Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

Boom_Bap

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I think that the local want the house (and others around) to not remain in the unlivable condition and be made fit for housing purposes....rather than left in that state to drive down property prices in the area.

It might be an uncomfortable political truth but reduced property prices are whats needed.

These debates on here break my balls.

People complain about the lack of rentals available but are happy to condemn landlords. We need one to provide the other. I happily rented privately for about fifteen years.

People want DCC to build public housing but are happy to see the LPT funding cut as much as possible.

People want central government to fund public housing but that funding will be moved from health or education and they dont want to do that either.

Donald Trump

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0702/974667-vacant-sites/

One example:

The former Readymix site in East Wall was originally bought by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority in 2006 and has remained undeveloped for more than a decade.

Possibly the same site that Readymix tried to build 130 apartments on in 2005 but were refused permission

https://www.independent.ie/business/readymix-planning-130unit-high-rise-at-east-wall-site-25963944.html

weldoninhio

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I think that the local want the house (and others around) to not remain in the unlivable condition and be made fit for housing purposes....rather than left in that state to drive down property prices in the area.

But they are not being left in that state. It's been said earlier in the thread that there is a planning application in regarding the properties.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

But they are not being left in that state. It's been said earlier in the thread that there is a planning application in regarding the properties.

To turn them into offices. We need more housing, not offices.

Zulu

Deleted User wrote: »

To turn them into offices. We need more housing, not offices.

We need offices as well apparently.



It would appear that the owners believe there is more profit in offices. Why is that with rents as high as they are? Perhaps we should be examining that.

People want residential accommodation but the house renting business does not seem to be as handy as it was 10/20 years ago.

And it politically unacceptable from many of these protesters to be seen to give encouragement to "landlords" so Im not really expecting the rental market to get better fast.

end of the road

Uriel. wrote: »

Yeah and gob****e tax payer picks up the legal and administrative bill for the court action while these knacks get their free legal aid.

Would be great to see costs awarded against them on conviction and an order deducting payment from their dole.

No chance though.

the time it would take to get that money back would be ridiculous via those means. the law firms have to be paid to be fair and they won't hold out while it possibly takes years to get the money via taking bits from one's dole. practicality has to come into play here.

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote: »

It's not good at all to see this. What would be stopping people that this expanding out the so called "occupying" of property. People could go on holiday or off to work for the day and come back to find their houses "occupied". The law should be protecting the legal owners of property and the government should be fighting for this. Otherwise it's a case of possession is nine tenths of the law.

it's already illegal to simply occupy a property. that is why any of the property occupations have ended quickly because the court will grant an eviction order for the occupiers.

sexmag wrote: »

Neither was apollo house suitable for habitation but look what happened there.

and im talking about tearing down churchs and using the valuable land for the people of this country

Churchs can look nice and have some history but having 25 in a 5 km sqaured area is ridiculous and should be utitlised for the people of this day and age and the future people of this country

what area has 25 churches within a 5k area? i think the days of taring down historical buildings just to build houses have gone, ditto buildings that are genuinely unsafe.

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

To turn them into offices. We need more housing, not offices.

Isn't that Bord Pleanalta's decision?? Have the "activists" lodged a complaint against the proposed change??

gctest50

Deleted User wrote: »

To turn them into offices. We need more housing, not offices.

And where are people going to work ?

Don't see them occupying somewhere in the midlands do we ?

weldoninhio

gctest50 wrote: »

And where are people going to work ?

Don't see them occupying somewhere in the midlands do we ?

The people these "activists" represent don't work. So that isn't a consideration for them.

gctest50

weldoninhio wrote: »

The people these "activists" represent don't work. So that isn't a consideration for them.

True, they'd think Manual Labour was a Spanish musician at their table on their latest trip to Ibiza

DEFTLEFTHAND

weldoninhio wrote: »

The people these "activists" represent don't work. So that isn't a consideration for them.

Why do they espouse Marxist ideology if they don't work.

A marxist state would be their worst nightmare. They would be packed onto trains and transported to Offaly.

weldoninhio

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Why do they espouse Marxist ideology if they don't work.

A marxist state would be their worst nightmare. They would be packed onto trains and transported to Offaly.

They want to cherry pick the good parts and not have to deal with the bad parts. See, build load of houses while ignoring who'll pay for it. Etc.

They want to live in a magical world where everyone is provided with everything without anyone having to work for anything.

Wanderer78

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Why do they espouse Marxist ideology if they don't work.

A marxist state would be their worst nightmare. They would be packed onto trains and transported to Offaly.

why is the public ownership of the means of production a bad thing for society, is it possible it could lead to a more democratic society?

Red_Wake

Wanderer78 wrote: »

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Why do they espouse Marxist ideology if they don't work.

A marxist state would be their worst nightmare. They would be packed onto trains and transported to Offaly.

why is the public ownership of the means of production a bad thing for society, is it possible it could lead to a more democratic society?

Not if we go by past instances. Of which there are plenty.

Wanderer78

Red_Wake wrote: »

Not if we go by past instances. Of which there are plenty.

have people who make these kind of comments actually read marxs? forgive me, but my own knowledge of Marxism is vague at best, even though i do follow the work of a couple of self confessed Marxists. ive been researching the benefits of coops for the last couple of years mainly via the work of Marxist richard wolff, and it doesnt sound all that bad to me, in particular the democratic nature of the working environment.

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

why is the public ownership of the means of production a bad thing for society, is it possible it could lead to a more democratic society?

No as you see with Communism it leads to worse. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely which is what happens with your idea. You are proposing a small amount of people should be given absolute power to decide everything with no alternative or checks. At a very basic level you are proposing the removal of the free press and sites like boards which would cease to exist. Every time the idea has been tried democracy has gone away and in bad cases tens of millions have died.

People give out about the fact that 20% of Dail are landlords, what happens when 100% of the Dail are landlords and there is no alternative when you go looking for accommodation?

While there is currently not enough accommodation part of that is down to inadequate rental laws that somehow makes it very difficult for landlords to evict nonpaying/disruption tenants. Laws are also not in place in the residential sector that support long term leases from both the landlords and tenants perspective.

We live in a democracy if the protesters are unhappy with how the building is planned to be used they should engage in the process laid out by the democratically elected government. The one thing our planning laws do enable is for a large amount of objections at the various stages of the planning process. It's arguably a problem for building houses in certain areas due to objections from NIMBYs.

Boom_Bap

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

It might be an uncomfortable political truth but reduced property prices are whats needed.

Sorry, to expand, reduced property prices so the same 'landlord' can snap up more property in the area at a reduced price so they can turn what was housing into office space.


What happens to the area in the interim is that it gets full or more derelict houses.

weldoninhio wrote: »

But they are not being left in that state. It's been said earlier in the thread that there is a planning application in regarding the properties.

Correct, it's taking property that has always been residential and converting to office space. Hence reducing the number of houses in the area.

Wanderer78

PeadarCo wrote: »

No as you see with Communism it leads to worse. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely which is what happens with your idea. You are proposing a small amount of people should be given absolute power to decide everything with no alternative or checks. At a very basic level you are proposing the removal of the free press and sites like boards which would cease to exist. Every time the idea has been tried democracy has gone away and in bad cases tens of millions have died.

People give out about the fact that 20% of Dail are landlords, what happens when 100% of the Dail are landlords and there is no alternative when you go looking for accommodation?

While there is currently not enough accommodation part of that is down to inadequate rental laws that somehow makes it very difficult for landlords to evict nonpaying/disruption tenants. Laws are also not in place in the residential sector that support long term leases from both the landlords and tenants perspective.

We live in a democracy if the protesters are unhappy with how the building is planned to be used they should engage in the process laid out by the democratically elected government. The one thing our planning laws do enable is for a large amount of objections at the various stages of the planning process. It's arguably a problem for building houses in certain areas due to objections from NIMBYs.

hmmm i see what the problem is, kinna, by any chance what does our current 'democratic'(plutocracy in disguise!) approach to society bring, power, wealth and control is hardly ending up in the hands of the few, is it?

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

have people who make these kind of comments actually read marxs? forgive me, but my own knowledge of Marxism is vague at best, even though i do follow the work of a couple of self confessed Marxists. ive been researching the benefits of coops for the last couple of years mainly via the work of Marxist richard wolff, and it doesnt sound all that bad to me, in particular the democratic nature of the working environment.

Marxism has been around for well over a century and has been put into practice many times with millions dying. I advise you to look at what happens in practice. It was the most murderous ideology of the 20th century.

Wanderer78

PeadarCo wrote: »

Marxism has been around for well over a century and has been put into practice many times with millions dying. I advise you to look at what happens in practice. It was the most murderous ideology of the 20th century.

again forgive my ignorance, but its not my understanding of Marxism, as the Marxists experts i follow have no such ideologies of such violence and oppression, the opposite is actually the fact. i have a feeling a lot of people think they know what marxism is but actually dont really have a clue, and drag out that bogeyman argument of 'commie'! Orwell truly was ahead of his time with such matters

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

To turn them into offices. We need more housing, not offices.

We need more housing AND offices.

A lot of people get their houses by going to offices every day in return for money, the magic house fairy doesn't give them to everyone!

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

hmmm i see what the problem is, kinna, by any chance what does our current 'democratic'(plutocracy in disguise!) approach to society bring, power, wealth and control is hardly ending up in the hands of the few, is it?

No it doesn't it brings power to many people. Look at protesters as much as I disagree with them I support their right to protest. That is power.

Now under a regime where all the means of production are under government control. An event like this could happen with very few people knowing. Very easy to block it from appearing on the news when the government controls the only media outlet.

Take the Catholic Church since the pope last visited it has fallen sharply in the publics estimation due to the "powerless" people it abused speaking out. Combine that with the large amounts of people working in the private sector who are not reliant on the government to pay their wage, these abused and so called powerless took down an organisation that was more powerful in some ways than the government.


Its the same for the property market there is nothing stopping anyone from going out and raising money to fund more houses or helping out in countless other ways that will help get new houses built that is not reliant on government funding. Just because these people are not publicly known does not mean they are powerless.

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

again forgive my ignorance, but its not my understanding of Marxism, as the Marxists experts i follow have no such ideologies of such violence and oppression, the opposite is actually the fact. i have a feeling a lot of people think they know what marxism is but actually dont really have a clue, and drag out that bogeyman argument of 'commie'! Orwell truly was ahead of his time with such matters

I agree I have only a high level knowledge of Marxism but I like most people I'd argue don't care about theory I care about results. So the question you have to ask is why when anyone attempts to implement Marxism does it end up with Dictators like Stalin, Mao, Chavez. If you look at the what these leaders did in the name of Marxism our imperfect country is a utopia in comparison. It wouldn't be possible for the protest that the thread is talking about to take place. They would be very quickly taken away and locked up. Again as much as I disagree with them I do support their right to protest. A right that no country that has tried to implement Marxism has actually given its citizens.

Wanderer78

PeadarCo wrote: »

No it doesn't it brings power to many people. Look at protesters as much as I disagree with them I support their right to protest. That is power.

Now under a regime where all the means of production are under government control. An event like this could happen with very few people knowing. Very easy to block it from appearing on the news when the government controls the only media outlet.

Take the Catholic Church since the pope last visited it has fallen sharply in the publics estimation due to the "powerless" people it abused speaking out. Combine that with the large amounts of people working in the private sector who are not reliant on the government to pay their wage, these abused and so called powerless took down an organisation that was more powerful in some ways than the government.


Its the same for the property market there is nothing stopping anyone from going out and raising money to fund more houses or helping out in countless other ways that will help get new houses built that is not reliant on government funding. Just because these people are not publicly known does not mean they are powerless.

ah, you re twisting Marxism now, my understanding of it, he meant the means of production should be in the hands of 'all' via some kind of democratic systems, but its important to realise, what we currently have is actually plutocracy but this operates under the guise of democracy, Orwell truly was well ahead of his time. to add another twist to this, the current banning of alex jones is a sign of this plutocracy, whereby the few control our access to information. seriously, if you check out the work of Marxists such as yanis varoufakis, richard wolff and michael hudson you ll see it going on, we seriously do not have democratic power and control, and you d have to wonder, have we ever had true democracy. i truly believe those that ive previously mentioned are not advocating for the implementation of some evil 'commie' regime, wolff actually has a good sense of humor regarding such issues

Wanderer78

PeadarCo wrote: »

I agree I have only a high level knowledge of Marxism but I like most people I'd argue don't care about theory I care about results. So the question you have to ask is why when anyone attempts to implement Marxism does it end up with Dictators like Stalin, Mao, Chavez. If you look at the what these leaders did in the name of Marxism our imperfect country is a utopia in comparison. It wouldn't be possible for the protest that the thread is talking about to take place. They would be very quickly taken away and locked up. Again as much as I disagree with them I do support their right to protest. A right that no country that has tried to implement Marxism has actually given its citizens.

fair arguments, but i do think people should actually research what marxs was actually talking about, i do believe such regimes actually bastardised Marxism for their own gains, i.e. its actually not what he was truly meant in his writings.

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

ah, you re twisting Marxism now, my understanding of it, he meant the means of production should be in the hands of 'all' via some kind of democratic systems, but its important to realise, what we currently have is actually plutocracy but this operates under the guise of democracy, Orwell truly was well ahead of his time. to add another twist to this, the current banning of alex jones is a sign of this plutocracy, whereby the few control our access to information. seriously, if you check out the work of Marxists such as yanis varoufakis, richard wolff and michael hudson you ll see it going on, we seriously do not have democratic power and control, and you d have to wonder, have we ever had true democracy. i truly believe those that ive previously mentioned are not advocating for the implementation of some evil 'commie' regime, wolff actually has a good sense of humor regarding such issues

We do have a democracy. Look at FF. They got hammered after the crash, look at labour, FG, SF all have seen ups and downs . The problem is that a democracy encorpates many points of view and its majority rules. Just because a government is elected and acts in a way that you don't like doesn't mean its not democratic. They don't have to satisfy any one person but they do have to satisfy the majority. Instead of complaining about the lack of democracy you should look at why people vote for other parties and what you need to do to convince them.

Wanderer78

PeadarCo wrote: »

We do have a democracy. Look at FF. They got hammered after the crash, look at labour, FG, SF all have seen ups and downs . The problem is that a democracy encorpates many points of view and its majority rules. Just because a government is elected and acts in a way that you don't like doesn't mean its not democratic. They don't have to satisfy any one person but they do have to satisfy the majority. Instead of complaining about the lack of democracy you should look at why people vote for other parties and what you need to do to convince them.

both agree and disagree with your comments, if you look at the work of yanis varoufakis you ll see that theres currently a gigantic democratic deficit within the heart of eu institutions, so much so id class it as disturbing. when a german finance minister says to you that elections cannot alter economic polices within the euro zone, you know you have serious democratic issues. we dont have democracy at all, our political institutions are almost completely powerless at the moment, they cant change much. does true democracy mean, people should be free to vote who they like, and not be manipulated into voting another?

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

both agree and disagree with your comments, if you look at the work of yanis varoufakis you ll see that theres currently a gigantic democratic deficit within the heart of eu institutions, so much so id class it as disturbing. when a german finance minister says to you that elections cannot alter economic polices within the euro zone, you know you have serious democratic issues. we dont have democracy at all, our political institutions are almost completely powerless at the moment, they cant change much. does true democracy mean, people should be free to vote who they like, and not be manipulated into voting another?

You mean the guy when in charge of the Greece finance ministry actually made their situation worse. A man who didn't seem to understand that Germany has an elected government which answered to the German public and not the Greek public. And as result of being answerable to the German public certain options where in the negotiations were off limits and or had to be handled delicately. Otherwise the German public would not allow those options. If you are going to talk about democracy it would be helpful if you didn't reference a person who in practice was found to be clueless in how it operates.

Here's some advice get out of books and theory and start helping people on the ground, find out what people want. It's something the protestors need to do also. Building houses takes time and involves a lot of different people with their own legitimate competing interests. It's a difficult issue to resolve. Even a simple decision like should the building they are occupying be housing or offices. The reason the issue hasn't been resolved is not due corruption due due to the fact once you start looking at the details it's complicated.

Wanderer78

PeadarCo wrote: »

You mean the guy when in charge of the Greece finance ministry actually made their situation worse. A man who didn't seem to understand that Germany has an elected government which answered to the German public and not the Greek public. And as result of being answerable to the German public certain options where in the negotiations were off limits and or had to be handled delicately. Otherwise the German public would not allow those options. If you are going to talk about democracy it would be helpful if you didn't reference a person who in practice was found to be clueless in how it operates.

Here's some advice get out of books and theory and start helping people on the ground, find out what people want. It's something the protestors need to do also. Building houses takes time and involves a lot of different people with their own legitimate competing interests. It's a difficult issue to resolve. Even a simple decision like should the building they are occupying be housing or offices. The reason the issue hasn't been resolved is not due corruption due due to the fact once you start looking at the details it's complicated.

again, do people actually read peoples own work! seriously check out varoufakis work, its really is disturbing whats going on within the eurozone. even christian le garde openly admitted to varoufakis's face during his time as finance minister that the policies being effectively forced upon Greece would actually fail, even some imf experts are now admitting this in public now

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

again, do people actually read peoples own work! seriously check out varoufakis work, its really is disturbing whats going on within the eurozone. even christian le garde openly admitted to varoufakis's face during his time as finance minister that the policies being effectively forced upon Greece would actually fail, even some imf experts are now admitting this in public now

Look I don't really care about theory. Yes it is important to a degree but you have to look what happens to a theory when you put into practice. If the theory doesn't work in practice it is flawed. The guy in question has no credibility in my eyes. He had his chance to make life better for the Greek people and some how managed to make their bad situation worse. He failed because he didn't understand democracy and how that feeds into economics. Its sickening to see a guy like that been treated as some economic genius and piling in the money after the mess he made and people he left damaged and out of pocket. At least Bertie and Cowen especially have had the decency to stay out of the public eye and not be fetted like the person you mention.

Wanderer78

PeadarCo wrote: »

Look I don't really care about theory. Yes it is important to a degree but you have to look what happens to a theory when you put into practice. If the theory doesn't work in practice it is flawed. The guy in question has no credibility in my eyes. He had his chance to make life better for the Greek people and some how managed to make their bad situation worse. He failed because he didn't understand democracy and how that feeds into economics. Its sickening to see a guy like that been treated as some economic genius and piling in the money after the mess he made and people he left damaged and out of pocket. At least Bertie and Cowen especially have had the decency to stay out of the public eye and not be fetted like the person you mention.

the theory of 'supply and demand' and that joyous one, 'market equilibrium' work great in practice, dont they! maybe it is the one that is indeed flawed? oh dont worry, varoufakis is going back for round 2 of Greek politics, hes not 'shying away' at all, like our folks!

end of the road

PeadarCo wrote: »

At least Bertie and Cowen especially have had the decency to stay out of the public eye and not be fetted like the person you mention.

indeed. they did the right and correct thing

AudreyHepburn

sexmag wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/housing-groups-occupying-vacant-dublin-building-say-theyre-overwhelmed-by-public-support-37195456.html

I'm sorry but how is breaking into a privately owned house raising awareness?

This is a criminal act and should be treated as such

That’s called breaking the law - it’s breaking and entering and the only effect it will have their campaign is to turn people against it

Who do they think are?

Uriel.

end of the road wrote: »

the time it would take to get that money back would be ridiculous via those means. the law firms have to be paid to be fair and they won't hold out while it possibly takes years to get the money via taking bits from one's dole. practicality has to come into play here.

The State would pay the solicitor and barristers etc. as it currently does but the State would recoup the money, over time, from the individual involved.

gctest50

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That’s called breaking the law - it’s breaking and entering and the only effect it will have their campaign is to turn people against it

Who do they think are?

They are them who are missing the handy money gathered from de peeeeful pwotests for Water Charges


It'll be a while before euthanasia is on the table - they'll be calling to every old person in the country then

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

the theory of 'supply and demand' and that joyous one, 'market equilibrium' work great in practice, dont they! maybe it is the one that is indeed flawed? oh dont worry, varoufakis is going back for round 2 of Greek politics, hes not 'shying away' at all, like our folks!

Well the housing crisis is a classic example of supply and demand in action. It's as good a vindication of the law of supply and demand as any you will get. It obviously is not what people want but knee jerk measures by the government have had only marginal impact ie rent pressure zones or been inflationary such as the first time buyers grant.

The government does need to take action but we need long term measures and don't just give houses to whoever shouts loudest.

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

the theory of 'supply and demand' and that joyous one, 'market equilibrium' work great in practice, dont they! maybe it is the one that is indeed flawed? oh dont worry, varoufakis is going back for round 2 of Greek politics, hes not 'shying away' at all, like our folks!

Well the housing crisis is a classic example of supply and demand in action. It's as good a vindication of the law of supply and demand as any you will get. It obviously is not what people want but knee jerk measures by the government have had only marginal impact ie rent pressure zones or been inflationary such as the first time buyers grant.

The government does need to take action but we need long term measures and don't just give houses to whoever shouts loudest.

Wanderer78

PeadarCo wrote: »

Well the housing crisis is a classic example of supply and demand in action. It's as good a vindication of the law of supply and demand as any you will get. It obviously is not what people want but knee jerk measures by the government have had only marginal impact ie rent pressure zones or been inflationary such as the first time buyers grant.

The government does need to take action but we need long term measures and don't just give houses to whoever shouts loudest.

some good points again, but unfortunately we ve slipped into that econ 101 cookbook of rubbish economic theory again, i.e. the real economy, particularly at the macro level, does not work on the concept of supply and demand, and ultimately market equilibrium, this has been well researched and written about now, so much so, that even neoclassical economist joe stiglitz has written about the 'inefficiencies of the market' in order to compensate for these failings, as many aspects of free market economics have been extremely beneficial to our societies. to some degree, you even admit to these fails via your use of the phrase, 'It obviously is not what people want', the truth be told, housing is in fact a need not a want, it is a critical element of creating a functioning society. i will agree with you though, that government 'interference' of the market(i know, the heads of the hardcore believers in this nonsense economic theory are now spinning!:D), has in fact been extremely negative on our current outcomes, but interference or more realistically, manipulation of the market is indeed required to create a functioning one.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Have they being arrested yet? Very little in the various news media.

weldoninhio

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Correct, it's taking property that has always been residential and converting to office space. Hence reducing the number of houses in the area.

So what? That’s between the property owner and the planning dept. The owner isn’t here to provide housing for povvers.

Pkiernan

Shame those layabouts can't put the same energy in to looking for a job.

Uriel.

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote: »

Have they being arrested yet? Very little in the various news media.

And that's exactly how it should be

um7y1h83ge06nx

Uriel. wrote: »

And that's exactly how it should be

True enough. So much for raising awareness.

sbsquarepants

Without getting my tin foil hat out 2 of the main reasons that nothing is really being done about the "housing crisis" is that rising house prices benefit the banks, the same banks which are more or less owned by the government.
Sky high rents benefit the government who take 50% approx. in taxes.
When money is tight you don't cook the goose who lays the golden eggs.

The 3rd reason is good old ineptitude.

To cut a long story short people need to wake up to the fact that you just can't always have what you want, and that's particularly true if what you want is for someone else to provide for you what they are already struggling to provide for themselves.

A large chunk of voters are quite happy with rising house prices too, dont leave them out.

A good chunk of the media too. House sales provide a lots of media and construction jobs.

And ineptitude. I dont buy into any conspiracy theories with this.

Wanderer78

sbsquarepants wrote:

Without getting my tin foil hat out 2 of the main reasons that nothing is really being done about the "housing crisis" is that rising house prices benefit the banks, the same banks which are more or less owned by the government. Sky high rents benefit the government who take 50% approx. in taxes. When money is tight you don't cook the goose who lays the golden eggs.

I'd class it as dangerous group think and herd mentality more so than any conspiracy. We ve all been lead to believe that continual rising asset prices are good for our economy, we ve even created complex metric systems and models to justify this thinking, which in turn respond positively to these rising asset prices, we ve convinced ourselves that by doing all this, the wealth created will 'trickle down', but has it really?

Dohnjoe

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It seems like it takes extreme actions to raise awareness, let's hope they get noticed. The house is fine, no one was living in it.

It's not "fine". I have a car that is unused for personal reasons, that doesn't give a stranger the right to start using it because they feel "it's not being used"

Likewise, if you own a property that is vacant for a period, no one has a right to come and claim it for themselves. It's illegal not to mention a perverse, entitled way of thinking.

PowerToWait

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not "fine". I have a car that is unused for personal reasons, that doesn't give a stranger the right to start using it because they feel "it's not being used"

Likewise, if you own a property that is vacant for a period, no one has a right to come and claim it for themselves. It's illegal not to mention a perverse, entitled way of thinking.

Another dreadfully poor and inappropriate analogy.

As for the ultra pious, crowing about the illegality of the action, should we simply bow our heads and ignore the issues, waiting respectfully for our betters to engineer a solution?


Keep adding the halfpence to the pence.

Dohnjoe

PowerToWait wrote: »

As for the ultra pious, crowing about the illegality of the action, should we simply bow our heads and ignore the issues, waiting respectfully for our betters to engineer a solution?

It's illegal. In any country. Nothing pious about it, it's the law, not to mention basic common sense.