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

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.

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.

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

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.)

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/

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!

PorkBoat wrote:
Turn the hoses on them!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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...

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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 !

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

Herbert Augustus Chapman wrote:
What a horrid mob of reprobates.

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!

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

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!

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

That of a bunch of mindless thugs.

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

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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