Police storm site of Brighton Sainsbury's protest (From The Argus)

About 50 officers stormed the former Taj store ... and arrested one man.

Surely they could've used just four big, brave fellas to arrest one bloke - one arm or a leg each to carry him out.

The other 46 officers would have preferred to stay in the nice, warm police station, I bet.

Given that this eviction was done under an interim possession order the failure of any squatters to leave the property within the court designated time constitutes a criminal offence so I hope he has been arrested and charged.

RottingdeanRant wrote:
Given that this eviction was done under an interim possession order the failure of any squatters to leave the property within the court designated time constitutes a criminal offence so I hope he has been arrested and charged.

Yeah, that'll show him for having a social conscience, no matter how misguided. Every idealist aught to be arrested locked up and the key thrown away. That's the only way to bring about positive social change. Big Society isn't about local people looking after their immediate environment, it's about sitting at home and complaining yet doing nothing about things personally.
Or have I got the message mixed up somewhere?

RottingdeanRant wrote:
Given that this eviction was done under an interim possession order the failure of any squatters to leave the property within the court designated time constitutes a criminal offence so I hope he has been arrested and charged.

charged and arrested... I doubt it... will cry its against his Human Rights or some such b/s... or be give a nice chunky handout!

jay316 wrote:

RottingdeanRant wrote:
Given that this eviction was done under an interim possession order the failure of any squatters to leave the property within the court designated time constitutes a criminal offence so I hope he has been arrested and charged.

charged and arrested... I doubt it... will cry its against his Human Rights or some such b/s... or be give a nice chunky handout!

Another example of people whose only source of facts is the Daily Mail. Please, don't let reailty get in the way of your fantasy rant.

Whilst I can appreciate that we need proper competition with our all too expensive grocery shopping, why does Kemp Town need another supermarket, we have three already. Morrisons, Tesco and the Co-op. They all sell wines/beer too and there are food outlets along St. James' St. We do not need Sainsbury's, they have a huge store just along the London Road. If this continues, we will have nothing here except supermarkets in ten years time!

@jay316

**** those pesky human rights. I absolutely trust the police and will do anything they tell me to. God Bless Britain!

pixiehouse wrote:
Whilst I can appreciate that we need proper competition with our all too expensive grocery shopping, why does Kemp Town need another supermarket, we have three already. Morrisons, Tesco and the Co-op. They all sell wines/beer too and there are food outlets along St. James' St. We do not need Sainsbury's, they have a huge store just along the London Road. If this continues, we will have nothing here except supermarkets in ten years time!

So don't go to it! I'm a bit confused here. There was a supermarket on that site; there's still going to be a supermarket on that site. It's not an extra, it's a replacement.

Number Six wrote:

pixiehouse wrote:
Whilst I can appreciate that we need proper competition with our all too expensive grocery shopping, why does Kemp Town need another supermarket, we have three already. Morrisons, Tesco and the Co-op. They all sell wines/beer too and there are food outlets along St. James' St. We do not need Sainsbury's, they have a huge store just along the London Road. If this continues, we will have nothing here except supermarkets in ten years time!

So don't go to it! I'm a bit confused here. There was a supermarket on that site; there's still going to be a supermarket on that site. It's not an extra, it's a replacement.

Pixiehouse is obviously rather stupid and has missed the whole point of this dissent. Taj was an independent, local supermarket, NOT one of the huge, faceless corporations that fleece customers and farmers alike!

dhamallamafarmer wrote:

RottingdeanRant wrote:
Given that this eviction was done under an interim possession order the failure of any squatters to leave the property within the court designated time constitutes a criminal offence so I hope he has been arrested and charged.

Yeah, that'll show him for having a social conscience, no matter how misguided. Every idealist aught to be arrested locked up and the key thrown away. That's the only way to bring about positive social change. Big Society isn't about local people looking after their immediate environment, it's about sitting at home and complaining yet doing nothing about things personally.
Or have I got the message mixed up somewhere?

dhamallamafarmer,

Yes you have got mixed up. In your terms the squatters had the chance to show they had a 'social conscience'. However, once the court order had been made they should have all left. One individual choose not to and therefore committed a criminal offence. Seems clear to me.

Err I think you are rather stupid as you dont seem to be able to read what pixiehouse actually said. Still no suprise that someone who talks like one of the Smash Edo mob resorts straight away to abusing anyone who dares disagree with them, honestly who would want to live in a society organised by you bunch. Anyone who has a different view is automatically abused and disparaged.
There is allready a way to oppose a supermarket at that site you squatters are just trying to reinvent the wheel.
Edo, Sainsburys, Tescos, Starbucks the list gets longer everyday of the businesses you want to ban because they dont meet your criteria. Who voted you into power and gave you the right to take these decisions on our behalf?

Why does it have to be Sainsbury's?

Please let Waitrose have that site as we need a higher class supermarket option in that location - selling higher quality goods which the likes of Tesco, Sainsbury, etc don't currently provide.

Interociter wrote:

jay316 wrote:

RottingdeanRant wrote: Given that this eviction was done under an interim possession order the failure of any squatters to leave the property within the court designated time constitutes a criminal offence so I hope he has been arrested and charged.

charged and arrested... I doubt it... will cry its against his Human Rights or some such b/s... or be give a nice chunky handout!

Another example of people whose only source of facts is the Daily Mail. Please, don't let reailty get in the way of your fantasy rant.

Another example of someone who can't think of anything original to say only refer to the Daily Mail. I don't get it. You have to read the Mail yourself to become an expert to know who reads it and who doesn't. Or is it that your 1wattage of brain power won't let you refer to anything else.
Even an idiot can work out that the Rottingdean rant only source of facts isn't the Mail to write the information about the interim order contained in his post.