[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

You still haven't actually answered what I asked; how do you propose that the council actually get the money from squatters when they fail to pay (on the premise that they even advise the council that they are there squatting....as they tend to do, as far as I understand, the council then have a legal requirement to provide them with running water).

Neither did you consider the example I gave about one person paying for their own property - and others thinking they should be able to use that property simply because the owner is currently not.....

As for your examples:

let's not coat it in sugar icing and scented flowers .....

On 1 June 1969 house number 54 was the first to be squatted. The council had acquired the unit and planned to demolish it for the extension to Kennington Park. The derelict buildings were completely rebuilt by the squatters. An attempt to evict it in 1977 was successfully resisted on the rooftops, although many buildings were demolished and most were badly damaged but were rebuilt again by the residents. The residents of St Agnes paid all utility bills and for several years were run by a housing cooperative. One resident of St.Agnes, on Lambeth's housing list for eighteen years, forced to squat with children was never offered housing by the council.[citation needed] There were many families there and it was only in the last few years that the population consisted of a larger number of young homeless people. In November 2005, Lambeth London Borough Council finally obtained a High Court of Justice order to evict the residents of 21 properties. This mass eviction was completed on 30 November 2005.

The bit that is missing in all of this .... they didn't rebuild anything for the good of the community...they did it for themselves and no one else. the homeless people bit was only very latterly - it wasn't as though this was something that went on for decades.

So yes, as you put it: ****** 'em.

As I conceded I don't know how they'd collect it so how can I answer? I'm no council tax expert, I merely searched online and found out that they are liable to pay council tax, you can't dismiss that just by being sceptical of how that will be collected

I didn't bother answering your example because it was stupid straw man; because owning a car and actually having a roof over your head are the same thing I'm not going to defend someone taking your car because a car is not a necessity, if someone doesnt own one then its not that big a deal; being homeless is a very different matter

You havent exactly proved me wrong with that copy and paste from wiki, the article is on the whole very positive; "derelict buildings were completely rebuilt by the squatters...buildings were demolished and most were badly damaged but were rebuilt again by the residents. The residents of St Agnes paid all utility bills and for several years were run by a housing cooperative. One resident of St.Agnes, on Lambeth's housing list for eighteen years, forced to squat with children was never offered housing by the council".

And then it lists all the positive services that the squatting community offered, a hell of a lot more than the council offered or was offered by empty, derelict properties

Originally Posted by Zippy

I think, he can correct me if wrong, he's referring to the get something for nothing way of thinking that now seems to be so prominant in our culture.

Morals are down the toilet. When you have judges like this dumb bitch making light of rape, burglaries and home stealing(which is what squatting is) then it just makes decent people want to pack up and leave. Taking their taxes with them.

You're going to equate squatting with rape? Seriously?