Squaters rights

[bridge7too7far]

My friend is gettin reallly upset about her mum who owns a flat in Barsley and has squatters in there who won't leave because they say they have squaters rightss. How can they have rights for breaking intyo a flat you own. It's like havng burglars and they have no rights. Can anyone help?

[GiRTh]

Amy, what you need to do is contact your solicitor or your local CAB. They'll be able to help you.

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by GiRTh
Amy, what you need to do is contact your solicitor or your local CAB. They'll be able to help you.

I'm Graham not Amy okayy ot you can call me G for short, most do. Thanks for help anyway I said that squatters say they got the rights, so whats a solicitor gonna doo. Whats CAB?

[Captain.Remy]

I don't know if it's the same system as the french one but until the end of the winter, you can't eject them from the flat as it's winter and it's cold.
So if it's the same law then your friend will have to wait until april to sue them

[Shaun]

This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.

[Captain.Remy]

Message original : Shaun
This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.

I'm not saying it's good or bad because we can debate about it for a long time but I think you can't eject them until the end of the winter because it's cold outside (that's the main reason, the law is more complicated).

[Stu]

Originally posted by Shaun
This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.
Ask a few of them and im sure they will tell your their not homeless by choice. Many of them fell short of what you have...luck.

Some people want to take on the responsibility of taking homeless people in to their care by choice. I think its a fairly admirable thing to do , so dont make the mistake of throwing us all into your ''I dont care if the homeless people stay on the streets'' crowd. Or dare I say...box.

[Legend]

Originally posted by Shaun
I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever.

You're not half heartless aren't you? :tongue:

But seriously, it's really not as black and white as all homeless people being druggies or alchoholics. Of course they are homeless for a reason, but there are numerous reasons and not all of them are the person's fault as you seem to be implying.

I don't agree that they should have "rights" but I don't think they should be kicked back out onto the streets. I think help should be given or at least offered to those squatting. Obviously it wouldn't be nice to have people squatting in your house but I don't think squatting would be top of their list of places to "live".

[Stu]

I might be wrong here...but are we all getting a bit mixed up with terminology? Isint a squatter somebody who occupies an abandoned only space? Surely being put up in an active apartment is just lodging?

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by Captain.Remy
I don't know if it's the same system as the french one but until the end of the winter, you can't eject them from the flat as it's winter and it's cold.
So if it's the same law then your friend will have to wait until april to sue them

I don't know for suree wether thats the reason. I'll have to ask again for details, I know that sueing cost money for soliccitors and thats not right either. It's nobodys fault but the squiatters

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by Shaun
This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.

here here to that coment :thumbs: there is hostals for the homeless, let them sleep there instead of breaking an entering. Squatters should be treated the same as burglers

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally posted by bridge7too7far

you can call me G for short

That makes two of you!

[Stu]

Originally posted by bridge7too7far
Originally posted by Shaun
This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.

here here to that coment :thumbs: there is hostals for the homeless, let them sleep there instead of breaking an entering. Squatters should be treated the same as burglers
Hostels fill up , leaving homeless people still living on the streets. Plus the majority of squatters dont break and enter , they just live in buildings that have been derelict for some time.

What sort of IQ do you hold to claim that homeless wanderers looking for shelter in a building that are [most of the time] completely empty should be treated the same as burgalars?

Have you any concept of what a squatter is?

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.
Ask a few of them and Im sure they will tell your their not homeless by choice. Many of them fell short of what you have...luck.

Some people want to take on the responsibility of taking homeless people in to their care by choice. I think its a fairly admirable thing to do , so dont make the mistake of throwing us all into your ''I dont care if the homeless people stay on the streets'' crowd. Or dare I say...box.

I didn't say it was by their choice, but as a homeowner it's also not their choice to have people claiming rights to their home. It's absurd. It's actually theft.

And there's a difference between offering homeless people a home, and them actually taking it.

Originally posted by Legend

Of course they are homeless for a reason, but there are numerous reasons and not all of them are the person's fault as you seem to be implying.

I don't agree that they should have "rights" but I don't think they should be kicked back out onto the streets. I think help should be given or at least offered to those squatting. Obviously it wouldn't be nice to have people squatting in your house but I don't think squatting would be top of their list of places to "live".

Again, didn't say it was their choice. I understand that not all homeless people can help it...that's why I said "whatever" as I could have gone on listing possible reasons for their lack of shelter.

And regardless of whether they have no alternative but to claim squatter's rights or live on the streets - it's still ultimately theft and intrusion on someone's property.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Shaun
Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.
Ask a few of them and Im sure they will tell your their not homeless by choice. Many of them fell short of what you have...luck.

Some people want to take on the responsibility of taking homeless people in to their care by choice. I think its a fairly admirable thing to do , so dont make the mistake of throwing us all into your ''I dont care if the homeless people stay on the streets'' crowd. Or dare I say...box.

I didn't say it was by their choice, but as a homeowner it's also not their choice to have people claiming rights to their home. It's absurd. It's actually theft.

And there's a difference between offering homeless people a home, and them actually taking it.


And once again all of this issssssssssssss... [drum roll] not squatting.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.
Ask a few of them and Im sure they will tell your their not homeless by choice. Many of them fell short of what you have...luck.

Some people want to take on the responsibility of taking homeless people in to their care by choice. I think its a fairly admirable thing to do , so dont make the mistake of throwing us all into your ''I dont care if the homeless people stay on the streets'' crowd. Or dare I say...box.

I didn't say it was by their choice, but as a homeowner it's also not their choice to have people claiming rights to their home. It's absurd. It's actually theft.

And there's a difference between offering homeless people a home, and them actually taking it.


And once again all of this issssssssssssss... [drum roll] not squatting.

From Wikipedia:

In England and Wales, the term 'squatting' usually refers to occupying an empty house in a city. The owner of the house must go through various legal proceedings before evicting squatters. Squatting is regarded in law as a civil, not a criminal, matter. However, if there is evidence of forced entry then this is regarded as trespass and the police have the powers to remove the occupants. If the squatter legally occupies the house, then the owner must prove in court that they have a right to live in the property and that the squatter does not, whilst the squatter has the opportunity to claim there is not sufficient proof or that the proper legal steps have not been taken. In order to occupy a house legally, a squatter must have exclusive access to that property, that is, be able to open and lock an entrance. The property should be secure in the same way as a normal residence, with no broken windows or locks.

Erm...claiming rights to someone's home, yes. That'd be squatting.

You seem to be suggesting that all squatters are nice and rosy. A distant cousin of mine (3rd cousin), who lives nearby, is homeless. I've seen myself what leads someone to that course of life. It isn't 'woe is me' unluckiness, there are plenty of opportunities in this country if we only seize them: free education for all children being one example of that.

[Tom]

Squatters as IMO no better than thieves. They are essentially breaking into property that isn't theirs, yet they are being rewarded for it with squatters rights!! Its madness.

[Dr43%er]

This may help.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/squatters.htm

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
This may help.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/squatters.htm

Thnaks I'll print that off and give her a coppy next time I see her

[Stu]

Originally posted by Shaun
You seem to be suggesting that all squatters are nice and rosy. A distant cousin of mine (3rd cousin), who lives nearby, is homeless. I've seen myself what leads someone to that course of life. It isn't 'woe is me' unluckiness, there are plenty of opportunities in this country if we only seize them: free education for all children being one example of that.
Your STILL missing my point. Squaters are people who live in predominantly empty or abandoned houses , doing nobody any harm except perhaps the owner of the completely unused property.

People here are suggesting they should be treated as theives because they break and enter into an occupied home and sleep on the rug while grandpa trys to watch the TV. Thats not a squater and they should not be treated as thieves. Thats a stupid thing to say. They live in buildings that would otherwise be burned to the ground by some ASBO sooner or later. If you want to say they steal , fine , but the buildings are unused. I call it opportunity.

[Dr43%er]

I had a property that was empty for around 10 months whilst I was waiting for a grant from the government. The property was not abandoned, but empty. If a squatter had got in there I then would have had the cost and hassle to remove them. Why should it cost me time and money to be able to do what i want with my own property?

[GiRTh]

Originally posted by Mrluvaluva
Originally posted by bridge7too7far

you can call me G for short

That makes two of you! It's a few more than two isn't it?

[Matt08]

Originally posted by bridge7too7far
My friend is gettin reallly upset about her mum who owns a flat in Barsley and has squatters in there who won't leave because they say they have squaters rightss. How can they have rights for breaking intyo a flat you own. It's like havng burglars and they have no rights. Can anyone help?

The best thing for your friend to do would be to contact her nearest Citizens Advice Bearau, who would be able to tell her what her legal rights are. Once she knew her legal rights, she could take it from there. If it came to the conclusion that the sqatters were there illegially, then she could get the police to remove them from her flat.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
You seem to be suggesting that all squatters are nice and rosy. A distant cousin of mine (3rd cousin), who lives nearby, is homeless. I've seen myself what leads someone to that course of life. It isn't 'woe is me' unluckiness, there are plenty of opportunities in this country if we only seize them: free education for all children being one example of that.
Your STILL missing my point. Squaters are people who live in predominantly empty or abandoned houses , doing nobody any harm except perhaps the owner of the completely unused property.

People here are suggesting they should be treated as theives because they break and enter into an occupied home and sleep on the rug while grandpa trys to watch the TV. Thats not a squater and they should not be treated as thieves. Thats a stupid thing to say. They live in buildings that would otherwise be burned to the ground by some ASBO sooner or later. If you want to say they steal , fine , but the buildings are unused. I call it opportunity.

And you're still missing my point - it's ultimately property that does not belong to them, and is no different at all to breaking and entering, other than causing damage. It doesn't matter if the property owner has been away from there for a week or 50 years, it's still his, and squatters have no [moral] right to inhabit it if the owner doesn't want them to.

Taking the example with the topic starter here, it's obviously causing his friend's mum a great deal of stress and concern to have these squatters claiming their property - and in my opinion that's just not right.

[Sunny_01]

The link that Dr gave to you gives some great info I would pass that on ASAP so you can take the right steps quickly.

Squatters do not discriminate about where they will move into, run down buildings, new builds etc.. at the end of the day they make a choice to try and live in property that belongs to someone else and dont pay anything towards it. Why should they live rent free?

[Stu]

Originally posted by Shaun
Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
You seem to be suggesting that all squatters are nice and rosy. A distant cousin of mine (3rd cousin), who lives nearby, is homeless. I've seen myself what leads someone to that course of life. It isn't 'woe is me' unluckiness, there are plenty of opportunities in this country if we only seize them: free education for all children being one example of that.
Your STILL missing my point. Squaters are people who live in predominantly empty or abandoned houses , doing nobody any harm except perhaps the owner of the completely unused property.

People here are suggesting they should be treated as theives because they break and enter into an occupied home and sleep on the rug while grandpa trys to watch the TV. Thats not a squater and they should not be treated as thieves. Thats a stupid thing to say. They live in buildings that would otherwise be burned to the ground by some ASBO sooner or later. If you want to say they steal , fine , but the buildings are unused. I call it opportunity.

And you're still missing my point - it's ultimately property that does not belong to them, and is no different at all to breaking and entering, other than causing damage. It doesn't matter if the property owner has been away from there for a week or 50 years, it's still his, and squatters have no [moral] right to inhabit it if the owner doesn't want them to.

Taking the example with the topic starter here, it's obviously causing his friend's mum a great deal of stress and concern to have these squatters claiming their property - and in my opinion that's just not right.
So its not moral in our affluent society to use a house that has been unused for YEARS , boreded up , or burnt half to the ground as squat residences of shelter? Because thats the kind of place most squaters live in. The kind of place where the owner has long since lost care for the place. Its not wrong. Its not right. Its just putting somebody under a roof that would otherwise be used for sweet **** all. Who gives a damn about papers.

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by Matt08
Originally posted by bridge7too7far
My friend is gettin reallly upset about her mum who owns a flat in Barsley and has squatters in there who won't leave because they say they have squaters rightss. How can they have rights for breaking intyo a flat you own. It's like havng burglars and they have no rights. Can anyone help?

The best thing for your friend to do would be to contact her nearest Citizens Advice Bearau, who would be able to tell her what her legal rights are. Once she knew her legal rights, she could take it from there. If it came to the conclusion that the sqatters were there illegially, then she could get the police to remove them from her flat.

I spoke to me freind and she will read soem of what is in here. Thanks for help evryone :thumbs:

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
You seem to be suggesting that all squatters are nice and rosy. A distant cousin of mine (3rd cousin), who lives nearby, is homeless. I've seen myself what leads someone to that course of life. It isn't 'woe is me' unluckiness, there are plenty of opportunities in this country if we only seize them: free education for all children being one example of that.
Your STILL missing my point. Squaters are people who live in predominantly empty or abandoned houses , doing nobody any harm except perhaps the owner of the completely unused property.

People here are suggesting they should be treated as theives because they break and enter into an occupied home and sleep on the rug while grandpa trys to watch the TV. Thats not a squater and they should not be treated as thieves. Thats a stupid thing to say. They live in buildings that would otherwise be burned to the ground by some ASBO sooner or later. If you want to say they steal , fine , but the buildings are unused. I call it opportunity.

And you're still missing my point - it's ultimately property that does not belong to them, and is no different at all to breaking and entering, other than causing damage. It doesn't matter if the property owner has been away from there for a week or 50 years, it's still his, and squatters have no [moral] right to inhabit it if the owner doesn't want them to.

Taking the example with the topic starter here, it's obviously causing his friend's mum a great deal of stress and concern to have these squatters claiming their property - and in my opinion that's just not right.
So its not moral in our affluent society to use a house that has been unused for YEARS , boreded up , or burnt half to the ground as squat residences of shelter? Because thats the kind of place most squaters live in. The kind of place where the owner has long since lost care for the place. Its not wrong. Its not right. Its just putting somebody under a roof that would otherwise be used for sweet **** all. Who gives a damn about papers.

No, I don't think it is. Like sunny said, why should they have accommodation rent, mortgage, house price-free? It's not fair on other members of society.

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by Sunny_01
The link that Dr gave to you gives some great info I would pass that on ASAP so you can take the right steps quickly.

Squatters do not discriminate about where they will move into, run down buildings, new builds etc.. at the end of the day they make a choice to try and live in property that belongs to someone else and dont pay anything towards it. Why should they live rent free?

Will do lol I've printd it off too. It's horrible Squatters find your own place to live instead of pinching somones elses place and makin it your own

[Tom]

Empty derelict building or not, its someones property and its still breaking and entering. A lot of the older buildings are bulldozed or renovated. Should they stay up in their current state just because there are squatters?

There are plenty of opportunities for squatters to get their lives back on track, they just choose not to grasp hold of them.

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by Tom_
Empty derelict building or not, its someones property and its still breaking and entering. A lot of the older buildings are bulldozed or renovated. Should they stay up in their current state just because there are squatters?

There are plenty of opportunities for squatters to get their lives back on track, they just choose not to grasp hold of them.

It's like the Cuckoo birdd who lays it's eggs in anoter bird's nests, too lazy to make it's own lol

[Stu]

Originally posted by Shaun
Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
You seem to be suggesting that all squatters are nice and rosy. A distant cousin of mine (3rd cousin), who lives nearby, is homeless. I've seen myself what leads someone to that course of life. It isn't 'woe is me' unluckiness, there are plenty of opportunities in this country if we only seize them: free education for all children being one example of that.
Your STILL missing my point. Squaters are people who live in predominantly empty or abandoned houses , doing nobody any harm except perhaps the owner of the completely unused property.

People here are suggesting they should be treated as theives because they break and enter into an occupied home and sleep on the rug while grandpa trys to watch the TV. Thats not a squater and they should not be treated as thieves. Thats a stupid thing to say. They live in buildings that would otherwise be burned to the ground by some ASBO sooner or later. If you want to say they steal , fine , but the buildings are unused. I call it opportunity.

And you're still missing my point - it's ultimately property that does not belong to them, and is no different at all to breaking and entering, other than causing damage. It doesn't matter if the property owner has been away from there for a week or 50 years, it's still his, and squatters have no [moral] right to inhabit it if the owner doesn't want them to.

Taking the example with the topic starter here, it's obviously causing his friend's mum a great deal of stress and concern to have these squatters claiming their property - and in my opinion that's just not right.
So its not moral in our affluent society to use a house that has been unused for YEARS , boreded up , or burnt half to the ground as squat residences of shelter? Because thats the kind of place most squaters live in. The kind of place where the owner has long since lost care for the place. Its not wrong. Its not right. Its just putting somebody under a roof that would otherwise be used for sweet **** all. Who gives a damn about papers.

No, I don't think it is. Like sunny said, why should they have accommodation rent, mortgage, house price-free? It's not fair on other members of society.
Its not fair because we are paying for what we get. Nice homes. They on the other hand live on concrete floors of rat infested pits. I really dont see why so many people are complaining and getting outraged.

[Sunny_01]

But they are not all living in run down properties thats the whole point. There is even a squatters advisory service on the web where they advertise for space and discuss "their rights" as squatters.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
You seem to be suggesting that all squatters are nice and rosy. A distant cousin of mine (3rd cousin), who lives nearby, is homeless. I've seen myself what leads someone to that course of life. It isn't 'woe is me' unluckiness, there are plenty of opportunities in this country if we only seize them: free education for all children being one example of that.
Your STILL missing my point. Squaters are people who live in predominantly empty or abandoned houses , doing nobody any harm except perhaps the owner of the completely unused property.

People here are suggesting they should be treated as theives because they break and enter into an occupied home and sleep on the rug while grandpa trys to watch the TV. Thats not a squater and they should not be treated as thieves. Thats a stupid thing to say. They live in buildings that would otherwise be burned to the ground by some ASBO sooner or later. If you want to say they steal , fine , but the buildings are unused. I call it opportunity.

And you're still missing my point - it's ultimately property that does not belong to them, and is no different at all to breaking and entering, other than causing damage. It doesn't matter if the property owner has been away from there for a week or 50 years, it's still his, and squatters have no [moral] right to inhabit it if the owner doesn't want them to.

Taking the example with the topic starter here, it's obviously causing his friend's mum a great deal of stress and concern to have these squatters claiming their property - and in my opinion that's just not right.
So its not moral in our affluent society to use a house that has been unused for YEARS , boreded up , or burnt half to the ground as squat residences of shelter? Because thats the kind of place most squaters live in. The kind of place where the owner has long since lost care for the place. Its not wrong. Its not right. Its just putting somebody under a roof that would otherwise be used for sweet **** all. Who gives a damn about papers.

No, I don't think it is. Like sunny said, why should they have accommodation rent, mortgage, house price-free? It's not fair on other members of society.
Its not fair because we are paying for what we get. Nice homes. They on the other hand live on concrete floors of rat infested pits. I really dont see why so many people are complaining and getting outraged.

Firstly - it's still not their property and they have no right to it, whatever the condition is.

And secondly, as Sunny has pointed out, not all properties inhabited by Squatters are "concrete floors" and "infested pits" - especially if they're able to get internet access and discuss their own rights online.

[Stu]

My point to counter the two of you is that most of the residences ARE pits - at least the squats in Cork are.

And their are internet cafes now days Shaun. They come fairly cheap. One or two hours would be payed for im guessing by about 5 minuets begging.

[Shaun]

Oh come off it, you're just clutching at straws now. How many residences have you actually seen? Very few, I'm guessing.

And besides - even if they are pits, so what? They're not exactly in a position to moan, and even besides that - they shouldn't be there anyway. It's not their land.

[Christina]

It is basically theft.. they should have no right to do this x

[Sunny_01]

I hate to come across as being uncaring. I do care about the homeless, BUT I believe our government should be doing more to support them and aid them with housing. I do not think that anyone should think it is ok to just take what you want or need in this life. Belive me Stu I have not always had a comfortable lifestyle but I never just took what I needed. They are not above the law, no-one should be above the law.

[Legend]

So many homeless people are just not in the right state of mind to "change their lives" ... yeah it's possible, it's possible to go from being homeless to living a great life but some people are just not in the right frame of mind to "get up and change" so they do what they can to survive and get through the day. Obviously they aren't above the law, etc, etc but I feel that if houses are abandoned and homeless people are squatting to simply keep dry then I don't feel they are doing anybody any harm whatsoever. Obviously it wouldn't be nice to know that your property is being used by squatters but I don't blame them for what they do, I know if I ever found myself in that position *touch wood* then I'd do whatever I could do to make the nights slightly more comfortable.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Legend
So many homeless people are just not in the right state of mind to "change their lives" ... yeah it's possible, it's possible to go from being homeless to living a great life but some people are just not in the right frame of mind to "get up and change" so they do what they can to survive and get through the day. Obviously they aren't above the law, etc, etc but I feel that if houses are abandoned and homeless people are squatting to simply keep dry then I don't feel they are doing anybody any harm whatsoever.

But obviously they are causing harm, because the thread starter's friend's mum is stressed out over it and doesn't want them there. It should be her choice who is in her house.

[Legend]

Originally posted by Shaun
Originally posted by Legend
So many homeless people are just not in the right state of mind to "change their lives" ... yeah it's possible, it's possible to go from being homeless to living a great life but some people are just not in the right frame of mind to "get up and change" so they do what they can to survive and get through the day. Obviously they aren't above the law, etc, etc but I feel that if houses are abandoned and homeless people are squatting to simply keep dry then I don't feel they are doing anybody any harm whatsoever.

But obviously they are causing harm, because the thread starter's friend's mum is stressed out over it and doesn't want them there. It should be her choice who is in her house.

Yeah, that's just one example. And in that case, something should be done about it, she should get her property back how it was but I also think help should be given to the squatters and that they are not just kicked out to go and find another place to squat.

However, there are a lot of cases were people squat in properties that the owner hasn't looked at in years, they are left to waste away and left for people to vandalise daily anyway, so in cases like this, I don't see any harm in the homeless trying to make their life slightly more easier.

I think it just boils down to the government trying to do more to help the homeless. If they spent less time interfering and dictating people's day to day lives and worried more about the people who needed their help most then I'm sure the problem wouldn't be as big ... sure it's always going to be there but as Tesco says ... every little helps.

[Shaun]

Yeah, I agree with you on that - more should be down to help the homeless, such as funding more shelters - but ultimately there are shelters around for the homeless. Sure, they're crap now, but again [I like reiterating :wink:] that's not the home-owner's fault.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Shaun
Oh come off it, you're just clutching at straws now. How many residences have you actually seen? Very few, I'm guessing.

And besides - even if they are pits, so what? They're not exactly in a position to moan, and even besides that - they shouldn't be there anyway. It's not their land.
About half a mile down the road from me theirs a circle of red brick houses that are all borded up and burned down. Everybody has moved out. The government seem reluctant to do anything with them. Squats. Not theft , in my opinion.

Can you accept that instead of claiming im clutching to straws? I think you should just move on and stop trying to prove a point or we will be here all day.

[Dr43%er]

"I don't see any harm in the homeless trying to make their life slightly more easier."

Ok, I agree with that, but should they have more rights than the owner of the property? It may be empty now, but when the owner wants to do something they can not, so the property stays in a state of disrepair.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
Oh come off it, you're just clutching at straws now. How many residences have you actually seen? Very few, I'm guessing.

And besides - even if they are pits, so what? They're not exactly in a position to moan, and even besides that - they shouldn't be there anyway. It's not their land.
About half a mile down the road from me theirs a circle of red brick houses that are all borded up and burned down. Everybody has moved out. The government seem reluctant to do anything with them. Squats. Not theft , in my opinion.

Can you accept that instead of claiming Im clutching to straws? I think you should just move on and stop trying to prove a point or we will be here all day.

Well I'm happy to be here all day, since I think my point is right - still not their property...

[Sunny_01]

Like myself and Legend have both said more needs to be done to provide support for the homeless. Their support system is limited and needs to be farther reaching.

I just cant and wont agree that it is ok for people to just move into property owned by someone else, the state of repair is irrespective to be honest. What is important is that they have the right to do as they please with something that they own. They have the right to leave it standing empty for years, thats their choice. Why should they feel ok about someone just moving into it.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
Oh come off it, you're just clutching at straws now. How many residences have you actually seen? Very few, I'm guessing.

And besides - even if they are pits, so what? They're not exactly in a position to moan, and even besides that - they shouldn't be there anyway. It's not their land.
About half a mile down the road from me theirs a circle of red brick houses that are all borded up and burned down. Everybody has moved out. The government seem reluctant to do anything with them. Squats. Not theft , in my opinion.

Can you accept that instead of claiming Im clutching to straws? I think you should just move on and stop trying to prove a point or we will be here all day.

If everyone has moved from a whole set of houses then someone obviously has plans for them whether they remain standing for the time being or not. Perhaps they are being bulldozed but you just haven't heard anything about it. Theres a reason for houses being empty in bulk.

Morpheus, a hypothetical situation. Imagine you are a business man and you are the owner of an old building, and has left it standing for a while but you have plans, and did have before you stopped using the building. When you want to begin to get work done there are squatters inside and when you go in to try and shift them, they say "we have rights". They won't budge. What is your response to that?

[Stu]

Originally posted by Shaun
Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Shaun
Oh come off it, you're just clutching at straws now. How many residences have you actually seen? Very few, I'm guessing.

And besides - even if they are pits, so what? They're not exactly in a position to moan, and even besides that - they shouldn't be there anyway. It's not their land.
About half a mile down the road from me theirs a circle of red brick houses that are all borded up and burned down. Everybody has moved out. The government seem reluctant to do anything with them. Squats. Not theft , in my opinion.

Can you accept that instead of claiming Im clutching to straws? I think you should just move on and stop trying to prove a point or we will be here all day.

Well I'm happy to be here all day, since I think my point is right - still not their property...
Their is no right point. Its a matter of opinion. Just get over yourself.

And to Tom - the thing is that the builder situation you mentioned happens very seldom here. A lot of areas around here are squats , and they litteraly have been from the moment I was granted with the power of memory. Again , im speaking from my own experiences with squatters in this thread. Virtually every squat ive seen has been like this.

[Shaun]

:rolleyes:

Get over myself? I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying I think I'm right. Big difference.

[Stu]

And I think im right. Hence this argument could go on until the cows come home. Your here all day , I on the other hand , am not. So lets just call a spade a spade.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Morpheus

And to Tom - the thing is that the builder situation you mentioned happens very seldom here. A lot of areas around here are squats , and they litteraly have been from the moment I was granted with the power of memory. Again , Im speaking from my own experiences with squatters in this thread. Virtually every squat ive seen has been like this.

Ah, but a lot of squats are renovated or bulldozed in time. Should they remain up in a bad state just to please some tramps who can't be bothered to sort their lives out? Should the land owners just let these people onto their land when they might want to use it just to abide by people who shouldn't even be there in the first place?

[Stu]

Originally posted by Tom_
Originally posted by Morpheus

And to Tom - the thing is that the builder situation you mentioned happens very seldom here. A lot of areas around here are squats , and they litteraly have been from the moment I was granted with the power of memory. Again , Im speaking from my own experiences with squatters in this thread. Virtually every squat ive seen has been like this.

Ah, but a lot of squats are renovated or bulldozed in time. Should they remain up in a bad state just to please some tramps who can't be bothered to sort their lives out? Should the land owners just let these people onto their land when they might want to use it just to abide by people who shouldn't even be there in the first place?
Im not saying they have to be left in a bad state , because most of them are from what ive seen. Again squats that I know tend to be buildings long forgotten by the owners [or sold to our lax city council who have no plans for it].

[Tom]

Well buildings like that stand empty for a reason, because they aren't fit for human use. Do squatters get special treatment on things like that? The average person would probably get arrested if they were caught on the premises, but squatters aren't? Again, I put it down to laziness for not wanting to get their lives back on track, so go about tax dodging and getting everything for free.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Tom_
Well buildings like that stand empty for a reason, because they aren't fit for human use. Do squatters get special treatment on things like that?
Dont you think their is a contradiction their? I would not call living in places not fit for human use 'special treatment'. And you cant use the argument 'what if we were to live their?' . because we dont - were not squatters. I understand what your saying about them getting the building for free but hey , we cant really call it unfair when their getting rat infested shitholes.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Originally posted by Tom_
Well buildings like that stand empty for a reason, because they aren't fit for human use. Do squatters get special treatment on things like that?
Dont you think their is a contradiction their? I would not call living in places not fit for human use 'special treatment'. And you cant use the argument 'what if we were to live their?' . because we dont - were not squatters. I understand what your saying about them getting the building for free but hey , we cant really call it unfair when their getting rat infested shitholes.

It can be called unfair and whether they are in shithole or not its still special treatment from the government.

1) They will be jobless, therefore they dodge taxes and get money for free as well as other things
2) If an ordinary person was to go into the building they could be arrested and charged. If police catch squatters in the building, they have rights and don't necessarily have to be moved- thus getting away with it
3) The argument "we don't live there" can't be used. I never said it could. But the argument of putting yourself in a hypothetical situation and you being the land owner infested by squatters can be used. Think about it.

Sorry to be picky but for future reference:

Their= Posessive pronoun. Relates to a person
There= Adverb. Relates to a location.
They're- Short for they are.

[Sunny_01]

Dont you think this has gone way to far. We all have very different thoughts and feelings about squatting. No one has given Stu an argument that has made him review his thinking. As for picking at how words are spelt, well really there is no need for that.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Sunny_01
Dont you think this has gone way to far. We all have very different thoughts and feelings about squatting. No one has given Stu an argument that has made him review his thinking. As for picking at how words are spelt, well really there is no need for that.

I did say sorry to be picky ... but it just annoys me when people use the wrong word. Spelling doesn't bother me in the slightest but the word does. There and their have different meanings. They shouldn't be used interchangeably.

[Sunny_01]

No-one on this forum is the word police either! it just felt like you were looking for something to have a go about. Starting with "not meaning to be picky" generally means "I mean to be picky" :whistle:

[Tom]

Originally posted by Sunny_01
No-one on this forum is the word police either! it just felt like you were looking for something to have a go about. Starting with "not meaning to be picky" generally means "I mean to be picky" :whistle:

Did I say I was the word police? Can I help it if small things annoy me? I think not.

And I think I know what I meant by "I don't mean to be picky" and it wasn't your suggestion. I meant exactly what I wrote :rolleyes:

And I actually think it could be of little benefit to Morpheus as well.

[Shaun]

"I don't mean to be picky" usually means "I know I sound picky, but tough ****." :tongue:

[Sunny_01]

The small things may well annoy you but that does not mean you have to voice them on here. We have had the discussion about spelling, grammer etc to death, and really as long as someone has posted something in an easy to read manner it is not the right of anyone else to pull them for it. If you want to point something like this out to someone try doing it in a U2U. That makes it less public and stops it looking like you are trying to score cheap points.

[GiRTh]

LOL

Good to see this thread is right on topic.:whistle:

[Tom]

Originally posted by Sunny_01
The small things may well annoy you but that does not mean you have to voice them on here. We have had the discussion about spelling, grammer etc to death, and really as long as someone has posted something in an easy to read manner it is not the right of anyone else to pull them for it. If you want to point something like this out to someone try doing it in a U2U. That makes it less public and stops it looking like you are trying to score cheap points.

Spelling doesn't bother me. Grammar doesn't bother me. Using the wrong word does! There is a huge difference. Yes, its readable but its still the wrong word. I could have PMed him and said but to be frank I don't like to use the PM system I think its stupid and pointless. And not everyone checks their PMs frequently. I'm also not trying to score cheap points- like I said earlier its beneficial to know small things like that. Whos to say there are other people on here that didn't also know who now do?

[GiRTh]

Originally posted by Tom_Using the wrong word Surely that should be 'Using the word in the wrong context'. LOL:whistle:

EDIT: OR better still - 'Using the word in an incorrect context'.

[Tom]

Originally posted by GiRTh
Originally posted by Tom_Using the wrong word Surely that should be 'Using the word in the wrong context'. LOL:whistle:

EDIT: OR better still - 'Using the word in an incorrect context'.

... and thats just essentially what I've written in a more formal way.

[Shaun]

that's

Sorry, couldn't resist. :tongue:

[Tom]

Oh shut up you :bawling:

Edit: I said I don't mind grammar :spin2::spin: I win!

[Captain.Remy]

Message original : Tom_
Oh shut up you :bawling:

I'm seeing a warning coming on its way....

[Tom]

Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Message original : Tom_
Oh shut up you :bawling:

I'm seeing a warning coming on its way....

Why? :puzzled: Its a joke ....

[Captain.Remy]

Message original : Tom_
Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Message original : Tom_
Oh shut up you :bawling:

I'm seeing a warning coming on its way....

Why? :puzzled: Its a joke ....

People can take it seriously, just like I did. We even had a note from Red about that.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Message original : Tom_
Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Message original : Tom_
Oh shut up you :bawling:

I'm seeing a warning coming on its way....

Why? :puzzled: Its a joke ....

People can take it seriously, just like I did. We even had a note from Red about that.

Shaun will clearly know I'm only messing.

[Captain.Remy]

Message original : Tom_
Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Message original : Tom_
Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Message original : Tom_
Oh shut up you :bawling:

I'm seeing a warning coming on its way....

Why? :puzzled: Its a joke ....

People can take it seriously, just like I did. We even had a note from Red about that.

Shaun will clearly know I'm only messing.

You don't really know actually. I'm just saying that sometimes it may be a joke but it's not seen as.

[Tom]

Shaun gets my humour, and I get his. Trust me.

[GiRTh]

Originally posted by Tom_
Shaun gets my humour, and I get his. Trust me. It's nice to see you're all in synch and everything.:whistle:

Surely 'Using the word wrong' is gramatically incorrect. How use the word wrong?

[Tom]

I didn't say I had a problem with grammar :thumbs:

Anyway I think this is getting a little silly now. A big deal being made out of nothing.

[GiRTh]

Originally posted by Tom_
I didn't say I had a problem with grammar :thumbs:

Anyway I think this is getting a little silly now. A big deal being made out of nothing. That's what happens when you start criticising spelling and grammar. Every body makes mistakes. Even professional writers have been known to write run on sentences, use ie when it should be eg, use commas when they should use semi-colons and even split of infinitive. Pointing it out always irritates people.

[Dr43%er]

"Spelling doesn't bother me. Grammar doesn't bother me. Using the wrong word does!"

But surely if they knew they meant "their" but put "there" then they have used the right word, but just spelt it incorrectly.

If the had put "there" and had meant to put "there" when it should have been "their" then it would have been the wrong word.

[bridge7too7far]

Wats spellin got to do with squaters or grammer indeed. Get back on track

[Tom]

Originally posted by GiRTh
Originally posted by Tom_
I didn't say I had a problem with grammar :thumbs:

Anyway I think this is getting a little silly now. A big deal being made out of nothing. That's what happens when you start criticising spelling and grammar. Every body makes mistakes. Even professional writers have been known to write run on sentences, use ie when it should be eg, use commas when they should use semi-colons and even split of infinitive. Pointing it out always irritates people.

You are missing the point. Spelling & grammar doesn't bother me. Using the wrong words does.

Originally posted by Dr43%er
"Spelling doesn't bother me. Grammar doesn't bother me. Using the wrong word does!"

But surely if they knew they meant "their" but put "there" then they have used the right word, but just spelt it incorrectly.

If the had put "there" and had meant to put "there" when it should have been "their" then it would have been the wrong word.

There and their are completely different words and on more than one occasion I've seen him do this. Again I repeat I did not mean to be picky. I was helping him know the correct word to use as I know he wasn't doing it intentionally.

All this fuss over nothing :rolleyes:

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Tom_
Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Message original : Tom_
Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Message original : Tom_
Oh shut up you :bawling:

I'm seeing a warning coming on its way....

Why? :puzzled: Its a joke ....

People can take it seriously, just like I did. We even had a note from Red about that.

Shaun will clearly know I'm only messing.

I'm actually deeply offended. :)

[Shaun]

Originally posted by GiRTh
Originally posted by Tom_
Shaun gets my humour, and I get his. Trust me. It's nice to see you're all in synch and everything.:whistle:

Suggesting?

[Dr43%er]

"There and their are completely different words"
I am not saying they are not. But how do you know they had said the wrong word and not just spelt it wrong? oh, and nodis...... **** off.

[GiRTh]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
oh, and nodis...... **** off. LOL

He's back.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
"There and their are completely different words"
I am not saying they are not. But how do you know they had said the wrong word and not just spelt it wrong? oh, and nodis...... **** off.

Because he has said it at various points in the thread and in other posts which is why I said it. I feel it will be beneficial to him.

[Captain.Remy]

Guys you are way too dramatic for a single word used at the wrong place ! I think we all understood what word should have been instead, it's not the end of the world !

And the topic was about the squaters right if you remember....:wink:

[iam5tv]

I agree that squatting is a subject that most people disagree with. The first thing you all need to understand is what was mentioned about UNUSED or ABANDONED property - where the owner is not using the property and sometimes doesn't even know they own it. So it just sits there.
In a country where there is a housing shortage, wouldn't you say that leaving properties empty is irresponsible considering how much need there is for them? The Govt is going mad putting up new builds all the time just to house people, so why would they uphold your right to leave a house sitting there doing nothing?
If Joe Squatter decides to wander in and start living there then he is making more use of the property than the owner. After 12 years - which as the owner is plenty of time to get your act together - nobody has said anything, then why not punish the lazy owner and hand the property over to the squatter? Its the same priciple as finding a wallet in the street and handing it in. If nobody claims it in a certain period, then it becomes theirs.

If you don't want squatters, then secure your property while you leave the place empty (e.g. while applying for a grant) and make sure that you can prove it is secured, like take photos of all the locks. Then if you get a squatter, you can prove they committed breaking and entering.

But if you leave the door open and wander off for 20 years, don't expect that you will be able to come back and move back in - that is irresponsible use of property.