Comments on: U.K. authorities might seek remedy for squatting

By: Doug

Doug — Sun, 01 May 2011 23:02:36 +0000

Thanks for clarifying.

By: Kevin (sorry but sometimes...)

Kevin (sorry but sometimes...) — Sun, 01 May 2011 22:56:05 +0000

Absolutely. To have your home taken over in this manner is against basic principals of human rights. No question about it. The matter is not as clear though, when the premises are truly unoccupied, empty or derelict for a long period of time. It is always surprising to me, to see people sleeping rough in towns like London, Paris or New York, when there are millions of people in homes around them. People never see further than their own rights. You cannot, in my opinion, expect to have your rights respected if you are not ready to respect the rights of others. Homelessness is terrifying for everyone. It is not squatters who make people homeless. There has been many abuses of the so-called “squatter’s rights” but there would be no squatters at the first place if we were not so selfish and individualist. Homeless are people like you and me. They are not criminals, everything but that. The law needs to protect everyone. Don’t you agree?

Kevin

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Sun, 01 May 2011 20:45:14 +0000

Even when the owners get their homes back, it is a matter of eventually….. and even if it’s a week’s delay, that’s a terrifying situation.

Bob

By: sorry but sometimes...

sorry but sometimes... — Sun, 01 May 2011 19:59:09 +0000

Doug, I was mainly replying to those saying that we should kill them or bring back Hitler. I agree with you that I did not address the issue, I really wish I could. Just to rectify though, always and in every cases discussed here, the owners have got their house back. Never the trespassers got ownership of their properties, this would be crazy. The problem is that it forces the owners to engage in a law-suit to get their properties back and that, once it is done (and it is always done), the trespassers are left to find another place to occupy. Once again, let’s be clear. The government did not wake up yesterday to this reality. We will not be able to solve the issue here simply because we do not have the necessary knowledges to do so. My advice is that you get properly informed if you feel strongly about this very interesting issue. It is also a big part of your culture and history.
Yours, wherever you are.

By: Doug

Doug — Sun, 01 May 2011 17:51:30 +0000

“Sorry but Sometimes”, you haven’t addressed the issue, except thru meaningless platitudes. The law only regulates the problem cause people need a place to live? What about the displaced homeowner? he is homeless now and still has to pay the mortgage! The fact these “only a few examples” are mentioned are cause for alarm. I am pleased I don’t live in merry old England.

By: sorry but sometimes...

sorry but sometimes... — Sun, 01 May 2011 17:23:17 +0000

I guess this last statement shows the animosity this matter provokes. To shoot the trespassers on sight or to bring back a fascist regime (as written before by gasman) is, in my view, pathetic. Let’s be clear. It will not solve anything. It is not the law who allows squatting, the law regulates a situation that will always exist as long as people found themselves in poverty. Every country in the world have squatters. When it is not regulated, slums appears and the situation becomes worse. That is why there are squatter’s rights in the first place. People need a place to live and that is still the main cause for squatting. To choose to take only a few examples like “the owner who turns his back for a minute and found squatters in his property” is politically motivated and is not representative of the thousands of people from all background, sex and ages who are going through the experience of homelessness. We will always have to deal with that. Fascist regime or not. And if you want to shoot them, then start digging.

By: jkoerner

jkoerner — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:48:05 +0000

In the US, states that allow home owners to shoot people who unlawfully invade their homes seem not to have a squatting problem. This is a simple solution that I would endorse.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:04:28 +0000

Melvin H.,

Remove the last closing parenthesis in the link and it works.

http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:02:14 +0000

Steve,

One is forced to notice that you never really addressed Crabtree’s claim, or offered proof that the article he cited was incorrect. Instead, you offered an ad hominen attack on the Daily Mail, got in a shot against Fox news, and linked to a list of articles that doesn’t support what you or the list say it does.

Through all this the central point remains and your initial attack on the “mega rich” is without support.

It is amazing to see people such as yourself say the “law needs to be changed” and then in the same breath dismiss those people who the current law affects.

There is no excuse for squatting. None. You cannot justify taking another person’s property without their permission. You cannot justify using their property without their consent. You cannot rationalize depriving anyone be benefits of a legal purchase.

It doesn’t matter whether the houses in question are bought by a person who scraped by for years, someone who is wealthy or the queen herself. The property or permission to use the property does not belong to the squatters and any attempt to justify their use of the property is misguided.

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:46:55 +0000

Steve, your link does not work; it “may not exist or may have moved….”
And as for that list of things that cause/ cure cancer: Nearly every network, magazine, newspaper, etc. continues to report on a near-daily or near-weekly basis that something is either good for you, bad for you, causes “x” bad thing to happen to you, or cures “x”; it ain’t just the Daily Mail, Fox News, etc.! (I.e. Saccahrin, trans-fats, butter, coffee, sunlight, eggs, certain medications, certain medical procedures, etc.)