Well that is a newsworthy story, no entry, no result and evryone is no further than they were yesterday, how funny... this seems like Brighton alright...

Stop their benefits and they'll be out quick enough.

If they can stop annoying neighbours with loud music, let them stay - a good use for an empty church.

Considering that the building has been empty for years and there are no plans to do anything with it, I can't see how the Methodist Church can call themselves "Christian" by evicting these people.

Why not let them stay until it is decided what to do with the building - they would of course have to behave themselves and live quietly. As for the Methodist being Christian - hummm

They are building a "community" nobody in the existing community wants.

Use tasers on these scumb bags. They lower the tone of B&H.

Apart from the noise I can't see that they're doing any harm. But I bet there's plenty of the gestapo squad out there who disagree...

As we forgive those who trespass against us.

The reason why you can’t let them stay is that it’s someone else’s property, the building may not be up to safety standards, which means they are actually risking their health and safety, as well as the kids they have attend the make shift nursery and there is always the risk of adverse possession (i.e. that they legally claim the property as their own).

Although I do think it is morally challenging to leave a building empty for so long while there are homeless people, the few that take advantage spoil it for the genuinely needy.

Key issues I have include that the squatters claim to have turned the building into a community centre offering free food, cinema and a children’s nursery… but for what community other than their own and are the facilities they provide legal and / or up to the Council requirements?

I’m also wondering how the squatters are able to finance the free food, the equipment and licence for the cinema as well as the commercial waste licence they would require for running the cinema and nursery. There is also the question as to if staff at the nursery have been police checked, are suitably qualified and are able to ensure the building complies with basic fire and security regulations.

In short, is the community centre they suggest real, or spin to gain sympathy and support. This wouldn’t be the first time this approach has been used. Does anyone recall the protesters that camped out on the site opposite Preston Park? They claimed that they were there to prevent any more trees being chopped down? Funny how these environmental campaigners begged for hand outs to carry on the protest, started selling home made sauces and progressively burned not only any wood and materials onsite but eventually set light to their own campsite and caravans.

Not quite as environmentally friendly as you would expect.

The reason why you can’t let them stay is that it’s someone else’s property, the building may not be up to safety standards, which means they are actually risking their health and safety, as well as the kids they have attend the make shift nursery and there is always the risk of adverse possession (i.e. that they legally claim the property as their own).

Although I do think it is morally challenging to leave a building empty for so long while there are homeless people, the few that take advantage spoil it for the genuinely needy.

Key issues I have include that the squatters claim to have turned the building into a community centre offering free food, cinema and a children’s nursery… but for what community other than their own and are the facilities they provide legal and / or up to the Council requirements?

I’m also wondering how the squatters are able to finance the free food, the equipment and licence for the cinema as well as the commercial waste licence they would require for running the cinema and nursery. There is also the question as to if staff at the nursery have been police checked, are suitably qualified and are able to ensure the building complies with basic fire and security regulations.

In short, is the community centre they suggest real, or spin to gain sympathy and support. This wouldn’t be the first time this approach has been used. Does anyone recall the protesters that camped out on the site opposite Preston Park? They claimed that they were there to prevent any more trees being chopped down? Funny how these environmental campaigners begged for hand outs to carry on the protest, started selling home made sauces and progressively burned not only any wood and materials onsite but eventually set light to their own campsite and caravans.

Not quite as environmentally friendly as you would expect.

Funny how people who abuse the rights of others (occupy property, loud noise) demand rights for themselves.

Its not theirs so they should be forced to leave. Likewise remove those that decide to live free of charge in shabby old lorries and buses by the side of Preston Park, either that or subject them to the same taxes that we all pay. Very few are homeless by choice, by allowing them the luxury of our parks and churches we stop them from taking responsibility for their own lives.

Totally irregardless of what these people say they are doing with this property, The fact is they have taken possession of something that belongs to someone else.They can make as many stories, pull as many heart strings and make out a case for as long as they like.The truth is they are stealing.
We live in a society that until recently was regarded as fair and just.These people only see that its fair when they get their way.
The majority of people in this country work hard to make ends meet, the people who have taken over the church expect to be given freedom from any social responsibilty. Can any one of them say that they are working, paying taxes or showing any sense of responsibilty? I don,t think so.If they have any sense of right and wrong, they will leave.

This whole 'squatters rights' thing is ludicrous.
I have holiday home in France, as have many other Brits, but it's only occupied for about 2 months of the year.
But it's MY property, not anyone else's, and if I choose to leave it empty that's my decision, and it doesn't give anyone the right to take the law into their own hands and move in.
And in France, of course, they couldn't.
I bet pretty much all of them are on benefits, or on benefits and moonlighting. These are excatly the people that are dragging B&H down into the gutter, while the rest of us pay for them through taxes. I think we should all be a little less tolerant of these scroungers, who would be the 1st ones to turn up at A&E if there was a problem, but have never paid into the system that provides that free benefit.

Hadenough if you really have had enough why dont you go and live in France permanantly, freeing up a much needed house in this country, or do you stay because you also want to get something out of the system, such as housing profit and high wages. The french are very welcoming but they too are getting fed up of empty 2nd homes and English immigrants who want everything provided for such as healthcare, schooling etc. To me you are as bad as anyone you moan about, so live up to your name and do something positive.

Simple - Teargas and smoke bombs, that will get them out

The core issue is that those lumbered with the ever increasing and extortionate council tax, gas water and electricity rates, the crazy / erratic housing market and play by the rules often feel the injustice of hearing about individuals on benefits, provided with housing and the opportunity to legally buy it for a fraction of the price and yet still complain. However, in reality, its not the rosy life that the majority perceive.
Squatters and Travellers are perceived as presenting even more of an injustice, breaking into properties or land legally owned by someone else, often causing significant community distress, damage to surrounding areas, quite rightly have access to schools, and primary health care, but fail to contribute to the cost.
No one is saying to discriminate against the deprived, what people want is equality for all.
Why should squatters and travellers take what they want and be exempt from any repercussion or council tax when there are cases where pensioners who have paid into the system all their lives are being taken to court, escorted to prison and or their homes repossessed for not paying them?

Dave wrote:
Well that is a newsworthy story, no entry, no result and evryone is no further than they were yesterday, how funny... this seems like Brighton alright...

I noticed this yeterday when walking along London Road - so there was a huge number of Police and it was difficult to see what was going on.

I walked right past and it felt very strange - nothing happening but laods of Police!!

I came here to find out what was happening so I am glad the Argus have covered it!

I agree they need to be removed - so you can see what happened at Anston House - burning toxic rubbish at all hours and a man getting attacked and put in a coma, as drug addicts take over...!!

They don't work, they don't contribute, they don't do anything useful for anyone but themselves. We are far too tolerant of people who do nothing but drag this country down.

My brother came up with an awesome idea

After a year of unemployment on benefits you loose the right to vote, which would first spark more of an interest in government to get them back to work and would also risk a regime change to a less benefit orientated heavy taxed government.

After 2 years of unemployment, the government provides a job in the way of mandatory community services or the armed services.

This again provides a stimulus for employment.

Vote my brother in, we can soon turn things around.

Oh, he’s also up more rights to protect you home and family. Anyone breaking into your home is in effect shunning the legal system, is no longer protected by it and therefore fair game.

Why should a farmer who shoots a bugler be sent to prison and then faced by the same guy suing him for loss of earnings….!

the same goes for inhumane crimes, if convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt, you loose your human rights and treated accordingly.

Just want to make sure I am clear on this… These people don’t work, don’t pay a peppercorn of rent, live in someone else’s property free of charge and are indignant that they should be expected to move. We work all hours to pay for our lives and are groaning under mortgages to keep roofs over our heads.
Oh yes, it’s terribly unfair that they should have to move out of someone else’s property they aren’t paying for and never gave them permission to be there.
Only in England would this type of travesty take place. Shows why this country is circling the bowl!

Hi all

I am reading all these comments with interest, and in particular all those angry message from people with jobs and big mortgages who believe that the squatters 'contribute nothing' and are always on the take.

I guess that it's hard to see things any other way if you feel yourself tied to job, mortgage, bills and so on.

However, the way I look at it is this:

Most paid work is undertaken in a system which pays you less than the job is worth to line someone else's pockets.

I think it's really sad that people work full time to keep a roof over their heads. It's something we should all be resisting, because it stops us from doing much more useful things for society.

Having full time jobs often means we buy a whole load of consumer items which we don't really need and which subsequently break and end up in landfill, we drive cars which poison our atmosphere, we go to the supermarkets and buy a whole load of over-packaged foodstuffs. Recent research has shown that much of the food bought in supermarkets is thrown straight in the bin. Most importantly, many of us don't have time to do the things that would make us happy and fulfilled and which might help make the world a better place.

When a group of squatters takes over an empty building and opens it up as a social centre, their example shows us that there's an alternative to the 9-5 grind.

In no way does it show that these people are lazy, scrounging or wanting society to do everything for them. Quite the contrary in fact.

The squatters in London Road have been living on a shoestring, have a minimum 'carbon footprint' through reclaiming and re-using discarded stuff, embody the ethos of Do it Yourself, and are giving their time to public-spirited community activity entirely free of charge.

We have a lot to learn from them if we took the trouble to open our minds to the possibility that they are reasonable people with hopes, aspirations, a vision of a better world and the courage to try and put that into action.

The Methodist Church should put its Christian principles into practice and let these people continue their important work rather than try and make a quick buck for Methodists Inc. by selling the site (nothing's selling now anyway!)

All power to the squatters.

Major contributor wrote:
Hi all I am reading all these comments with interest, and in particular all those angry message from people with jobs and big mortgages who believe that the squatters 'contribute nothing' and are always on the take. I guess that it's hard to see things any other way if you feel yourself tied to job, mortgage, bills and so on. However, the way I look at it is this: Most paid work is undertaken in a system which pays you less than the job is worth to line someone else's pockets. I think it's really sad that people work full time to keep a roof over their heads. It's something we should all be resisting, because it stops us from doing much more useful things for society. Having full time jobs often means we buy a whole load of consumer items which we don't really need and which subsequently break and end up in landfill, we drive cars which poison our atmosphere, we go to the supermarkets and buy a whole load of over-packaged foodstuffs. Recent research has shown that much of the food bought in supermarkets is thrown straight in the bin. Most importantly, many of us don't have time to do the things that would make us happy and fulfilled and which might help make the world a better place. When a group of squatters takes over an empty building and opens it up as a social centre, their example shows us that there's an alternative to the 9-5 grind. In no way does it show that these people are lazy, scrounging or wanting society to do everything for them. Quite the contrary in fact. The squatters in London Road have been living on a shoestring, have a minimum 'carbon footprint' through reclaiming and re-using discarded stuff, embody the ethos of Do it Yourself, and are giving their time to public-spirited community activity entirely free of charge. We have a lot to learn from them if we took the trouble to open our minds to the possibility that they are reasonable people with hopes, aspirations, a vision of a better world and the courage to try and put that into action. The Methodist Church should put its Christian principles into practice and let these people continue their important work rather than try and make a quick buck for Methodists Inc. by selling the site (nothing's selling now anyway!) All power to the squatters.

All-right that's a nice idea in fairyland but tlet's come back into reality for awhile. "...their important work"? Seriously. I mean...seriously?!

Why should a farmer who shoots a bugler be sent to prison...

'Cos playing a bugle isn't against the law...

One woman said: "I thought I was going to have a breakdown because of the music. We have had enough of it."

Wait till the builders move in next door for 12 months. That will precipitate a breakdown missus.

To all who believe in the squatter's rights (what a moronic concept). Do you have any comprehension of what is right and wrong? Would you allow someone to break into your home and camp there while you were out for a week or two on holiday? If not, then why not? It's just simply wrong. Have there people no respect for other people's property/possesions/
&c. Don't tell me you actually believe they are operating a beneficial community centre. Use your logic.

So Major Contributor, if you are ill do you use the health service? And who pays for it? Do you use the roads? Who pays for them? Just curious.

Some of you are just proving Major contributor's points.


Being stuck in a dead end 9-5 rat race is making lots of you bitter hateful people,who wish their own misery onto everyone else.


But its easy to just accept 'the norm' isnt it? and lose all sight of whats really important in life.
The system your supporting isnt bringing most people fulfillment or pleasure,its a money,greed and debt fueled farce,designed to keep 'them' rich and you enslaved.You may choose to live like that,doesnt mean you have to punish the people that dont.

legs11 wrote:
Hadenough if you really have had enough why dont you go and live in France permanantly, freeing up a much needed house in this country, or do you stay because you also want to get something out of the system, such as housing profit and high wages. The french are very welcoming but they too are getting fed up of empty 2nd homes and English immigrants who want everything provided for such as healthcare, schooling etc. To me you are as bad as anyone you moan about, so live up to your name and do something positive.

I can't afford to buy a house here, that's why I have one in France. So no housing profit for me - I rent over here. High wages? - do me a favour.
The only reason I don't live in France permanently is a personal one. Apart from that I'd be gone tomorrow.
My original point is that people just cannot take what is not theirs. That way lies total anarchy, and it has to be stopped immediately.

I lived there, it was alrite. People need to live.
**** the police

I used to work for a rather notorious landlord (Mr Hoogstraten), he had no problems dealing with this sort of thing, maybe the bailiffs want to give me a call and I can give them some advice or for a fee I will sort out their problem for them.

Ownership.

I have read a lot of comments on ownership here such as "they don't own the building". When the building was orignally made there was a theft that went on, It was built by workers who were paid a small fraction of the buildings value, yet they built it, thus being robbed of their true labour value at the point of production. The workers had no rights to the building except what was decided by the owners, and church members are expected to pay a tythe to the churh. Imagine if you will the similarity betwwen that and mineral water being bottled at source and sold back to the people bottling it.

Now I am not saying that if you as a worker own your house someone else is entitled to it, you are! the things we collectively make or build are not given to us (the creators) to have, moreover they are sold back to us at a level many times higher than what we were paid to make them.

I agree that the squaters should consult with the local comunity on noise, and what they would like to happen at the church. They have my support.

Edward wrote:
To all who believe in the squatter\\\\\\\'s rights (what a moronic concept). Do you have any comprehension of what is right and wrong? Would you allow someone to break into your home and camp there while you were out for a week or two on holiday? If not, then why not? It\\\\\\\'s just simply wrong. Have there people no respect for other people\\\\\\\'s property/possesions/ &c. Don\\\\\\\'t tell me you actually believe they are operating a beneficial community centre. Use your logic.

Right or Wrong Concept.


In some countries it is deemed wrong (the punishment being beheading) for being gay.

In Nazi Germany it was wrong for being jewish

In our country it is now wrong to freely assemble to protest.

basically what I am trying to say is that right or wrong is decided by whichever political system/dictator/gove



rnment is in place and fed to us through the Law and the media, and who is to say if they are right or wrong.

so I we do (and should question what is right or wrong.

I wonder how the squatters would react if I walked in there and made of with their possesions?

And if someone involved in this gets ill or injured then I assume they would expect to be treated at a hospital paid for buy us all, assuming they would not want to be left untreated or to die??!!

All this flimsy crap from people posting here about being in a rat race, 9-5, having a mortgages, lining the pockets of those you work for and people thieving from you because they make more money out of teh job you do are laughable distractions from the real situation..

Sorry but we have to have some systems in place in this society even if they are imperfect and not all of us in 9-5's, paying mortgages and working for a boss are unfulfilled but living in way which we feel is fairest to all involved and actually working for what we have.

How far will we get as a society if it is declared that anyone can help themslevs to anything? Maybe they are providing a "service" but I certainly am not benefitting directly from it, yet I have to pay for my own roof over my head and contribute to teh pot used by them.

splitter101 wrote:
The reason why you can’t let them stay is that it’s someone else’s property, the building may not be up to safety standards, which means they are actually risking their health and safety, as well as the kids they have attend the make shift nursery and there is always the risk of adverse possession (i.e. that they legally claim the property as their own). Although I do think it is morally challenging to leave a building empty for so long while there are homeless people, the few that take advantage spoil it for the genuinely needy. Key issues I have include that the squatters claim to have turned the building into a community centre offering free food, cinema and a children’s nursery… but for what community other than their own and are the facilities they provide legal and / or up to the Council requirements? I’m also wondering how the squatters are able to finance the free food, the equipment and licence for the cinema as well as the commercial waste licence they would require for running the cinema and nursery. There is also the question as to if staff at the nursery have been police checked, are suitably qualified and are able to ensure the building complies with basic fire and security regulations. In short, is the community centre they suggest real, or spin to gain sympathy and support. This wouldn’t be the first time this approach has been used. Does anyone recall the protesters that camped out on the site opposite Preston Park? They claimed that they were there to prevent any more trees being chopped down? Funny how these environmental campaigners begged for hand outs to carry on the protest, started selling home made sauces and progressively burned not only any wood and materials onsite but eventually set light to their own campsite and caravans. Not quite as environmentally friendly as you would expect.

I totally agree all you say and wish to add that the squatter’s must think that the general public are complete fools, but alas, there are some people in authority who are fools and will be taken in by the squatter’s ploy. I would also like ask this question; who is monitoring the long term effects that secondary cannabis smoke is having on the squatters children?

One fine morning some years ago my family and I awoke to find that a large number of squatters (New Age Travellers) had driven onto our land and overnight had set up an illegal camp, what followed over the few weeks could at best be described as an absolute nightmare. Within minutes their free roaming dogs were attacking our sheep and that night our tool sheds were broken into and thousands of pounds worth of tools was stolen, the following night, they broke into our remaining sheds and emptied the freezers. Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, they then stole all the batteries off our farm machinery and the red diesel from our fuel tanks. When the police confronted the travellers they were greeted with threatening abuse and informed that they knew their rights and were staying put, the police seemed powerless to act even though the travellers were driving around in untaxed, uninsured and un-roadworthy vehicles, running on stolen red diesel. We know for a fact that most of the travellers were drug addicts and we were informed that most of them were suffering from TB and Hepatitis B, so please don’t be taken in by or encourage these parasitic people in any way shape or form, because it will come back to haunt you if you do.

One fine morning some years ago my family and I awoke to find that a large number of squatters (New Age Travellers) had driven onto our land and overnight had set up an illegal camp, what followed over the few weeks could at best be described as an absolute nightmare. Within minutes their free roaming dogs were attacking our sheep and that night our tool sheds were broken into and thousands of pounds worth of tools was stolen, the following night, they broke into our remaining sheds and emptied the freezers. Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, they then stole all the batteries off our farm machinery and the red diesel from our fuel tanks. When the police confronted the travellers they were greeted with threatening abuse and informed that they knew their rights and were staying put, the police seemed powerless to act even though the travellers were driving around in untaxed, uninsured and un-roadworthy vehicles, running on stolen red diesel. We know for a fact that most of the travellers were drug addicts and we were informed that most of them were suffering from TB and Hepatitis B, so please don’t be taken in or encourage these parasitic people in any way shape or form, because it will come back to haunt you if you do.

I live in the church in question and just wanted to make a quick response to a couple of points. Firstly, it was reported in the Argus that a woman commented "I thought I was going to have a breakdown because of the music". We have neither the capacity nor the inclination to play loud music in the building, we respect the local community (who have generally been very supportive) and have received no complaints. Secondly, over the last month we have been working hard on creating a positive, vibrant space and carrying out refurbishments where necessary, in what was a derelict and lifeless space. please don't judge us with ill-informed stereotypes about your perception of what squatters 'should' be like, we are genuinely trying to build a space that offers an alternative to the corporate monotony that engulfs most of Brighton.

dave wrote:
I live in the church in question and just wanted to make a quick response to a couple of points. Firstly, it was reported in the Argus that a woman commented "I thought I was going to have a breakdown because of the music". We have neither the capacity nor the inclination to play loud music in the building, we respect the local community (who have generally been very supportive) and have received no complaints. Secondly, over the last month we have been working hard on creating a positive, vibrant space and carrying out refurbishments where necessary, in what was a derelict and lifeless space. please don't judge us with ill-informed stereotypes about your perception of what squatters 'should' be like, we are genuinely trying to build a space that offers an alternative to the corporate monotony that engulfs most of Brighton.

I.E. you are doing more than the church is with this property, you dont cost anyone housing benefit and you dont have hysterical right wing views! Disuse causes more decay than anything else so in my eyes you are doing the place a favour until it's time to go, that time in my eyes will be when the church knows what it wants to do with it and has the fiances t and inclination to actually do it!

You may well be doing something positive but what you are doing with it, good or bad isnt really the point here..

Ask yourself whether you are happy for anyone to use or take any of your possesions without asking - are you really going to tell us the answers yes?

I'm not at all politically inclined, I happen to think politics is **** and dont care about what left or right wing views are but I know the difference between your and my possessions and what is right.

I'm really puzzled at the venom directed at the squatters in some of these comments.

Firstly, to the people who say 'how would you like it if squatters moved in and took over your home', this is just wrong. Your homes are perfectly safe. All the squatters are doing is making use of unused buildings which are going to ruin.

Councils have been able to use Empty Dwelling Management Orders to seize empty properties and use them to rehouse homeless people since 2006, but have been slow to take up this option, presumably because homeless people don't have a lot of political clout.

I don't believe it is right that rich people and corporations (the Methodist Church being one such) should have the privilege of leaving properties empty while there are people needing places to live. Quite apart from anything else, it goes right against the Methodist Church's avowed 'Christian' principles.

Added to that, this is a group which is doing something positive for the community. Community is sadly lacking in Britain. Most entertainment is corporate and has to be paid for; if you don't have the cash, then you can't take part. In contrast, 88 London Road has opened its doors to provide people with something they can participate in free of charge, and has demonstrated in a very practical way that there is an alternative to profit and greed, by setting up a project that is friendly, welcoming and inclusive, and which won't cost you.

To all you people who are concerned about squatters not paying taxes, money is not the only, nor indeed the best way to contribute positively to society. We offer some offenders the option to pay off their debt to society with their labour, through community service, which is generally far more effective than spending public money keeping them in prison. People who choose to live without consumer luxuries, to make do (or live like kings) on the cast-offs of a greedy and wasteful society deserve our respect, not our condemnation. If they spend the time freed up by not working 9-5 on community activity, so much the better.

I look around me at my fellow parents whose grown-up children have jumped through all the academic hoops and are now mortgaged to the hilt, working hard in their chosen careers (most of which have little social benefit) always anxious that they might lose their jobs and their consumerist lifestyles. I look at them and I feel proud and happy that my daughter has chosen to be a squatter.

However, I also feel profoundly sad that some of the people who have left comments here have called my daughter 'scum' and have recommended violence and other aggressive tactics to remove her from her home.

Shame on you.

This is where we have come to. People demanding homelessness instead of squatters, a mcd's instead of a community space, and thieving landlords instead of free accomodation. You deserve all the exploitation you get. You sit there and take it while we fight alongside the squatters. Solidarity to 88 London Road Community

I had to fight in WW2 against the Germans. In those days we all hoped for a better future,and a job to go home to.A lot of young people work hard,dont drink,dont smoke,and save up a deposit on a home.Some one tell me why this dirty, unwashed,lazy lot of lay abouts cannot go out and work for a living,instead of holding their hand out each week{like beggers}for a chunk of YOUR taxes.All over the world, poor people are pleading to work,some get only a few bob a day.I would suggest this home less lot, stop trying to save the world,and instead try to save us a bit off our taxes.Get a bloo*y job.

Dont make me laugh with all this 'good folk trying to survive in the cruel capitalistic jungle' rubbish.

You dont want to work, you dont want to pay taxes, you DO play loud music because ive heard it, and there is probably enough drugs floating around to open a pharmacy, which probably explains the comings and goings of the 'unwashed' at all hours - or are they coming for a daily folk music lessons . . .

Say what you like, dress it up how you like, but you broke into someones elses property and are occupying it illegally, and refusing to abide by the order of the Court to leave.

You should be dragged out, thrown in a bath of something that kills all known germs, then locked up.

NOW **** OFF

bob wrote:
You may well be doing something positive but what you are doing with it, good or bad isnt really the point here..

Ask yourself whether you are happy for anyone to use or take any of your possesions without asking - are you really going to tell us the answers yes?

I\\\'m not at all politically inclined, I happen to think politics is **** and dont care about what left or right wing views are but I know the difference between your and my possessions and what is right.

In all honesty, if I left my possessions unused and broken for some years I wouldn't really have an issue with someone putting them to good use (or be suprised that someone made use of them). But maybe that's just me?

I really despair at some of the poisonous, hateful comments expressed here from some very angry, bitter people.

The squatters bring much more 'community' to the area than Sainsburys, New England Quarter and what the profit driven developers have planned for the rest of London Road and the Open Market. People start foaming at the mouth when the squatters move in but have no qualms about that which really brings an area down.

Brighton is supposed to be a vibrant place and we pride ourselves on being different, so why do people have no problem with us turning into any other high street for conveniences sake while pushing out any people living alternative lifestyles? The North Laine is another example of this.

The Methodists behaving in a very un-christian manner is sad and makes their promise of "community development for justice, especially among the most deprived and poor" seem pretty **** hollow when they want to sell the site off to developers..

Respect to the occupiers for resisting eviction. Police action has been extremely heavy handed on squats in Brighton in recent years..

Solidarity from a lifelong Brighton resident unhappy with the direction this town is heading.

squatter's mum wrote:
I'm really puzzled at the venom directed at the squatters in some of these comments. Firstly, to the people who say 'how would you like it if squatters moved in and took over your home', this is just wrong. Your homes are perfectly safe. All the squatters are doing is making use of unused buildings which are going to ruin. Councils have been able to use Empty Dwelling Management Orders to seize empty properties and use them to rehouse homeless people since 2006, but have been slow to take up this option, presumably because homeless people don't have a lot of political clout. I don't believe it is right that rich people and corporations (the Methodist Church being one such) should have the privilege of leaving properties empty while there are people needing places to live. Quite apart from anything else, it goes right against the Methodist Church's avowed 'Christian' principles. Added to that, this is a group which is doing something positive for the community. Community is sadly lacking in Britain. Most entertainment is corporate and has to be paid for; if you don't have the cash, then you can't take part. In contrast, 88 London Road has opened its doors to provide people with something they can participate in free of charge, and has demonstrated in a very practical way that there is an alternative to profit and greed, by setting up a project that is friendly, welcoming and inclusive, and which won't cost you. To all you people who are concerned about squatters not paying taxes, money is not the only, nor indeed the best way to contribute positively to society. We offer some offenders the option to pay off their debt to society with their labour, through community service, which is generally far more effective than spending public money keeping them in prison. People who choose to live without consumer luxuries, to make do (or live like kings) on the cast-offs of a greedy and wasteful society deserve our respect, not our condemnation. If they spend the time freed up by not working 9-5 on community activity, so much the better. I look around me at my fellow parents whose grown-up children have jumped through all the academic hoops and are now mortgaged to the hilt, working hard in their chosen careers (most of which have little social benefit) always anxious that they might lose their jobs and their consumerist lifestyles. I look at them and I feel proud and happy that my daughter has chosen to be a squatter. However, I also feel profoundly sad that some of the people who have left comments here have called my daughter 'scum' and have recommended violence and other aggressive tactics to remove her from her home. Shame on you.

Dont keep playing the 'homeless' card. The vast majority of squatters choose to be squatters - they like the lifestyle (smelling like a bag of old nappies doesnt appeal to many people, but they seem to enjoy it)

Tell your skiving daughter to have a bath and get a job like everyone else.

And you should as well.

Ronnie and others- you really don't put your argument across very well when you talk about 'having a bath' at every opportunity. It actually makes you look rather dim and as if you can't construct a decent argument.

You say to 'get a job like everyone else'. Why do people have to be 'like everyone else'?

Dobbs, Bob wrote:
Ronnie and others- you really don't put your argument across very well when you talk about 'having a bath' at every opportunity. It actually makes you look rather dim and as if you can't construct a decent argument. You say to 'get a job like everyone else'. Why do people have to be 'like everyone else'?

I think implying the sqatters need a bath is very appropriate, and adds that little extra something to the debate, rather like experiencing the stench of unwashed squatters in real time. It certainly doesnt make anyone look 'rather dim' as you suggest. Yep I think we should talk more about these people being so filthy and only fit to live in a . . . hmmmmmm, oh dear I dont know. I suppose it would be somewhere smelly and full of other unwashed people.

Why do people have to be 'like everyone else'? The answer is that they dont. As long as they are not stealing money from other tax payers (which is what they are doing at the moment) or breaking into other peoples property, they can be as different as they like - ok?

Did you 'support' the mad unwashed 'TreeHuggers' opposite Preston Park by the way? I bet you did!

lustrell wrote:
Totally irregardless of what these people say they are doing with this property, The fact is they have taken possession of something that belongs to someone else.They can make as many stories, pull as many heart strings and make out a case for as long as they like.The truth is they are stealing. We live in a society that until recently was regarded as fair and just.These people only see that its fair when they get their way. The majority of people in this country work hard to make ends meet, the people who have taken over the church expect to be given freedom from any social responsibilty. Can any one of them say that they are working, paying taxes or showing any sense of responsibilty? I don,t think so.If they have any sense of right and wrong, they will leave.

I myself am in fact a squatter...not by choice may i ad just because it is too exspesive to live in brighton. i have a job and am brighton born and bred yet still cannot find anywhere to live after 2 years in university as well as working, squatting is the only choice i have if i am to stay in my home town which i love! the church is a lovely building and is not often loud at all...it has a lovely atmosphere and everyone living and visiting there is decent and caring. the reason they have started their own community is because they have not been accepted in to the existing one for reasons such as "individuality"

all you people with your posh homes try being a little bit more open minded because i among many have a job and pay my way stop being so stuck up and start thinking outside the box!

quote

quote

I have a job and rent a house and pay tax. I'm happy for the tax i pay to support squatters. Its the politicians and prisons I resent paying for.

Angela wrote:

Dobbs, Bob wrote:
Ronnie and others- you really don\'t put your argument across very well when you talk about \'having a bath\' at every opportunity. It actually makes you look rather dim and as if you can\'t construct a decent argument. You say to \'get a job like everyone else\'. Why do people have to be \'like everyone else\'?

I think implying the sqatters need a bath is very appropriate, and adds that little extra something to the debate, rather like experiencing the stench of unwashed squatters in real time. It certainly doesnt make anyone look \'rather dim\' as you suggest. Yep I think we should talk more about these people being so filthy and only fit to live in a . . . hmmmmmm, oh dear I dont know. I suppose it would be somewhere smelly and full of other unwashed people.

Why do people have to be \'like everyone else\'? The answer is that they dont. As long as they are not stealing money from other tax payers (which is what they are doing at the moment) or breaking into other peoples property, they can be as different as they like - ok?

Did you \'support\' the mad unwashed \'TreeHuggers\' opposite Preston Park by the way? I bet you did!

It always amazes me how much some people waffle on about 'not paying taxes' and 'claiming benefits'.Do some of you REALLY beleive that your lives would be any different if all locals got a job and payed taxes ? Your sadly mistaken if you do.That 'tiny' fraction of extra revenue would far more likely be used by the government to line some fat cat's pockets,or maybe put towards helping the millitary acquire the latest fashion in nuclear weapons.

Some of you really should try reading something other than the likes of the Daily Mail,you never know,you may actually learn something other than 'how to hate those that dare to be different'!

purple wrote:

lustrell wrote: Totally irregardless of what these people say they are doing with this property, The fact is they have taken possession of something that belongs to someone else.They can make as many stories, pull as many heart strings and make out a case for as long as they like.The truth is they are stealing. We live in a society that until recently was regarded as fair and just.These people only see that its fair when they get their way. The majority of people in this country work hard to make ends meet, the people who have taken over the church expect to be given freedom from any social responsibilty. Can any one of them say that they are working, paying taxes or showing any sense of responsibilty? I don,t think so.If they have any sense of right and wrong, they will leave.

I myself am in fact a squatter...not by choice may i ad just because it is too exspesive to live in brighton. i have a job and am brighton born and bred yet still cannot find anywhere to live after 2 years in university as well as working, squatting is the only choice i have if i am to stay in my home town which i love! the church is a lovely building and is not often loud at all...it has a lovely atmosphere and everyone living and visiting there is decent and caring. the reason they have started their own community is because they have not been accepted in to the existing one for reasons such as "individuality" all you people with your posh homes try being a little bit more open minded because i among many have a job and pay my way stop being so stuck up and start thinking outside the box!

quote

quote

what a lot of ****

you squat because its for nothing, and its all you are worth

there are lots of cheap flats in Brighton, how about sharing one of those with one of your mates, and stop skiving off everyone else. If your on a low income, the council will pay towards it. That what I do by the way.

Your just a no hoper. Go and get a bath.

worker wrote:
I have a job and rent a house and pay tax. I'm happy for the tax i pay to support squatters. Its the politicians and prisons I resent paying for.

probably coz you been in prison (or should be)

bright wrote:

Angela wrote:

Dobbs, Bob wrote: Ronnie and others- you really don\'t put your argument across very well when you talk about \'having a bath\' at every opportunity. It actually makes you look rather dim and as if you can\'t construct a decent argument. You say to \'get a job like everyone else\'. Why do people have to be \'like everyone else\'?

I think implying the sqatters need a bath is very appropriate, and adds that little extra something to the debate, rather like experiencing the stench of unwashed squatters in real time. It certainly doesnt make anyone look \'rather dim\' as you suggest. Yep I think we should talk more about these people being so filthy and only fit to live in a . . . hmmmmmm, oh dear I dont know. I suppose it would be somewhere smelly and full of other unwashed people. Why do people have to be \'like everyone else\'? The answer is that they dont. As long as they are not stealing money from other tax payers (which is what they are doing at the moment) or breaking into other peoples property, they can be as different as they like - ok? Did you \'support\' the mad unwashed \'TreeHuggers\' opposite Preston Park by the way? I bet you did!

It always amazes me how much some people waffle on about 'not paying taxes' and 'claiming benefits'.Do some of you REALLY beleive that your lives would be any different if all locals got a job and payed taxes ? Your sadly mistaken if you do.That 'tiny' fraction of extra revenue would far more likely be used by the government to line some fat cat's pockets,or maybe put towards helping the millitary acquire the latest fashion in nuclear weapons. Some of you really should try reading something other than the likes of the Daily Mail,you never know,you may actually learn something other than 'how to hate those that dare to be different'!

oh god, another post from someone with a low IQ

Look - its got nothing to do with any loss of revenue to the government, its the fact that people strongly object to paying lots of tax, when others decide they are not going to pay any, by skiving off those that do.

lets put it like this, how about YOU paying all YOUR tax plus a share of mine, and I wont pay any at all - happy with that?

durrrrrrr . . .

ren wrote:

worker wrote:
I have a job and rent a house and pay tax. I'm happy for the tax i pay to support squatters. Its the politicians and prisons I resent paying for.

probably coz you been in prison (or should be)

So you want to put someone in prison for writing something and having an opinion? You'd better put me there to because I agree with him and if you want to spend £100,000 a year to lock me up then I hope it comes out of your own pocket!

are the squatters paying rent? electric? water?
what is wrong with the services at the cowley club?
why doesnt the church change the locks and secure the building with everyone in it. thats what a local hotel did when their staff house was 'squatted', oh and putting up that rights notice is damaging property - illegal.

Dobbs in quoting my post you have missed my point entirely..

"In all honesty, if I left my possessions unused and broken for some years I wouldn't really have an issue with someone putting them to good use (or be suprised that someone made use of them). But maybe that's just me?"

If you are refferring to the building then you are making a very big assumption there that someone is happy for you to help yourself on the basis that it is unused or broken?

Your reply makes no sense, its irrelevant whether something is unused or broken, it still belongs to someone else and anyway i was referring to how a squatter would react if teh tables werer turned on them and a current possesion of theirs was taken..

you twist my words methinks!

A Lot of nonsense in this debate today. Everyone has the right to free housing. Its a basic. Landlords and banks have taken advantage of humanity's conformity with the free market dream. Soon breathing air will be charged. The church has acted in the way it was expected to. Profit over people. F**K your religion.

homeless people accommodating an unused building and creating facilities for their community is not a crime and should be encouraged

A wrote:
A Lot of nonsense in this debate today. Everyone has the right to free housing. Its a basic. Landlords and banks have taken advantage of humanity\'s conformity with the free market dream. Soon breathing air will be charged. The church has acted in the way it was expected to. Profit over people. F**K your religion.

You are right about the nonsense in this thread friend, and the most obvious bit has come from you.

Very very few people should have free housing, because someone, somewhere has got to pay for it. You are living in a total dream world, as are 99% of these squatters and such like, who think the world owes them a living. Those in genuine need (and that does NOT include 24hr a day drunken scumbags) obviously should be given help, but not those that are out to milk the system and take funds away from genuine cases.

The UK tax payers should NOT pay for those that choose to play outside the system and evade paying their way. Society does have rules, and they involve working, paying for things like rent, and accepting that some people may have more than you because they worked harder for it - thats life.

You are out of your tiny little mind - go and find another tree to live in.

k woodcock wrote:
homeless people accommodating an unused building and creating facilities for their community is not a crime and should be encouraged

go and dig some coal you moron

I'm dispirited by the bile and bitterness expressed by some Argus readers here.

The building in question has been "left empty and unused for 4 years". I'd much rather see a community centre in Brighton than another fast food outlet or derelict building.
The squatters are providing a helpful function by making good use of the waste created by our society.

...and, finally, the "go and 'ave a bath"-style comments are childish. You resort to stereotypes as you are incapable of constructing a convincing argument.

A. Taxpayer wrote:
I'm dispirited by the bile and bitterness expressed by some Argus readers here. The building in question has been "left empty and unused for 4 years". I'd much rather see a community centre in Brighton than another fast food outlet or derelict building. The squatters are providing a helpful function by making good use of the waste created by our society. ...and, finally, the "go and 'ave a bath"-style comments are childish. You resort to stereotypes as you are incapable of constructing a convincing argument.

"Community centre????!!!! - The squatters are providing a helpful function by making good use of the waste created by society"

Have you been smoking the same stuff that they do, or you are just naturally a 25k totally braindead idiot.

You are either living in a secluded retirement home, or are some other extremely deluded person living in an ivory tower miles away from the real world.

Thank god you have never had to deal with new age travellers, squatters, pikeys, drug addicts etc etc etc.

You cant have done, or you wouldnt be posting such drivel.

Now dont get yourself wound up, your Horlicks will be along in a little while.

i live in the former church and dont usually post on forums, but would like to have the time to write a more in depth response to some of the discussion we've sparked. right now all i can add to the debate is that since we have been there we have not had the ability to play loud music. we think its a pity that if we have caused disturbance to anyone that they couldnt come and let us know so that we could rectify the situation. x

"You are right about the nonsense in this thread friend, and the most obvious bit has come from you.

Very very few people should have free housing, because someone, somewhere has got to pay for it. You are living in a total dream world, as are 99% of these squatters and such like, who think the world owes them a living etc etc etc..."
Robert.
Your brilliant analysis of lazy scumbags has captured myself and every logical person in this world. Thank you for demonstrating the sheer nature of your genius. If i was to pick up on something to criticise from your piece id probably find myself writing an essay on your backward view on world affairs. Suffice to say that your argument that some people have more than me due to working harder means that since 80% of the world lives on under $dollars a day they hardly get anything done. The word exploitation clearly doesnt exist in your dictionary and the world is a fair place based on merit and effort. I'll find another tree when you read a book otehr than mein kampf, and a toilet roll other than the daily mail.

Burn it down

barry kade wrote:
i live in the former church and dont usually post on forums, but would like to have the time to write a more in depth response to some of the discussion we\'ve sparked. right now all i can add to the debate is that since we have been there we have not had the ability to play loud music. we think its a pity that if we have caused disturbance to anyone that they couldnt come and let us know so that we could rectify the situation. x

Firstly, you dont live in the former church, anymore than a burglar lives in a house he has broken into.

Posting a nice sounding message on here doesnt alter your legal status, or reduce the number of laws you have broken including defying an eviction order, nor will it aleviate your suffering when in due course you get thrown out on your head.

I should get out now if I were you.

James wrote:
Simple - Teargas and smoke bombs, that will get them out

what a lovely opinion-someone who obviously knows right from wrong. i support these 'scroungers' fully, why not live in and use an empty disused church? as someone already mentioned, unused buildings soon rot and fall into disrepair- squatting protects buildings from this kind of damage. probably wouldnt have been used or maintained for many more years if the attention hadnt been drawn to it by people using it without paying. the negative comments on here seem to be largely from people simply not agreeing with the squatters lifestyle and voiceing their immature, insulting opinions. so the right to life has to be bought with money now?

torman wrote:

James wrote: Simple - Teargas and smoke bombs, that will get them out

what a lovely opinion-someone who obviously knows right from wrong. i support these \'scroungers\' fully, why not live in and use an empty disused church? as someone already mentioned, unused buildings soon rot and fall into disrepair- squatting protects buildings from this kind of damage. probably wouldnt have been used or maintained for many more years if the attention hadnt been drawn to it by people using it without paying. the negative comments on here seem to be largely from people simply not agreeing with the squatters lifestyle and voiceing their immature, insulting opinions. so the right to life has to be bought with money now?

Firstly, the fact that the building is empty and may fall into disrepair, is absolutely nothing to do with you. Someone else owns it, and if they choose to leave it empty they can do.

If your front garden is empty, I take it you dont mind if a load of pikeys make camp in it for a few months?

Secondly, we dont want to attract loads more drug using morons to the area, and thats already happening.

Thirdly, you can support how ever many skiving tax evaders you like, because no one gives a **** (even though it does show you to be an idiot)

Finally, you are in Yorkshire - so **** off and mind your own business.

The working class of today is looking as pathetically dumb as they've ever been. Just like your employers would love you to be. Bent over with your cheeks wide open.

F**K the Police
F**K the Church
SQUAT THE LOT!

Solidarity to squatters, immigrants and revolutionaries across the globe.

Ally wrote:

k woodcock wrote: homeless people accommodating an unused building and creating facilities for their community is not a crime and should be encouraged

go and dig some coal you moron

ignorant comment

Anarchist wrote:
The working class of today is looking as pathetically dumb as they've ever been. Just like your employers would love you to be. Bent over with your cheeks wide open. F**K the Police F**K the Church SQUAT THE LOT! Solidarity to squatters, immigrants and revolutionaries across the globe.

and the sooner you fall out of your tree the better

If there is an eviction notice, it is because someone, i.e. the owner has issued it and wants the building empty for a reason. This means, the property isn’t something un-owned or forgotten that can be picked up and used by some care free passer by. The property itself will, as with all other property in Brighton, be appreciating in value which implies it is a commodity, very similar to a savings account.
Squatters impact upon this commodity, not only in terms of physical damage, but effort and recourses to manage the issue. I personally don’t care for the squatters argument that their ‘sticking it to the man’ opposing the ‘unfair system’ and apparently providing a ‘community service’. They are still breaking the law, are causing the owner stress and anxiety (be it a large corporate fat cat, the church, a small developer), and potentially putting themselves and the people who illegally enter the site at risk.
Has anyone performed a structural survey to see if the building is in sound condition for habitation, let alone being used as a make shift nursery, cinema of soup kitchen?
I am also extremely concerned that such services can pop up from an illegal action and are unlikely to conform to any of the standards set to protect people.
What happens when a child at the nursery suffers a respiratory ailment from inhalation of fungal spores, dry rot or physical risk from a potentially unsound building. Then there is the staff issue, the people who broke into the building are technically criminals, I doubt they will pass the police check needed to look after children. So what’s to stop sex offenders from turning up or even setting up their own squat / community nursery? I have similar concerns for the cinema and soup kitchen that is effectively inviting other people to break the law.


Now here is the funny bit, do you know that if someone hurts themselves in the building, the owner is actually liable? Funny huh.
Also, by appealing to a criminal element, my view is things will only get worse. Here is how it normally works; the church will initially be targeted by other opportunistic criminals, fairly low key like antisocial behaviour and vandalism. This means members of the local community will slowly avoid the area due to the perception of crime. Then you get more opportunistic crime move in because the area gets a reputation and becomes a bit of a no go area. Eventually you get another St James Street. Don’t get me wrong, St James Street is much better than it used to be, but it used to be the place where you could get mugged and offered drugs by the same person within 5 minutes and that’s even when considering that that was by the law court and police station.
My key point is, the squatters should be supported to find and pay for accommodation and start abiding by the laws set to protect us all in a fair law abiding community. This may take time, so they may have to stay put for a bit. However, all apparent community services at the site need to be stopped now. They are not legal and potentially unsafe.

splitter101:
"They are still breaking the law."
"from an illegal action."

Squatting is actually perfectly legal.

As for what goes on inside, if you feel it is unsafe, for whatever reason, don't take yourself or your kids there. Thankfully others can choose for themselves whether they want to be involved and take part in a free community space.

It appears that the intention to build flats is quite contradictory. It is already providing a sufficient home.

The flats will only go to housing the homeless, which these people are likely to be currently, and will be should they be evicted.

Why spend money on building flats when it already houses those who need it most.

Considering the ridiculous price of housing these days I say good for them.

I work full time, pay plenty of taxes, and own my own home. I fully support anyone who chooses to squat in empty, unused buildings, rather than seeing them go to waste. The Methodist Church clearly aren't using the place, & have no real use for it; the squatters are putting it to good use, as a place for the whole community, just as church halls should be.

Squatting is perfectly legal, and there are already legal means to remove squatters. It's very unfortunate that the Methodists are so determined to use those means, but sadly that kind of hypocrisy is fairly standard for Christian churches these days.

Squatters aren't all soap-dodging drug addicts, any more than middle-class Brightonians are all reactionary idiots who'd like a world where everyone looks the same and acts the same. Many squatters, like this lot by all accounts, are predominantly politically motivated. They're making a stand for something they believe in. With the price of housing & land these days -- bearing in mind that 70% of land in the UK is still owned by 1% of the population, most of whom are descended from those who took it by force hundreds of years ago -- it's eminently reasonable to take unused land or buildings and put them back to use.

I have read most comments above and people have very mixed views about all of this.

I believe people should be allowed to claim adverse possession of a derelict building provided they do this legally and without causing problems for the surrounding community.

Firstly the squatter should find out if the property is registered. If the property is not registered then he or she should find out if the property has an owner. If the property has neither then he or she must show 'adverse possesion'.
This means showing an open intention to continuously occupy the land without permission and without challenge from the owners or their heirs.

The squatter should gain entry to the building without causing criminal damage to the property.
According to the Land Registry, if the true owner appears they may take legal proceedings including claims for trespass and criminal damage, with the squatter potentially liable for thousands of pounds’ worth of legal costs.

After 12 years the land may be registered in the squatter's name.
It could, however, be initially registered as a possessory title, rather than an absolute title, which would still leave the squatter vulnerable to a claim from the true owner for a number of years.

In my opinion if the legal owner has neglected the property for more than 12 years then they should be taken to court and sued. Derelict buildings that the council have 'forgot about' cause problems to the community and used up valuable resources from the emergency services.

In this instance, the squatter's did not try to claim the property legally and should of left the property once the true owned turned up. As for causing problems to the local community, this is also wrong and the true owner has every right to take them to court.

Providing people follow the legal steps mentioned above to claim a derelict building, then i will continue to support them all the way. Good on them for using their common sence and getting something that could, potentially, be worth a small fortune, for nothing, and that could benefit the community!

Power to the squatters that adhere to the law!!!