Meld

hellosailor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ImpetuousVrouw Wrote: > > > > if people are homeless > > and rich property owners have more homes than > they > > need or can be bothered to look after then I > think > > it's perfectly acceptable for homeless people > to > > satisfy their fundamental human need for > shelter > > by squatting the empty property. > > > define homeless? A bunch of students with laptops > and internet access does not scream 'homeless' at > me. Not many homeless people are enrolled at > college and spend their free time chatting in > forums on the internet. Not wanting to work your > arse off like most people in order to pay rent or > to stay at your mums because it's like, waaaaay > cooler maan to break into someone else's house > does not equal homeless. > do we really think that if the GGT weren't > squatting in this house they would be sleeping > rough? With their laptops tucked into their > sleeping bags? > And who said the owner 'can't be bothered to look > after his property?' - they have only just bought > it and are most likely assembling a crew/waiting > for paperwork to be signed off to start renovating > it! If you went abroad for a few weeks holiday and > when you got back 7 students had broken in and > decided your home was now theirs, would you think, > 'fair play, I wasn't really looking after the > place!' Funny! Hello Sailor just posted on another thread that his or her property has been valued at 90k more than what he she paid for it 4 years ago. A profit of 90k over four years = ?22.5k per year, which is almost the national average salary. A profit that's all down to his or her hard work I'm sure. And now that same property will be a further ?90k out of reach of all those people who aren't on the ladder. No matter though, it's all their fault for not working hard enough, right? The system is working great for you, isn't it?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Figures for Southwark don't match those posted by > James Barber above I'm just guessing, but I > wouldn't be surprised if the Southwark council > figures don't come from the Council tax listing > showing properties on reduced council tax because > empty - obviously building may also be empty but > not claiming the reduced tax - i.e. sold but not > yet moved into; waiting for refurbishment, > registered as second homes (different discount > scheme) etc. etc. There are two types of 'empty' - > one is that the house if furnished but no one is > living there, the second is that it is entiterely > empty of everything. My guess is that it is this > group that Southwark is reporting, with the 'empty > but furnished' group excluded (or perhaps vice > versa) - quite easy to get different figures by > using different definitions of 'empty'. Thanks Penguin, that's interesting.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Meld Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > thebestnameshavegone Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I love a bit of data. > > > > > > You can back any half-baked opinion you have > up > > > just nicely if you choose your source > > carefully. > > > > Definition of data: > > > > da?ta > >    /ˈdeɪtə, > > ˈd?tə, ˈdɑtə/ Show > > Spelled Show IPA > > ?noun > > 1. > > a pl. of datum. > > 2. > > individual facts, statistics, or items of > > information > > > > Damn those pesky facts eh, always getting in > the > > way of a good solid opinion. > > What a stupid post. > > What do climate change deniers do, if not > selectively choose / ignore data? I'm not sure that's just confined to climate change deniers, given the recent climate-gate scandal, but this is off topic so why bring climate change it? As for calling my post stupid - perhaps your original post was the stupid one? What else do you base an opinion about a national problem on, if it's not based on facts/data/statistics? What you heard from the bloke down the pub?

jenren Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can make data lie to you......... Yes, of course, 'there are lies, lies and then there are statistics'. But most remotely credible opinions or reports about situations occurring across a whole country will be backed up by...data.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love a bit of data. > > You can back any half-baked opinion you have up > just nicely if you choose your source carefully. Definition of data: da?ta    /ˈdeɪtə, ˈd?tə, ˈdɑtə/ Show Spelled[dey-tuh, dat-uh, dah-tuh] Show IPA ?noun 1. a pl. of datum. 2. individual facts, statistics, or items of information Damn those pesky facts eh, always getting in the way of a good solid opinion.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fascinating to read spectrum of views. > Huge shame that Southwark Council have 15,000 > people on its social housing waiting lists while > Southwark had, the last time I formally asked > about a year ago, 5,500 empty privately owned > properties. > I personally don't feel comfortable with squatting > but clearly the levers created by central > government to discourage properties being left > empty are not working. > > Southwark Council can and does try persuading > private owners to return properties into use but > the Compulsory Purchase Order process is so > painful that it can only rarely be used. Equally > Southwark Council can only borrow money at rates > decreed by central government which are a factor > more expensive than the open money market. So > can't borrow the sums required to kick start those > 5,500 homes coming back into use. Thanks, plimsoll. Figures for Southwark don't match those posted by James Barber above. I wonder where his data comes from?

expat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >Posted by: goosegreenteam April 18, 12:10AM > > >The building was bought in early January 2010. > So less than 5 months. Apologies to Bob, I missed this post.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What number is it? ???? Are you going to drop the casserole off?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did what? > > I don't understand. Unless you're somehow saying > the house wasn't sold recently? > > Please explain?! I meant quoting speculation as fact. Do we know for sure that the house was in fact sold recently and for ?700k etc etc or is it one person speculating who claims to have inside knowledge about it? Much like on a recent dangerous dogs thread on here where a full description of the dangerous dog's owner was posted by someone who was sure that they knew who it was - before it transpired that they had the wrong guy!

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the house is still untouched in a year, I'll go > round and deliver a delicious casserole to any > residing squatters. > > Up until then, I feel the benefit of the doubt > should reside with the person who only recently > paid over ?700k for it. You just did it again!

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These figures simply reinforce why this particular > squatting action seems wrong. > > With nearly half a million properties empty 'for > more than six months' why target one which was > only sold a matter of weeks ago - thus potentially > delaying the very work which will turn it back > into a fully-occupied, livable dwelling? It is just going round in circles now. The same speculation about this scenario has been repeated enough times that it is now being quoted as fact.

plimsoul Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there are apparently 43,000 properties empty > > http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-1372038 > 3-43000-empty-homes.do ...in London That article was published in 2004. The Guardian published this one more recently: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/04/empty-houses-guardian-research

TheAllSeeingEye Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why is it deemed acceptable to squat anyway ?? > > There is a car outside I like the look of, if I > just got into it and started driving it around > without the owners consent would that be ok ?? > no. > > Why is it any different for a property ?? (general > question, I dont want all the personal stuff). > Really does seem strange. There are places for > people deemed homeless, or those that cannot > support themselves, without it needing to resort > to this ... People have a basic need for shelter. Cars etc are luxuries. Yes there are systems in place to help the homeless, but that doesn't mean to say that those systems always work as they should, or that they have enough resources. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, for me it boils down to the way that we are constantly told there is a housing shortage, while at the same time there are 5k empty homes in one London borough alone, and up to 1 million in the UK. Given that man has a basic need for shelter, surely it is not in the best interests of society for large numbers of people/housing associations to own homes that are not in use (and I mean for long periods, not just for short vacations - the councils can use empty dwelling orders after 6 months which seems reasonable). But no-one really gets outraged about this because the value of their homes hinges on this perceived lack of supply.

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Incorrect on what point?! I don't want to get > into > > a debate about Metaphysics, but the point I > made > > did actually happen. Planning permission for > the > > development near my house was put in for during > > 1999, building work didn't start until late > 2007, > > these things actually occurred, no grey areas, > no > > opinion. > > > > You're not "pretty sure" Narnia, and similarly > > Reggie it's not that you are "not sure", you're > > both just making things up, like many of the > > posters on this forum. That's what people do > when > > they're hiding their real motivations. > > > edited to add: sorry, late 2007. I said 2008. I > was wrong wrong wrong Why the obsession with trying to trip someone up over semantics? Perhaps he or she should have said 'planning permission was ORIGINALLY granted in 1999' but does that actually change the point that the poster is making?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've never renovated a house myself, but I'm > thinking 'not being able to get inside it' could > slow things up. I take your point, and again I may have missed some posts, but I'm not sure that there has been any confirmation that any renovation work is definitely planned or was due to begin any time soon.