Riche Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Not many building that are empty for a long time make for an healthy place to live. Upper class drug abusin ***** usually endulge this lifestyle until their trust fund kicks in. My dad had an empy house with planning issues empty for 6 mths. we had all number of smack heads and filth tryin to squat. We sorted it ourselves, and yes it wasn't legal but it worked. The police are useless in this legal minefield so they got moved on. And now we are not landlords we just don't take **** from freeloaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakey149 Posted November 14, 2010 Author Share Posted November 14, 2010 so what should be done with these empty houses then if the general feeling is that squatting isn't popular? get the council to pull em down? do you reckon there should be laws to prevent people/organisations from owning a long-term empty building? or is it their right even though its a waste of resources that could be used for the good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 so what should be done with these empty houses then if the general feeling is that squatting isn't popular? get the council to pull em down? do you reckon there should be laws to prevent people/organisations from owning a long-term empty building? or is it their right even though its a waste of resources that could be used for the good? theyre just happy for em to be left empty for decades, as its the usual, ALL squatters are filthy drug abusing scum and ALL landlords and home owners are legal and decent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 I've got a fair few CD's i don't really listen to. Is is OK for smackheads to nick them because I'm not really using them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 I've got a fair few CD's i don't really listen to. Is is OK for smackheads to nick them because I'm not really using them? most people would have difficulty living in em tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 most people would have difficulty living in em tho What's the difference? It's still nicking other peoples stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 What's the difference? It's still nicking other peoples stuff. squatters DONT nick the building they live in it, the buildings going nowhere, in almost all cases the person who owns the building still owns it. there has however been the odd ocasion where the squatter has won the right to the building, but even then its not "stolen" in the usual way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 It dosn`t matter how long a building has been stood empty , the fact is , the building is owned by someone , and they can do as they please with it with regards to leaving it empty. Why the hell should someone be allowed to squat in someone else`s property ? If it dosnt belong to you , then you have NO right to be in there . Sounds about right to me. Its not yours - keep out. Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8388795/Squatting-to-be-made-illegal-vows-Clarke.html Squatting to be made illegal... My opinion is, good, I don't see why gaining access to a property and refusing to leave when told to do so should be legal behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liza D Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I'd quite like to buy a bit of a project, which by definition would be a bit run down and empty. I'd like to do it up over a period of time, as I'd want to eventually live in it. It would have to be a bit knackered in the mean time, as it should ideally be in a really nice, hence expensive, spot. So a knackered one would be all I could realisticly fund. I don't think I'd appreciate squatters in the intervening time span. I'm also kinda guessing that they wouldn't be paying council tax... Neither would you until you lived in it. Maybe that's why so many buildings are left empty. If councils made the owners pay the full council tax then they would have to do something with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.