Squatters who 'broke into' pensioner's home ordered to vacate premises by Wednesday

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Absent the intent to commit an offence or in a manner likely to cause fear i dont think that applies. Simply being in a building you dont own is not an offence.

I'd have thought changing the locks and marching into a building you don't own could be reasonably seen as causing fear to it's 80-year-old owner. From the article itself:

"The judge said he had continued to cause worry and distress to Kavanagh who was in his eighties and in ill-health. She said Kavanagh’s belongings in the property had been interfered with."

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

I'd have thought changing the locks and marching into a building you don't own could be reasonably seen as causing fear to it's 80-year-old owner. From the article itself:

"The judge said he had continued to cause worry and distress to Kavanagh who was in his eighties and in ill-health. She said Kavanagh’s belongings in the property had been interfered with."

how can you cause fear to somebody who isnt there? Worry and distress are not fear.

skankkuvhima

Surely if you are instructed by the lawful owner of a house (that you are not renting or have not been living in) to leave and you refuse you are committing a crime?

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how can you cause fear to somebody who isnt there? Worry and distress are not fear.

Not fear for one's immediate physical safety, no, but fear nevertheless.

ohnonotgmail

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Surely if you are instructed by the lawful owner of a house (that you are not renting or have not been living in) to leave and you refuse you are committing a crime?

unfortunately not, assuming i am reading the public order act correctly. You have to be doing something likely to cause fear and even then it has to a garda that orders you to leave.

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

Not fear for one's immediate physical safety, no, but fear nevertheless.

No idea if the fear they refer to refers to fear for personal safety or a general fear. i suspect it is the former.

skankkuvhima

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

unfortunately not, assuming i am reading the public order act correctly. You have to be doing something likely to cause fear and even then it has to a garda that orders you to leave.

You might start getting nervous at 1 a.m. when you are heading off to bed and some stranger is sitting in your living room refusing to leave?

ohnonotgmail

skankkuvhima wrote: »

You might start getting nervous at 1 a.m. when you are heading off to bed and some stranger is sitting in your living room refusing to leave?

Indeed you would. and that is something that is likely to cause fear. Or cause you to reach for the hurley beside the bed

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No idea if the fear they refer to refers to fear for personal safety or a general fear. i suspect it is the former.

I would expect the spirit and intent of it refers to fear in a person in the house or on the associated land at the time, yes.

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

I would expect the spirit and intent of it refers to fear in a person in the house or on the associated land at the time, yes.

you are probably correctly. except in the OP the pensioner wasn't in the house.

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are probably correctly. except in the OP the pensioner wasn't in the house.

Oh I know that, different sort of fear.

Galwayguy35

I wonder is it a coincidence that the homeowner happened to be a pensioner, I'm reasonably sure a few lads posting here would agree with me that if we found someone squatting they would be removed fairly lively out of the place.

andekwarhola

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder is it a coincidence that the homeowner happened to be a pensioner, I'm reasonably sure a few lads posting here would agree with me that if we found someone squatting they would be removed fairly lively out of the place.

Would actually be hilarious if a bunch of crusties inadvertently occupied a gaff belonging to a criminal.

Make a funny Love /Hate subplot.

the_syco

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how can you cause fear to somebody who isnt there? Worry and distress are not fear.

Fear that stuff will go missing, and/or sentimental jewellery getting pawned off.

andekwarhola wrote: »

Would actually be hilarious if a bunch of crusties inadvertently occupied a gaff belonging to a criminal.

It wouldn't make the news. It'd just make a hole in the ground.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder is it a coincidence that the homeowner happened to be a pensioner, I'm reasonably sure a few lads posting here would agree with me that if we found someone squatting they would be removed fairly lively out of the place.

And if the squatter could prove that you hurt them while ejecting them, you could be facing both criminal and civil charges.... At least, that's my understanding of the law. Which is why you need the Gardai to remove them.

Dunno if I'm right tho.. I have this feeling though that it's something like that.

Spanish Eyes

There are very many elderly folks houses lying vacant due to the Fair
Deal..

Isn't it disgraceful that all that stock is just lying idle and rotting away.. three in my road already. The children just said they were not letting them out as the tax is too high, the hassle is too much and the income is taken into account for Fair Deal assessment.

Something wrong right there. But I don't know what the solution is to get them occupied.

They will be squatted in eventually.

Lu Tze

Deleted User wrote: »

And if the squatter could prove that you hurt them while ejecting them, you could be facing both criminal and civil charges.... At least, that's my understanding of the law. Which is why you need the Gardai to remove them.

Dunno if I'm right tho.. I have this feeling though that it's something like that.

What squatter? I've never seen this man before in my life!

Fozzydog3

I have to say the credit union are really on the ball with their ads

skankkuvhima

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

I have to say the credit union are really on the ball with their ads

No need to take out the loan when you can stroll into whatever house you like and live in it rent free for 6 months.

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

And if the squatter could prove that you hurt them while ejecting them, you could be facing both criminal and civil charges.... At least, that's my understanding of the law. Which is why you need the Gardai to remove them.

Dunno if I'm right tho.. I have this feeling though that it's something like that.

That would be bloody ridiculous if it's true that the owner could be sued for money, although it wouldn't surprise me if it was.

Sure free legal aid for him no doubt.

pilly

pickarooney wrote: »

Those are pretty much all dictionary definitions of selfish. You wouldn't last long in court if that's the best you can do.

So being "selfish" is a crime now? I missed that being passed into law.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

That would be bloody ridiculous if it's true that the owner could be sued for money, although it wouldn't surprise me if it was.

Sure free legal aid for him no doubt.

Isn't it the case that if someone breaks into your home at night, the line is very narrow between defending yourself and doing assault?

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't it the case that if someone breaks into your home at night, the line is very narrow between defending yourself and doing assault?

Nope. See Defence and the Dwelling Act.

donkeykong5

It's Wednesday. Have they left yet ?

goose2005

I suppose a deeper question is, where does property come from? You own land because you inherited/bought it from its previous owner. The previous owner inherited/bought it from someone else. Trace back the ownership and you inevitably come to an act of naked theft by the king.

the_syco

goose2005 wrote: »

I suppose a deeper question is, where does property come from?

Satan. All land comes from Satan.

Samuel T. Cogley

the_syco wrote: »

Satan. All land comes from Satan.

Not Kilbarrack, that's God's creation.