Squatters move to empty pubs and shops in effort to beat change in law (From The Argus)

Well at least they make the shops look as if they have customers, this council is literally driving trade out.
Emily should check out the collection rate of business rates in the city.

I saw an advert for two rooms in a shared property at £420.00 a week, bills not included.

I'm fortunate in having a home which costs me just under £100.00 a week excluding bills. But even that is a struggle some weeks.

The shops aren't looked after. They've ripped the ceiling down and wires are everywhere. The windows are broken. I work hard and afford rent. I'm 25 years old and struggle to live but I get by. Get off your arse and work instead of ruining other people's property.

"Squatting in a residential property is now a criminal offence. Meaning that if squatters move into your home or a home in your street, you can call the police."

Just like to point out that its been illegal to squat a lived in home since the 70's.
The new law stops people squatting in abandoned and disused residential properties.

Surely breaking and entering a property that is secured by locked doors and windows or is boarded up is against the law and IS a Police matter. It's called trespass is it not? Damaging the premises internally which all too often seems to be the case is called 'criminal damage' is it not? How is this not a cause for the Police to be involved? Everyone seems to be in favour of legislation, more laws! Tosh!! We have enough already, they just need enforcing!!

ya basta wrote:
"Squatting in a residential property is now a criminal offence. Meaning that if squatters move into your home or a home in your street, you can call the police."

Just like to point out that its been illegal to squat a lived in home since the 70's.
The new law stops people squatting in abandoned and disused residential properties.

With reference to the first part of your comment, it hasn't stopped it from happening though . . . . .

Get a job, pay rent and bills like normal people. That's my advice.

Squatters are freeloading balls of putrid scum.

Brighton and Hove City Council need to mount an Anti S.T.O.P Campaign and rid the place of Squatters Travellers and Other Parasites before the place is ruined.

We're always hearing how squatters 'improve' the places they're in. I wonder if the recent squatter on squatter stabbing was due to a disagreement over which wallpaper to put up in the newly renovated lounge?

Squatters aren't the only people to ever stab their peers.

Turn the hoses on them!

AmboGuy wrote:
We're always hearing how squatters 'improve' the places they're in. I wonder if the recent squatter on squatter stabbing was due to a disagreement over which wallpaper to put up in the newly renovated lounge?

Would just like to point out the kid who was stabbed was a 16-18 year old kid who lives at home with his parents as was the kid who stabbed him. I would be a lot more suprised to hear about some of the squatters I know stabbing someone than most other people

rolivan wrote:
Brighton and Hove City Council need to mount an Anti S.T.O.P Campaign and rid the place of Squatters Travellers and Other Parasites before the place is ruined.

too late!! most of my friends in london wont step foot in brighton ever again!!

AmboGuy wrote:
We're always hearing how squatters 'improve' the places they're in. I wonder if the recent squatter on squatter stabbing was due to a disagreement over which wallpaper to put up in the newly renovated lounge?

no i reckon they were arguing about which rothschild medoc wine to open,the 85 or 79 my dear!!
come on weatherley,get the law changed for commercial properties!!!

PorkBoat wrote:
Turn the hoses on them!

my mates got a farm with 1000 gallons of slurry,im sure the hose would fit thru the letterbox

empty shops, with squatters in,does this same rule apply to the range rover vogue thats been in the car park for a week! can i take it? can i drive it? hmmmm

I support the squatters 100%

Sad situation indeed. So many desperate people with nowhere to go. I do not condone squatting but with rents so high,
securing accommodation requires huge deposits, rent upfront and often guarantors required and agency fees it can prove impossible for some caught in a spiral of despair.

Juleyanne wrote:
Sad situation indeed. So many desperate people with nowhere to go. I do not condone squatting but with rents so high, securing accommodation requires huge deposits, rent upfront and often guarantors required and agency fees it can prove impossible for some caught in a spiral of despair.

Well Juleyanne. Why don't you invite them to come and stay in your home?

Oh. I forgot. You love to spout about how nasty people are and what a shame these scummers are hard done by, but you don't actually do anything do you?

No doubt you will say "Yes I do, I feed them when I can, I do soup runs, I hug them when they're cold" But we know the answer don't we?

Homeless people are there out of CHOICE. Squatters are CRIMINALS and should be horse-whipped.

I don't understand why basic, cheap, dormitory style accommodation cannot be provided for the homeless.

qm wrote:
Surely breaking and entering a property that is secured by locked doors and windows or is boarded up is against the law and IS a Police matter. It's called trespass is it not? Damaging the premises internally which all too often seems to be the case is called 'criminal damage' is it not? How is this not a cause for the Police to be involved? Everyone seems to be in favour of legislation, more laws! Tosh!! We have enough already, they just need enforcing!!

Are you not aware of the magic open window/door used by squatters? Basically, every time a house is left empty the person who secures it manages to leave a window or door open that the squatters manage to get in. You'd be crazy to think they actually break in.

Everybody has to live somewhere,even the poor and destitute.
Britain is at present about to spend two BILLION quid on making Africa greener.
Not feeding,clothing and educating Africans,but making the place greener.
I would say et your own house in order
first.Then worry about windfarms in Africa.

Gary Manilow wrote:

qm wrote:
Surely breaking and entering a property that is secured by locked doors and windows or is boarded up is against the law and IS a Police matter. It's called trespass is it not? Damaging the premises internally which all too often seems to be the case is called 'criminal damage' is it not? How is this not a cause for the Police to be involved? Everyone seems to be in favour of legislation, more laws! Tosh!! We have enough already, they just need enforcing!!

Are you not aware of the magic open window/door used by squatters? Basically, every time a house is left empty the person who secures it manages to leave a window or door open that the squatters manage to get in. You'd be crazy to think they actually break in.

Do I detect a wee tadge of cynism?? Breaking and entering - end of - jail!
;)

aidsmonger wrote:

AmboGuy wrote:
We're always hearing how squatters 'improve' the places they're in. I wonder if the recent squatter on squatter stabbing was due to a disagreement over which wallpaper to put up in the newly renovated lounge?

Would just like to point out the kid who was stabbed was a 16-18 year old kid who lives at home with his parents as was the kid who stabbed him. I would be a lot more suprised to hear about some of the squatters I know stabbing someone than most other people

And you know this how???

PorkBoat wrote:
Turn the hoses on them!

Holy High Rental Prices Batman!
To the hoses, and quick I say!

A lot of the squatters are talented artists , activists and musicians who make up the diversity of Brighton culture. To remove them leaves Brighton with nothing but Hove yummies and Junkies

A lot of the squatters are talented artists , activists and musicians who make up the diversity of Brighton culture. To remove them leaves Brighton with nothing but Hove yummies and Junkies

Moodycow70 wrote:
A lot of the squatters are talented artists , activists and musicians who make up the diversity of Brighton culture. To remove them leaves Brighton with nothing but Hove yummies and Junkies

there not paying into the town,why should there drop out lifestyle be supported by everbody else,i work and used to play guitar in the pubs,but i dont believe in freeloaders,you only get out of life what you put in.

Trespass on private property is not a criminal offence.
Rents in Brighton are obscene.
Empty properties are assets to property companies whether squatted or not!
There are squatters who are not genuinely in need of housing, some of them act as 'residential advisers' to homeless squatters.
Seriously, what harm are these guys doing, by and large?
I see a lot more law breaking every time I drive!
Another article that gets all the racists and fascists fired up - armchair activists most of them!

Surely squatting in commercial premises contravenes planning law as an unauthorised change of use, leaving the squaters open to legal action by the local authority. However, with the open invitation by BHCC to occupiers, settlers and squatters I doubt we'll see any action being taken in this part of the world.

Squatter Micka said:
“Rents are so extraordinarily high that even when you have a job for a few days it is unaffordable."
Try keeping a job for more than a few days then, like everyone else who decide not just to opt out of society and still expect it to subsidise their lifestyle choices.

Cliff Huxtable wrote:
Squatter Micka said:
“Rents are so extraordinarily high that even when you have a job for a few days it is unaffordable."
Try keeping a job for more than a few days then, like everyone else who decide not just to opt out of society and still expect it to subsidise their lifestyle choices.

"Rents are so extraordinarily high?". Yep, that's true. Brighton is the fourth most expensive city in the UK. So if you can't afford the "extraordinarily high" cost of living here then why the feck are you here? Why are you making out that your only TWO choices are to either squat or be homeless? HELLO? Perhaps move somewhere where it isn't quite so expensive? Where does this bleedin' sense of entitlement come from? We ALL have to live within our means, and NO ONE is going to take any of these grizzling squatters seriously whilst they are CHOOSING to live in the fourth most expensive city in the UK and implying that if they don't just 'appropriate' someone else's property they will end up the street! A bit like all the homeless people who flock here from miles away (the reality is about 85 percent of Brighton's homeless and rough sleepers are from outside of Sussex, according to my neighbour who works at BHT (Brighton Housing Trust). If you are homeless and unemployed WHY choose to come to one of the most expensive, overcrowded cities in the UK, with homelessness at crisis levels? I DO have sympathy for people who find themselves in this horrible predicament through no fault of their own, but ZERO sympathy for those who place themselves in this situation and don't even counter the idea of finding a more realistic and practical answer to their problems. ANY first rung on the ladder towards independence! If anything they are further compromising the homeless issues of locals that already exist before all and sundry pile in as well all baying for something for nothing. My BHT friend organised emergency housing for a couple, but they turned it down cuz it was in Peacehaven! "Too far away!" So bored of all the griping and excuses, too many expecting too much for too little! Squatters and bleeding hearts, get REAL!

KarenT wrote:

Cliff Huxtable wrote:
Squatter Micka said:
“Rents are so extraordinarily high that even when you have a job for a few days it is unaffordable."
Try keeping a job for more than a few days then, like everyone else who decide not just to opt out of society and still expect it to subsidise their lifestyle choices.

"Rents are so extraordinarily high?". Yep, that's true. Brighton is the fourth most expensive city in the UK. So if you can't afford the "extraordinarily high" cost of living here then why the feck are you here? Why are you making out that your only TWO choices are to either squat or be homeless? HELLO? Perhaps move somewhere where it isn't quite so expensive? Where does this bleedin' sense of entitlement come from? We ALL have to live within our means, and NO ONE is going to take any of these grizzling squatters seriously whilst they are CHOOSING to live in the fourth most expensive city in the UK and implying that if they don't just 'appropriate' someone else's property they will end up the street! A bit like all the homeless people who flock here from miles away (the reality is about 85 percent of Brighton's homeless and rough sleepers are from outside of Sussex, according to my neighbour who works at BHT (Brighton Housing Trust). If you are homeless and unemployed WHY choose to come to one of the most expensive, overcrowded cities in the UK, with homelessness at crisis levels? I DO have sympathy for people who find themselves in this horrible predicament through no fault of their own, but ZERO sympathy for those who place themselves in this situation and don't even counter the idea of finding a more realistic and practical answer to their problems. ANY first rung on the ladder towards independence! If anything they are further compromising the homeless issues of locals that already exist before all and sundry pile in as well all baying for something for nothing. My BHT friend organised emergency housing for a couple, but they turned it down cuz it was in Peacehaven! "Too far away!" So bored of all the griping and excuses, too many expecting too much for too little! Squatters and bleeding hearts, get REAL!

Good post. I've yet to see a single reply from a squatter stating a genuine reason why they have to live in such an expensive city.

Their lies are now so blatant and obvious I think they realise that we can all see through them.

funkyyoyo wrote:

rolivan wrote:
Brighton and Hove City Council need to mount an Anti S.T.O.P Campaign and rid the place of Squatters Travellers and Other Parasites before the place is ruined.

too late!! most of my friends in london wont step foot in brighton ever again!!

That's a laugh - London has more squatters and homeless than the rest of the country combined.

AmboGuy wrote:

KarenT wrote:

Cliff Huxtable wrote:
Squatter Micka said:
“Rents are so extraordinarily high that even when you have a job for a few days it is unaffordable."
Try keeping a job for more than a few days then, like everyone else who decide not just to opt out of society and still expect it to subsidise their lifestyle choices.

"Rents are so extraordinarily high?". Yep, that's true. Brighton is the fourth most expensive city in the UK. So if you can't afford the "extraordinarily high" cost of living here then why the feck are you here? Why are you making out that your only TWO choices are to either squat or be homeless? HELLO? Perhaps move somewhere where it isn't quite so expensive? Where does this bleedin' sense of entitlement come from? We ALL have to live within our means, and NO ONE is going to take any of these grizzling squatters seriously whilst they are CHOOSING to live in the fourth most expensive city in the UK and implying that if they don't just 'appropriate' someone else's property they will end up the street! A bit like all the homeless people who flock here from miles away (the reality is about 85 percent of Brighton's homeless and rough sleepers are from outside of Sussex, according to my neighbour who works at BHT (Brighton Housing Trust). If you are homeless and unemployed WHY choose to come to one of the most expensive, overcrowded cities in the UK, with homelessness at crisis levels? I DO have sympathy for people who find themselves in this horrible predicament through no fault of their own, but ZERO sympathy for those who place themselves in this situation and don't even counter the idea of finding a more realistic and practical answer to their problems. ANY first rung on the ladder towards independence! If anything they are further compromising the homeless issues of locals that already exist before all and sundry pile in as well all baying for something for nothing. My BHT friend organised emergency housing for a couple, but they turned it down cuz it was in Peacehaven! "Too far away!" So bored of all the griping and excuses, too many expecting too much for too little! Squatters and bleeding hearts, get REAL!

Good post. I've yet to see a single reply from a squatter stating a genuine reason why they have to live in such an expensive city.

Their lies are now so blatant and obvious I think they realise that we can all see through them.

Can I also echo the sentiments of the previous.....well said and good post.

Isn't it wonderful the way we can generalise a whole group of people into outcasts and pariahs.

Not every squatter does it because they cannot be bothered to get a job and join the rat race.

And does anyone really think that every social ill can be legislated out of existence? Did the 'anti-smacking' law suddenly turn us all into a nation of child loving perfect parents with contented children all growing up reasonably, securely and law abiding?

Just as a matter of interest, Brighton has always had a certain amount of squatters. In fact after London, Brighton and Bristol are the main urban centres for squatting.

One of Roger French' buses is named after Harry Cowley ... one of the founding organisers of the Brighton Vigilantes. A group that expropriating empty buildings to rehouse the families of ex-servicemen post WWII ;)

mimseycal wrote:
Isn't it wonderful the way we can generalise a whole group of people into outcasts and pariahs.

Not every squatter does it because they cannot be bothered to get a job and join the rat race.

And does anyone really think that every social ill can be legislated out of existence? Did the 'anti-smacking' law suddenly turn us all into a nation of child loving perfect parents with contented children all growing up reasonably, securely and law abiding?

Just as a matter of interest, Brighton has always had a certain amount of squatters. In fact after London, Brighton and Bristol are the main urban centres for squatting.

One of Roger French' buses is named after Harry Cowley ... one of the founding organisers of the Brighton Vigilantes. A group that expropriating empty buildings to rehouse the families of ex-servicemen post WWII ;)

sadly it's plain xenophobia!

Generalisation? Nah ... just lazy, uncritical thinking. That and a refusal to accept responsibility for the type of society we are allowing to be fashioned in our name.

The thinking that all squatters are true and helpless victims of this "society we are allowing to be fashioned in our name" is what is lazy and uncritical in my opinion. What about the fact that roughly 85% of Brighton's homeless and rough sleepers are from places outside Sussex? Why are people who are struggling to find a place to live choosing to come to an area that is one of the most expensive places to live in the UK, and an area that is experiencing a way above-average crisis in terms of a lack of accommodation, both in the private and council sectors? I think too often people are choosing what they see as some aspirational lifestyle before thinking about making more practical and achievable decisions about where to live, and as I said earlier further compromising the homeless problems that already exist here, and the commitment we need to make to address these issues on a local level first. That can hardly be called "xenophobic"! It's simply frustration with the fact that too many people (NOT ALL, OK??!) are not doing enough to give themselves the best chance of finding a way to live independently. Either way, squatting is definitely not the answer, and to cite the "extortionate rents of Brighton & Hove" as an excuse will gain little sympathy from many locals, especially those locals who are waiting in the same exact queue for help with housing.

Well, it would be I suppose. Except that some critical reading would soon show that I have not claimed that all squatters are victims.

What I do know is that squatting as a movement has emerged in response to real shortcomings in housing in the past ... As evidenced by the Brighton Vigilantes for instance.

Locals can end up homeless too and unless they have children or can sofa surf, they end up on the street.
Would I rather see a young girl or boy sleeping in a doorway or a squat? Well, I'd sooner see them decently housed but failing that ... a well organised squat is preferable to a shop doorway.

Why not make it a legal obligation for squatters to notify the authorities within 24 hours of moving in to a place, otherwise they forfeit the right to be there? Then there would also be a monitoring system where the authorities can check that the property is being looked after and also safe to stay in. Perhaps the people staying in the property could also pay a small fee to cover the costs of this monitoring, or if they can't pay, they can do some community work.

Mr.Logical1 wrote:
Why not make it a legal obligation for squatters to notify the authorities within 24 hours of moving in to a place, otherwise they forfeit the right to be there? Then there would also be a monitoring system where the authorities can check that the property is being looked after and also safe to stay in. Perhaps the people staying in the property could also pay a small fee to cover the costs of this monitoring, or if they can't pay, they can do some community work.

Now here is an eminently reasonable approach.

mimseycal wrote:
Well, it would be I suppose. Except that some critical reading would soon show that I have not claimed that all squatters are victims.

What I do know is that squatting as a movement has emerged in response to real shortcomings in housing in the past ... As evidenced by the Brighton Vigilantes for instance.

Locals can end up homeless too and unless they have children or can sofa surf, they end up on the street.
Would I rather see a young girl or boy sleeping in a doorway or a squat? Well, I'd sooner see them decently housed but failing that ... a well organised squat is preferable to a shop doorway.

Problem is, way too often the choices aren't simply just "two choices", i.e., "squat or sleep in a doorway". Too often the choices end up being something like "stay at home with family and live by house rules, stay in hostel but remain drug-free and abide by a curfew, accept offer of emergency housing in Peacehaven or somewhere else seen to be "too boring" (see my post above), or move to Brighton and squat. Too often the latter ends up being a choice when other options are in fact available. Not always of course, but indeed too often. This sadly ends up draining public sympathy, and even more sadly impacts badly on those who are genuinely at a loss for where to go. There are just way too many who have some real options in creating a path towards independent living that does not involve appropriating someone else's property but decide that the constraints that come with those choices just simply aren't appealing enough.

Again, the assumption that there is an appropriate safety net available to everyone at all times.

Some may have different options available that they elect not to use. But not all of those who are homeless do. For them, the only options may well be a doorway or a squat.

That's the problem with generalisation. It relies on far too many blanket assumptions.

Mr.Logical1 wrote:
Why not make it a legal obligation for squatters to notify the authorities within 24 hours of moving in to a place, otherwise they forfeit the right to be there? Then there would also be a monitoring system where the authorities can check that the property is being looked after and also safe to stay in. Perhaps the people staying in the property could also pay a small fee to cover the costs of this monitoring, or if they can't pay, they can do some community work.

What if, just what if, the owners of that property don't want them there? What if it is a property that's tied up in probate, or about to undergo improvement for leasing or resale? Who is going to pay to make this presently disused space safe and habitable, especially if it is a commercial space that has no residential facilities? Who will be responsible if anyone suffers injury whilst in the property? Who is going to pay to restore it to its original state once these temporary "residents" vacate? Anyone out there with these bright ideas have a residential or commercial space that they would like to offer up for this purpose, and also fund any works that need doing to make them safe and habitable perchance? The solutions aren't easy and something definitely needs to be done, but some of these suggestions are just total lala land.

mimseycal wrote:
Again, the assumption that there is an appropriate safety net available to everyone at all times.

Some may have different options available that they elect not to use. But not all of those who are homeless do. For them, the only options may well be a doorway or a squat.

That's the problem with generalisation. It relies on far too many blanket assumptions.

Precisely, but I'm not making any assumptions. I'm saying that there are plenty of situations where other options DO exist, not ALL. Too many. If more people were more realistic with those expectations then there would be a lot more accommodation available to those in real urgent need. Anyway going round in circles, signing off on this one.

KarenT wrote:

Mr.Logical1 wrote:
Why not make it a legal obligation for squatters to notify the authorities within 24 hours of moving in to a place, otherwise they forfeit the right to be there? Then there would also be a monitoring system where the authorities can check that the property is being looked after and also safe to stay in. Perhaps the people staying in the property could also pay a small fee to cover the costs of this monitoring, or if they can't pay, they can do some community work.

What if, just what if, the owners of that property don't want them there? What if it is a property that's tied up in probate, or about to undergo improvement for leasing or resale? Who is going to pay to make this presently disused space safe and habitable, especially if it is a commercial space that has no residential facilities? Who will be responsible if anyone suffers injury whilst in the property? Who is going to pay to restore it to its original state once these temporary "residents" vacate? Anyone out there with these bright ideas have a residential or commercial space that they would like to offer up for this purpose, and also fund any works that need doing to make them safe and habitable perchance? The solutions aren't easy and something definitely needs to be done, but some of these suggestions are just total lala land.

The point is to make use of property that is not being used. The other matters would be fairly easy to work around. Legislation can cover situations of renovation etc. As for making a place habitable, it's surely more habitable than the street, and it would be cheaper to provide a toilet and sink than to imprison them or pay to house them. And the idea is that they are monitored to prevent having to restore property, it's about giving squatters accountability. If they abuse their privilege they will face punishment

KarenT wrote:

mimseycal wrote:
Again, the assumption that there is an appropriate safety net available to everyone at all times.

Some may have different options available that they elect not to use. But not all of those who are homeless do. For them, the only options may well be a doorway or a squat.

That's the problem with generalisation. It relies on far too many blanket assumptions.

Precisely, but I'm not making any assumptions. I'm saying that there are plenty of situations where other options DO exist, not ALL. Too many. If more people were more realistic with those expectations then there would be a lot more accommodation available to those in real urgent need. Anyway going round in circles, signing off on this one.

You aren't stating it. You are merely basing your argument on the assumption.

Generalisations do not allow for some. And as long as some do not have other options, to imply that because some do, all must act as if those options exist for all is to generalise.

mimseycal wrote:

KarenT wrote:

mimseycal wrote:
Again, the assumption that there is an appropriate safety net available to everyone at all times.

Some may have different options available that they elect not to use. But not all of those who are homeless do. For them, the only options may well be a doorway or a squat.

That's the problem with generalisation. It relies on far too many blanket assumptions.

Precisely, but I'm not making any assumptions. I'm saying that there are plenty of situations where other options DO exist, not ALL. Too many. If more people were more realistic with those expectations then there would be a lot more accommodation available to those in real urgent need. Anyway going round in circles, signing off on this one.

You aren't stating it. You are merely basing your argument on the assumption.

Generalisations do not allow for some. And as long as some do not have other options, to imply that because some do, all must act as if those options exist for all is to generalise.

That made absolutely no sense! :D

Hey hop and sigh ...

You don't have to explicitly state that the sun doesn't shine on the dark side of the moon. It is taken as a given that when you refer to the dark side of the moon that you refering to an area you are unlikely to get a tan; as it isn't lit by the sun.

The meaning of the term generalisation' is an idea or conclusion having a general application. Therefore there is no room within a generalisation for variation.

To state that some have a choice is to accept variation. To infer that because some have a choice, all must have a choice is to generalise.

Georgia Brown currently holds the Guinness World Records for hitting the highest vocal note and having the greatest range, which spans exactly 8 octaves from G2-G10 using scientific pitch notation. She also has 5 octave of singing voice. Georgia Brown happens to be Brazilian.
Would you hold that because Georgia Brown has this pitch and range, all Brazilian singers must have that pitch and range?

mimseycal wrote:
Hey hop and sigh ...

You don't have to explicitly state that the sun doesn't shine on the dark side of the moon. It is taken as a given that when you refer to the dark side of the moon that you refering to an area you are unlikely to get a tan; as it isn't lit by the sun.

The meaning of the term generalisation' is an idea or conclusion having a general application. Therefore there is no room within a generalisation for variation.

To state that some have a choice is to accept variation. To infer that because some have a choice, all must have a choice is to generalise.

Georgia Brown currently holds the Guinness World Records for hitting the highest vocal note and having the greatest range, which spans exactly 8 octaves from G2-G10 using scientific pitch notation. She also has 5 octave of singing voice. Georgia Brown happens to be Brazilian.
Would you hold that because Georgia Brown has this pitch and range, all Brazilian singers must have that pitch and range?

I never SAID, INFERRED, IMPLIED, SUGGESTED (where's my thesaurus???) that ALL have a choice! What I said was that MANY have a choice, precise figures I cannot provide, but based on the numerous examples my friend who works at Brighton Housing Trust has cited, it's fair to say that there is a considerable number of people who have other (less interesting?) housing options available to them but actively choose to squat in Brighton despite this. This point is further supported by the fact that roughly 85% of B&H's homeless population are from outside of Sussex, i.e., they are choosing to make themselves homeless in a city where there are already above-average problems of homelessness on a local level. I know these facts are deeply inconvenient for you but there it is. You seem to be someone who has an awful lot of time on their hands for convoluted semantics, and you're not even good at presenting those semantics in a way that is at all persuasive or sensible! Ta ra.

seriously off topic now!

it's funny how people present anecdotal stories from a friend as immutable fact.

Been reading the argus on-line during my lunch break for the last week or so (yes, believe it or not some of us "hippy/traveller scum" actually have full time jobs) .
This has made me quite sad, sad because the town i have lived in for most of my life seems to be turning to a massive toilet of clone consumerists and biggots.

just to add balance and in response to "where are all those who genuinely need to squat/live in a van".
a) i have a full time job
b) to move would mean giving up my job and signing on.
c) jobs outside of cities/towns in the south are hard to find.

It is amazing how people would rather see a property empty and someone on the street rather than allow them to use the property.

yes there are a few who are genuine scum, however there are also many who are not. chances are the squatters are not the ones who bankrupted this country, consumed the planet onto a course of destruction, over bread the population, mismanaged immigration etc

the real question is: why are we as a nation determined to ensure if our lives are tough, we must ensure others have it worse?

btw Karen, how many times do you say goodbye before you leave a post?

"btw Karen, how many times do you say goodbye before you leave a post?"

Very difficult when someone who continuously misquotes and reinterprets what you say to walk away!

"Yes there are a few who are genuine scum, however there are also many who are not."

We're actually in agreement there, with the exception that I never referred to anyone as "genuine scum". I simply stated that there are many who do have choices that don't involve squatting, and this tends to generally drain sympathy (and resources) from those who are in a true predicament. It sounds like you are one of those people, and that is quite sad.

It's not so simple as people who "would rather see a property empty and someone on the street". There are dozens of reasons why a property may end up unoccupied for any period of time, and even more examples where squatting leads to people who own properties ending up severely out of pocket when people decide to appropriate that property for their residence. I'm quite certain that if you owned a property which you left vacant for a period of time, and returned to find that you had to go to the expense of eviction, reparation and lost income, not to mention the huge inconvenience that might be to you if it was actually your home, you might have a different view. I know someone who went bankrupt following four months of litigation after having their home squatted in during a prolonged stay in hospital, prior to recent legislation illegalising squatting in residential properties. This attitude that all empty properties are owned by malevolent and greedy millionaires who relish the idea of seeing people homeless is just so bloody short-sighted.

Squatters are scum. They need to get a job; participate actively with society; recognise other people's rights and STOP BEING SELFISH!

Farouche wrote:
Squatters are scum. They need to get a job; participate actively with society; recognise other people's rights and STOP BEING SELFISH!

you forgot...
pay over 75% of their wages to a landlord,
pay a months wages in deposit and a few hundred in agency fees, lose said deposit for any excuse the agency/landlord can find,
pay extortionate amounts in gas/electric to heat an old draughty house they cant get insulated themselves (not to mention the lack of opportunity for having solar/wind,
be kicked out whenever the landlord gets bored/ you lose you job and end up on benefits.

yes the total selfish scum, how dare they be homeless, they should get a house and pay state monies to a private landlord like anyone else who can afford to rent.

would you prefer the poor to go and die quietly in a corner somewhere so they don't spoil your sense of fairness?

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:
Squatters are scum. They need to get a job; participate actively with society; recognise other people's rights and STOP BEING SELFISH!

you forgot...
pay over 75% of their wages to a landlord,
pay a months wages in deposit and a few hundred in agency fees, lose said deposit for any excuse the agency/landlord can find,
pay extortionate amounts in gas/electric to heat an old draughty house they cant get insulated themselves (not to mention the lack of opportunity for having solar/wind,
be kicked out whenever the landlord gets bored/ you lose you job and end up on benefits.

yes the total selfish scum, how dare they be homeless, they should get a house and pay state monies to a private landlord like anyone else who can afford to rent.

would you prefer the poor to go and die quietly in a corner somewhere so they don't spoil your sense of fairness?

Yes, yes, squatters are all innocent victims of an indifferent, capitalistic society...

Oh dear, evil landlords even have the temerity to exact a deposit from these poor unfortunates!

Woe are all squatters.

(By the way, I didn't read your response to the end - it was very boring and poorly punctuated.)

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:
Squatters are scum. They need to get a job; participate actively with society; recognise other people's rights and STOP BEING SELFISH!

you forgot...
pay over 75% of their wages to a landlord,
pay a months wages in deposit and a few hundred in agency fees, lose said deposit for any excuse the agency/landlord can find,
pay extortionate amounts in gas/electric to heat an old draughty house they cant get insulated themselves (not to mention the lack of opportunity for having solar/wind,
be kicked out whenever the landlord gets bored/ you lose you job and end up on benefits.

yes the total selfish scum, how dare they be homeless, they should get a house and pay state monies to a private landlord like anyone else who can afford to rent.

would you prefer the poor to go and die quietly in a corner somewhere so they don't spoil your sense of fairness?

Yes, yes, squatters are all innocent victims of an indifferent, capitalistic society...

Oh dear, evil landlords even have the temerity to exact a deposit from these poor unfortunates!

Woe are all squatters.

(By the way, I didn't read your response to the end - it was very boring and poorly punctuated.)

you lazy read shy scum ;)

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:
Squatters are scum. They need to get a job; participate actively with society; recognise other people's rights and STOP BEING SELFISH!

you forgot...
pay over 75% of their wages to a landlord,
pay a months wages in deposit and a few hundred in agency fees, lose said deposit for any excuse the agency/landlord can find,
pay extortionate amounts in gas/electric to heat an old draughty house they cant get insulated themselves (not to mention the lack of opportunity for having solar/wind,
be kicked out whenever the landlord gets bored/ you lose you job and end up on benefits.

yes the total selfish scum, how dare they be homeless, they should get a house and pay state monies to a private landlord like anyone else who can afford to rent.

would you prefer the poor to go and die quietly in a corner somewhere so they don't spoil your sense of fairness?

Yes, yes, squatters are all innocent victims of an indifferent, capitalistic society...

Oh dear, evil landlords even have the temerity to exact a deposit from these poor unfortunates!

Woe are all squatters.

(By the way, I didn't read your response to the end - it was very boring and poorly punctuated.)

you lazy read shy scum ;)

No doubt you're also stealing someone else's bandwidth judging by the amount of comments you post!

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:
Squatters are scum. They need to get a job; participate actively with society; recognise other people's rights and STOP BEING SELFISH!

you forgot...
pay over 75% of their wages to a landlord,
pay a months wages in deposit and a few hundred in agency fees, lose said deposit for any excuse the agency/landlord can find,
pay extortionate amounts in gas/electric to heat an old draughty house they cant get insulated themselves (not to mention the lack of opportunity for having solar/wind,
be kicked out whenever the landlord gets bored/ you lose you job and end up on benefits.

yes the total selfish scum, how dare they be homeless, they should get a house and pay state monies to a private landlord like anyone else who can afford to rent.

would you prefer the poor to go and die quietly in a corner somewhere so they don't spoil your sense of fairness?

Yes, yes, squatters are all innocent victims of an indifferent, capitalistic society...

Oh dear, evil landlords even have the temerity to exact a deposit from these poor unfortunates!

Woe are all squatters.

(By the way, I didn't read your response to the end - it was very boring and poorly punctuated.)

you lazy read shy scum ;)

No doubt you're also stealing someone else's bandwidth judging by the amount of comments you post!

yes of course i am, i also skin puppies and wear their skins.

seriously dude stop being jealous of poor people, it's not normal.

a) i have my own wireless broadband
b) if someone has an unsecured wifi it's hardly stealing anything is it? if you left £5 on a train would you call the person who found it a criminal?

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:
Squatters are scum. They need to get a job; participate actively with society; recognise other people's rights and STOP BEING SELFISH!

you forgot...
pay over 75% of their wages to a landlord,
pay a months wages in deposit and a few hundred in agency fees, lose said deposit for any excuse the agency/landlord can find,
pay extortionate amounts in gas/electric to heat an old draughty house they cant get insulated themselves (not to mention the lack of opportunity for having solar/wind,
be kicked out whenever the landlord gets bored/ you lose you job and end up on benefits.

yes the total selfish scum, how dare they be homeless, they should get a house and pay state monies to a private landlord like anyone else who can afford to rent.

would you prefer the poor to go and die quietly in a corner somewhere so they don't spoil your sense of fairness?

Yes, yes, squatters are all innocent victims of an indifferent, capitalistic society...

Oh dear, evil landlords even have the temerity to exact a deposit from these poor unfortunates!

Woe are all squatters.

(By the way, I didn't read your response to the end - it was very boring and poorly punctuated.)

you lazy read shy scum ;)

No doubt you're also stealing someone else's bandwidth judging by the amount of comments you post!

yes of course i am, i also skin puppies and wear their skins.

seriously dude stop being jealous of poor people, it's not normal.

a) i have my own wireless broadband
b) if someone has an unsecured wifi it's hardly stealing anything is it? if you left £5 on a train would you call the person who found it a criminal?

You sound like a nice fella, really...

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:
Squatters are scum. They need to get a job; participate actively with society; recognise other people's rights and STOP BEING SELFISH!

you forgot...
pay over 75% of their wages to a landlord,
pay a months wages in deposit and a few hundred in agency fees, lose said deposit for any excuse the agency/landlord can find,
pay extortionate amounts in gas/electric to heat an old draughty house they cant get insulated themselves (not to mention the lack of opportunity for having solar/wind,
be kicked out whenever the landlord gets bored/ you lose you job and end up on benefits.

yes the total selfish scum, how dare they be homeless, they should get a house and pay state monies to a private landlord like anyone else who can afford to rent.

would you prefer the poor to go and die quietly in a corner somewhere so they don't spoil your sense of fairness?

Yes, yes, squatters are all innocent victims of an indifferent, capitalistic society...

Oh dear, evil landlords even have the temerity to exact a deposit from these poor unfortunates!

Woe are all squatters.

(By the way, I didn't read your response to the end - it was very boring and poorly punctuated.)

you lazy read shy scum ;)

No doubt you're also stealing someone else's bandwidth judging by the amount of comments you post!

yes of course i am, i also skin puppies and wear their skins.

seriously dude stop being jealous of poor people, it's not normal.

a) i have my own wireless broadband
b) if someone has an unsecured wifi it's hardly stealing anything is it? if you left £5 on a train would you call the person who found it a criminal?

You sound like a nice fella, really...

i assume that was sarcasm, it is not nice to imply someone is a criminal just because they do not hold all of your values.

i have my views on your type, however, i have not resorted to personal character assassination in order to make my point.
it is a rather hostile approach to reasoned debate and gives the air of a person who feels they have lost.

another easy target for the "i can't have a balanced argument" squad. is to tell people their spelling and grammar is poor.

are you a debater or are you just a reactionary harrumpher?

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:

societyisdying wrote:

Farouche wrote:
Squatters are scum. They need to get a job; participate actively with society; recognise other people's rights and STOP BEING SELFISH!

you forgot...
pay over 75% of their wages to a landlord,
pay a months wages in deposit and a few hundred in agency fees, lose said deposit for any excuse the agency/landlord can find,
pay extortionate amounts in gas/electric to heat an old draughty house they cant get insulated themselves (not to mention the lack of opportunity for having solar/wind,
be kicked out whenever the landlord gets bored/ you lose you job and end up on benefits.

yes the total selfish scum, how dare they be homeless, they should get a house and pay state monies to a private landlord like anyone else who can afford to rent.

would you prefer the poor to go and die quietly in a corner somewhere so they don't spoil your sense of fairness?

Yes, yes, squatters are all innocent victims of an indifferent, capitalistic society...

Oh dear, evil landlords even have the temerity to exact a deposit from these poor unfortunates!

Woe are all squatters.

(By the way, I didn't read your response to the end - it was very boring and poorly punctuated.)

you lazy read shy scum ;)

No doubt you're also stealing someone else's bandwidth judging by the amount of comments you post!

yes of course i am, i also skin puppies and wear their skins.

seriously dude stop being jealous of poor people, it's not normal.

a) i have my own wireless broadband
b) if someone has an unsecured wifi it's hardly stealing anything is it? if you left £5 on a train would you call the person who found it a criminal?

You sound like a nice fella, really...

i assume that was sarcasm, it is not nice to imply someone is a criminal just because they do not hold all of your values.

i have my views on your type, however, i have not resorted to personal character assassination in order to make my point.
it is a rather hostile approach to reasoned debate and gives the air of a person who feels they have lost.

another easy target for the "i can't have a balanced argument" squad. is to tell people their spelling and grammar is poor.

are you a debater or are you just a reactionary harrumpher?

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I meant what I said above. That was the conclusion I came to after reading our thread of comments.

ha, well you don't know me, nor i you. i do a lot of good work in the community and professionally, i am happy enough and will always be. i don't need much so i don't miss much.

i just don't understand this whole 'haves' being jealous of the 'have nots' and hating those who tread a different path.

i really care not for your opinion of me, for no other reason than you don't actually know me at all.

i wish you well, and hope that one day you will get to know people before you develop a prejudice about them.

No place to call home: The social impacts of housing undersupply on young people

http://www.ippr.org/
publication/55/10017
/no-place-to-call-ho
me-the-social-impact
s-of-housing-undersu
pply-on-young-people