Squat raid standoff in Brighton's London Road (From The Argus)

GET 'EM OUT!

don't take any prisoners, smash your way in, set sol gilbert and his mates on them

Walked past it at lunch, seemed to be getting quite a crowd!! Get them out and sling em in the jail.

Typical government reaction...

Pass a law and send in plod instead of tackling the reasons as to why some people have to squat!

No doubt the right wing numpties on here are wetting their pants right at this minute!

sbiscorrupt wrote:
Typical government reaction...

Pass a law and send in plod instead of tackling the reasons as to why some people have to squat!

No doubt the right wing numpties on here are wetting their pants right at this minute!

Totally agree with you. Much easier though to deride them all as lazy workshy hippies.

Wait a second, someone complained this morning and they are already taking action? Either a) bureaucracy has become incredibly fast (unlikely), b) this was planned a long time ago and they were just waiting for the new law to pass (quite probable), or c) evictions are being made without proper verification (let's really hope not).

By the way, am I the only one seeing the pictures overlapping the banners?

surely its only a squatter that would choose to live on London Rd.

Any uninhabited building that has been an uninhabited building for a period of time (set by law) ought to be exempt from this new anti-squatters law.

A building is shelter. That is its main function and owners should have a duty of care compelling them to ensure properties are in use for shelter.

This should mean that squatters could have caretaker tenancies that provide them with no facilities or services and such tenancy to be in lieu of rent and and carrying an absolute obligation to leave when the owner is able to make an immediate permanent arrangement, such as redevelopment after planning consent is obtained, say.

If a house is genuinely for sale but empty, it should not be available for squatting as this would prevent people selling their homes.

The country is stuffed with empty dwelling that squatters could be using for shelter. Some of them have been doing degrees dontchaknow but cannot pay tuition fees and rent as well.

Squatting did not always have the drugs and defecation image it now does and Lord Bassam was once a proud squatter himself - former Leader of Brighton Council he is too.

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:

sbiscorrupt wrote:
Typical government reaction...

Pass a law and send in plod instead of tackling the reasons as to why some people have to squat!

No doubt the right wing numpties on here are wetting their pants right at this minute!

Totally agree with you. Much easier though to deride them all as lazy workshy hippies.

Why tackle the difficult causes of homelessness when you can victimise the weak, voiceless people forced onto the fringes of society. & yeah, the 'sling 'em in jail' brigade are getting all chirpy, it's almost as if they don't realise that kicking squatters out will increase prisoner population therefore taxes or alternatively the number of rough sleepers 'littering' our streets, begging, and indulging in antisocial behaviour. So yeah, an great solution to a genuine humanitarian problem. *slow claps.

About time - some common sense... Most of us work to the best of our abilities for what we have... good to know its now protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...

The timing of this smacks of a publicity stunt. What price will anyone give me that Mike 'Diddly-Squat' Weatherley will show up before the day is out for a photo-opportunity?

Or, of course, the squatters may really have been making their neighbours' lives a misery for weeks. This is essential background to understanding what is really going on here, and it used to be called 'reporting'. Argus please note.

Mark63 wrote:
About time - some common sense... Most of us work to the best of our abilities for what we have... good to know its now protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...

Haha 'protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...' - I didn't know the coalition government were holed up in there!

Seriously, if you think these people are the ones you need protecting from I advise you to go outside and take a look at the state of the country.

wharrgarbl wrote:

Mark63 wrote: About time - some common sense... Most of us work to the best of our abilities for what we have... good to know its now protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...

Haha 'protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...' - I didn't know the coalition government were holed up in there! Seriously, if you think these people are the ones you need protecting from I advise you to go outside and take a look at the state of the country.

"the state of the country" squatters are part of the state we're in,taking posession of somebody else's property,it's the same as stealing a car,just because it's not being used does'nt mean you can help yourself

AmboGuy wrote:
Just shoot them. No biggie!

...quipped Oscar Wilde

bluemonday wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

Mark63 wrote: About time - some common sense... Most of us work to the best of our abilities for what we have... good to know its now protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...

Haha 'protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...' - I didn't know the coalition government were holed up in there! Seriously, if you think these people are the ones you need protecting from I advise you to go outside and take a look at the state of the country.

"the state of the country" squatters are part of the state we're in,taking posession of somebody else's property,it's the same as stealing a car,just because it's not being used does'nt mean you can help yourself

They'r'e not really taking possession though are they? More just staying in an empty building so they have somewhere to sleep. They're not trying to take it anywhere, just make use of it. When you consider the actions of the government, who are taking away vital welfare from those in need and forcing many to squat, how can you say the squatters are the problem?

AmboGuy wrote:
Just shoot them. No biggie!

Kill or injure?

This message board get's a little too "brown-shirty" for my liking sometimes.

Well the law is the law....squatters are only ever temporary residents so do the right thing and leave by your own accord.....for god sake dont use volience or they will all be claiming incapacity benefit for then next few years!

Fercri Sakes wrote:

AmboGuy wrote:
Just shoot them. No biggie!

Kill or injure?

This message board get's a little too "brown-shirty" for my liking sometimes.

Better than brown trousery.

wharrgarbl wrote:

bluemonday wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

Mark63 wrote: About time - some common sense... Most of us work to the best of our abilities for what we have... good to know its now protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...

Haha 'protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...' - I didn't know the coalition government were holed up in there! Seriously, if you think these people are the ones you need protecting from I advise you to go outside and take a look at the state of the country.

"the state of the country" squatters are part of the state we're in,taking posession of somebody else's property,it's the same as stealing a car,just because it's not being used does'nt mean you can help yourself

They'r'e not really taking possession though are they? More just staying in an empty building so they have somewhere to sleep. They're not trying to take it anywhere, just make use of it. When you consider the actions of the government, who are taking away vital welfare from those in need and forcing many to squat, how can you say the squatters are the problem?

So are you saying they can all come and live with you then? Excellent. They ARE the problem and should un-super-glue themselves and get off their lazy arses and work like the rest of us..! Earn somewhere to live... nothing comes on a plate and nothing should be stolen or borrowed without consent...

The Cowley Club is just along the road - can't some nice socialists put them up for a few nights?

Why give this rabble the oxygen of publicity?

Fercri Sakes wrote:

AmboGuy wrote:
Just shoot them. No biggie!

Kill or injure?

This message board get's a little too "brown-shirty" for my liking sometimes.

Not bothered, just get them out!

Best of luck to the squatters - a bad unecessary law like this one should be defied.

They deserve to be evicted purely on the grounds of drinking such a vile drink as well as for being so stupid - glueing themselves together - #doh !

The property is not theirs, they haven't paid for it, nor do they pay for it's upkeep or take any legal responsibility for the property so what makes them believe they are entitled to use it ?

Mark63 wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

bluemonday wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

Mark63 wrote: About time - some common sense... Most of us work to the best of our abilities for what we have... good to know its now protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...

Haha 'protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...' - I didn't know the coalition government were holed up in there! Seriously, if you think these people are the ones you need protecting from I advise you to go outside and take a look at the state of the country.

"the state of the country" squatters are part of the state we're in,taking posession of somebody else's property,it's the same as stealing a car,just because it's not being used does'nt mean you can help yourself

They'r'e not really taking possession though are they? More just staying in an empty building so they have somewhere to sleep. They're not trying to take it anywhere, just make use of it. When you consider the actions of the government, who are taking away vital welfare from those in need and forcing many to squat, how can you say the squatters are the problem?

So are you saying they can all come and live with you then? Excellent. They ARE the problem and should un-super-glue themselves and get off their lazy arses and work like the rest of us..! Earn somewhere to live... nothing comes on a plate and nothing should be stolen or borrowed without consent...

Well not all of them are welcome (my house isn't big enough), but some of the ones I know could crash for a few nights if they wanted. A lot of squatters are actually quite respectful of the places they reside, seeing as they have to live there. You only think all squats are full of the degenerates of society because they're the only ones that The Argus reports about so people like yourself can get all worked up and think they're making a difference by having a go at them. I genuinely don't see how homeless people are the problem - the problem lies within the system that allows them to become homeless in the first place. Also, stealing with consent is just giving, thought I should clear that one up.

Mark63 wrote:
About time - some common sense... Most of us work to the best of our abilities for what we have... good to know its now protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...

Agree, the Police should taser theses wasters, that will get them down quick enough

ourcoalition wrote:
Best of luck to the squatters - a bad unecessary law like this one should be defied.

Perhaps you can publish your address so we can come around and nick some of your stuff too?

Typical filth cant catch proper criminals

Oh surprise, surprise, Mike Weatherley's issued a press release!

Such a pity that some people can't see how the news is manipulated, and how they are taken for mugs by the likes of him.

Tring wrote:
Oh surprise, surprise, Mike Weatherley's issued a press release!

Such a pity that some people can't see how the news is manipulated, and how they are taken for mugs by the likes of him.

Go on then mate, here's your platform, tell us the "truth".

give the a notice period, allow them time to pack their belongings then if the are not out at the agreed time remove them in handcuffs just like any other law breaker would be treated, the use of excessive force is not warrented but the police are stretched enough as it is and this is a complete waste of their time, what to do next is a mystery...the court may impose a sentance of a fine or community service but if they are not working they have no means of paying and if they are of no fixed abode its impossible to enforce any punishment...complet
e nonsense the whole scenario

AmboGuy wrote:

Fercri Sakes wrote:

AmboGuy wrote:
Just shoot them. No biggie!

Kill or injure?

This message board get's a little too "brown-shirty" for my liking sometimes.

Not bothered, just get them out!

So nice to hear the 'reasoned' voice of a so-called paramedic...

Or maybe you're just trying to drum up business!

Affordable housing now!

Have you checked the property prices and rental rates recently?

Why do they always batter the door why don't they just take 20 the tiles off of the roof and gain entry that way.As for those superglued let them starve for a few days.

tengri wrote:

Tring wrote:
Oh surprise, surprise, Mike Weatherley's issued a press release!

Such a pity that some people can't see how the news is manipulated, and how they are taken for mugs by the likes of him.

Go on then mate, here's your platform, tell us the "truth".

No such thing as an objective truth, but my take on this is that the rapid action here is very fishy indeed, and it *could* all be more about serving the publicity machine of Hove's MP than anything else.

Given that the tanking economy, rising prices, falling real-terms incomes, global warming, war, famine, uncle-tom-cobbley-an
d-all .. I just can't see that squatting is that much of a major issue. And I can't help contrasting the rapid action here with the years of anti-social behaviour I had to put up with from a 'legitimate' resident.

What this looks like to me is a convenient distraction to suit the needs of a government representative who isn't interested in solving social problems, and would rather appeal to the worst in human nature by encouraging people to beat up those who (whatever else they may be) are certainly not wealthy or powerful.

I lived in a squat just round the corner from here for 8 years, I worked and studied the whole time I lived there. Before that I was on housing benefit and could not afford to work, I support my disabled father and need to live near to him and this was the only way I could afford to do live near to him. Everyone who lived in the house worked or studied, including a trainee farrier and a nurse a graphic designer, security guards. Also most of us did volunteer work too, Would have much preferred the security of renting a property and not worrying all time about being evicted but this was the only way I could afford to live near my family. Incidentally we did pay all electric, gas, water etc.
The neighbours were very happy with us living there as the house was beggining to fall in to disrepair and make the rest of the street look awful, when we painted the front of the house it was commented on by the neighbours that we had increased the value of there houses by about 20 grand by making the house look less derelict. It is a crime to let a building stand empty while people are sleeping on the streets

Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

rolivan says...
4:51pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Why do they always batter the door why don't they just take 20 the tiles off of the roof and gain entry that way.As for those superglued let them starve for a few days.”


Well said loving this idea, practical and doesnt draw so much attention, 2X police with your enytry suggestion and 1 tiler to replace the removed = huuuge saving in resources and therefore better for the taxpayer with the additional benefit of freeing up police time to do their job of protecting the general public....good skills Rolivan

tooned_in wrote:
give the a notice period, allow them time to pack their belongings then if the are not out at the agreed time remove them in handcuffs just like any other law breaker would be treated, the use of excessive force is not warrented but the police are stretched enough as it is and this is a complete waste of their time, what to do next is a mystery...the court may impose a sentance of a fine or community service but if they are not working they have no means of paying and if they are of no fixed abode its impossible to enforce any punishment...complet

e nonsense the whole scenario

They were given a notice period. They were told to leave by 1.50pm, didn't you read the article?

Reeoccupy wrote:
Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

I know it's outrageous! Where will all these vulnerable people go now to get drunk, drugged, play loud music to the annoyance of everyone and fight each other? It's all the Governments fault! Ha ha, tax payers will be happy these free loading attention seekers are getting booted out on the day they were reported.

khbrighton wrote:
I lived in a squat just round the corner from here for 8 years, I worked and studied the whole time I lived there. Before that I was on housing benefit and could not afford to work, I support my disabled father and need to live near to him and this was the only way I could afford to do live near to him. Everyone who lived in the house worked or studied, including a trainee farrier and a nurse a graphic designer, security guards. Also most of us did volunteer work too, Would have much preferred the security of renting a property and not worrying all time about being evicted but this was the only way I could afford to live near my family. Incidentally we did pay all electric, gas, water etc.
The neighbours were very happy with us living there as the house was beggining to fall in to disrepair and make the rest of the street look awful, when we painted the front of the house it was commented on by the neighbours that we had increased the value of there houses by about 20 grand by making the house look less derelict. It is a crime to let a building stand empty while people are sleeping on the streets

"It is a crime to let a building stand empty while people are sleeping on the streets"

That last sentence is straight to the point, but sadly those who luckily don't find themselves in the situation of those that they look down on just don't get it!...

khbrighton wrote:
I lived in a squat just round the corner from here for 8 years, I worked and studied the whole time I lived there. Before that I was on housing benefit and could not afford to work, I support my disabled father and need to live near to him and this was the only way I could afford to do live near to him. Everyone who lived in the house worked or studied, including a trainee farrier and a nurse a graphic designer, security guards. Also most of us did volunteer work too, Would have much preferred the security of renting a property and not worrying all time about being evicted but this was the only way I could afford to live near my family. Incidentally we did pay all electric, gas, water etc.
The neighbours were very happy with us living there as the house was beggining to fall in to disrepair and make the rest of the street look awful, when we painted the front of the house it was commented on by the neighbours that we had increased the value of there houses by about 20 grand by making the house look less derelict. It is a crime to let a building stand empty while people are sleeping on the streets

"Noble" squatters like you have described are the reason squatting was supported and protected by law for so many years. Unfortunately it is because of the antisocial and selfish antics of the current breed of squatters such as SNOB that his law has been passed and has so much public support. Perhaps the squatters you describe, that quietly occupy a TRULY empty building, maintain it and respect their neighbours will go unreported and won't need police involvement? Whereas those that glue themselves to buildings and sit on roofs with their faces covered..... You see the difference?

One thing I would like to know how many of these squatters are actually on the Waiting list to be housed if they are so desperate?

D360 wrote:

Reeoccupy wrote:
Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

I know it's outrageous! Where will all these vulnerable people go now to get drunk, drugged, play loud music to the annoyance of everyone and fight each other? It's all the Governments fault! Ha ha, tax payers will be happy these free loading attention seekers are getting booted out on the day they were reported.

You seem to be among those that think that all squatters are degenerates who only do drugs, make noise and sleep in after midday. Whilst you may not care and laugh at them, they are still people and need a place to live. With all the empty buildings around these days what's wrong with them staying in one?

Also, this building, as far as I'm aware, was 'truly' empty. As are pretty much all of the buildings that get squatted - squatters don't kick people out of their own house and very rarely occupy residential buildings. And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they?

wharrgarbl wrote:

D360 wrote:

Reeoccupy wrote:
Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

I know it's outrageous! Where will all these vulnerable people go now to get drunk, drugged, play loud music to the annoyance of everyone and fight each other? It's all the Governments fault! Ha ha, tax payers will be happy these free loading attention seekers are getting booted out on the day they were reported.

You seem to be among those that think that all squatters are degenerates who only do drugs, make noise and sleep in after midday. Whilst you may not care and laugh at them, they are still people and need a place to live. With all the empty buildings around these days what's wrong with them staying in one?

Also, this building, as far as I'm aware, was 'truly' empty. As are pretty much all of the buildings that get squatted - squatters don't kick people out of their own house and very rarely occupy residential buildings. And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they?

Please provide an example.

rolivan wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

D360 wrote:

Reeoccupy wrote:
Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

I know it's outrageous! Where will all these vulnerable people go now to get drunk, drugged, play loud music to the annoyance of everyone and fight each other? It's all the Governments fault! Ha ha, tax payers will be happy these free loading attention seekers are getting booted out on the day they were reported.

You seem to be among those that think that all squatters are degenerates who only do drugs, make noise and sleep in after midday. Whilst you may not care and laugh at them, they are still people and need a place to live. With all the empty buildings around these days what's wrong with them staying in one?

Also, this building, as far as I'm aware, was 'truly' empty. As are pretty much all of the buildings that get squatted - squatters don't kick people out of their own house and very rarely occupy residential buildings. And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they?

Please provide an example.

An example of what?

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:

sbiscorrupt wrote:
Typical government reaction...

Pass a law and send in plod instead of tackling the reasons as to why some people have to squat!

No doubt the right wing numpties on here are wetting their pants right at this minute!

Totally agree with you. Much easier though to deride them all as lazy workshy hippies.

Because you are scum and too lazy to work perhaps?

People have to make their own choices in life, nothing is stopping these people from getting an education and working for a living and paying their own way. They make themselves unemployable by the way they present themselves and the 'poor me' attitude they have. If they had a job they wouldn't have time for all this non-sense. You get out of life what you put in.

lordenglandofsussex wrote:

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:

sbiscorrupt wrote:
Typical government reaction...

Pass a law and send in plod instead of tackling the reasons as to why some people have to squat!

No doubt the right wing numpties on here are wetting their pants right at this minute!

Totally agree with you. Much easier though to deride them all as lazy workshy hippies.

Because you are scum and too lazy to work perhaps?

Scum?..

The true scum are those that are too lazy to understand the issue!

wharrgarbl wrote:

D360 wrote:

Reeoccupy wrote:
Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

I know it's outrageous! Where will all these vulnerable people go now to get drunk, drugged, play loud music to the annoyance of everyone and fight each other? It's all the Governments fault! Ha ha, tax payers will be happy these free loading attention seekers are getting booted out on the day they were reported.

You seem to be among those that think that all squatters are degenerates who only do drugs, make noise and sleep in after midday. Whilst you may not care and laugh at them, they are still people and need a place to live. With all the empty buildings around these days what's wrong with them staying in one?

Also, this building, as far as I'm aware, was 'truly' empty. As are pretty much all of the buildings that get squatted - squatters don't kick people out of their own house and very rarely occupy residential buildings. And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they?

Not really. Up until a few years ago I though squatters quietly entered long abandoned buildings and avoided drawing attention to themselves, as I said in an earlier post.

In the last few years Brighton has had a plague of antisocial squatters displaying arrogance in the extreme, justifying their actions by accusing property owners of being born with a silver spoon. Squats have descended into chaos the most severe exampling being the violent murder in the Russell Square squat. This has all led to squatting being made illegal and it is these squatters that are completely to blame.

wharrgarbl wrote:

rolivan wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

D360 wrote:

Reeoccupy wrote:
Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

I know it's outrageous! Where will all these vulnerable people go now to get drunk, drugged, play loud music to the annoyance of everyone and fight each other? It's all the Governments fault! Ha ha, tax payers will be happy these free loading attention seekers are getting booted out on the day they were reported.

You seem to be among those that think that all squatters are degenerates who only do drugs, make noise and sleep in after midday. Whilst you may not care and laugh at them, they are still people and need a place to live. With all the empty buildings around these days what's wrong with them staying in one?

Also, this building, as far as I'm aware, was 'truly' empty. As are pretty much all of the buildings that get squatted - squatters don't kick people out of their own house and very rarely occupy residential buildings. And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they?

Please provide an example.

An example of what?

And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they

rolivan wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

rolivan wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

D360 wrote:

Reeoccupy wrote:
Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

I know it's outrageous! Where will all these vulnerable people go now to get drunk, drugged, play loud music to the annoyance of everyone and fight each other? It's all the Governments fault! Ha ha, tax payers will be happy these free loading attention seekers are getting booted out on the day they were reported.

You seem to be among those that think that all squatters are degenerates who only do drugs, make noise and sleep in after midday. Whilst you may not care and laugh at them, they are still people and need a place to live. With all the empty buildings around these days what's wrong with them staying in one?

Also, this building, as far as I'm aware, was 'truly' empty. As are pretty much all of the buildings that get squatted - squatters don't kick people out of their own house and very rarely occupy residential buildings. And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they?

Please provide an example.

An example of what?

And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they

Well obviously I'm not going to tell you where well maintained squats are, am I? But contrary to popular belief squatters don't live in their own filth and listen to ridiculously loud music until 9am, at least not the ones I've been to. If they do it's probably a drug den and not a squat, in which there is a big difference.

Why has the Argus stopped streaming the #squatraid Twitter feed?

D360 wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

D360 wrote:

Reeoccupy wrote:
Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

I know it's outrageous! Where will all these vulnerable people go now to get drunk, drugged, play loud music to the annoyance of everyone and fight each other? It's all the Governments fault! Ha ha, tax payers will be happy these free loading attention seekers are getting booted out on the day they were reported.

You seem to be among those that think that all squatters are degenerates who only do drugs, make noise and sleep in after midday. Whilst you may not care and laugh at them, they are still people and need a place to live. With all the empty buildings around these days what's wrong with them staying in one?

Also, this building, as far as I'm aware, was 'truly' empty. As are pretty much all of the buildings that get squatted - squatters don't kick people out of their own house and very rarely occupy residential buildings. And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they?

Not really. Up until a few years ago I though squatters quietly entered long abandoned buildings and avoided drawing attention to themselves, as I said in an earlier post.

In the last few years Brighton has had a plague of antisocial squatters displaying arrogance in the extreme, justifying their actions by accusing property owners of being born with a silver spoon. Squats have descended into chaos the most severe exampling being the violent murder in the Russell Square squat. This has all led to squatting being made illegal and it is these squatters that are completely to blame.

Oh I see it's to protect us from murderers. So Mike Weatherly isn't a complete "see you next Tuesday" after all instead he's just protecting us all from certain death at the hands of crazed squatters.

gaz scott wrote:

D360 wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

D360 wrote:

Reeoccupy wrote:
Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

I know it's outrageous! Where will all these vulnerable people go now to get drunk, drugged, play loud music to the annoyance of everyone and fight each other? It's all the Governments fault! Ha ha, tax payers will be happy these free loading attention seekers are getting booted out on the day they were reported.

You seem to be among those that think that all squatters are degenerates who only do drugs, make noise and sleep in after midday. Whilst you may not care and laugh at them, they are still people and need a place to live. With all the empty buildings around these days what's wrong with them staying in one?

Also, this building, as far as I'm aware, was 'truly' empty. As are pretty much all of the buildings that get squatted - squatters don't kick people out of their own house and very rarely occupy residential buildings. And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they?

Not really. Up until a few years ago I though squatters quietly entered long abandoned buildings and avoided drawing attention to themselves, as I said in an earlier post.

In the last few years Brighton has had a plague of antisocial squatters displaying arrogance in the extreme, justifying their actions by accusing property owners of being born with a silver spoon. Squats have descended into chaos the most severe exampling being the violent murder in the Russell Square squat. This has all led to squatting being made illegal and it is these squatters that are completely to blame.

Oh I see it's to protect us from murderers. So Mike Weatherly isn't a complete "see you next Tuesday" after all instead he's just protecting us all from certain death at the hands of crazed squatters.

No, it's to protect us from antisocial a***holes with an overinflated sense of entitlement

D360 wrote:

gaz scott wrote:

D360 wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

D360 wrote:

Reeoccupy wrote:
Boo!!! Again, how does this help anything longterm? How is it economical? How does it help people find some security/stability in life? Will tax payers be happy about the huge prison costs/bayliff costs etc? Why are they not recognising/dea...
ling with the problem that will only get worse, by people being backed into a corner to choose to squat/become homeless because of the present socio-economic paradigm!! Wish they would use the money to turn some of the many empty residential buildings into housing co-operatives instead, would that not be more productive longterm??

I know it's outrageous! Where will all these vulnerable people go now to get drunk, drugged, play loud music to the annoyance of everyone and fight each other? It's all the Governments fault! Ha ha, tax payers will be happy these free loading attention seekers are getting booted out on the day they were reported.

You seem to be among those that think that all squatters are degenerates who only do drugs, make noise and sleep in after midday. Whilst you may not care and laugh at them, they are still people and need a place to live. With all the empty buildings around these days what's wrong with them staying in one?

Also, this building, as far as I'm aware, was 'truly' empty. As are pretty much all of the buildings that get squatted - squatters don't kick people out of their own house and very rarely occupy residential buildings. And squats are often maintained and kept to a high standard - if they're living there they're not going to wreck the place are they?

Not really. Up until a few years ago I though squatters quietly entered long abandoned buildings and avoided drawing attention to themselves, as I said in an earlier post.

In the last few years Brighton has had a plague of antisocial squatters displaying arrogance in the extreme, justifying their actions by accusing property owners of being born with a silver spoon. Squats have descended into chaos the most severe exampling being the violent murder in the Russell Square squat. This has all led to squatting being made illegal and it is these squatters that are completely to blame.

Oh I see it's to protect us from murderers. So Mike Weatherly isn't a complete "see you next Tuesday" after all instead he's just protecting us all from certain death at the hands of crazed squatters.

No, it's to protect us from antisocial a***holes with an overinflated sense of entitlement

We usually find those people posting negative comments about squatters on The Argus.

from what I am hearing and not yet seeing reported in our local newspaper online - is that a fair few other squats have just appeared in the shops opposite the original squats, shows how many shops have empty flats above. While we have homeless people it is EVIL to have empty residential properties

I don't have a problem with dealing with anti-social squatters or organised criminals that were exploiting the law particularly in London. However, the law is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The Conservatives, true to form, have introduced a law to protect property before people. Many in that party and in these Argus comments are pushing hard for harsher treatment of the most vulnerable and those least able to defend themselves and they are determined to weaken what pitiful rights the rest of us enjoy.

There is a detectable hatred of anyone leading anything that could remotely be considered an alternative lifestyle. It seems that we must all conform to the conventional wisdom of "free" market economics that is impoverishing many and pillaging the environment. We are well on the way to a society run by and for a group of wealthy that call themselves the elite, whilst the rest of us are to be humble and grateful.

Squatters first. Us next.

Fight_Back wrote:
They deserve to be evicted purely on the grounds of drinking such a vile drink as well as for being so stupid - glueing themselves together - #doh ! The property is not theirs, they haven't paid for it, nor do they pay for it's upkeep or take any legal responsibility for the property so what makes them believe they are entitled to use it ?

Are you sure they were squatters and not politicians claiming on expenses?

I have to say that the majority of people who break into these empty buildings aren't squatters. If they were they would treat the building with respect rather than damaging it and letting their dogs foul everywhere inside! As for the whole "homeless" aspect, the welfare state is very good, it may not house people where they want and in hostels but there is always accommodation. In fact if you look at the rental property around the City there are loads of places to rent!

"Put the MPs on minimum wage and see how fast things change"

I know that when I now write that I am personally friends with some squatters that I will be placed instantly into a certain category in many Argus readers brains who will then be looking at what I write with the agenda of quoting something to argue with me about.
To these people I want to say that I felt compelled to register as a user to have a say after reading all the info on this page and the entire message board.
Although I can only speak for those I know personally, most of the squatters I know are concerned with solving very real issues endangering the lives of the next generation including food waste and sustainability and global warming.
Being from Brighton some also practice meditation and yoga and volunteer.
The squat on st James' st that took the surplus food produced by local Sussex farmers and offered it on a donation basis along with a free book exchange program, the benifits of which provided healthy eating, low price food, a sense of community and greater education especially for the poorest people in society.
People who are creating this kind of support in the community you would expect to be praised. I would want praise if I was helping people in such a way. The place they were squatting was not being used, and being reasonable people, if they wouldve been asked to move for the sale of the property, would of. The case went to court to get them evicted and the judge waved it through immediately (I believe because squatters have no money and so currently little influence in the courts).
If you go to St James St now, the property is still there, near morrisons, boarded up with metalic sheets, the property wasted, the squatters cleared away.
Now I believe the key here is balance.
Antisocial squatters breaking into a property being used either for trade storage or residential should not be accepted but considerate squatters using one of the many abandoned buildings in this country wanting to do good for the community should be used as role models for anyone who finds themselves in the unfortunate position of having to squat.
This antisquatting law as I see it has passed to protect the interests of the few to the PAIN of the many. Sleeping rough would be painful. There is going to be more homelessness with job cuts and food shortages and anyone could after a lack of fortune find themselves without shelter.
In all honesty, if only for a little while, I am hoping this to happen to Mike Weatherley just to help him gain at least a varied perspective on the issue.
I dont believe the news is especially empathetic on virtually any issue.
Is this not a virtue? Everything reported in the mainstream media is paid for by the v rich.
Events that should be getting coverage are not as they do not have useful capitalist agendas.
This was sent to me recently.

"The quote above is taken from an article written in reference to the lack of media reaction to a monumental event that occurred this week.

Sunday, the Arctic sea ice hit its lowest extent ever recorded. Not only was it a record low, but it also has another possible two weeks'
further melt before the ice reaches its minimum extent and starts to refreeze ahead of the winter. Satellites showed that it had shrunk to 4.1 million sq km. The previous record of 4.3 million sq km was set in 2007.

In the article, George points out that a new runway for Heathrow made front page news in the UK yesterday. Here in Ireland, the front page of the Irish Times was dedicated to an array of articles on property tax and job losses. – Not that any of these are not news worthy, but are they really more important than the lowest Arctic sea ice extent ever recorded??

Journalism is based on what is thought to be of most interest to the public. Do we not want to know what is happening to our planet? Or are we happier being oblivious and only have interest in what affects our pockets or our immediate livelihood?

It’s something to think about.

George closed his article with this statement:

“When your children ask how and why it all went so wrong, point them to yesterday's date, and explain that the world is not led by rational people.”

Maybe we can change that?""

Para2805 wrote:
People have to make their own choices in life, nothing is stopping these people from getting an education and working for a living and paying their own way. They make themselves unemployable by the way they present themselves and the 'poor me' attitude they have. If they had a job they wouldn't have time for all this non-sense. You get out of life what you put in.

This obviously from a middle class tory or likes to think he is,probably another of those dogooders whos house and car are actually owned by the BANK still

khbrighton wrote:
from what I am hearing and not yet seeing reported in our local newspaper online - is that a fair few other squats have just appeared in the shops opposite the original squats, shows how many shops have empty flats above. While we have homeless people it is EVIL to have empty residential properties

Some shops with flats above do not have separate entrances or are not built such that a separate entrance can be created. These were designed for people living above their own shop premises (why arn't living and working like that any more?).

Such flats are left empty or used for storage if the shop only is wanted.

Interesting legal problem for squatters taking on such mixed tenure premises.

Cycling commuter wrote:
I have to say that the majority of people who break into these empty buildings aren't squatters. If they were they would treat the building with respect rather than damaging it and letting their dogs foul everywhere inside! As for the whole "homeless" aspect, the welfare state is very good, it may not house people where they want and in hostels but there is always accommodation. In fact if you look at the rental property around the City there are loads of places to rent!

You are talking out ur backs*de do you actually know most private rented accommodation costs the best part of 2grand to move in rent in advance agency fees reference fees checkout fees ect ect maybe even a garantor.
get back on your cloud 9.
as for council renting we all know the minorities who get these need i say more ?

khbrighton wrote:
I lived in a squat just round the corner from here for 8 years, I worked and studied the whole time I lived there. Before that I was on housing benefit and could not afford to work, I support my disabled father and need to live near to him and this was the only way I could afford to do live near to him. Everyone who lived in the house worked or studied, including a trainee farrier and a nurse a graphic designer, security guards. Also most of us did volunteer work too, Would have much preferred the security of renting a property and not worrying all time about being evicted but this was the only way I could afford to live near my family. Incidentally we did pay all electric, gas, water etc. The neighbours were very happy with us living there as the house was beggining to fall in to disrepair and make the rest of the street look awful, when we painted the front of the house it was commented on by the neighbours that we had increased the value of there houses by about 20 grand by making the house look less derelict. It is a crime to let a building stand empty while people are sleeping on the streets

Respect. It takes guts to become a squatter and desperate circumstances to force people into that life lane. It is not comfortable.

People renting are just as insecure nowadays too. Rents beyond possible income and you can be evicted almost as soon as you sign the 6-monthly agreement. Glorified hotel life. You should be safe to rent the same place for life.

There is an article (Telegraph online) from the Earth menu knocking Cameron's plans to build on greenfield land and pointing out the huge amount of landbanked property that is just left vacant to gain value and the huge numbers of planning consents to build housing that are not being used - makes the Conservatives look very foolish and uninformed.

So pleased that my tax money has been spent on turfing out these squatters just so that the landlord can board the property up. This at a time when police resources are so stretched, too. Why was this such a priority?

Why not charge double council tax on properties left empty for more than six months?

All the people who comment FOR the squatters and AGAINST this law, I ask you to find some room in your homes to house a squatter for just as long as they need. I reckon if you all did that there would be no homelessness problem in Brighton. This matter can be solved within 24 hours, get to it!

Thinking of coming to Brighton and Hove with your family to settle?
Read this comments string very carefully to gauge the mindset and social values of many of what would become your fellow citizens and neighbours.
I came forty years ago and loved it as the place to bring up my family.
I'm now leaving Skid Row-on-Sea.

Squatters, you know you are lazy freeloaders riding on the wave of deprivation. Most of u are junkies eyeing up some old ladies bags contents to pay for your next fix. The next thing u r looking forward to is a scabby party with dull, thumping music and your next bit of scag. The only thing you're good for is giving the undertaker some much needed work when you o.d. and even then it's your despairing family that pick up the tab. Don't fret though there are other places you can go... like down in the sewer, or even on the end of a skewer

Tring wrote:
So pleased that my tax money has been spent on turfing out these squatters just so that the landlord can board the property up. This at a time when police resources are so stretched, too. Why was this such a priority?

Why not charge double council tax on properties left empty for more than six months?

Because London Road is being regenerated and hopefully gentrified, and these people add NOTHING to the area, apart from keeping the good people of The Cowley Club and Tennant's breweries in business.

Oh dear I was wondering when Gaz Scott was going to rear his ugly head and provide us with more of his pearls of wisdom. Not content with being humiliated on the last SmashEDO story he's come for more punishment on this one!
At the end of the day these people are breaking the law so get them out - end of discussion. People can try and defend the indefensible all they like but I will be very interested to see what state they've left the place in. Let's see if they've been improving it as many squatter supporters claim happens all the time. I've yet to see any evidence of this having happened anywhere though!

Could we have a water cannon instead of a tower? That would have them off the roof sharpish.

It's Lord Swampy's fault he started the squatting trend in Brighton well done Weatherly. you're always get my vote from now on.

"fixing a hole where the rain gets in.

which stops my mind from wandering.

where it will go"

Beatles

Old Ale Man wrote:
It's Lord Swampy's fault he started the squatting trend in Brighton well done Weatherly. you're always get my vote from now on.

I hear that Weathely is petitioning to have the Brighton General Hospital reconverted into a workhouse. I suppose you will be first to sign.

D360 says...
5:30pm Mon 3 Sep 12

❝
tooned_in wrote:
give the a notice period, allow them time to pack their belongings then if the are not out at the agreed time remove them in handcuffs just like any other law breaker would be treated, the use of excessive force is not warrented but the police are stretched enough as it is and this is a complete waste of their time, what to do next is a mystery...the court may impose a sentance of a fine or community service but if they are not working they have no means of paying and if they are of no fixed abode its impossible to enforce any punishment...complet


e nonsense the whole scenario
They were given a notice period. They were told to leave by 1.50pm, didn't you read the article?”


I as talking in general not artile specific you giblet!!!

As an ex squatter, albeit a working one, I can tell you that we didn't look after the properties we broke into, and it got worse when we knew we were to be evicted. It was cheaper than paying rent and more fun. We used to hide behind our Section whatever notices telling people they would be breaking the law to break in to try & evict us, even though we had done so but pretended we hadn't. Interesting that "the law" which we once hid behind is now being urged to be broken by our successors, because it doesn't suit now.

Snipers?

bluemonday wrote:

wharrgarbl wrote:

Mark63 wrote: About time - some common sense... Most of us work to the best of our abilities for what we have... good to know its now protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...

Haha 'protected from those that can't be bothered and feel they can take what they want with no respect...' - I didn't know the coalition government were holed up in there! Seriously, if you think these people are the ones you need protecting from I advise you to go outside and take a look at the state of the country.

"the state of the country" squatters are part of the state we're in,taking posession of somebody else's property,it's the same as stealing a car,just because it's not being used does'nt mean you can help yourself

That old chestnut.

chrisinbrighton wrote:

Cycling commuter wrote:
I have to say that the majority of people who break into these empty buildings aren't squatters. If they were they would treat the building with respect rather than damaging it and letting their dogs foul everywhere inside! As for the whole "homeless" aspect, the welfare state is very good, it may not house people where they want and in hostels but there is always accommodation. In fact if you look at the rental property around the City there are loads of places to rent!

You are talking out ur backs*de do you actually know most private rented accommodation costs the best part of 2grand to move in rent in advance agency fees reference fees checkout fees ect ect maybe even a garantor.
get back on your cloud 9.
as for council renting we all know the minorities who get these need i say more ?

In which case you should stop using the rip off rental agents. As a private landlord I rent properties directly to people with just one months deposit and no other fees. I'm also registered with public bodies such as the council and hospital to rent to key public sector workers with a discount on the rent.

Squatting is wrong.

Before trying to take credit for these changes, which were needed, Weatherly and other tories need to apologise for Thatcher's horrendous legacy that has caused the housing crisis.

The law needs to be further changed to stop Osbourne squatting in his job as chancellor. I would also like to see some mechanism for the people to force bringing forward local elections so that the Greens can be removed from office.

AmboGuy wrote:
Oh dear I was wondering when Gaz Scott was going to rear his ugly head and provide us with more of his pearls of wisdom. Not content with being humiliated on the last SmashEDO story he's come for more punishment on this one!
At the end of the day these people are breaking the law so get them out - end of discussion. People can try and defend the indefensible all they like but I will be very interested to see what state they've left the place in. Let's see if they've been improving it as many squatter supporters claim happens all the time. I've yet to see any evidence of this having happened anywhere though!

Maybe you'd like to say just how I was humiliated. Looked pretty much to me like you and JHunty were the ones who came off worse and you both gave up in the end despite my requests for any evidence to back up your claims.

I keep having to remind you Ambo but just because you say something it doesn't make it true.

haha. The police should have had taser practice while the great unwashed were superglued around the joist. That would have been an instant hit on youtube.

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand with squatting. Is it your property? No. Can you live there because you feel like it? No.

Yes some of these people may have issues beyond there control, but you can't just break into a property and live in it.

I don't walk down the street and see a car I like and think, that has been parked for an hour. Must be not being used. I will take that for myself as I want it. That is a crime, so why shouldn't breaking into an empty property and smashing it to bits inside and causing a nuisance to neighbours be a crime?

And all the do gooder supporters on here, if you are so bothered by the plight of the squatters, why don't you let them live in your house, garage or shed? No. Thought not.

Utterly disgusting misuse of Police resources in the name of Tory ideology. Mike Weatherly and all those who agree with him can, quite frankly, go to hell.

paul76 wrote:
And all the do gooder supporters on here, if you are so bothered by the plight of the squatters, why don't you let them live in your house, garage or shed? No. Thought not.

Most people's house, garage or shed are being properly used for the purpose they were intended for and not left empty for long periods of time.

Can I suggest we adopt the same approach for squatters as the Green Party/Council does for motorists? They want to crack down on motorists who break the law and introduce new offences to criminalise motorists. As many Greens say - "the position is simple, just obey the law."

My parents were squatters and I spent much time growing up in such environments. Some of the comments on here are highly offensive. I am now a tax-paying citizen teaching your children in Brighton schools. There are some vile attitudes in this town considering it's liberal reputation.

paul76 wrote:
haha. The police should have had taser practice while the great unwashed were superglued around the joist. That would have been an instant hit on youtube.

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand with squatting. Is it your property? No. Can you live there because you feel like it? No.

Yes some of these people may have issues beyond there control, but you can't just break into a property and live in it.

I don't walk down the street and see a car I like and think, that has been parked for an hour. Must be not being used. I will take that for myself as I want it. That is a crime, so why shouldn't breaking into an empty property and smashing it to bits inside and causing a nuisance to neighbours be a crime?

There it is again.

Tedious Pedant wrote:

paul76 wrote:
haha. The police should have had taser practice while the great unwashed were superglued around the joist. That would have been an instant hit on youtube.

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand with squatting. Is it your property? No. Can you live there because you feel like it? No.

Yes some of these people may have issues beyond there control, but you can't just break into a property and live in it.

I don't walk down the street and see a car I like and think, that has been parked for an hour. Must be not being used. I will take that for myself as I want it. That is a crime, so why shouldn't breaking into an empty property and smashing it to bits inside and causing a nuisance to neighbours be a crime?

There it is again.

What common sense? A well balanced argument or point of view?

Yeah I can see how they annoy some people.

@Rapper the brighton we loved is dead in the water...

I support right to access to a roof over ones head, occupation of a building does not necessarily mean destruction of the building. I myself squatted in the 1990's,and with several friends did up an old farmhouse that was deserted for years as a notable and very wealthy land owner wanted to run down the agricultural use of the building (and land!). we used the building as a rural community hub,and office/headquarters for environmental actions in the area, supporting the local community who were being held ransom by the land owner, proven in court bent local authority, national building group, investors and others solely looking to make some money whatever the cost to community, environment et al.

and guess what, we all (apart from a student or two) had proper day jobs too!!! serving society,paying our taxes etc etc.. you see most 'squatters' do not fall into the daily mail characterisation, depicting squatters as no good benefit claiming, badly dressed, terrible hairdo wearing lay abouts plays into the idiots mind, you know who Im on about! yes you, no not you, You...

so before condeming the young people who have taken a stance against the machine, the all powerful system and state, just think.. when it all goes t*ts up and you are turfed out of your home because you cant afford your inflated mortgage, who are you going to turn to..

In the 80's my fellow squatters & I had no great cause, it was cheaper than renting so we had more to spend on drink & drugs. Taken a stance my *rse!
Society houses the vulnerable. Those who aren't choose their lifestyle. One of those lifestyle choices is no longer legal. Get over it.

@skidrow

you were possibly one of those plastic angry anarchists that caused so much trouble to reasonable people squatting because they had to, and not as you put it as a lifestyle choice.. did you go home at weekends during your wild years to see mummy and daddy in the cotswolds??

one final thought before I have to return to being a slave to my PC, i wonder who the owners of the building are?, and why have the council not taken them to task about leaving a building to fall into disrepair?

and why is an MP from Hove/Portslade so interested in thing not on his manor? does he have an interest in this property? does it actually belong to him, this is up to you now Argus to do some 'real' journalism and find out answers.....

Skidrow wrote:
In the 80's my fellow squatters & I had no great cause, it was cheaper than renting so we had more to spend on drink & drugs. Taken a stance my *rse!
Society houses the vulnerable. Those who aren't choose their lifestyle. One of those lifestyle choices is no longer legal. Get over it.

At long last a bit of honesty from someone who's been a squatter.

AmboGuy wrote:

Skidrow wrote:
In the 80's my fellow squatters & I had no great cause, it was cheaper than renting so we had more to spend on drink & drugs. Taken a stance my *rse!
Society houses the vulnerable. Those who aren't choose their lifestyle. One of those lifestyle choices is no longer legal. Get over it.

At long last a bit of honesty from someone who's been a squatter.

We all know about your relationship with honesty.

Hmm coming from someone who habitually lies on this forum and supports an organisation who frequently make libellous statements about a legally run company I find your comment a bit odd.

If you can provide one instance of me lying I'd be grateful. If I do lie habitually as you claim it should be an easy matter for you to find one.

What is habitual is your accusation that I lie with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Repeat a lie often enough and people start to believe it eh?

By the way did you ever figure out the difference between a bomb and a door? And you claim I was humiliated!

Bladesboy and Amboguy: the Jedward of the Argus website.

So all you people that want to lynch squatters for such terrible crimes as needing a place to live. How do you feel about the taxpayer paying for second homes for MPs? They get a free house yet penalise those at the bottom.

Squatting should absolutely not be a criminal matter. Ok, there are a few bad squatters out there but I had a squat for two years - it had been squatted for ten years in total. Every flat in the block that wasn't squatted was a burnt out shell. All the squatters looked after their properties and carried out repairs. We saved the flats we were in from complete destruction.

So squatting ain't all bad!

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
So all you people that want to lynch squatters for such terrible crimes as needing a place to live. How do you feel about the taxpayer paying for second homes for MPs? They get a free house yet penalise those at the bottom.

Squatting should absolutely not be a criminal matter. Ok, there are a few bad squatters out there but I had a squat for two years - it had been squatted for ten years in total. Every flat in the block that wasn't squatted was a burnt out shell. All the squatters looked after their properties and carried out repairs. We saved the flats we were in from complete destruction.

So squatting ain't all bad!

I have yet to see any evidence of a property being maintained by squatters. Every single picture I have seen of squats after they've been cleared out always shows the place to have been trashed.

@ cancelaccount

You seem stung into insulting me by my assertion that squatting is a lifestyle choice.

You remain silent on my assertion that Society houses the vulnerable.

Can you outline why you "had" to squat, when, since you say you had a job, you "could" have bought or rented? Lifestyle choice, all day long, hippie.

I don't believe this nonsense that squatters do it because they need somewhere to live. We all need somewhere to live, but 99% of everybody else does it the legal and proper manner by renting or purchasing their own home.

Can't afford to live in Brighton? Tough, move up north. You live within your means, if your job only permits you a scummy flat in a Birmingham suburb then that's the end of it, what on earth do these people think gives them the right to kick in other peoples homes?

These tales of squatters looking after properties are likely nonsense too. There was a report on the subject on BBC News a few months back in Brighton and they were in a squat and the state of the place was vile, it was essentially a cesspit.

On the contrary, I do agree we have a problem with empty properties and if the owner has no use for them, they should be handed over to those that do. However, squatting is not for me the way to go about this. There needs to be proper, open dialogue between everybody concerned. Who knows - some of these property owners might be quite happy to let somebody else move in and do the place up - providing it's done through the proper channels and not just by breaking and entering.

AmboGuy wrote:

thevoiceoftruth wrote: So all you people that want to lynch squatters for such terrible crimes as needing a place to live. How do you feel about the taxpayer paying for second homes for MPs? They get a free house yet penalise those at the bottom. Squatting should absolutely not be a criminal matter. Ok, there are a few bad squatters out there but I had a squat for two years - it had been squatted for ten years in total. Every flat in the block that wasn't squatted was a burnt out shell. All the squatters looked after their properties and carried out repairs. We saved the flats we were in from complete destruction. So squatting ain't all bad!

I have yet to see any evidence of a property being maintained by squatters. Every single picture I have seen of squats after they've been cleared out always shows the place to have been trashed.

Perhaps that's because you only see negative stories in the papers and don't have much experience in real life. The vast majority of squatters are quietly living in empty properties and not causing problems for their neighbours or others. In fact, you probably wouldn't even know they were squatters. That is what true squatting is about - not trashing properties or running a drug den.

Problem is councils cannot rent out anywhere that is 'sub standard' to tenants and frequently do not have the money to do these places up. So they sit empty for years, unless the council has the common sense to give them to a housing co-operative to look after.

Squatting has saved some buildings from being demolished. My last flat was in a former squat (now run by a Housing Association) that the council were going to knock down just because they couldn't afford to do it up. It was an edwardian building - absolutely beautiful - yet they were just going to demolish it.

So I stand by my assertion that squatting can be a good thing :)

Brilliant we are now going to put our homeless into the overcrowded police cells, and within a few months the homeless will think freezing outside warm cell and hot food it wont work I remember when the council made it illegal to beg on the streets within a few months the homeless was queing outside the police station for a bed for a bed for the night and begging outside ..

I'd like to point out to all those pro squatters that there are things called "property guardians"

ok, it's a little more effort but then it's not stealing something from others.


http://uk.cameloteur
ope.com/532/2/becomi
ng-a-live-in-guardia
n-is-it-for-you/beco
ming-a-live-in-guard
ian-is-it-for-you.ht
ml


http://www.newbouldg
uardians.co.uk/becom
e-a-guardian

Rapper wrote:
My parents were squatters and I spent much time growing up in such environments. Some of the comments on here are highly offensive. I am now a tax-paying citizen teaching your children in Brighton schools. There are some vile attitudes in this town considering it's liberal reputation.

I agree with you, Rapper, there are some very offensive comments on this forum and sadly they show how some of the correspondents here have lost the plot - gone beyond the basic arguments and started abusing each other. Sadly the Argus must take some responsibility for this as they're providing the means for this sort of debased behaviour to manifest itself. "TediousPedant" is a prime example - although I assume his sobriquet is meant ironically.

runnergirl wrote:

Rapper wrote:
My parents were squatters and I spent much time growing up in such environments. Some of the comments on here are highly offensive. I am now a tax-paying citizen teaching your children in Brighton schools. There are some vile attitudes in this town considering it's liberal reputation.

I agree with you, Rapper, there are some very offensive comments on this forum and sadly they show how some of the correspondents here have lost the plot - gone beyond the basic arguments and started abusing each other. Sadly the Argus must take some responsibility for this as they're providing the means for this sort of debased behaviour to manifest itself. "TediousPedant" is a prime example - although I assume his sobriquet is meant ironically.

I agree with Rapper. I don't agree with the hackneyed idea of squatting being similar to stealing a car.

Tedious Pedant wrote:

runnergirl wrote:

Rapper wrote:
My parents were squatters and I spent much time growing up in such environments. Some of the comments on here are highly offensive. I am now a tax-paying citizen teaching your children in Brighton schools. There are some vile attitudes in this town considering it's liberal reputation.

I agree with you, Rapper, there are some very offensive comments on this forum and sadly they show how some of the correspondents here have lost the plot - gone beyond the basic arguments and started abusing each other. Sadly the Argus must take some responsibility for this as they're providing the means for this sort of debased behaviour to manifest itself. "TediousPedant" is a prime example - although I assume his sobriquet is meant ironically.

I agree with Rapper. I don't agree with the hackneyed idea of squatting being similar to stealing a car.

Why not? If you steal a car you're taking something that isn't yours. You might only want to use it for a bit a d might not intend to damage it but you're iain something that you don't own.

I think it's basically the same thing.

Point wrote:
Brilliant we are now going to put our homeless into the overcrowded police cells, and within a few months the homeless will think freezing outside warm cell and hot food it wont work I remember when the council made it illegal to beg on the streets within a few months the homeless was queing outside the police station for a bed for a bed for the night and begging outside ..

Oh quit your whining. The problem is overpopulation - if you are homeless, you can live anywhere, so why don't these squatters and homeless people - most of the ones i've met aren't from Brighton anyway - move back to their home towns ?

AmboGuy wrote:

Tedious Pedant wrote:

runnergirl wrote:

Rapper wrote:
My parents were squatters and I spent much time growing up in such environments. Some of the comments on here are highly offensive. I am now a tax-paying citizen teaching your children in Brighton schools. There are some vile attitudes in this town considering it's liberal reputation.

I agree with you, Rapper, there are some very offensive comments on this forum and sadly they show how some of the correspondents here have lost the plot - gone beyond the basic arguments and started abusing each other. Sadly the Argus must take some responsibility for this as they're providing the means for this sort of debased behaviour to manifest itself. "TediousPedant" is a prime example - although I assume his sobriquet is meant ironically.

I agree with Rapper. I don't agree with the hackneyed idea of squatting being similar to stealing a car.

Why not? If you steal a car you're taking something that isn't yours. You might only want to use it for a bit a d might not intend to damage it but you're iain something that you don't own.

I think it's basically the same thing.

If I took your car with the intention of permanently depriving you of it then yes, it would be theft. If not it would be Taking Without Owner's Consent which is not technically theft.

Tedious Pedant wrote:

AmboGuy wrote:

Tedious Pedant wrote:

runnergirl wrote:

Rapper wrote:
My parents were squatters and I spent much time growing up in such environments. Some of the comments on here are highly offensive. I am now a tax-paying citizen teaching your children in Brighton schools. There are some vile attitudes in this town considering it's liberal reputation.

I agree with you, Rapper, there are some very offensive comments on this forum and sadly they show how some of the correspondents here have lost the plot - gone beyond the basic arguments and started abusing each other. Sadly the Argus must take some responsibility for this as they're providing the means for this sort of debased behaviour to manifest itself. "TediousPedant" is a prime example - although I assume his sobriquet is meant ironically.

I agree with Rapper. I don't agree with the hackneyed idea of squatting being similar to stealing a car.

Why not? If you steal a car you're taking something that isn't yours. You might only want to use it for a bit a d might not intend to damage it but you're iain something that you don't own.

I think it's basically the same thing.

If I took your car with the intention of permanently depriving you of it then yes, it would be theft. If not it would be Taking Without Owner's Consent which is not technically theft.

So that's ok then? Are you saying that if someone took your car if you were away of holiday, drove it around all week and then put it back, undamaged, where they found it before you got back that you'd really be ok with that? Really??

I was being pedantic. ಠ_ಠ