squatters on goose green (Lounged)

[helena handbasket]

Milo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> helena handbasket Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Or......

> >

> > planning permission could have expired, then

> > applied for again.

> >

> > Seems to me that by using terms such as "pretty

> > sure" and "not sure" Reggie and Narnia have

> been

> > honest about the extent of their understanding.

>

> >

>

> Yes, planning permission could have expired, then

> applied for again, and the same is true of this

> property being squatted. Funny how those 'pretty

> sure' and 'not sure' turn into facts a few posts

> later. Just like the squatter's being aggressive

> and the building work which is imminent. A very

> useful way of putting down someone whose lifestyle

> you disagree with - the real motivation.

But I could have sworn in your post previous to this you said that planning permission was granted in 1999, work in 2008.

"No grey area, no opinion". So could this not turn into fact down the line as well?

It seems like a useful way of putting down someone whose opinions you disagree with.

[Milo]

No I didn't, stop making things up!

[ImpetuousVrouw]

This has turned into a real bitch fight!

[*Bob*]

One thing about squatting is that it seems to elicit the same reaction from a lot of people as it does with regards to people who live their lives on benefit, despite - despite - neither situation being one that most rational people would ever want to find themselves in or be envious of in any way.

It's a crap way to live. I wish them better - all of them, really. I'm sure they'd rather it wasn't that way too.

I just don't agree with this 'total abdication of any sort of responsibility' when the situation you've found yourself in starts to impinge on other people in such a direct manner. That's all.

[helena handbasket]

> 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

[Meld]

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?

[Milo]

It was my point she was trying to avoid.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

I just don't agree with this 'total abdication of any sort of responsibility' when the situation you've found yourself in starts to impinge on other people in such a direct manner. That's all.

Nail Head. In this instance we seem to have a group who feel somebody else should foot their bill.

[TheAllSeeingEye]

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 ...

[jenny1840]

Thank god you squatted it this year, otherwise you would have found it far more difficult to live there.

[reggie]

Milo

I admitted I had my own hole,dont look a gift hole in the mouth.

(Freud is loving this one)

[*Bob*]

I think it's slightly odd comparing a means of transport with basic shelter requirements, but:

There's a burnt-out car outside, with no wheels, which hasn't been removed for ten years.

If you can get it back on the road, make it less of an eyesore - and make use of it until someone can be bothered to show and ask for it back - why not.

[Meld]

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.

[hellosailor]

jenny1840 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thank god you squatted it this year, otherwise you

> would have found it far more difficult to live

> there.

Yeah, cos the rightful owners will be living there

[TheAllSeeingEye]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's slightly odd comparing a means of

> transport with basic shelter requirements, but:

>

> There's a burnt-out car outside, with no wheels,

> which hasn't been removed for ten years.

>

> If you can get it back on the road, make it less

> of an eyesore - and make use of it until someone

> can be bothered to show and ask for it back - why

> not.

If you spent ?715,000 on something and someone else got inside against your will wouldnt you too be annoyed ?? and all this eye-sore stuff puzzles me, is the building in someway more visually appealing now they are there ?? no ... its in the same state it was on the day they moved in. Its no more, or less, of an eyesore.

[*Bob*]

You were the one who started with the car analogy! I was just running with it.

I'm in agreement with you - with regards to this particular case, but not RE squatting in general. The circumstances can be so wildly varied that a blanket position on the thing would be ridiculous. There would even be a point somewhere down the line at which you would agree with a situation that was, technically, a squat. You'd just have to go a lot further down the line than I would.

[Narnia]

Milo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Narnia Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > reggie Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Milo

> > > You are right, I am not sure.

> > > I seem to have my own hole.

> > > Reggie

> > > Milo Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > Reggie,

> > > >

> > > > Regarding your 'hole' number one, how do

> you

> > > know

> > > > work is immenent on the house? I live next

> to

> > a

> > > > flat conversion development, permission for

> > > which

> > > > was granted in 1999, work didn't start

> until

> > > two

> > > > years ago.

> > > >

> > My understanding is that planning permission is

> > only valid for a certain period of time and

> > nothing like 9/10 years.I presume once it

> lapses

> > you have to reapply. Thus I'm pretty sure Milo

> is

> > incorrect on this point.

> \

>

> 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.

Well f*ck you too. Making it up my arse. What are my motivations then Milo? Talk about 'tales from the lazy acre'!

[Milo]

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

This is a strange post. I understand you're using my original text to make a point (and a kind of weak joke), but in it I didn't write 2008 as you know. Freud indeed.

[Milo]

reggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Milo

> I admitted I had my own hole,dont look a gift hole

> in the mouth.

> (Freud is loving this one)

Yes you did, sorry to bring it up again. :)

[helena handbasket]

Milo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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

>

> This is a strange post. I understand you're using

> my original text to make a point (and a kind of

> weak joke), but in it I didn't write 2008 as you

> know. Freud indeed.

How about you ready the bloody edit before you attack?

[helena handbasket]

Meld Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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?

Good god she accused me of making up that she said that! And there it is........ not a matter of semantics, a matter if calling me a lier.

I could no longer give a flying fig.

edited for crap spelling

[Milo]

helena handbasket Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Meld Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > 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?

>

>

>

> Good god she accused me of making up that she said

> that! And there it is........ not a matter of

> semantics, a matter if calling me a lier.

>

>

> I could no longer give a flying fig.

>

> edited for crap spelling

You did make it up, I never wrote 2008, check my post.

[helena handbasket]

Read the post right before this one. About half way up I have an edit that says sorry you said late 2007 not 2008 I was wrong. Read it for the love of god read it and then give it a rest.

Jesus on a bicycle!

[Milo]

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> > > My understanding is that planning permission

> is

> > > only valid for a certain period of time and

> > > nothing like 9/10 years.I presume once it

> > lapses

> > > you have to reapply. Thus I'm pretty sure

> Milo

> > is

> > > incorrect on this point.

> > \

> >

> > 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.

>

> Well f*ck you too. Making it up my arse. What are

> my motivations then Milo? Talk about 'tales from

> the lazy acre'!

I was responding to your comment that I was wrong about the development near my house, like you were suggesting I had made it up. An overreaction on my part for which I apologise.

Writing f*ck doesn't disguise it, I know you were swearing.

[Narnia]

There's no fooling you then. Apology accepted.