Squatting becomes a criminal offence in UK tomorrow, "Immediate crackdown"

Biodegradable Bellend

smash wrote: »

You seem to be confused. You can't claim squatters right in your own property.

Try and get your head around this. If the banks are repossessing, or have repossessed the property, the bank has claimed ownership of said property. Therefore the person that previously owned the property is no longer the owner, and therefore can squat there (legally or otherwise, can't doesn't enter into it).

I'll say it again. I'm not a squatters rights advocate.

If the rights common man was at the heart of this law, why wasn't it done a long time ago? The reason is because this is primarily to protect the interests of the banks/institutions.

asherbassad

longhalloween wrote: »

there was a story a while ago about a man on SW (or whatever his country's equivalent was) who was squatting in a vacant derelict house. He spent all his extra money repairing and refurnishing the house and making it livable.

When he was found out the owners decided to rent it to him at an absurdly low rate on the condition that he continued his work.

That's the kind of squatting I would encourage.

Unfortunately most squatters aren't this industrious and prefer to wreck the place, leave graffiti and dirt everywhere and move on when the place gets too trashed.

Can you give proof of this sweeping assertion?

I've never squatted but I've been in several and all of them have been more well appointed and maintained than many kips I've visited where the residents have been say students or welfare recipients who know they'll be moving on soon and couldn't give a fcuk or know that they'll be re-housed once the place becomes unliveable.

smash

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

smash wrote: »

You seem to be confused. You can't claim squatters right in your own property.

Try and get your head around this. If the banks are repossessing, or have repossessed the property, the bank has claimed ownership of said property. Therefore the person that previously owned the property is no longer the owner, and therefore can squat there (legally or otherwise, can't doesn't enter into it).

I'll say it again. I'm not a squatters rights advocate.

If the rights common man was at the heart of this law, why wasn't it done a long time ago? The reason is because this is primarily to protect the interests of the banks/institutions.

asherbassad wrote: »

The bank owns it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You own it when you get the deeds.

No, you own it and have a loan against it. Do some research.

Biodegradable Bellend

smash wrote: »

I don't want to increase their site traffic.

Yes. Preserve your blinkered view on the world at all costs.

Lantus

As far as I can tell all society has done is to criminalise another group of allready disadvantaged people by imposing threats of fines and prison on them.

Yet again the real causes and potential solutions have been avoided at all costs. Just incarcerate a human being for seking out shelter.

Why not just jail everyone that doesn't have a job or income. Problem solved. If we criminalise poverty then all the rich people will be finally happy.

pickarooney

Lantus wrote: »

Just incarcerate a human being for seking out shelter.

Most people will be more than happy with a solution that costs them ten times more in providing shelter (and food, and Xboxes) to these same people while occupying prison space that thieves and rapists should be filling. They won't really be able to explain to you why they feel this way but it will make them feel better on some level.

CruelCoin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

derelict or abandoned building owned by greedy banks such as unfinished / liquidated ghost complexes

"puts on exasperated/bored/exasperated tone"

The banks are a business. People took a loan they couldn't ever hope to pay back, back retrieves their property.

If you want communism, then Cuba is this way <

---

and China is that way --->

Ye ****ing gods.

CruelCoin

pickarooney wrote: »

Most people will be more than happy with a solution that costs them ten times more in providing shelter (and food, and Xboxes) to these same people while occupying prison space that thieves and rapists should be filling. They won't really be able to explain to you why they feel this way but it will make them feel better on some level.

I don't believe in hand-outs. Everybody should pay their own way.

Besides, since when was jailing people for breaking the law such a taboo?

pickarooney

CruelCoin wrote: »

I don't believe in hand-outs. Everybody should pay their own way.

Besides, since when was jailing people for breaking the law such a taboo?

So what should prisoners be doing to pay for the cost of their incarceration?

later12

CruelCoin wrote: »

I don't believe in hand-outs. Everybody should pay their own way.

Besides, since when was jailing people for breaking the law such a taboo?

What's your political philosophy, everyone grab and run?

A sort of economic musical chairs, where you can, as Rousseau said, choose your spot and shout "mine!", without having to concern yourself with others?

I'm not really suggesting the abrogation of private property, but I think we really ought to have evolved beyond this mentality by now. We have the means for co-operation, it's about time we started using them more wisely.

The CSO released a report yesterday telling us that we have 290,000 vacant properties in our society, yet we still have 5,000 homeless men and women and boys and girls sleeping in doorways or under trees or in drug riddled shelters. I suppose that's not our problem though.

Stinicker

Possession is supposed to be nine tenths of the law, if you are squating for 12 years or more then you can take possession of the land or property.

This is only a ploy by the tories to protect absentee landlords, commerical interests and their rich corrupt friends.

jill_valentine

Lollipops23 wrote: »

How anyone could do that is beyond me. I've never understand how squatters have rights, if you don't own a property you can't go in, simples.

There are parcels of land and buildings scattered around the country going derelict due to family disputes or unclear ownership or even just because they've been forgotten. If left unattended, land goes fallow and buildings break down. The squatter's rights system is to ensure that property isn't taken out of circulation indefinitely and left to rot, it's a mechanism to keep properties maintained and in useful circulation, rather than just gathering stagnant water and rats.

"Squatters rights" only kick in if somebody can demonstrate they've improved the property over the course of years, and that the owner hasn't been knocking on the door trying to get back in every day since.

I fail to see why this measure was necessary.

Jester252

Never understood squatters rights.
If somebody was living in my house I would just kick them out

Colmustard

My cousin was a victim of squatters, he lived and worked in London for 15 years came home, got married and bought a house here while renting out his apartment in London.

He is no property mogul just a lad trying to do as best he can for himself and his family. The plan worked well for about a year, then that couple left and squatters move in. A year later after a lot of money he got it back, there is not even a light switch left in the place, someone even took the shower unit.

He had to abandon it, he couldn't afford to get it fixed up for renting it out again (1000s) or selling it and he couldn't afford 2 mortgages.

stevedublin

Stinicker wrote: »

if you are squating for 12 years or more then you can take possession of the land or property.

Grossly unfair law, why should someone get something for free that others have to work hard to buy?

smash

stevedublin wrote: »

Grossly unfair law, why should someone get something for free that others have to work hard to buy?

There was a story a while back about a homeless man in the UK that had to be paid a few million to move because the government wanted to do something with the park he had lived in for 20 years or something.

token101

How do squatters rights actually work in Ireland? At what point does breaking and entering, which is essentially a form of theft, become 'squatting'? I know there are statutes of limitations, but there's no law that says that if you steal something valuable or a rob a bank that, after 12 years, the money is yours to keep! It's a joke!

later12

smash wrote: »

There was a story a while back about a homeless man in the UK that had to be paid a few million to move because the government wanted to do something with the park he had lived in for 20 years or something.

You must have forgotten to attach the link...

smash

later12 wrote: »

smash wrote: »

There was a story a while back about a homeless man in the UK that had to be paid a few million to move because the government wanted to do something with the park he had lived in for 20 years or something.

You must have forgotten to attach the link...

Google homeless man becomes millionaire. There's a few cases!

MadsL

Could we at least try to enforce the law that forces owners of historic buildings to keep them maintained. Take a walk down Thomas Street in Dublin sometime. Far more buildings wrecked by greed rather than people wanting somewhere to live.

k.p.h

See the Irish masses are still ringing the "property" bell.

Shameful that a property should be left empty for any period of time so as such someone should be able to squat..

Waste not want not, this world is ****ed up..

later12

smash wrote: »

Google homeless man becomes millionaire. There's a few cases!

I'm sure there are, but it wouldn't be the same case. Homeless people can come into money for many reasons.

I used google.co.uk to search, inter alia, for homeless, park, squatting, million, years, and combinations thereof, but nothing; maybe it might just be easier to ask you for the link instead.

golden lane

the new law....is a very welcome law, and not before time................

later12

later12 wrote: »

I'm sure there are, but it wouldn't be the same case. Homeless people can come into money for many reasons.

I used google.co.uk to search, inter alia, for homeless, park, squatting, million, years, and combinations thereof, but nothing; maybe it might just be easier to ask you for the link instead.

heres a link, couple of different cases mentioned in it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-53579/Squatter-owner-100-000-flat.html

Guy:Incognito

pickarooney wrote: »

in that it's less onerous to the general public to allow people who would be otherwise homeless to squat in unused buildings than to supply accommodation on the public penny.
.

Thats all grand till one of them falls through a broken or rotten floorboard and does themsleves some damage, then ecides to sue you.

If I own a house I should be able to leave it empty if I want without havign to deal with some arsebag that decides to move in for free then has the law on their side.

asherbassad

CruelCoin wrote: »

I don't believe in hand-outs. Everybody should pay their own way.

Besides, since when was jailing people for breaking the law such a taboo?

And what do you propose if they can't pay their way?

As for jailing people for breaking the law.....if you wanted everyone who breaks the law jailed then the entire population would have spent time in the big house...you included.

asherbassad

Jester252 wrote: »

Never understood squatters rights.
If somebody was living in my house I would just kick them out

Haven't thought much about this, have you.

Guy:Incognito

asherbassad wrote: »

People rail against squatters rights but they have no problem with Traveller's rights.

I do. They shouldnt have any more right to move on to and/or wreck land they dont own than I do. They should have the option to go on a housing list the same as anyone else and no more. I dont agree with building them their own houses and estates or giving them land because they refuse to move.

asherbassad wrote: »

I've known squatters in the past and many of them have had legitimate jobs that they go to and then come back "home". They don't want to live in filth and squalor.
.

They should buy or rent their own bloody place then.

asherbassad

smash wrote: »

There was a story a while back about a homeless man in the UK that had to be paid a few million to move because the government wanted to do something with the park he had lived in for 20 years or something.

Source?

asherbassad

smash wrote: »

Google homeless man becomes millionaire. There's a few cases!

In other words, BULLSH!T

You just made this crap up.

later12

Jake1 wrote: »

heres a link, couple of different cases mentioned in it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-53579/Squatter-owner-100-000-flat.html

Thanks, Jake. I'm not so much interested in that considerably less dramatic case as Smash's example, where the man who had slept in a park ended up entitled to millions of pounds in compensation when he had to move.

It sounds like such an extraordinary case there shouldn't be any problem in substantiating it.

Guy:Incognito

asherbassad wrote: »

Why wasn't the property being lived in by non-squatters?

Doesnt make a difference if the owners only came around once every so often when they needed a ****. It's their property to do as they see fit with.

af_thefragile

asherbassad wrote: »

Is this any different to you leaving your car for days on end in a rough neighbourhood? It would be wrecked or stolen and you'd be called the fool. The owners of these properties abandoned them, or maybe they just died. Now I can't say that I agree with the places being wrecked. But who would wreck a place where they are going to live? Only scumbags do that. I've known squatters in the past and many of them have had legitimate jobs that they go to and then come back "home". They don't want to live in filth and squalor.
Do you know if it was the squatters in these Georgian houses that tore out the fireplaces? I'm guessing it was some wide-boy who knows the value of such things.

You can't move a house to 'park' it in a more safe neighbourhood...

woodoo

Kick the crusty to the kerb

smash

asherbassad wrote: »

smash wrote: »

Google homeless man becomes millionaire. There's a few cases!

In other words, BULLSH!T

You just made this crap up.

later12 wrote: »

I'm sure there are, but it wouldn't be the same case. Homeless people can come into money for many reasons.

I used google.co.uk to search, inter alia, for homeless, park, squatting, million, years, and combinations thereof, but nothing; maybe it might just be easier to ask you for the link instead.

here's one case http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/186750

later12

Excellent.

The law works \o/

af_thefragile

There was also that Will Smith movie which is supposed to be a true story of the guy who becomes homeless and then becomes a millionaire by becoming a stock broker...

mariaalice

In the mid 1980s my sister and lots of my cousins lived in a squat in Hackney in London, in fact lots of Irish people were living in squats in Hackney at the time....they were council flats..they all had jobs and keep the flats well they got a few years out of living there because the council were so slow at getting anything sorted out. They did no harm in my opinion and in fact they keep the flats from being vandalized they were empty because they were supposed to be pulled down but it was taking years to do this.

Milk & Honey

Squatting has been a criminal offence here since 2002.


24.—The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994 , is amended by inserting the following after Part II:

“PART IIA

Offences Relating to Entering and Occupying Land Without Consent

Interpretation (Part IIA).

19A.—(1) In this Part, except where the context otherwise requires—

‘Commissioner’ means the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána;

‘consent duly given’ means consent given by—

(a) in the case of lands referred to in subsection (2)(a), the relevant statutory body,

(b) in the case of lands referred to in subsection (2)(b), the relevant trustees, and

(c) in any other case, the owner concerned;

‘health board’ means

(a) a health board established under the Health Act, 1970 ,

(b) the Eastern Regional Health Authority, or

(c) an Area Health Board established under the Health (Eastern Regional Health Authority) Act, 1999 ;

‘local authority’ means a county council, a city council or a town council for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 2001 ;

‘object’ includes any temporary dwelling (within the meaning of section 69 of the Roads Act, 1993 ) and an animal of any kind or description;

‘owner’ means—

(a) in relation to land, the person lawfully entitled—

(i) to possession, and

(ii) to the immediate use and enjoyment,

of the land as the owner, lessee, ten-and or otherwise, or any person acting on behalf of that person;

(b) in relation to land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2), the relevant statutory body or trustees, as the case may be;

‘statutory body’ means—

(a) a Minister of the Government,

(b) the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland,

(c) a local authority,

(d) a harbour authority within the meaning of the Harbours Act, 1946 , or a company established pursuant to section 7 of the Harbours Act, 1996 ,

(e) a health board,

(f) a vocational education committee within the meaning of the Vocational Education Acts, 1930 to 1999,

(g) any other body established—

(i) by or under any enactment (other than the Companies Acts, 1963 to 2001), or

(ii) under the Companies Acts, 1963 to 2001, in pursuance of powers conferred by or under another enactment,

and financed wholly or partly by means of moneys provided, or loans made or guaranteed, by a Minister of the Government or the issue of shares held by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government, and subsidiary of any such body.

(2) In this part a reference to land includes—

(a) land provided or maintained by a statutory body primarily for the amenity or recreation of the public or any class of persons (including any park, open space, car park, playing field or other space provided for recreational, community or conservation purposes) or is land within the curtilage of any public building,

(b) land held by trustees for the benefit of the public or any class of the public, and

(c) land covered by water.

Extent of application (Part IIA), etc.

19B.—(1) This Part does not apply to any public road within the meaning of the Roads Act, 1993 .

(2) This Part is without prejudice to any other enactment (including any other provision of this Act) or any rule of law.

Entry on and occupation of land or bringing onto or placing an object on land without consent.

19C.—(1) A person, without the duly given consent of the owner, shall not—

(a) enter and occupy any land, or

(b) bring onto or place on any land any object,

where such entry or occupation or the bringing onto or placing on the land of such object is likely to—

(i) substantially damage the land,

(ii) substantially and prejudicially affect any amenity in respect of the land,

(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,

(iv) otherwise render the land or any amenity in respect of the land, or the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land, unsanitary or unsafe,

(v) substantially interfere with the land, any amenity in respect of the land, the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reason to believe that a person is committing or has committed an offence under subsection (1) the member—

(a) may demand of the person his or her name and address,

(b) may direct the person to leave the land concerned and to remove from the land any object that belongs to the person or that is under his or her control, and

(c) shall inform the person of the nature of the offence in respect of which it is suspected that person has been involved and the statutory consequences of failing to comply with a demand or direction under this subsection.

Refusing or failing to give name or address or failure to comply with direction.

19D.—Where a person—

(a) refuses or fails to give his or her name and address to a member of the Garda Síochána when demanded under section 19C, or gives to the member a name or address that is false or misleading, or

(b) fails to comply with a direction under that section,

he or she shall be guilty of an offence.

Arrest without warrant.

19E.—A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant a person—

(a) who fails or refuses to give his or her name and address when demanded under section 19C(3)(a) or gives a name or address which the member has reasonable grounds for believing is false or misleading,

(b) who fails to comply with a direction given under section 19C(3)(b), or

(c) whom the member finds committing an offence under section 19C(1).

Removal, storage and disposal of object.

19F.—(1) Where a person fails to comply with a direction under section 19C(3)(b), a member of the Garda Síochána may remove or cause to be removed any object which the member has reason to believe was brought onto or placed on the land in contravention of section 19C(1) and may store or cause to be stored such object so removed.

(2) Any person who obstructs or impedes or assists a person to obstruct or impede a member of the Garda Síochana in the execution of his or her duty under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Where an object has been removed under this section without the presence or knowledge of any person claiming to own, occupy, control or otherwise retain it, the Commissioner shall serve or cause to be served upon each such person whose name and address can be ascertained by reasonable enquiry, a notice informing the person where the object may be claimed and recovered, requiring the person to claim and recover it within one month of the date of service of the notice and informing him or her of the statutory consequences of his or her failure to do so.

(4) An object removed and stored under this section shall be given to a person claiming possession of the object if, but only if, he or she makes a declaration in writing that he or she is the owner of the object or is authorised by its owner to claim it or is, for a specified reason, otherwise entitled to possession of it and, at the discretion of the Commissioner, the person pays the amount of any expenditure reasonably incurred in removing and storing the object.

(5) The Commissioner may dispose of, or cause to be disposed of, an object removed and stored under this section if—

(a) the owner of the object fails to claim it and remove it from the place where it is stored within one month of the date on which a notice under subsection (3) was served on him or her, or

(b) the name and address of the owner of the object cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry.

(6) Where the Commissioner becomes entitled to dispose of or cause to be disposed of an object under subsection (5) and the object is, in his or her opinion, capable of being sold, the Commissioner shall be entitled to sell or cause to be sold the object for the best price reasonably obtainable and upon doing so shall pay or cause to be paid to the person who was the owner of the object at the time of its removal, where the name and address of the owner can be ascertained by reasonable enquiry, a sum equal to the proceeds of such sale after deducting therefrom any expenditure reasonably incurred in its removal, storage and sale.

Penalties and proceedings.

19G.—(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Part shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month or to both.

(2) In any proceedings for an offence under this Part it shall be presumed until the contrary is shown that consent under this Part was not given.

Jurisdiction of District Court.

19H.—(1) Notwithstanding any statutory provision or rule of law to the contrary, the jurisdiction of the District Court shall not, in summary proceedings in relation to an offence under this Part, be ousted by reason solely of a question of title to land being brought into issue.

(2) Where in summary proceedings in relation to an offence under this Part a question of title to land is brought into issue, the decision of a justice of the District Court in the proceedings or on the question shall not operate as an estoppel in, or a bar to, proceedings in any court in relation to the land.”.

jill_valentine

token101 wrote: »

How do squatters rights actually work in Ireland? At what point does breaking and entering, which is essentially a form of theft, become 'squatting'? I know there are statutes of limitations, but there's no law that says that if you steal something valuable or a rob a bank that, after 12 years, the money is yours to keep! It's a joke!

As I understand it, it has to be 12 years without contest, fraud or force. So it's not a matter of going on a long holiday and coming back to find out that somebody else owns your house, it's a matter of property being left abandoned for one reason or another for over a decade, at which point it's going to start devaluing neighbouring properties because there'll be weeds growing through the collapsing roof.

You've got to be using that property and be able to demonstrate you've improved and maintained it for twelve years without an owner materialising to reclaim it. It's a hell of a gamble.

NoQuarter

Lollipops23 wrote: »

How anyone could do that is beyond me. I've never understand how squatters have rights, if you don't own a property you can't go in, simples.

Sykk wrote: »

Squatters rights is about a ridiculous a law as not being able to defend your property using lethal force if necessary

stevedublin wrote: »

Grossly unfair law, why should someone get something for free that others have to work hard to buy?

token101 wrote: »

How do squatters rights actually work in Ireland? At what point does breaking and entering, which is essentially a form of theft, become 'squatting'? I know there are statutes of limitations, but there's no law that says that if you steal something valuable or a rob a bank that, after 12 years, the money is yours to keep! It's a joke!

Its actually not a joke and makes sense (In Ireland anyways, the UK law seems different). There are no "squatters rights" in Ireland but there is a law called "adverse possession". Essentially you have to claim a piece of land as your own land and be in possession of that land, excluding the rest of the world, for 12 straight years (or 30 years if the state own the land).

I know at first glance it might seem strange but what its there for is to keep value in land. If someone has land and doesnt bother checking on it at least once in 12 years, which to be honest, is plenty of time if not too much, well then they shouldnt have the land. That land should be made better use of.

Thats really it and it does make sense.

CruelCoin

asherbassad wrote: »

And what do you propose if they can't pay their way?

As for jailing people for breaking the law.....if you wanted everyone who breaks the law jailed then the entire population would have spent time in the big house...you included.

And why can't they pay their way?

yes, you can say that times are hard and they are victims of circumstance, but what would you have me do?

Am i to pay the way of every idiot who took out a 400k mortgage, hoping that the good times would roll on forever? Bollox.

The saying "give an inch, take a mile" has meaning here. If we bail out every fool who makes a mistake, they will keep making them, never having suffered the consequence for it.

I ask you to provide me with an alternative that doesn't involve me paying for the mistakes of others?

CruelCoin

pickarooney wrote: »

So what should prisoners be doing to pay for the cost of their incarceration?

Manual labour building roads and bridges springs to mind.

the_syco

later12 wrote: »

drug riddled shelters

Sorry, but I call bollix. Gear heads and drunks aren't allowed in the shelters.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Thats all grand till one of them falls through a broken or rotten floorboard and does themsleves some damage, then ecides to sue you.

This. I'm pretty sure thieves (in Ireland) can sue you if they break into your house and hurt themselves.

=-=

A few stories of squatting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139522/Squatters-7-5m-mansion-eyed-Johnny-Depp-John-Terry.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131192/The-squalor-left-30m-Park-Lane-flat-squatters-evicted.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026036/Homeless-men-squatting-Ann-Currys-2-9m-New-York-house.html

CruelCoin wrote: »

Manual labour building roads and bridges springs to mind.

Doing so would actually put more people out of jobs. I think we should have some clean the oil off the ground in the Dublin Bus yards. Anyone that I've known who has done it has said it's pretty soul destroying.

tippspur

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Will have to stand up when I poo.

Ah fcuk,I'm still laughing at this

RATM

vard wrote: »

Derelict buildings cost huge amounts of money to maintain. They are still liable to multitudes of costs and taxes; just because they're derelict doesn't mean they are owned by banks.

Squatters move in and essentially have their accommodation paid for. They cause damage and the owner has to pay the upkeep as enforced by councils.

A family member has been run into the ground because of damage and theft caused by squatters to a property he had bought. He went bust and couldn't keep up with the costs. The squatters remain and now the property is owned by a bank, so I guess you think they should still be allowed to stay there free of charge?

You see that's the nub of the problem right there. Squatters squat because in their mind the property isn't being used so if the owners isn't going to use it then they decide they will instead.

But the problem is that often derelict buildings are owned by speculators. So they leave them derelict for years and years and they become eyesores, blights that society has to look at. Because the land or site isn't utilsed the price of property in that area is artificially higher than it should be, not using the property has an economic consequence (less than optimum supply due to speculators). The consequence is for all of society who pay for it through higher prices than what there would be if all available property was actually used.

So if you have derelict properties then supply is reduced and prices will be higher than is necessary in a normal market. Society at large pays the price for this, speculators don't bear the societal cost, they only take the profits. So from the squatters point of view they are using a resource that society has collectively paid for, indirectly of course, but still paid for through higher prices or rents on their own dwelling as a result. As no-one else is breaking in to occupy the place, i.e. it hasn't been reclaimed by anyone else within the society who bears the cost then it is free for them to take.

Now I don't agree with squatting but I don't agree with derelict buildings either. Both sides have valid points in this argument. But if squatters move in to squat mean that eventually a landlord's hand is forced to the point that he decides to renovate and thus make the property useable which in turn increases supply and drives down prices for all of society then I'm all for that.

You say in your post above that squatters stay there free of charge and that is true. But a derelict building is not free of charge to society, we pay for it in more than one way, bad aesthetics, higher prevalance of crime in derelict areas, higher property prices and rents, more distance to travel to schools, shops, etc and so on. When you have derelict buildings there are plenty of costs on society, they just aren't immediately apparent but if you think it through they soon begin to add up.

uberalles

A lot of irish lived in london squats in the 80s.
The young ones was a skit on squats. Some you tube videos on it for those too young to remember it.

Find it odd it's taken them so long to change the law in uk. Why now?

raymann

i went to a party in bristol once where they had four houses next to each other they were squatting. they actually knocked all the walls between the houses down! it was madness, it went on for days as well.....

later12

the_syco wrote: »

Sorry, but I call bollix. Gear heads and drunks aren't allowed in the shelters.

Have you ever been inside a homeless shelter?

Seen those yellow bins? What's in them? Recycleables?

Come off it. Not only are "gear heads" and "drunks" perfectly entitled to avail of the shelters - and thankfully so - they also use intoxicants when inside.

All entrants are searched entering the shelters, but they inevitably manage to sneak drugs in.

Gordon

BBDBB wrote: »

this is an interesting read, the whole site I mean, when you have a while to browse, how the squatters see things

http://www.squatter.org.uk/

Comedy gold right there with the link being to the website for the Advisory Service for Squatters, and they refer to themselves as "ASS"! To squat, you need ASS!

I live in the UK and have found squatters rights ridiculous, you can own a property, go on holiday and some wee choad has broken in and changed the locks, that's not cool. I can see social advantages to claiming properties lying destitute for a long, extended period of time, where the property will be badly needed, but squatters rights was outdated and unfair. Well done to the lawmakers this time.