The ability for anyone to occupy a privately owned house, without permission and for which the owner receives absolutely no remuneration and can’t boot you out seems, to me anyway, to be a crazy notion.
If you need a roof over your head, there are other steps in the process before wandering the back door of someone else’s house.
Many people who squat are not people who, through unfortunate circumstances outwith their control, find themselves in need of a roof over their head without any other option.
Many people exploit this bizarre legal “right” to their benefit (choosing a lifesyle which encompasses squatting, rather it being a last resort).
At the moment, my grandparents’ home sits empty having recently been refurbished ready to be sold. If a homeless person wants assistance, my family will happily donate an amount which is appropriate to our circumstances. That doesn’t include allowing him/her to take up protected residence in my grandparents’ home, the sole asset they left to their children.
If less “needy” people were to take up residence, I would be beside myself with anger.
Fortunately we live in Scotland, so it’s not an issue.
For those who are advocating squatters rights, I think many are blinded by the moral issue (which I can understand and actually agree with in principle) and the reality of the situation and the burden it places on many property owners.
Not all those who are affected by squatters are property millionaires in pin stripe suits, and not all those who squat actually need to.