Home Menu

Site Navigation


Notices

Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics.

Register to reply Log in to reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-03-2008, 08:27 PM #26
Stu's Avatar
Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Shaun
Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
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.
Stu is offline  
Old 12-03-2008, 08:40 PM #27
bridge7too7far bridge7too7far is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 187
bridge7too7far bridge7too7far is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 187
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Matt08
Quote:
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
bridge7too7far is offline  
Old 12-03-2008, 08:42 PM #28
Shaun's Avatar
Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaun
Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
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.
Shaun is online now  
Old 12-03-2008, 08:43 PM #29
bridge7too7far bridge7too7far is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 187
bridge7too7far bridge7too7far is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 187
Default

Quote:
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
bridge7too7far is offline  
Old 12-03-2008, 09:00 PM #30
Tom Tom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,738

Favourites (more):
BB12: Anton
CBB7: Stephanie


Tom Tom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,738

Favourites (more):
BB12: Anton
CBB7: Stephanie


Default

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.
Tom is offline  
Old 12-03-2008, 09:07 PM #31
bridge7too7far bridge7too7far is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 187
bridge7too7far bridge7too7far is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 187
Default

Quote:
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
bridge7too7far is offline  
Old 12-03-2008, 09:22 PM #32
Stu's Avatar
Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Shaun
Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaun
Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
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.
Stu is offline  
Old 13-03-2008, 02:53 PM #33
Sunny_01's Avatar
Sunny_01 Sunny_01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North East
Posts: 8,796


Sunny_01 Sunny_01 is offline
Senior Member
Sunny_01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North East
Posts: 8,796


Default

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.
Sunny_01 is offline  
Old 13-03-2008, 02:58 PM #34
Shaun's Avatar
Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaun
Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaun
Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
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.
Shaun is online now  
Old 13-03-2008, 07:19 PM #35
Stu's Avatar
Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Default

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.
Stu is offline  
Old 13-03-2008, 07:38 PM #36
Shaun's Avatar
Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Default

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.
Shaun is online now  
Old 13-03-2008, 08:35 PM #37
Christina's Avatar
Christina Christina is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 11,442

Favourites (more):
UBB: Chantelle
BB11: Josie


Christina Christina is offline
Senior Member
Christina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 11,442

Favourites (more):
UBB: Chantelle
BB11: Josie


Default

It is basically theft.. they should have no right to do this x
Christina is offline  
Old 13-03-2008, 10:20 PM #38
Sunny_01's Avatar
Sunny_01 Sunny_01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North East
Posts: 8,796


Sunny_01 Sunny_01 is offline
Senior Member
Sunny_01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North East
Posts: 8,796


Default

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.
Sunny_01 is offline  
Old 13-03-2008, 11:48 PM #39
Legend Legend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,410

Favourites:
BB12 USA: Britney


Legend Legend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,410

Favourites:
BB12 USA: Britney


Default

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.
Legend is offline  
Old 13-03-2008, 11:53 PM #40
Shaun's Avatar
Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Default

Quote:
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.
Shaun is online now  
Old 14-03-2008, 12:00 AM #41
Legend Legend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,410

Favourites:
BB12 USA: Britney


Legend Legend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,410

Favourites:
BB12 USA: Britney


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Shaun
Quote:
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.
Legend is offline  
Old 14-03-2008, 12:12 AM #42
Shaun's Avatar
Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Default

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 ] that's not the home-owner's fault.
Shaun is online now  
Old 14-03-2008, 08:01 AM #43
Stu's Avatar
Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Default

Quote:
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.
Stu is offline  
Old 14-03-2008, 12:07 PM #44
Dr43%er Dr43%er is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 922
Dr43%er Dr43%er is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 922
Default

"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.
Dr43%er is offline  
Old 14-03-2008, 01:55 PM #45
Shaun's Avatar
Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
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...
Shaun is online now  
Old 14-03-2008, 02:18 PM #46
Sunny_01's Avatar
Sunny_01 Sunny_01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North East
Posts: 8,796


Sunny_01 Sunny_01 is offline
Senior Member
Sunny_01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North East
Posts: 8,796


Default

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.
Sunny_01 is offline  
Old 14-03-2008, 04:01 PM #47
Tom Tom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,738

Favourites (more):
BB12: Anton
CBB7: Stephanie


Tom Tom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,738

Favourites (more):
BB12: Anton
CBB7: Stephanie


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
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?
Tom is offline  
Old 15-03-2008, 01:23 PM #48
Stu's Avatar
Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Shaun
Quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus
Quote:
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.
Stu is offline  
Old 15-03-2008, 01:34 PM #49
Shaun's Avatar
Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Shaun Shaun is online now
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 107,071

Favourites (more):
BB2025: Sam
The Traitors: Sir Stephen Fry


Default



Get over myself? I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying I think I'm right. Big difference.
Shaun is online now  
Old 15-03-2008, 02:00 PM #50
Stu's Avatar
Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Stu Stu is offline
Altar Ego
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Corcaigh, Éire.
Posts: 26,261


Default

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.
Stu is offline  
Register to reply Log in to reply

Bookmark/share this topic

Tags
rights, squaters


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

"Big Brother and UK Television Forum. Est. 2001"

 

© 2023
no new posts