sgtkate Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 :hihi: awww you're too kind:love: but the fact remains that squatters very rarely look after the building they squat it, for most its a way of life getting out of the system, any places i have seen have been covered in anarchy graffiti, excrement in the back room and generally not nice people, Giggs and Neville will have the eyes of the media watching their every move when it comes to eviction time. well Halibut i cant afford sentiment it costs too much as europe will see soon and so will these footballers. mark my words it will cost them thousands to get them out, for now the current squatters are reasonable others will not be! Can we come back to this in a few months and see if you would be willing to be apologise if you are wrong? And I'll give my apology if you are right? ---------- Post added 20-10-2015 at 12:20 ---------- Hope they look after it better than the one in Liverpool: Inside the Bank of England building after Love Activists leave http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/inside-bank-england-building-after-9248551 http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/love-activists-bank-graffiti-pledge-9092472 Ahem. From the article: 'It is not yet clear what condition the building was in prior to the arrival of the activists.' So no evidence whatsoever that the Love Activists caused the damage. Bearing in mind the property had been insecured and derelict prior, it's not totally unlikely that others had been in and damaged it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Regular checks can give them an idea of how the building is being treated. They are going to gut it anyway, so the graffiti isnt going to matter. Lets see next Spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slordy71 Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 Regular checks can give them an idea of how the building is being treated. They are going to gut it anyway, so the graffiti isnt going to matter. Lets see next Spring. i doubt this building will be totally gutted?? have you actually seen it? it has \a beautiful hall entrance and many features that will either be listed or are too nice to take out pillars , carved stone,wood panels etc....mind you that's assuming they haven't been damaged and yes grafitti is damage. lets see come spring, i will predict a court case and baliffs to get them out and the ones left wont be these original squatters and the damage will be significant and i will admit i was wrong if it isnt the case:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Ahem. From the article: 'It is not yet clear what condition the building was in prior to the arrival of the activists.' So no evidence whatsoever that the Love Activists caused the damage. Bearing in mind the property had been insecured and derelict prior, it's not totally unlikely that others had been in and damaged it? Old links, people were subsequently arrested and charged for the damage. The building was clean and secure before they got in, local urbexers tried and failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 That is rubbish. Many squats are occupied with the intention of developing them into usefull community spaces. Often they are developed- until the point the authorities manage to acheive an eviction, when, obviously, any development is stopped.To pick the bones out of this statement. you say "many squats .... " which to my mind does not mean "all squats". So some will be prone to negative outcomes ? You use the phrase "developed". What exactly constitutes development. One (good) example of community development is the Groningen case in a post cited above. But development could also mean lots of sleeping bags, litter, dogs, graffiti etc. "Useful community spaces" is a broad concept. Given that not all squats end up for the good of everyone, saying "that's rubbish" is a tad unfair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Im sure they can afford to employ some muscle to " Remove " the squatters when the time comes they want rid of em . Do you mean they can hire 'muscle' to get rid of them without going through the legal route? Aren't their apartments classed as commercial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slordy71 Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 Do you mean they can hire 'muscle' to get rid of them without going through the legal route? Aren't their apartments classed as commercial? yes it is classed as commercial, so you just get a writ of possession, but usually they like to create a bit of a fuss so its easier to physically remove:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Apparently footballers Gary Neville and Ryan Giggs are allowing squatters to stay in a building they own before they develop it, over the winter? good luck boys! when you want to TAKE IT BACK:loopy: i can see all sorts of problems not least the the squatters wont want to move out and it will be pretty much trashed no matter what they say now. stark raving mad to let them in:roll: I can see the squatters getting cosy and not wanting to move. ---------- Post added 20-10-2015 at 15:45 ---------- Regular checks can give them an idea of how the building is being treated. They are going to gut it anyway, so the graffiti isnt going to matter. Lets see next Spring. can squatters 'legally' claim rights after a certain amount of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I can see the squatters getting cosy and not wanting to move. ---------- Post added 20-10-2015 at 15:45 ---------- can squatters 'legally' claim rights after a certain amount of time? Its 10-12 years plus they have to show better title i.e they have a right to it. Clearly they know its not theirs and they know who it belongs to, so no risk there. Giggs and Neville will have taken expert legal advice before going ahead with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slordy71 Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 I can see the squatters getting cosy and not wanting to move. ---------- Post added 20-10-2015 at 15:45 ---------- can squatters 'legally' claim rights after a certain amount of time? exactly that! and no its commercial property so they have no legal rights, actually the law changed recently to make it easier to get squatters out of residential also. ---------- Post added 20-10-2015 at 15:55 ---------- Giggs and Neville will have taken expert legal advice before going ahead with this. really? you reckon?? i have never met a solicitor that doesnt cover their own back and especially these guys solicitors that wont be cheap! i think its prob more like Giggs and Neville said something off the cuff and without advice, to look good and caring.....mind you footballers are not very clever are they:roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now