galanthusgal Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 As well as all the other issues already mentioned, a squatter does not pay rent. In effect, theft of rent. If the home-owner wanted to have people living there, he/she would have rented it out! We will soon be hearing of squatters suing homeowners because the house was not fit for human habitation/dangerous/lacking water or electricity. It will happen.... The home owner has lost his flexibility: perhaps they were going to be moving in tomorrow themselves, or (due to previous inhabitant dying), it took longer than 6 months to get probate settled & thus unable to start the house selling process. There are lots of reasons why a house would remain empty long enough for squatters to get in unfairly. I would argue that squatting is immoral, as well as illegal, as it ruins the life of the owner who then has to pay for eviction in terms of money, time and stress. I can't see the council doing much to force owners of empty properties to open them up to homeless people: it would cost too much. What if the homeowner refuses to co-operate? Who pays for any repairs required before the place is habitable? What happens if the homeowner decides to sell the house partway through any legal process? It's all rather complicated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 And what exactly did the working mans Labour party do to address the sitaution in 13 years of governement then? What is there in that post that could possibly lead you to conclude I am a labour supporter? Get those blinkers off and you might be able to unserstand what you read. I am only too aware that a large proportion of the Labour front bench are themselves involved in property speculation and consequently are every bit as keen to relentlessly increase house prices as the tories are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 I would argue that squatting is immoral, as well as illegal, as it ruins the life of the owner who then has to pay for eviction in terms of money, time and stress. no it isnt in MOST cases its a moral victory for squatting, as ive said before is it immoral for somebody to have a building standing empty rotting sometimes for well over a decade while people have NO ROOF OVER THIER HEADS? (even families?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Sorry , but thats not the problem of the owner of a vacant property. I would like a Ferrari , but i cant afford one , so is it ok for me to just go and steal one so i then have one ? NO , its not. thats not the same arguement and you know it EVERYBODY needs shelter its a fundamental right and need, NOBODY NEEDS a car, you can get by without a car, i do anyway do ferraris get left to rot for decades? plus youd have to break in to "steal" it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 no it isnt in MOST cases its a moral victory for squatting, as ive said before is it immoral for somebody to have a building standing empty rotting sometimes for well over a decade while people have NO ROOF OVER THIER HEADS? (even families?) The vast majority of squatting is in council or housing association properties anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 The vast majority of squatting is in council or housing association properties anyway. and old factories, churches and schools..........normally before they get flattened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Mel, you are so wrong on this. Listen to what folk are saying outside your own circle. It's utterly abhorrent to most people. They think that it's stealing, plain and simple. It's anti-social. It's freeloading. It's not a moral victory. It's not a social statement. It's not standing up for your rights. It's not a comment on an evil society. It's not an alternative lifestyle. At best it's stealing hard earned money from ordinary hard working people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it and at worst it's child prostitution, drug addiction, destruction of neighbourhoods and the ancillary crime that feeds it all. It's just plain wrong. Grow up. Stop encouraging others to be a blight on society. Get out of the dark ages and join the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrion Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Hmmm. We, the taxpayers, own Buckingham Palace and the Queen lives there. I do not wish her to live there, therefore she is a squatter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Mel, you are so wrong on this. Listen to what folk are saying outside your own circle. It's utterly abhorrent to most people. They think that it's stealing, plain and simple. It's anti-social. It's freeloading. It's not a moral victory. It's not a social statement. It's not standing up for your rights. It's not a comment on an evil society. It's not an alternative lifestyle. At best it's stealing hard earned money from ordinary hard working people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it and at worst it's child prostitution, drug addiction, destruction of neighbourhoods and the ancillary crime that feeds it all. It's just plain wrong. Grow up. Stop encouraging others to be a blight on society. Get out of the dark ages and join the light. HAHAHAHAHA sorry tony but thats the biggest load of tory ******** ive ever read IF a building is left to rot (ie:- nobody gives a **** about it) for decades, how can housing a family, sometimes with small children be evil, and stealing hard earned money from the working class, cmon man, again your working on the idea that ALL squatters jump into your own home the minute your backs turn, and/or all squatters are crack addled prostitutes how can housing innocent people be anti social? surely leaving them on the streets is morally vacuous and anti social? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 We see what you did there. You just made up your own scenario to suit your agenda. "left to rot"? "housing a family"? You're living in a fantasy if that's all you have. I never said all did I, but I've dealt with squatters on 6 occasions and the only children were working as prostitutes to fund their drug habit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.