So tibb is happy for their moderators to go about stalking members on their site.

I think its fair to say most regulars on here know I am Pyramid* from DS - but don't you seriously think it's out of order for a mod to be stalking another member in this way?

Perhaps more of you should try... there are some real nuggets on DS from me!! ;)

This is absolutely nothing to do with me, and I wont be dragged into it.

I was simply trying out what you said, and was quite amused to see a tibb thread as the first search result, and the DS one as the 4th. Thats all.

I saw a programme on them last night and it just angered me. How dare they break into homes (they did on the programme last night) and just mess up the house. Buggers

well call the police then!

http://atrl.net/forums/images/smilie...milies/ahh.gif

It's because, like he said, people have been saying it for years and we're still here. People who go 'Oh England's going down hill, we're all screwed' over the littlest things are a bit ridiculous to me. If England ever ceases to exist then it won't be down to a few opportunistic squaters.

I wasn't intending on dragging you into it..... I understand you (and other mods) position - I'll raise it with admin - for no other reason that regular members have been banned for much the same behaviour.


Since the Shabby palava, it was an active discussion on DS - on many threads - and it was shocking the fact that some people think there is nothing wrong with it.

Even to the point, that if the squatters eventually leave 'in their own time', and don't cause damage: the home owner should be thankful.....!!! :shocked:


It's a joke. sorry...the laws in this country are a joke.

Nee naw nee naw...... do Admin have police cars I wonder to zoom about all the different threads etc?




I think in fairness: it was coming more from the fact that our forefathers built much of what they did on hard graft, toil and sweat....for people like squatters to think that life owes them a living - that's the way I interpreted what he meant. Difference in perception.

There's a fair difference between what MTVN and Stacey did though. Referencing posts is a lot different to taking pictures mainly because your anonymity is still intact, as you said yourself, your standing on DS is well known and since there's no details there that can be used against you there's nothing to worry about. With pictures though you're taking somebody's identity and image and you could do far worse stuff with it then an anonymous post on a similar forum. That's why Stacey was banned because her having those photos could have an impact if she planned to do wrong with them.

I believe more than just Stacey was banned for similar activity - and not just of the pictorial variety - those stalking others on facebook etc has all formed part of things.

I'm not worried - far from it - as I say: everyone regular around is well aware I came from DS - I find the fact that a moderator of this forum, has to rake around posts from a rival forum, to pick out posts on a similar subject in some pathetic attempt to ridicule a Tibb forum member - totally unacceptable. Whichever way it's caked over.

I do appreciate you taking time to explain, that I'll give you 100% credit for and thank you for.

anyway: let's get back on topic - it was interesting!!!

Paying into the system is riddled with loopholes and if people wish to exploit that then thats their decision. They'll have a crap quality of living but its their own choice. Its part of living in a democratic society

I don't agree with it but we're not going to put a stop to it, just like homelessness and people who claim benefits- they all get things for free or don't have to answer to Inland Revenue

and that's exactly what this stupid bitch judge is encouraging.

Infuriating how these judges can't be kicked out when they chat such irresponsible tripe.

The police and the council disagree with her but still she gets to yap and flap away with her insanity.

all of the above is of course very true: however it's not the point of the thread - in essence.

It's the fact that this headcase of a woman - a judge of all people, comes away with crap like this. As said by Zippy - this muppet is encouraging this type of thing....... and worse.... it's the fecking tax payers who pay this muppet's overinflated salary to make decisions like this.

If that's the people laying down the law in the country: what hell chance does the UK have.

About zilch.

Caring squatters.......

That kind of squatting I'm fully against but where do you stand on squatters who squat in unused or derelict buildings?

As well as having to replace all the locks etc.... yeah... Power to the squatters eh..

************************************************** **************

sorry Tom... the above was just an addenum to my last post!!

Far as that's concerned, for much of the same reasons as I've mentioned here - even if squatters take over derelict building or empty buildings: in the main, the premises will not just be empty shells, with no connection to utility services. All they have to do is state they are there, and some services have to be reconnnected. They will have access to water, to cook with, to wash, for toilet facilities - which then in turn enter the sewerage system. What do they do with their refuse? Burn it? What do they do with the items that do not burn down...leave it at their arses...or chuck it in bins that other people pay via their council taxes to have emptied etc.

The buidings and the land upon which the building stand: belong to someone. Everything in me tells me that is wrong to take ownership of something that does not belong to you - regardless of what that is.

Squatter are (in many cases) people who don't want to pay for a roof over their heads, don't want to pay for the safety and comfort that provides - but aren't willing to sleep on the streets and make themselves homeless - so they take what is not there's then very sneakily ensure that the place is secured, with one person on the premises at all times to prevent the building 'being taken back again'.

I actually have more respect for the homeless - seriously - but that's a whole different debate altogether.

they still belong to somebody who paid for them.

and they should be forced to leave when asked. All this squatters rights crap is just insane. If you're not paying for something then you have no rights to it, period.

Wee bit of interesting reading....

http://www.urban75.com/Action/squat.html

What a load of bollocks :bored:

I'm sorry, but if I owned a property that I wanted to rent out or something, and then found out a few months down the line that there were a load of freeloaders living in it, I would certainly not be following the law. I dont care if this makes me as bad, or worse than them. Its my property, I paid/am paying for it, not them. I would use whatever force was necessary to get them out, and gladly admit it all when the police came to arrest me for it. I would rather do a bit community service or whatever than allow people to take the piss out of me, which is what these people are doing.

Oh I agree... Years ago, relatives of mine (Army) had their own house down south, they were posted abroad for a while. Long story short - 'actors' moved in - ie: squatters who told the neighbours they were actors working in the Stratford theatres and they were renting the house.

Only through a tip off - from one of the neighbours that something didn't seem right....... result was: 10 burly Army guys literally rammed the door, ******ed them out with the the very clear threat that if they went to the police..... they'd sealed their own fate!!

But not everyone has that in them to do that - or indeed, know people who would (if that makes sense?).

and isn't that a ****ing joke, that if you got rid of them you'd probably end up in trouble for it, not them :bored:

It's a bloody disgrace... but it's what this Judge is advocating. That's the message she is delivering.

And people will say that was wrong no doubt. Maybe even people yet to comment on this thread.

The whole thing is a joke tbh. The squatters seem to have more rights than anyone else :rolleyes:

Yup, but its what I have come to expect of our 'justice' system :p

Yeah, absolutely.

I do know that not one person in the locality disagreed with the action he took. (including the cops , who as far as I was told, 'knew what was about to happen and knew not to respond to any calls for any disturbance at that address' ;) )

Before my uncle got it checked out and 'resolved', the neighbours had a rota to keep an eye on the place -to make sure no furniture or any of their belongings were being taken out of the house (it was a gorgeous old house that they'd spent a fortune on). it was a shame though...after that, they never could settle in it and ended up moving up here.

I can understand that, it's a violation really.