worked before, just look at the Reichstag fire or the so-called "war on terror".
Although I personally do not agree with Mr. Weatherley's politics, one cannot help but admire him as a politician. Under the guise of a "debate", he lures his enemies into his trap, then pretends to be shocked when he is "attacked". Cue huge media furore, who only bother reporting on this kind of thing if violence is on the cards. Both Weatherley and the Media feign outrage at the violence, but both know nothing would have been reported if there had simply been a genuine debate. The end result of these Machivellian tactics? The mob is on the side of Mr. Weatherley, genuine debate is silenced and so forth. I seems Mr. Weatherley has studied his history well, and used the old right wing populist tactic of setting up or provoking retaliation, finding an already disliked minority to blame and then reaping the rewards. It's worked before, just look at the Reichstag fire or the so-called "war on terror". true-brightonian
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Dealing with idiots says...

Very democratic chaps, throwing rocks rather than bothering with the ballot box. You have played into the hands of the establishment for the brief passing pleasure of abusing another human being. What **** you are.
Very democratic chaps, throwing rocks rather than bothering with the ballot box. You have played into the hands of the establishment for the brief passing pleasure of abusing another human being. What **** you are. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 0

8:18pm Wed 14 Nov 12

true-brightonian says...

@stir_up say that ".Brighton before the Uni came to town was a lovely place to live and work in". The University of Sussex opened in 1961, 51 years ago! A lot has changed since then, @stir_up! Tell me, did the Green Party exist in 1961? You might want to read up on a few things, for example the Swing Riots, when "two barns and one hundred quarters of wheat ... were burnt and so strong were the flames that the glare was perceived from Brighton". This stuff is not new and it's just silly to try and blame the Green Party for everything from parking fines to burnt toast.
@stir_up say that ".Brighton before the Uni came to town was a lovely place to live and work in". The University of Sussex opened in 1961, 51 years ago! A lot has changed since then, @stir_up! Tell me, did the Green Party exist in 1961? You might want to read up on a few things, for example the Swing Riots, when "two barns and one hundred quarters of wheat ... were burnt and so strong were the flames that the glare was perceived from Brighton". This stuff is not new and it's just silly to try and blame the Green Party for everything from parking fines to burnt toast. true-brightonian
  • Score: 0

8:25pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Joshiman says...

CCTV Catch/identify and 5 year prison sentences with no parole for these mindless idiots.If they atre studentsthrow them out..Preferably in a prison hundreds of miles away.
CCTV Catch/identify and 5 year prison sentences with no parole for these mindless idiots.If they atre studentsthrow them out..Preferably in a prison hundreds of miles away. Joshiman
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Sussex jim says...

wereallgonnadiesomed
ay
wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Squatters have been throwing missiles at police and anyone who doesn't agree with them for years. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.
Is there a scale of those who are branded "scum of the earth"? If so, where is Jimmy Saville and Margaret Thatcher on this scale, compared to said squatters? Just wondering...
Here's your scale:
0: God (or Allah,etc.)
1:Her Majesty the Queen
2; Margaret Thatcher, lesser royals
3; Norman Baker
4:The big banks
5: Cold callers
6:Wheel clampers
7:P***es
8 Jimmy Sav**** (to be proved)
9: Those who choose the dole as a lifestyle
10: Privileged students who use their university to not only verbally but physically attack democratically elected politicians.
[quote][p][bold]wereallgonnadiesomed ay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Squatters have been throwing missiles at police and anyone who doesn't agree with them for years. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.[/p][/quote]Is there a scale of those who are branded "scum of the earth"? If so, where is Jimmy Saville and Margaret Thatcher on this scale, compared to said squatters? Just wondering...[/p][/quote]Here's your scale: 0: God (or Allah,etc.) 1:Her Majesty the Queen 2; Margaret Thatcher, lesser royals 3; Norman Baker 4:The big banks 5: Cold callers 6:Wheel clampers 7:P***es 8 Jimmy Sav**** (to be proved) 9: Those who choose the dole as a lifestyle 10: Privileged students who use their university to not only verbally but physically attack democratically elected politicians. Sussex jim
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Wed 14 Nov 12

george smith says...

mmm on route to being like Iran where they stone people. Very liberal
mmm on route to being like Iran where they stone people. Very liberal george smith
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

Interesting that all the usual lefties above either support violence or excuse it. Nothing changes. In the 30s the socialists (including the anti capitalist Hitler) demonised conservatives, jews and capitalists. They used violence and started boycotts of jewish shops, attacked banks and traditional institutions. Just like Brighton today.
Interesting that all the usual lefties above either support violence or excuse it. Nothing changes. In the 30s the socialists (including the anti capitalist Hitler) demonised conservatives, jews and capitalists. They used violence and started boycotts of jewish shops, attacked banks and traditional institutions. Just like Brighton today. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Wed 14 Nov 12

mictrix says...

wietraurig wrote:
Having watched the video above, I conclude that this is a storm in a teacup. A few students shouting at a police van, then standing around chatting and drinking coffee. Not quite the violent conflagration suggested by the headline.
Move along please, nothing to see here...
stupid person you move along idiot
[quote][p][bold]wietraurig[/bold] wrote: Having watched the video above, I conclude that this is a storm in a teacup. A few students shouting at a police van, then standing around chatting and drinking coffee. Not quite the violent conflagration suggested by the headline. Move along please, nothing to see here...[/p][/quote]stupid person you move along idiot mictrix
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Wed 14 Nov 12

HJarrs says...

If it is true that the alleged violence took place then this cannot be condoned.

Apparently, Weatherley was just about to make a speech about how he was fighting against his Tory governments £50 million cuts to the council budget over the next two years. Something he has been singularly silent on previously. Shame.
If it is true that the alleged violence took place then this cannot be condoned. Apparently, Weatherley was just about to make a speech about how he was fighting against his Tory governments £50 million cuts to the council budget over the next two years. Something he has been singularly silent on previously. Shame. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Wed 14 Nov 12

mictrix says...

dhamallamafarmer wrote:
Algeria Touchshriek wrote:
Shows what utter filth and scum left wingers.

I hope the police catch each and every one of them and, if students, are immediately expelled from the University.

Utter, utter scum.
But Wetherley is suppose do t be left wing since he's a member of the Labour Party. Think of it like a snake biting its own tail.
Nothing for right wing reactionary ignorami to get worked up about, move along & please don't step on the flowers.
no he's 100% correct they are utter utter scum now move along
[quote][p][bold]dhamallamafarmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Algeria Touchshriek[/bold] wrote: Shows what utter filth and scum left wingers. I hope the police catch each and every one of them and, if students, are immediately expelled from the University. Utter, utter scum.[/p][/quote]But Wetherley is suppose do t be left wing since he's a member of the Labour Party. Think of it like a snake biting its own tail. Nothing for right wing reactionary ignorami to get worked up about, move along & please don't step on the flowers.[/p][/quote]no he's 100% correct they are utter utter scum now move along mictrix
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Hove Actually says...

Hovite wrote:
I’m pretty sure that 75 % of comments posted in the Argus are submitted by people with a really strong chimpanzee gene. Oh well, that’s evolution for you.
If you had gone to University you would know that ALL Humans share 98% do their DNA with Chimpanzee's and theybare our closet link to eveloution..

Think you will find it's the East Brighton gene at work here....
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: I’m pretty sure that 75 % of comments posted in the Argus are submitted by people with a really strong chimpanzee gene. Oh well, that’s evolution for you.[/p][/quote]If you had gone to University you would know that ALL Humans share 98% do their DNA with Chimpanzee's and theybare our closet link to eveloution.. Think you will find it's the East Brighton gene at work here.... Hove Actually
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Wed 14 Nov 12

mictrix says...

sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.
There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society...

Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy!
Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.
That's the spirit....get worked up about something!

I assume you aren't studying history, as if you were you might happen to notice that many of our current 'leaders' took part in demonstrations...

Many became the establishment, but some did some good along the way...

But if you think 'peaceful discussion' is the only way, then I guess you condemn every revolution that has ever happened...
go away you stupid annoying person
[quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.[/p][/quote]There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society... Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy![/p][/quote]Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.[/p][/quote]That's the spirit....get worked up about something! I assume you aren't studying history, as if you were you might happen to notice that many of our current 'leaders' took part in demonstrations... Many became the establishment, but some did some good along the way... But if you think 'peaceful discussion' is the only way, then I guess you condemn every revolution that has ever happened...[/p][/quote]go away you stupid annoying person mictrix
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Wed 14 Nov 12

AmboGuy says...

Sussex jim wrote:
wereallgonnadiesomed

ay
wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Squatters have been throwing missiles at police and anyone who doesn't agree with them for years. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.
Is there a scale of those who are branded "scum of the earth"? If so, where is Jimmy Saville and Margaret Thatcher on this scale, compared to said squatters? Just wondering...
Here's your scale:
0: God (or Allah,etc.)
1:Her Majesty the Queen
2; Margaret Thatcher, lesser royals
3; Norman Baker
4:The big banks
5: Cold callers
6:Wheel clampers
7:P***es
8 Jimmy Sav**** (to be proved)
9: Those who choose the dole as a lifestyle
10: Privileged students who use their university to not only verbally but physically attack democratically elected politicians.
Hmm I think that's more your scale than mine.

You've put some interesting choices in there though, I'd be interested to hear how you came to make some of those.
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wereallgonnadiesomed ay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Squatters have been throwing missiles at police and anyone who doesn't agree with them for years. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.[/p][/quote]Is there a scale of those who are branded "scum of the earth"? If so, where is Jimmy Saville and Margaret Thatcher on this scale, compared to said squatters? Just wondering...[/p][/quote]Here's your scale: 0: God (or Allah,etc.) 1:Her Majesty the Queen 2; Margaret Thatcher, lesser royals 3; Norman Baker 4:The big banks 5: Cold callers 6:Wheel clampers 7:P***es 8 Jimmy Sav**** (to be proved) 9: Those who choose the dole as a lifestyle 10: Privileged students who use their university to not only verbally but physically attack democratically elected politicians.[/p][/quote]Hmm I think that's more your scale than mine. You've put some interesting choices in there though, I'd be interested to hear how you came to make some of those. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Herbert Augustus Chapman says...

What a horrid mob of reprobates.
What a horrid mob of reprobates. Herbert Augustus Chapman
  • Score: 0

9:31pm Wed 14 Nov 12

sbiscorrupt says...

mictrix wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
Mark22 wrote:
As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.
There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society...

Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy!
Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.
That's the spirit....get worked up about something!

I assume you aren't studying history, as if you were you might happen to notice that many of our current 'leaders' took part in demonstrations...

Many became the establishment, but some did some good along the way...

But if you think 'peaceful discussion' is the only way, then I guess you condemn every revolution that has ever happened...
go away you stupid annoying person
Is that the best you can offer?
[quote][p][bold]mictrix[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark22[/bold] wrote: As a student of the Uni i'd like to say that these people don't represent the vast majority of Sussex Students who just want to get on with their studies. This video certainly doesn't show the whole story, and yet only the end of what was a violent and disgusting protest. Some of the people protesting were not even Sussex Students. It is so sad to see that a University, especially one so well regarded as Sussex can no longer be the home for a reasoned and peaceful debate, which was Mike Weatherleys intention in coming to the campus.[/p][/quote]There goes all our future hopes if, as you say, the 'majority of students' won't protest when faced with with an attack on the vulnerable in our society... Be sure to wash that brown stain off your tongue when you run home to mummy![/p][/quote]Completely void comment sbiscorrupt, students invited Mike Weatherley onto campus to have a debate and talk about it properly in a reasoned debate. Most of us are studying for our degrees and yes, that is more important to many us than the squatting law. If you believe in a 'future' in which the brightest young minds of our country violently attack people they disagree with you sir, are very very confused. Peaceful discussion is the way forward, these people were throwing rocks and many of them were not even students, they put many of our students and staff at risk. So stop your nonsense about brown tongues and keep your ridiculous interpretations on events to yourself.[/p][/quote]That's the spirit....get worked up about something! I assume you aren't studying history, as if you were you might happen to notice that many of our current 'leaders' took part in demonstrations... Many became the establishment, but some did some good along the way... But if you think 'peaceful discussion' is the only way, then I guess you condemn every revolution that has ever happened...[/p][/quote]go away you stupid annoying person[/p][/quote]Is that the best you can offer? sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

10:40pm Wed 14 Nov 12

SmileyD says...

Herbert Augustus Chapman wrote:
What a horrid mob of reprobates.
Yes this Argus forum does tend to attract the worst sort of lowlife...
[quote][p][bold]Herbert Augustus Chapman[/bold] wrote: What a horrid mob of reprobates.[/p][/quote]Yes this Argus forum does tend to attract the worst sort of lowlife... SmileyD
  • Score: 0

10:59pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Chazza65 says...

stoning is about the only thing these privileged tory mps understand - they won't care two hoots when people evicted from squats freeze to death on the streets this winter - well played sussex students keep up the good work!
stoning is about the only thing these privileged tory mps understand - they won't care two hoots when people evicted from squats freeze to death on the streets this winter - well played sussex students keep up the good work! Chazza65
  • Score: 0

11:15pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Chazza65 says...

I notice Mr Weatherley claims £1,863 a month in rental expenses - no doubt he rails against benefit scroungers - whilst he not only claims for his rent but also his internet and electricity and newspapers - maybe you might like to throw a few coppers to those homeless ex squatters Mr Weatherley and think yourself generous whilst you put your feet up and read your newspaper in your heated accommodation all paid for by the tax payer - after all you only earn £66,000 a year!
I notice Mr Weatherley claims £1,863 a month in rental expenses - no doubt he rails against benefit scroungers - whilst he not only claims for his rent but also his internet and electricity and newspapers - maybe you might like to throw a few coppers to those homeless ex squatters Mr Weatherley and think yourself generous whilst you put your feet up and read your newspaper in your heated accommodation all paid for by the tax payer - after all you only earn £66,000 a year! Chazza65
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Wed 14 Nov 12

AmboGuy says...

Chazza65 wrote:
stoning is about the only thing these privileged tory mps understand - they won't care two hoots when people evicted from squats freeze to death on the streets this winter - well played sussex students keep up the good work!
Yeah the strange thing seems to be that the squatters around Brighton seem to be so hard up they manage to throw parties every night while simultaneously trashing the place they're in. Come one, for god sake this 'most vulnerable members of society' line is getting very tiresome now.
[quote][p][bold]Chazza65[/bold] wrote: stoning is about the only thing these privileged tory mps understand - they won't care two hoots when people evicted from squats freeze to death on the streets this winter - well played sussex students keep up the good work![/p][/quote]Yeah the strange thing seems to be that the squatters around Brighton seem to be so hard up they manage to throw parties every night while simultaneously trashing the place they're in. Come one, for god sake this 'most vulnerable members of society' line is getting very tiresome now. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Poccypoc says...

funkyyoyo wrote:
if you want ti live in a property,get off your backside and get a job like the rest of us do,as far as im concerned well done mike in changing the law
I tooooooooooooooooooo
oooootally aggggggggggggggggggr
ee.
[quote][p][bold]funkyyoyo[/bold] wrote: if you want ti live in a property,get off your backside and get a job like the rest of us do,as far as im concerned well done mike in changing the law[/p][/quote]I tooooooooooooooooooo oooootally aggggggggggggggggggr ee. Poccypoc
  • Score: 0

12:31am Thu 15 Nov 12

Chazza65 says...

remarkably sad how many people believe in the ethos of paying rent to rich landlords as if it were somehow noble! Weatherly and his tory chums are laughing all the way to the bank whilst your rent money buys them more property and pays for their kids next term at Eton
remarkably sad how many people believe in the ethos of paying rent to rich landlords as if it were somehow noble! Weatherly and his tory chums are laughing all the way to the bank whilst your rent money buys them more property and pays for their kids next term at Eton Chazza65
  • Score: 0

1:56am Thu 15 Nov 12

DONTvotegreen says...

The members of the Occupy movement have today shown the world their true face.

That of a bunch of mindless thugs.
The members of the Occupy movement have today shown the world their true face. That of a bunch of mindless thugs. DONTvotegreen
  • Score: 0

1:59am Thu 15 Nov 12

DONTvotegreen says...

Dave in Hastings wrote:
Good for the students. Let's hope we start to get some real reaction from the masses to the corruption of the ruling elite in this country and globally. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath. Too many people are completely politically ignorant, and have bought the Daily Mail / Sun / Torygraph line that it's all the fault of benefit scroungers, while the very few at the top cream off all the wealth for themselves.
As a sign of this ignorance, I point you to the people above, who think a raving right winger like Weatherley is Labour. Gawd help us!
Got your black shirts ready for the next stage have you Dave ?

Or maybe some book burning ?
[quote][p][bold]Dave in Hastings[/bold] wrote: Good for the students. Let's hope we start to get some real reaction from the masses to the corruption of the ruling elite in this country and globally. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath. Too many people are completely politically ignorant, and have bought the Daily Mail / Sun / Torygraph line that it's all the fault of benefit scroungers, while the very few at the top cream off all the wealth for themselves. As a sign of this ignorance, I point you to the people above, who think a raving right winger like Weatherley is Labour. Gawd help us![/p][/quote]Got your black shirts ready for the next stage have you Dave ? Or maybe some book burning ? DONTvotegreen
  • Score: 0

6:25am Thu 15 Nov 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

DONTvotegreen wrote:
The members of the Occupy movement have today shown the world their true face.

That of a bunch of mindless thugs.
Might just be worth qualifying this comment, as at the last count there were just 2 members of Occupy Brighton.

Its also that time of the year where these posh kids that represent the Occupy hangers on, begin their retreat back to Mummy and Daddy's posh place in the country ahead of the annual long haul offshore holiday.

From history we know that the disgraceful camp in Victoria Gardens was the scene of arson and assault so any stone throwing type antics yesterday is pretty much par for the course.

The good people of Brighton know what#s right and wrong and this bunch of miscreants and their supporters on here are seen for what they truly are.

Keep up the good work Mike and lets keep doing everything we can to get this minority group off the streets and out of other people's property.
[quote][p][bold]DONTvotegreen[/bold] wrote: The members of the Occupy movement have today shown the world their true face. That of a bunch of mindless thugs.[/p][/quote]Might just be worth qualifying this comment, as at the last count there were just 2 members of Occupy Brighton. Its also that time of the year where these posh kids that represent the Occupy hangers on, begin their retreat back to Mummy and Daddy's posh place in the country ahead of the annual long haul offshore holiday. From history we know that the disgraceful camp in Victoria Gardens was the scene of arson and assault so any stone throwing type antics yesterday is pretty much par for the course. The good people of Brighton know what#s right and wrong and this bunch of miscreants and their supporters on here are seen for what they truly are. Keep up the good work Mike and lets keep doing everything we can to get this minority group off the streets and out of other people's property. Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 0

7:44am Thu 15 Nov 12

Angryoldman says...

Why would someone from a government that hates and despises young people want to visit them at uni anyway?
This time next year when the true scale of cuts begin to bite we will be seeing protests on a scale of Greece.
Why would someone from a government that hates and despises young people want to visit them at uni anyway? This time next year when the true scale of cuts begin to bite we will be seeing protests on a scale of Greece. Angryoldman
  • Score: 0

8:25am Thu 15 Nov 12

JKW says...

i assume the video will be watched and students will be chucked out of the University!!
i assume the video will be watched and students will be chucked out of the University!! JKW
  • Score: 0

10:17am Thu 15 Nov 12

juleshove says...

Chazza65 wrote:
remarkably sad how many people believe in the ethos of paying rent to rich landlords as if it were somehow noble! Weatherly and his tory chums are laughing all the way to the bank whilst your rent money buys them more property and pays for their kids next term at Eton
Not got a very large chip on your shoulder have you. Stop blaming people that work hard.to succeed and try doing something for yourself. Envy is a very unattractive quality.
[quote][p][bold]Chazza65[/bold] wrote: remarkably sad how many people believe in the ethos of paying rent to rich landlords as if it were somehow noble! Weatherly and his tory chums are laughing all the way to the bank whilst your rent money buys them more property and pays for their kids next term at Eton[/p][/quote]Not got a very large chip on your shoulder have you. Stop blaming people that work hard.to succeed and try doing something for yourself. Envy is a very unattractive quality. juleshove
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Morch says...

Whilst Mike Weatherley Tory MP probably deserved rotten eggs and tomatoes, no one should be throwing rocks (or was that a turnip Mr. Weatherley?) or punches. After all most of us aren't leftist totalitarian street thugs or right-wing fascists. Yes, he did ask for a lot of anger by gloating over his new law to criminalise the homeless, vulnerable and poor, but he wasn't carrying a weapon (except this undemocratic reactionary law that attacks the poor and homeless). We should never lower ourselves to the violence of the state. There again I am not being criminalised for being homeless/occupying derelict properties, mentally ill or vulnerable, if I was I don't know how I'd react...? Mike Weatherley certainly knows how to rub salt in the wound, and I won't be shedding any tears for him. It's unfortunate that he and his lap-dogs can now use the more violent actions as ammunition in his vindictive crusade. Btw: Love the name SNOB (AHA) - Squatters Network of Brighton (And Hove Actually) - for the snobs in Hove ; )
Whilst Mike Weatherley Tory MP probably deserved rotten eggs and tomatoes, no one should be throwing rocks (or was that a turnip Mr. Weatherley?) or punches. After all most of us aren't leftist totalitarian street thugs or right-wing fascists. Yes, he did ask for a lot of anger by gloating over his new law to criminalise the homeless, vulnerable and poor, but he wasn't carrying a weapon (except this undemocratic reactionary law that attacks the poor and homeless). We should never lower ourselves to the violence of the state. There again I am not being criminalised for being homeless/occupying derelict properties, mentally ill or vulnerable, if I was I don't know how I'd react...? Mike Weatherley certainly knows how to rub salt in the wound, and I won't be shedding any tears for him. It's unfortunate that he and his lap-dogs can now use the more violent actions as ammunition in his vindictive crusade. Btw: Love the name SNOB (AHA) - Squatters Network of Brighton (And Hove Actually) - for the snobs in Hove ; ) Morch
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Fairfax Sakes says...

true-brightonian wrote:
Although I personally do not agree with Mr. Weatherley's politics, one cannot help but admire him as a politician. Under the guise of a "debate", he lures his enemies into his trap, then pretends to be shocked when he is "attacked". Cue huge media furore, who only bother reporting on this kind of thing if violence is on the cards. Both Weatherley and the Media feign outrage at the violence, but both know nothing would have been reported if there had simply been a genuine debate.

The end result of these Machivellian tactics? The mob is on the side of Mr. Weatherley, genuine debate is silenced and so forth. I seems Mr. Weatherley has studied his history well, and used the old right wing populist tactic of setting up or provoking retaliation, finding an already disliked minority to blame and then reaping the rewards. It's worked before, just look at the Reichstag fire or the so-called "war on terror".
Wow, I'm suprised it took this long before someone made a comparison to Nazi Germany.
"blah blah blah...so did Hitler..."
So? Are you saying Mike Weatherly is intending to commit genocide?

Come to think of it, I have seen a few peopel with suspicious under lip growth this month...quick! To the bunkers!
[quote][p][bold]true-brightonian[/bold] wrote: Although I personally do not agree with Mr. Weatherley's politics, one cannot help but admire him as a politician. Under the guise of a "debate", he lures his enemies into his trap, then pretends to be shocked when he is "attacked". Cue huge media furore, who only bother reporting on this kind of thing if violence is on the cards. Both Weatherley and the Media feign outrage at the violence, but both know nothing would have been reported if there had simply been a genuine debate. The end result of these Machivellian tactics? The mob is on the side of Mr. Weatherley, genuine debate is silenced and so forth. I seems Mr. Weatherley has studied his history well, and used the old right wing populist tactic of setting up or provoking retaliation, finding an already disliked minority to blame and then reaping the rewards. It's worked before, just look at the Reichstag fire or the so-called "war on terror".[/p][/quote]Wow, I'm suprised it took this long before someone made a comparison to Nazi Germany. "blah blah blah...so did Hitler..." So? Are you saying Mike Weatherly is intending to commit genocide? Come to think of it, I have seen a few peopel with suspicious under lip growth this month...quick! To the bunkers! Fairfax Sakes
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Max_Normal says...

Much that I dislike a Tory, to be fair most of the people who want to squat are trendy middle-class dropouts living the lefty-dream and wanting to party or get the kudos for having a squat.

Of course it's all fun and games until the person who actually owns the house needs to live in it (and has perhaps not chosen a (rich parent funded) masters in "International Relations" and an NGO job, but who has just chosen to do an ordinary job and buy a house. Of course these poor people can be dismissed as members of the sinister "System" and therefore unworthy of sympathy from our pseudo working class heroes.

Couple of things: I used to be a "Crusty" in the 1980's and this is what we used to do (I now have a normal apolitical job at the University of Sussex). I worked for 2 years at Brighton and Hove Council Housing and City Support as a keyworker for homeless people.

Real homeless people don't want a squat they want a council house because homeless people are not trendy and they don't want a dirty old squat to party in, they want a warm, dry, secure council house. Most homeless go to First Base, get put in a hostel after about a week and are then moved into council accommodation if they agree to stop drinking or taking heroin/go into rehab/take methadone. This service really does exist, nobody is being forced onto the street apart from people who refuse help to get off drugs or booze by going into a council hostel (you can just accept help, you don't have to give up immediately), or middle class crusties who want a bit of fun before they finally get that dream NGO job. Honestly, when i was a Ph.D student I had to share Uni accomodation with a load of them. They were dressing up as Russian peasants, clogdancing and shoplifting Pate and Chateauneuf de pape from Sainsburies and then going up the squat to party or going to demos to throw bottles at police.
Much that I dislike a Tory, to be fair most of the people who want to squat are trendy middle-class dropouts living the lefty-dream and wanting to party or get the kudos for having a squat. Of course it's all fun and games until the person who actually owns the house needs to live in it (and has perhaps not chosen a (rich parent funded) masters in "International Relations" and an NGO job, but who has just chosen to do an ordinary job and buy a house. Of course these poor people can be dismissed as members of the sinister "System" and therefore unworthy of sympathy from our pseudo working class heroes. Couple of things: I used to be a "Crusty" in the 1980's and this is what we used to do (I now have a normal apolitical job at the University of Sussex). I worked for 2 years at Brighton and Hove Council Housing and City Support as a keyworker for homeless people. Real homeless people don't want a squat they want a council house because homeless people are not trendy and they don't want a dirty old squat to party in, they want a warm, dry, secure council house. Most homeless go to First Base, get put in a hostel after about a week and are then moved into council accommodation if they agree to stop drinking or taking heroin/go into rehab/take methadone. This service really does exist, nobody is being forced onto the street apart from people who refuse help to get off drugs or booze by going into a council hostel (you can just accept help, you don't have to give up immediately), or middle class crusties who want a bit of fun before they finally get that dream NGO job. Honestly, when i was a Ph.D student I had to share Uni accomodation with a load of them. They were dressing up as Russian peasants, clogdancing and shoplifting Pate and Chateauneuf de pape from Sainsburies and then going up the squat to party or going to demos to throw bottles at police. Max_Normal
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Valerie Paynter says...

sbiscorrupt wrote:
Hardly surprising if you pick on the vulnerable and then crow about it...
....as in 'let them eat cake'....? Really dangerous lack of humility. How does 'call me Dave' view this uprising, I wonder.
[quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: Hardly surprising if you pick on the vulnerable and then crow about it...[/p][/quote]....as in 'let them eat cake'....? Really dangerous lack of humility. How does 'call me Dave' view this uprising, I wonder. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Valerie Paynter says...

ya basta wrote:
Its been illegal to squat in a used property since 1976.

Weatherley's new law means simply stops people using empty building that are boarded up and left to fall into disrepair by their owners.

The country has a massive housing crisis and all he's done is keep empty unused buildings, empty and unused.

He should have wrote a law chastising people who leave buildings to fall apart when there are thousands who need homes.
Exactly right.
[quote][p][bold]ya basta[/bold] wrote: Its been illegal to squat in a used property since 1976. Weatherley's new law means simply stops people using empty building that are boarded up and left to fall into disrepair by their owners. The country has a massive housing crisis and all he's done is keep empty unused buildings, empty and unused. He should have wrote a law chastising people who leave buildings to fall apart when there are thousands who need homes.[/p][/quote]Exactly right. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Thu 15 Nov 12

ARealBessie says...

When it comes to this rotten council, I'm in favour of lots more tomatoes. And, flour and eggs...
When it comes to this rotten council, I'm in favour of lots more tomatoes. And, flour and eggs... ARealBessie
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Johnboy123 says...

This isn't anything new is it? We have the usual left-wing unwashed scumbags who expect this something for nothing culture to persist. They live in an idealistic society that is never going to happen – and this goes for whoever is in power.

I cannot fathom how anyone in their right mind can support squatters? I suppose it's acceptable as long as it's not in your home. This isn't some kind of right-wing fantasy, squatting is happening in Brighton and Hove today.

The left’s hypocrisy becomes clearer and clearer day by day. You have Ed Miliband moaning about a cabinet full of millionaires, well people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially seeing as he’s a millionaire, too!

I have no problem with peaceful protests and debate, but please make sure you have your facts right beforehand.
This isn't anything new is it? We have the usual left-wing unwashed scumbags who expect this something for nothing culture to persist. They live in an idealistic society that is never going to happen – and this goes for whoever is in power. I cannot fathom how anyone in their right mind can support squatters? I suppose it's acceptable as long as it's not in your home. This isn't some kind of right-wing fantasy, squatting is happening in Brighton and Hove today. The left’s hypocrisy becomes clearer and clearer day by day. You have Ed Miliband moaning about a cabinet full of millionaires, well people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially seeing as he’s a millionaire, too! I have no problem with peaceful protests and debate, but please make sure you have your facts right beforehand. Johnboy123
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Johnboy123 wrote:
This isn't anything new is it? We have the usual left-wing unwashed scumbags who expect this something for nothing culture to persist. They live in an idealistic society that is never going to happen – and this goes for whoever is in power.

I cannot fathom how anyone in their right mind can support squatters? I suppose it's acceptable as long as it's not in your home. This isn't some kind of right-wing fantasy, squatting is happening in Brighton and Hove today.

The left’s hypocrisy becomes clearer and clearer day by day. You have Ed Miliband moaning about a cabinet full of millionaires, well people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially seeing as he’s a millionaire, too!

I have no problem with peaceful protests and debate, but please make sure you have your facts right beforehand.
Remind me how Ed Miliband became a millionaire please?
[quote][p][bold]Johnboy123[/bold] wrote: This isn't anything new is it? We have the usual left-wing unwashed scumbags who expect this something for nothing culture to persist. They live in an idealistic society that is never going to happen – and this goes for whoever is in power. I cannot fathom how anyone in their right mind can support squatters? I suppose it's acceptable as long as it's not in your home. This isn't some kind of right-wing fantasy, squatting is happening in Brighton and Hove today. The left’s hypocrisy becomes clearer and clearer day by day. You have Ed Miliband moaning about a cabinet full of millionaires, well people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially seeing as he’s a millionaire, too! I have no problem with peaceful protests and debate, but please make sure you have your facts right beforehand.[/p][/quote]Remind me how Ed Miliband became a millionaire please? Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 0

8:59pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Orlando Faark says...

The majority of MPs seem to me to be grasping scroungers - ruthlessly bleeding an outrageous expenses and pension system they pretty much set up themselves for themselves.

The vast majority of squatters appear to be scumbags with a remarkably similar sense of over-entitlement that has so often been demonstrated by some MPs.

Both groups seem to have far more in common than either would like to admit.

At times like this that people often forget about the real victims here...what happened to the fruit and eggs?

...I know some old folk who I could drop the fruit off to so that they might save a little money - to pay the bonuses and dividends of ruthless utility companies that have been outrageously ripping them off for years.

Do any of our MPs need a new project?
The majority of MPs seem to me to be grasping scroungers - ruthlessly bleeding an outrageous expenses and pension system they pretty much set up themselves for themselves. The vast majority of squatters appear to be scumbags with a remarkably similar sense of over-entitlement that has so often been demonstrated by some MPs. Both groups seem to have far more in common than either would like to admit. At times like this that people often forget about the real victims here...what happened to the fruit and eggs? ...I know some old folk who I could drop the fruit off to so that they might save a little money - to pay the bonuses and dividends of ruthless utility companies that have been outrageously ripping them off for years. Do any of our MPs need a new project? Orlando Faark
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Morch says...

Max_Normal wrote:
Much that I dislike a Tory, to be fair most of the people who want to squat are trendy middle-class dropouts living the lefty-dream and wanting to party or get the kudos for having a squat.

Of course it's all fun and games until the person who actually owns the house needs to live in it (and has perhaps not chosen a (rich parent funded) masters in "International Relations" and an NGO job, but who has just chosen to do an ordinary job and buy a house. Of course these poor people can be dismissed as members of the sinister "System" and therefore unworthy of sympathy from our pseudo working class heroes.

Couple of things: I used to be a "Crusty" in the 1980's and this is what we used to do (I now have a normal apolitical job at the University of Sussex). I worked for 2 years at Brighton and Hove Council Housing and City Support as a keyworker for homeless people.

Real homeless people don't want a squat they want a council house because homeless people are not trendy and they don't want a dirty old squat to party in, they want a warm, dry, secure council house. Most homeless go to First Base, get put in a hostel after about a week and are then moved into council accommodation if they agree to stop drinking or taking heroin/go into rehab/take methadone. This service really does exist, nobody is being forced onto the street apart from people who refuse help to get off drugs or booze by going into a council hostel (you can just accept help, you don't have to give up immediately), or middle class crusties who want a bit of fun before they finally get that dream NGO job. Honestly, when i was a Ph.D student I had to share Uni accomodation with a load of them. They were dressing up as Russian peasants, clogdancing and shoplifting Pate and Chateauneuf de pape from Sainsburies and then going up the squat to party or going to demos to throw bottles at police.
Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say, it would be a mistake to basically call all squatters "trustafarians", that might be largely your personal experience, but not everyone's. There are people being evicted from their homes because they are in poverty. We all know the Tories are the main driver for increased homelessness and poverty in this country. A huge portion of society cannot get secure full-time jobs, particularly young people. There is no affordable housing available. Brightonians who rent their homes are twice the national average and they are outrageously expensive. We have a load of cowboy landlords and rip-off letting agents in this town. Something's got to give. Mike Weatherley is quite ignorant when it come to housing law. He tried to illegally evict a legal tenant (mother and dependent child), thinking she was a squatter. He thought it a great media opportunity to help some big developer's daughter, who decided to come back early from her "charity work" in South America. She got all hysterical because she couldn't illegally evict her tenant and pretended to live in a tent.
[quote][p][bold]Max_Normal[/bold] wrote: Much that I dislike a Tory, to be fair most of the people who want to squat are trendy middle-class dropouts living the lefty-dream and wanting to party or get the kudos for having a squat. Of course it's all fun and games until the person who actually owns the house needs to live in it (and has perhaps not chosen a (rich parent funded) masters in "International Relations" and an NGO job, but who has just chosen to do an ordinary job and buy a house. Of course these poor people can be dismissed as members of the sinister "System" and therefore unworthy of sympathy from our pseudo working class heroes. Couple of things: I used to be a "Crusty" in the 1980's and this is what we used to do (I now have a normal apolitical job at the University of Sussex). I worked for 2 years at Brighton and Hove Council Housing and City Support as a keyworker for homeless people. Real homeless people don't want a squat they want a council house because homeless people are not trendy and they don't want a dirty old squat to party in, they want a warm, dry, secure council house. Most homeless go to First Base, get put in a hostel after about a week and are then moved into council accommodation if they agree to stop drinking or taking heroin/go into rehab/take methadone. This service really does exist, nobody is being forced onto the street apart from people who refuse help to get off drugs or booze by going into a council hostel (you can just accept help, you don't have to give up immediately), or middle class crusties who want a bit of fun before they finally get that dream NGO job. Honestly, when i was a Ph.D student I had to share Uni accomodation with a load of them. They were dressing up as Russian peasants, clogdancing and shoplifting Pate and Chateauneuf de pape from Sainsburies and then going up the squat to party or going to demos to throw bottles at police.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say, it would be a mistake to basically call all squatters "trustafarians", that might be largely your personal experience, but not everyone's. There are people being evicted from their homes because they are in poverty. We all know the Tories are the main driver for increased homelessness and poverty in this country. A huge portion of society cannot get secure full-time jobs, particularly young people. There is no affordable housing available. Brightonians who rent their homes are twice the national average and they are outrageously expensive. We have a load of cowboy landlords and rip-off letting agents in this town. Something's got to give. Mike Weatherley is quite ignorant when it come to housing law. He tried to illegally evict a legal tenant (mother and dependent child), thinking she was a squatter. He thought it a great media opportunity to help some big developer's daughter, who decided to come back early from her "charity work" in South America. She got all hysterical because she couldn't illegally evict her tenant and pretended to live in a tent. Morch
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Fri 16 Nov 12

alexwildcat says...

Hey so it really seems like there's a lot of misunderstanding between property owners and squatters. It doesn't surprise me. Who benefits when we fight? The courts get money from the extensive fees property owners have to pay. The security companies get money to come in and 'resecure' the building (when the majority of times squatters are able to get in because the same companies do an abysmal job). Real estate agents can profit (look up the concept of 'blockbusting'). And people like Weatherley make a career out of inflaming this tension, while the argus and mail love the attention it brings to their otherwise uninteresting reporting. (Though I did think this piece seemed more extensive than any of Emily or Ben's stuff.) But really, most squatters have no real interest in being in a property that is about to be used. And landlords have no real reason to evict squatters, unless they are actually in the process of renovating a building or about to make a sale. In fact, they can actually help with both of those things, since they're generally handy with DIY and creative. As an investor, I'd rather purchase a building that is swarming with bohemian colour than one which is boarded up.
So what I'm saying is- let's negotiate. Squatters know they don't have the legal right to trash a building that is going to be used for a purpose. A lot of the younger squatters I know are only there because they have to choose between going to school/college/unive
rsity or (having an apprenticeship, as with the recently prosecuted Alex Haigh) and having a home. A lot of the older squatters are displaced travellers, who would rather be in the countryside if land could be made available.
Landlords know they don't have a moral right to evict people who have made a home in a building, unless they are going to use it. A lot of property owners have realistic reasons why there's a delay in bringing buildings into use, but it's easy to confuse them with Scrooge-like speculators.
I guess it's up to both sides to drop a level of dogmatism, if we're going to be realistic. That means squatters assuming some responsibility, but also owners realising that property-rights are not sacred or god-given, but rather are social in nature. As such, they require a certain level of social responsibility...
Hey so it really seems like there's a lot of misunderstanding between property owners and squatters. It doesn't surprise me. Who benefits when we fight? The courts get money from the extensive fees property owners have to pay. The security companies get money to come in and 'resecure' the building (when the majority of times squatters are able to get in because the same companies do an abysmal job). Real estate agents can profit (look up the concept of 'blockbusting'). And people like Weatherley make a career out of inflaming this tension, while the argus and mail love the attention it brings to their otherwise uninteresting reporting. (Though I did think this piece seemed more extensive than any of Emily or Ben's stuff.) But really, most squatters have no real interest in being in a property that is about to be used. And landlords have no real reason to evict squatters, unless they are actually in the process of renovating a building or about to make a sale. In fact, they can actually help with both of those things, since they're generally handy with DIY and creative. As an investor, I'd rather purchase a building that is swarming with bohemian colour than one which is boarded up. So what I'm saying is- let's negotiate. Squatters know they don't have the legal right to trash a building that is going to be used for a purpose. A lot of the younger squatters I know are only there because they have to choose between going to school/college/unive rsity or (having an apprenticeship, as with the recently prosecuted Alex Haigh) and having a home. A lot of the older squatters are displaced travellers, who would rather be in the countryside if land could be made available. Landlords know they don't have a moral right to evict people who have made a home in a building, unless they are going to use it. A lot of property owners have realistic reasons why there's a delay in bringing buildings into use, but it's easy to confuse them with Scrooge-like speculators. I guess it's up to both sides to drop a level of dogmatism, if we're going to be realistic. That means squatters assuming some responsibility, but also owners realising that property-rights are not sacred or god-given, but rather are social in nature. As such, they require a certain level of social responsibility... alexwildcat
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Brightonlocal says...

Chazza65 wrote:
remarkably sad how many people believe in the ethos of paying rent to rich landlords as if it were somehow noble! Weatherly and his tory chums are laughing all the way to the bank whilst your rent money buys them more property and pays for their kids next term at Eton
How do you know all landlords are rich? That is a crazy statement. I am not rich, though I managed to buy a house on a buy-to-let mortgage. Im not far off bankrupt and like in a studio flat that im renting, whilst my house several hundreds of miles away is now worth less than it was when I bought it (thanks to recession) and if I sold it i would still owe the bank money. My kid wont be going to Eton! What about me. How can you say all landlords are rich when you can get a buy-to-let mortgage on a studio/flat/house with a 10% deposit.... a 100,000k house is only a 10k deposit. You can get a 10k deposit from a credit card or personal loan....you dont need to be a millionaire! Grow up.
[quote][p][bold]Chazza65[/bold] wrote: remarkably sad how many people believe in the ethos of paying rent to rich landlords as if it were somehow noble! Weatherly and his tory chums are laughing all the way to the bank whilst your rent money buys them more property and pays for their kids next term at Eton[/p][/quote]How do you know all landlords are rich? That is a crazy statement. I am not rich, though I managed to buy a house on a buy-to-let mortgage. Im not far off bankrupt and like in a studio flat that im renting, whilst my house several hundreds of miles away is now worth less than it was when I bought it (thanks to recession) and if I sold it i would still owe the bank money. My kid wont be going to Eton! What about me. How can you say all landlords are rich when you can get a buy-to-let mortgage on a studio/flat/house with a 10% deposit.... a 100,000k house is only a 10k deposit. You can get a 10k deposit from a credit card or personal loan....you dont need to be a millionaire! Grow up. Brightonlocal
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Brightonlocal says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
ya basta wrote:
Its been illegal to squat in a used property since 1976.

Weatherley's new law means simply stops people using empty building that are boarded up and left to fall into disrepair by their owners.

The country has a massive housing crisis and all he's done is keep empty unused buildings, empty and unused.

He should have wrote a law chastising people who leave buildings to fall apart when there are thousands who need homes.
Exactly right.
But most of the squats I have seen on the argus have been in perfectly good order. Just about to be sold, or going through contracts. They are not falling down and being saved by the squatters, quite the opposite. Like the London Road squatt, they took walls down!
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ya basta[/bold] wrote: Its been illegal to squat in a used property since 1976. Weatherley's new law means simply stops people using empty building that are boarded up and left to fall into disrepair by their owners. The country has a massive housing crisis and all he's done is keep empty unused buildings, empty and unused. He should have wrote a law chastising people who leave buildings to fall apart when there are thousands who need homes.[/p][/quote]Exactly right.[/p][/quote]But most of the squats I have seen on the argus have been in perfectly good order. Just about to be sold, or going through contracts. They are not falling down and being saved by the squatters, quite the opposite. Like the London Road squatt, they took walls down! Brightonlocal
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Brightonlocal says...

alexwildcat wrote:
Hey so it really seems like there's a lot of misunderstanding between property owners and squatters. It doesn't surprise me. Who benefits when we fight? The courts get money from the extensive fees property owners have to pay. The security companies get money to come in and 'resecure' the building (when the majority of times squatters are able to get in because the same companies do an abysmal job). Real estate agents can profit (look up the concept of 'blockbusting'). And people like Weatherley make a career out of inflaming this tension, while the argus and mail love the attention it brings to their otherwise uninteresting reporting. (Though I did think this piece seemed more extensive than any of Emily or Ben's stuff.) But really, most squatters have no real interest in being in a property that is about to be used. And landlords have no real reason to evict squatters, unless they are actually in the process of renovating a building or about to make a sale. In fact, they can actually help with both of those things, since they're generally handy with DIY and creative. As an investor, I'd rather purchase a building that is swarming with bohemian colour than one which is boarded up.
So what I'm saying is- let's negotiate. Squatters know they don't have the legal right to trash a building that is going to be used for a purpose. A lot of the younger squatters I know are only there because they have to choose between going to school/college/unive

rsity or (having an apprenticeship, as with the recently prosecuted Alex Haigh) and having a home. A lot of the older squatters are displaced travellers, who would rather be in the countryside if land could be made available.
Landlords know they don't have a moral right to evict people who have made a home in a building, unless they are going to use it. A lot of property owners have realistic reasons why there's a delay in bringing buildings into use, but it's easy to confuse them with Scrooge-like speculators.
I guess it's up to both sides to drop a level of dogmatism, if we're going to be realistic. That means squatters assuming some responsibility, but also owners realising that property-rights are not sacred or god-given, but rather are social in nature. As such, they require a certain level of social responsibility...
I just have to disagree. I am a property owner. A landlord. I am not rich and I cannot see that having squatters in my property would beniffit me in anyway. My experence with squats is that they do not improve them, often, in fact, they cost a fortune to fix what they have damaged. If I own a house, if I buy it, if i burden myself with credit to purchase a property, pour blood sweat and tears in to getting it in to a rented state, then lose a tenant for a few months (still paying the mortgage) no one has a right to just move in and say, 'shotgun!' just because it is empty for a while. What is mine is mine. There may be moral implications if I had thousands of properties empty...just for fun, but that simply does not happen. It is bad business to either not sell, or not rent a property. You are loosing money. i do not accept that.
[quote][p][bold]alexwildcat[/bold] wrote: Hey so it really seems like there's a lot of misunderstanding between property owners and squatters. It doesn't surprise me. Who benefits when we fight? The courts get money from the extensive fees property owners have to pay. The security companies get money to come in and 'resecure' the building (when the majority of times squatters are able to get in because the same companies do an abysmal job). Real estate agents can profit (look up the concept of 'blockbusting'). And people like Weatherley make a career out of inflaming this tension, while the argus and mail love the attention it brings to their otherwise uninteresting reporting. (Though I did think this piece seemed more extensive than any of Emily or Ben's stuff.) But really, most squatters have no real interest in being in a property that is about to be used. And landlords have no real reason to evict squatters, unless they are actually in the process of renovating a building or about to make a sale. In fact, they can actually help with both of those things, since they're generally handy with DIY and creative. As an investor, I'd rather purchase a building that is swarming with bohemian colour than one which is boarded up. So what I'm saying is- let's negotiate. Squatters know they don't have the legal right to trash a building that is going to be used for a purpose. A lot of the younger squatters I know are only there because they have to choose between going to school/college/unive rsity or (having an apprenticeship, as with the recently prosecuted Alex Haigh) and having a home. A lot of the older squatters are displaced travellers, who would rather be in the countryside if land could be made available. Landlords know they don't have a moral right to evict people who have made a home in a building, unless they are going to use it. A lot of property owners have realistic reasons why there's a delay in bringing buildings into use, but it's easy to confuse them with Scrooge-like speculators. I guess it's up to both sides to drop a level of dogmatism, if we're going to be realistic. That means squatters assuming some responsibility, but also owners realising that property-rights are not sacred or god-given, but rather are social in nature. As such, they require a certain level of social responsibility...[/p][/quote]I just have to disagree. I am a property owner. A landlord. I am not rich and I cannot see that having squatters in my property would beniffit me in anyway. My experence with squats is that they do not improve them, often, in fact, they cost a fortune to fix what they have damaged. If I own a house, if I buy it, if i burden myself with credit to purchase a property, pour blood sweat and tears in to getting it in to a rented state, then lose a tenant for a few months (still paying the mortgage) no one has a right to just move in and say, 'shotgun!' just because it is empty for a while. What is mine is mine. There may be moral implications if I had thousands of properties empty...just for fun, but that simply does not happen. It is bad business to either not sell, or not rent a property. You are loosing money. i do not accept that. Brightonlocal
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Brightonlocal says...

Chazza65 wrote:
remarkably sad how many people believe in the ethos of paying rent to rich landlords as if it were somehow noble! Weatherly and his tory chums are laughing all the way to the bank whilst your rent money buys them more property and pays for their kids next term at Eton
How do you know all landlords are rich? That is a crazy statement. I am not rich, though I managed to buy a house on a buy-to-let mortgage. Im not far off bankrupt and like in a studio flat that im renting, whilst my house several hundreds of miles away is now worth less than it was when I bought it (thanks to recession) and if I sold it i would still owe the bank money. My kid wont be going to Eton! What about me. How can you say all landlords are rich when you can get a buy-to-let mortgage on a studio/flat/house with a 10% deposit.... a 100,000k house is only a 10k deposit. You can get a 10k deposit from a credit card or personal loan....you dont need to be a millionaire! Grow up.
[quote][p][bold]Chazza65[/bold] wrote: remarkably sad how many people believe in the ethos of paying rent to rich landlords as if it were somehow noble! Weatherly and his tory chums are laughing all the way to the bank whilst your rent money buys them more property and pays for their kids next term at Eton[/p][/quote]How do you know all landlords are rich? That is a crazy statement. I am not rich, though I managed to buy a house on a buy-to-let mortgage. Im not far off bankrupt and like in a studio flat that im renting, whilst my house several hundreds of miles away is now worth less than it was when I bought it (thanks to recession) and if I sold it i would still owe the bank money. My kid wont be going to Eton! What about me. How can you say all landlords are rich when you can get a buy-to-let mortgage on a studio/flat/house with a 10% deposit.... a 100,000k house is only a 10k deposit. You can get a 10k deposit from a credit card or personal loan....you dont need to be a millionaire! Grow up. Brightonlocal
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree