squatters on goose green (Lounged)

[reggie]

Good point Huggers

[Huguenot]

So is that squatting as a form of political protest?

We used to have sit-ins at University, but we generally chose high-profile buildings like the senate, because it was more likely to have an impact than a slug infested Coventry lean-to.

Or is it squatting as a form of preservation?

I've seen loads of other successful conservation campaigns too. Likewsie they've generally been more successful if they've engaged the local community rather than sitting in a boarded up cess pit with five other people that don't wash.

We even have a moderately successful government initiative - listed buildings.

So it makes me think that those excuses are a bit tired too.

[Domitianus]

Bottom line is, as far as I am concerned, if I own something (a house or anything) it is entirely up to me to decide what I do with it. If I want to leave it empty - so be it. That is my right.

If I chose to leave my car parked in my driveway for a considerable period of time without using it, would someone else be entitled to come along, use it, drive around in it and treat it as there own and justify the fact on the grounds that they had replaced the brake-pads, topped up the oil and generally avoided crashing it? Of course not.

Why should houses be different? I have always found the notion of squatting intrinsically morally repugnant - simply because of the act of theft that is implicit in the act.

[hellosailor]

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> Bottom line is, as far as I am concerned, if I own

> something (a house or anything) it is entirely up

> to me to decide what I do with it. If I want to

> leave it empty - so be it. That is my right.

>

> If I chose to leave my car parked in my driveway

> for a considerable period of time without using

> it, would someone else be entitled to come along,

> use it, drive around in it and treat it as there

> own and justify the fact on the grounds that they

> had replaced the brake-pads, topped up the oil and

> generally avoided crashing it? Of course not.

>

> Absolutely agree.

[njc97]

Huguenot, despite your "grammatical competence", your post doesn't really make sense. I haven't seen any evidence of GGT being "menacing" on this thread and I can't see how you are infering any threats of violence. The reason they post as a "team" is because the individual poster is representing the group, not in an attempt to intimidate (and I can't understand how you can be "intimidated" by posts on a internet forum).

[citizenED]

Question of the day; how are houses different from cars? Or ballpoint pens for that matter.

[The Minkey]

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone - yadda yadda

[Huggers]

its not like stealing a car though is it. Theyre not going to sell it on. Its more borrowing.And I mean that as an analogy by the way.

[pk]

Huggers Wrote:

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

> its not like stealing a car though is it. Theyre

> not going to sell it on. Its more borrowing.And I

> mean that as an analogy by the way.

i agree, they're not necessarily going to 'permanently deprive' the owner and they're not going to move it so that the owner can't find it

an alternative analogy would be: finding a football in the park with no apparent owner and playing with it in that park but not taking it away, so that the owner is still able to find it and claim it (something that i see often in playgrounds)

[jollybaby]

Apart from the fact that a house costs a few hundred thousands times more, hasn't been left 'lying around' and creates slightly more complicated issues if the borrower doesn't want to give it back.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Apart from the fact that a house costs a few hundred thousands times more, hasn't been left 'lying around' and creates slightly more complicated issues if the borrower doesn't want to give it back.

No, its exactly like a football.

[ianr]

The zoopla site that someone mentioned estimated a rental income for this house as a figure that I calculated as roughly 5% of purchase cost. While it's unrented, the owner is forgoing that.

[pk]

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote:

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

> Apart from the fact that a house costs a few

> hundred thousands times more, hasn't been left

> 'lying around' and creates slightly more

> complicated issues if the borrower doesn't want to

> give it back.

>

> No, its exactly like a football.

analogies aren't supposed to be exactly the same, if they were they wouldn't be analogies

cars aren't exactly the same as houses either (you can drive them for a start, but i am not going to get into an argument about which of a car or a football is more like a house)

[The Minkey]

"The zoopla site that someone mentioned estimated a rental income for this house as a figure that I calculated as roughly 5% of purchase cost. While it's unrented, the owner is forgoing that."

Quite true, had the owner been planning to rent it out right now, but it seems the owner is planning on doing a complete refurb, and presumably wasn't planning on renting it out until the work had been completed, in which case they aren't forgoing that at all.

[Waldo]

I don't think they did themselves any favours coming on here, but it was brave nevertheless.

The fact of the matter is, affordable housing in London doesn't exist. I think it a very inventive thing to do whilst studying and shows great initiative and resourcefulness. Even if it's not a political standpoint and they are just freeloading, I salute them.

[Huguenot]

Ridiculous award goes to Waldo.

There are many things that aren't affordable, and theft/robbery isn't showing initiative and resourcefulness.

Waldo, you're simply not thinking this through. Must try harder.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Propery is theft!

Kill the rich.

Revolution now.

[Huggers]

Look on the bright side. Perhaps the people who own the house are the same property developers who have bought the flat next door to my house, erected what we experience on our side as a seven foot fence and turned the light out in our sunny south facing garden in the twinkling of an eye while erecting whatever they want behind it. Now that would be karma.

[Waldo]

Housing should be affordable. That's the difference. I mean it's not like they're living in luxury, is it?

I refuse to try harder on a saturday.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Food, water and shelter are the fundamental needs of all humans.

The enclosing of common land started the commodification of land and homes and Thatcher then Blair took it to a level that means that one of the most fundamental needs of all human beings is now out of reach of millions.

Living in a caravan or tent is not an option for most as there are too many restrictions on where you can pitch/park.

Cars and other property are not something that is fundamental to survival, so 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.

[hellosailor]

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!'

[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?

[hellosailor]

Actually Meld several of us family members put all our savings together to put a deposit down on the flat I mentioned in the other thread, in order to rent it out to generate an income, 100% of which pays for carers for my mother as she is too ill to wash, dress or cook for herself, and we couldn't afford to pay for her to have the level of care she needed without selling the home we grew up in and spending the savings we had tried to put aside in our early 20s. not an easy feat considering that we were in our mid twenties at the time and none of us have ever earned more than 18k a year. I only hope the flat has gone up 90k, as my mother is not yet 60 and will need increasing care for the rest of her life. So I'm not on the ladder either - I spent the money I could have put towards 'getting on the ladder' on paying for care for my mother because having worked hard all her life the 'system'which you confidently assert is 'working great for me' does not see fit to look after her.

Still find it 'funny'?

edited to add

just read over your other posts on this thread including the sophisticated response to helena handbasket, 'why not wind your neck in and climb back into your box?' and now wish I hadn't taken 2 minutes out of my life to reply to your last 'contribution'.

[intexasatthe moment]

Things vary according to where you live ( politics ) but here in Southwark I help care for a lady in her 90's who lives alone with no mobility etc .

She has not had to sell the family home and makes a nominal contribution towards the 10 carers provided by social services who call every day .

[Rambo]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Things vary according to where you live ( politics

> ) but here in Southwark I help care for a lady in

> her 90's who lives alone with no mobility etc .

> She has not had to sell the family home and makes

> a nominal contribution towards the 10 carers

> provided by social services who call every day .

Are you kidding? Do you lot not find this a little insensitive considering what's been said?

Well done for looking after that old lady though - I'm sure that acts as an appropriate counterbalance for being a cretin the rest of the time.