squatters on goose green (Lounged)

[The Minkey]

The only truly awful neighbours I've ever had have been legitimate paying tenants. So, while we're on the subject of morality, I feel there's a certain immorality involved in renting out a property to tenants who blight the lives of those around them.

[Sue]

I'm sure most people who rent out their house don't deliberately rent it to people who blight the lives of those around them :))

[babignail]

I see a ideal project opportunity....

Let's get the community and squatters united - maybe through art and music!?

[Huguenot]

It does seem to me that there's an inconsistency in squatters claiming 'rights'.

By occupying a vacant property that belongs to someone else without their permission you are effectively rejecting society's self-imposed regulations, and yet in claiming defensive legal rights you're trying to hold them up as a standard.

This strikes me as picking and choosing the laws that you fancy. It's manipulative, deceitful and frankly a rip-off.

I agree with Brendan that housing should be high up on the list of obligations, but we have a government for that and need to use the systems we create, not just take what we want.

I think we'd all agree that that's not the best idea? Otherwise I'll have your telly please.

Incidentally (and just teasing) do squatters also reject the regulations of grammar and spelling? What are these guys studying? How do they coherently communicate their learning?

[Milo]

So Huguenot, what you're saying is, 'society's self-imposed regulations' (whatever the hell they are, sounds like a phrase from a tabloid newspaper) should take precedence over legal rights, but the government should create systems to run our society, and we should follow them. But by the government, you don't mean the Legislature because you've already made it clear that laws are subsidiary to 'society's self-imposed regulations'. But 'society's self-imposed regulations' are not the same as we the people making our own laws because we should 'not just take what we want'.

It seems to me that the inconsistency is in your thinking, but at least you didn't make any spelling mistakes.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Lol, Milo that is very astute of you if you don't mine me saying. Much as I love Mr Huguenot, I think your analysis of his post is brilliant!

[woofmarkthedog]

B*llox....

If the property isn't secured properly & not obviously lived in then good luck to them "The Goose Green Sqautters" x(sic)

Good neighbors are priceless & if this lot are not making a nuisance in the area, then IMHO it adds a bit of "social texture"

But drive everyone mad & it's "face the pitchfork" time

Good luck in the meantime

W**F

[davidhealy]

I live on Goose Green and whilst I agree that the squatters have not been a nuisance (in fact I didnt know they were there), legal or not it is still not right.

My understanding is the building was up for auction a few months ago and chances are the owner the squatters are in discussions with could potentially be the new owner. That being the case he may have purchased this property with the intention of doing it up and either renting it or selling it. I believe it is the old halfway house.

I must say if I had just bought a property only to find squatters in it I would be very angry. In my mind it is tantamount to theft legal or otherwise - they are enjoying the use of an asset that belongs to someone else without fair payment or consideration.

I suspect that every legal loophole the owner can exploit they will use to counteract the one that the squatters sail under!

[Milo]

David, what is legal theft? Care to offer a definition, or is it just a broad term you use to describe anything you don't like?

My understanding of a legal loophole is an area in law which the legislature has failed to address, typically a grey area. The laws protecting squatters have been clearly thought through, by parliament and approved by the HofLs, hardly a loophole, or is loophole another term you use to describe anything you don't like?

The squatters are enjoying the use of an 'asset' (is that how you think of property?) which is not being used by its owner, in fact has been abandoned.

Despite Cameron's poor performance on TV last night, with this level of critical thinking, the Tory's are going to breeze the general election.

[Milo]

"social texture"

Nice expression.

[Huguenot]

Sorry Milo, I was unclear.

The 'law' is 'society's self-imposed regulations'. We create the law for ourselves through a democratically elected parliament.

What I'm saying is that squatters reject the law when they occupy someone else's property, but then they want the law to protect them when they're going to be kicked out.

To me that's mendacious.

If these guys feel they want to live outside society then fine, we'll debate it, but you can't go crying to courts because you then want society's protection.

The other thing about the goosegreenteam is that they've already implied they're up for a bit of aggro if things don't go their way. That's like stealing my telly and telling me, whilst polishing a flick knife, that it'll all be fine unless I try and get it back .

I mean, it's probably far more likely that these guys simply chose to spend their money on fags and booze instead of rent, the rest of it is smoke and mirrors.

[Milo]

You've confused me more Huguenot:

How do the squatters reject the law, when they're not breaking it? Where did the goosegreenteam imply they were up of 'a bit of aggro'? Why are you making stuff up?

They don't live outside society, just your interpretation of how society should be. An interpretation which I would guess, based on the comments on this forum and on the opinion of the legislator, is probably not even the majority view.

Re your last sentence; yep Cameron's going to do well!

[woofmarkthedog]

God forbid....

There are those whose world view is collected up on the pages of whatever Saturday/Sunday broadsheet they salute to

It's other people that live in "those kind of places" not them, no. They prefer an airbrused mindset, rosie views at the end of their noses & definitely not "that lot" anywhere near the bottom of their shoe

For them squatting is what goes on in a Greek toilet, not in a place ripe for gentrification

It's like somebody has kicked the Jigsaw puzzle world they live in

It's that they are not happy with

In fact they are very bloody angry

Indeed they are

W**F

[Milo]

You might be right woof, but I'm not sure that the voices critical of the squatters have their source in any broadsheet. Anger? Anger suggests passion. I think resentment and intolerance might be better words.

[Huguenot]

Sorry Milo, goosegreenteam said the following:

"We will have to see how we are approached by the owners, if they are forcefull and agressive then we will be less reluctant to cooperate."

I think a 'reluctance to cooperate' with someone who is being 'forceful' is a euphemism for being up for a bit of aggro. You may not think so, and I can't prove it - but I rather think it's a euphemism. As I said, it's implied.

I also simply don't believe the front door was left swinging open for passersby to move in. I think there was probably a bit of jiggling, a bit of pushing and a bit of teasing - all with the intent of claiming the door was left open so it can be claimed that no breaking and entering took place. I can't prove it, it's just an opinion.

Rather than 'my interpretation' of society, I kind of think these chaps have decided that it's all about what they want, haven't they?

They don't like, or don't want to apply or don't qualify for social housing, and they don't want to live at home with Mum and Dad, so they've just helped themselves to someone else's house.

As it happens I agree that housing shouldn't be left vacant, that the poor and needy should be supported, but we have systems and processes agreed by democratic government. That's our society. Not mine.

[Jeremy]

Hugo... I don't think it's a good idea to use the word "law" to describe both socially accepted norms, and written law of the land. It doesn't help your case.

Although I do agree with your last point - there is an implication that they are quite ready for things to turn nasty.

[woofmarkthedog]

Milo

Yes, I do mean "angry"

Read any broadsheet homes supplement on a weekend, it's pretty much about places on the "up" or curious green & regeneration issues, happening "elsewhere"

"Squatters on your doorstep" doesn't feature that often

W**F

[Huguenot]

Quite right Jeremy, my bad. I was unclear.

[Milo]

I took the line, "we will be less reluctant to cooperate.", as meaning we will be difficult and drag it out through use of our legal rights, perhaps I'm wrong, maybe the squatters will clear that up when they're on here next.

Stating the two options available for acceptable living as being social housing, or living with parents is definitely your interpretation of life. Perhaps they didn't qualify for social housing or are on a waiting list? Perhaps there has been a family break up? Perhaps Mum and Dad are squatting too :) Why don't you ask before making judgements?

As Brendon pointed out earlier, people may well squat because the government provision isn't enough.

[Huguenot]

Milo, all that is possible, but I believe that needs to be addressed through democratic government and social provision, not by helping yourself to someone else's house.

Even violent gangstas have a hard luck story, doesn't give them the right to be a violent gangsta.

[Milo]

Huguenot, who do you think creates our laws? Squatters have rights enshrined in law, the issue HAS been addressed through democratic government!!!

[pk]

Milo Wrote:

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

> I took the line, "we will be less reluctant to

> cooperate.", as meaning we will be difficult and

> drag it out through use of our legal rights,

>

so did i although what it actually says is (to paraphrase) 'we will be more likely to cooperate' (i.e. less reluctant)

[Huguenot]

Are squatters allowed to force entry?

If so, I'm shocked.

Unfortunately I don't place much trust in squatters who claim they didn't force entry, as I don't believe that people leave the door swinging in the wind. Maybe I'm cynical.

Even so, let's assume they did get in without forcing it...

I understand that the squatter's rights to a property only apply once they are resident, and only apply after 20-odd years? Otherwise the owner simply has to prove that they have the rights to a property. Squatters don't appear to have clear 'rights' other than to prove that the owner doesn't have the rights to live at the property and 28 days maximum to clear off.

In other words the law says the squatters occupation is illegal and rather indulges them with a month's notice

I also understand that the owner of a property is legally allowed to use reasonable force to evict squatters?

Seems to me that our democratic government has effectively enshrined law that doesn't welcome squatting, and believes that the owner of the property deserves to have it! ;-) Everything else is just delaying tactics and obtaining proof before action.

[James Barber]

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.

[Huguenot]

Now that is a shock, and worthy of serious political commitment.

Just a note though.... ;-)

I understand from various sources that some of those 5,500 homes require heavy investment to bring back into use because they were deliberately gutted of utilities (and concrete poured down loos) in order to stop squatters coming in.

If that is true, it is significant irony that it is actually the action of squatters that has ensured that social housing stock is scuppered.

Hoist and petards sping to mind.