The problem with this debate is that anyone for the bill ends up sounding like Nicholas Van Hoogestraaten and anyone against it sounds like they should be selling Socialist Worker.

Only in the mind of a complete imbecile.

In principle squatting should be illegal. That doesn’t let the government off the hook with regard to making appropriate housing available (although what is appropriate and who should be eligible is another debate). Just because the government hasn’t housed someone though doesn’t give them the right to go and occupy someone elses property, you’re not supposed to take the law into your own hands in this country, it’s one of the basic aspects of our society. If everyone started to do it how do you think the most vulnerable would fare?

indeed well put.

Franksinatra, swoon your so manly I think I love you xxx

Only in the mind of a complete imbecile.

Who, me?

Admittedly, despite early indications that it may turn into a pin-striped bankers vs hemp-smoking vegans rantfest, this thread had turned out far more moderate than I anticipated

The sensible use of the new law though would be for a warning to be given to squatters and arrest and charge only to be used for anyone who refused to leave the property. Can’t see a problem with that.

I’ve read/heard a lot of press quotes from pro-squatters groups who are using examples of families who have resided in the same building for 8 years being thrown onto the street.

However, I think the reality of this new law is that those squatters will be largely unaffected. If someone has been peacefully residing in an empty building for years, it seems unlikely that the owner will be phoning the police today so that the squatters are fined.

This new law will be more useful where there is an imbalance in the situation (e.g. the home owner and squatters aren’t both content) and the home owner wants the squatters moved on (which, in any sane world, they should be entitled to request).

Even if you wholeheartedly believe that people should have the right to squat, you must surely also believe that those who own the homes should have the right to request that the squatters leave a property?

The law as it was prior to today, did not adequately protect home owners.

this thread had turned out far more moderate than I anticipated

Its the New STWorld Order 🙂

Nice to have a discussion about a emotive topic and not have a handful of people swing their arms around wildly and shouting non stop!

franksinatra – Member

We would have a very short conversation then they would leave whether they wanted to or not.

Whether they wanted to or not ?

I bet they would want to – after having “a very short conversation” with you.

I can just tell.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aht9hcDFyVw[/video]

I actually think the whole situation is a bit unfortunate.

I’m sure in many circumstance, more considerate squatters will occupy a building which is truly vacant (in that no one has any desire to inhabit it or sell it) and is not being properly maintained. In those circumstances, a squatter who looks after the building is probably doing the owner a favour and both parties benefit.

However, media coverage in recent years of middle class hippies in London who decided to exploit the right to inhabit buildings which most certainly couldn’t be described as abandoned, brought attention to the whole squatting issue.

Britain (or the voting majority in the Daily Mail loon house anyway) became fixated on the notion that all squatters seemed to be taking over £10m houses and having bohemian parties.

So the new law is a “one size fits all” and will no doubt have some “unjust” consequences in the eyes of some. I’d have thought a fast-track court procedure for eviction would have been more appropriate so that people who really didn’t want squatters had the abiltiy to regain use of their property.

What is mine is mine, nobody else has a right to touch it without my permissioin

Can I touch your winky? I can even paint my nails if it helps?

When I was a young un plastering away in “that London” I worked in a house that a family had squatted in and renovated until the council had given it to them.They had squatted as they had a young un and the emergency housing in South London at that point was apparently a wee bit red of tooth and claw to raise a child in.Really nice couple,other than pooing on their own walls.
If it becomes against the law, how on earth are the courts going to track down the evicted squatters? “Case 10878, Tooting council v Scrumpy Pete.” Damn; he’s not turned up!
Much more civilised up here as PF said.

If it becomes against the law, how on earth are the courts going to track down the evicted squatters? “Case 10878, Tooting council v Scrumpy Pete.” Damn; he’s not turned up!

exactly

A-A; Now the Welsh are in it; are you going to start a Premiership thread? Or will you wait for loverboy to recover? 😈

If it becomes against the law, how on earth are the courts going to track down the evicted squatters? “Case 10878, Tooting council v Scrumpy Pete.” Damn; he’s not turned up!

Doesn’t really matter. The owner is back in their house. As for prosecuting someone with no fixed abode? Only needed if someone chooses to be arrested rather than leave a house. If arrested and if no address is available to serve paperwork they would need to be taken to court the next day where they would likely be bailed to appear at a future date. If they failed to appear the court could issue a warrant.

What was wrong with eviction?

“criminalising the homeless”

Indeed. Tory idea of fairness that is.

What was wrong with eviction?

Very costly and time consuming process for the home owner.

“criminalising the homeless”

Indeed. Tory idea of fairness that is.

That’s like saying laws against prostitution criminalise women. They don’t, only those women who choose to engage in prostitution.

The homeless are not forced to take up residency in someone’s private home. This law offers a protection to home owners which was not previously afforded to them.

Depends on your definition of ‘choice’, also it’s not against the law to be a prostitute.

lets say someone occupies a house that has been empty for years,
where the owner has died leaving no heirs or debt,
lets say its a semi or a terraced house and the roof is leaking,
the walls are beginning to have structural damage and said person fixes and maintains the property,
gets rid of the rats living there and generally makes it presentable- to the point where the property prices of the neighbours houses are no longer affected detrimentally by the derelict house on the street.
how would this law sit with them?
what happens to the property after they have been removed?
this may sound far fetched but i know of two similar examples of this locally to me.
genuinely interested what you lot think as i am a bearded freak who once owned a kaftan 🙂

-going out now but will check back in later while drunk 😉

I was listening to a discussion on Radio 2 about this earlier.
The lady who was argueing on behlf of squatters claimed she couldn’t afford the rent on a central London pad as her work as a ‘self employed performance poet’ paid inconsistant wages, so she had no choice but to squat, well fancy that. Get a proper job then you sponging hippy!!!!

The law as it was prior to today, did not adequately protect home owners.

Something needed to change to help the homeowners/occupiers that had lost their homes to squatters whilst out, on holiday, or in hospital, or similar.
But some perspective needs to be retained – those high profile cases in the news are shocking but are a tiny minority. In London alone, there’s 40,000 long-term (6 months plus) empty homes, and the majority of squatting involves these sort of properties.
The law change criminalises the homeless, when what was really needed was a cheap, effective, fast-track eviction process through the civil courts.

its very telling that everyone is talking about london. wales is governed by these laws too. but then if we are too far from london to host the mtb in the BRITISH Olympics (London 2012?) i guess we just dont matter……maybe its time for broken ENGLAND to stop including us in their equations… (told you i would come back when i was drunk ha ha)

Jonah, I think London has dropped a few big hints, are you only just getting it? It wouldn’t be British to chuck you out, we are just being a bit off with you until you decide to leave..

Looks like they are offering up to 6 months transitional accommodation if they prosecute…..

Like most laws it will probably be applied with a fair bit of common sense. Warnings, Cautions Promise of a trip to court, Police Taxi to Court.

Yes unoccupied property is a problem. Council tax exemption is generally only for 6 months if completely empty and trying to sell.

Perhaps this money that will be raised selling off expensive council houses when people move on could be used to buy the empty houses from people semi comp purchase – empty for 6 months local authority can buy at market rate less 10%??

I’m sure some people squat and look after the place would be nice if they paid rent.

More attacks on those who’ve got nowt—– suppose the rich just looking after ‘their’ interests, —-

i know , lets have all the ‘nice’ council houses for the needy rich, and the unwanted/unfit/unsold can be used for the poor!

This stuff about someone going on holiday and coming back to find squatters is a massive red herring IMO – not saying it never happens but i bet its comparitively very rare. This is pretty obviously for the benefit of property investors. And yes having huge portfolios of empty properties while people struggle to find housing is immoral, however you want to dress it up or rationalise it.

Standard Tory policy of picking on the poor for the benefit of the rich (see cutting benefits for the poor and disabled and blaming them for the deficit, while cutting taxes for the highest earners and doing nothing about tax evasion.)

Does anyone really believe the provision for homeless people in London is in any way sufficient?

This thread was going so well until these last two posts, looks like those wanting a proper discussion need to move away from the thread and let the holier than thou brigade rant 🙄

So you start insulting people for offering their honest opinion (which you don’t like because you don’t agree), but it’s other people lowering the tone of the thread? Hmmmmm…..

Sorry but stuff like this is going to help a limited number of people, and make life miserable/difficult for a whole lot more. I don’t think that’s a good thing. There’s some stuff in this thread that’s pretty offensive TBH, but I haven’t called anyone out on it or started talking about ‘The Daily Mail brigade’ (which would possibly be quite apt for some in here).

Stumpyjon – wasnt it you a while ago admitting you voted Tory but felt uncomfortable with many of their policies targeting the poor/vulnerable? Could be thinking of someone else.

Provide a safe and legal alternative to squatting first.

So you start insulting people for offering their honest opinion (which you don’t like because you don’t agree), but it’s other people lowering the tone of the thread? Hmmmmm…..

+1

stumpyjon – Member
This thread was going so well until these last two posts, looks like those wanting a proper discussion need to move away from the thread and let the holier than thou brigade rant

–so discerning voices are not to be heard then, lest they spoil the consensus of smugness that pervades this thread

Would you be happy if you found somebody squatting in your property?

And why would somebody leave a property empty? Surely you need rent coming in to make money?

AIUI here in Denmark if you leave a property unoccupied beyond a certain period of time the local council have the right to let it out to someone. Something along those lines seems a better idea than just getting Plod to stick the boot in on homeless people to the benefit of property speculators.