dimreepr Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Squatter’s rights dismissed... a triumph for landlords? Or a draconian Law, that marks the beginning of the end of a decent society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joatmon Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 There must be a better way of helping the homeless - or helping them help themselves perhaps! As a house owner I know how I would feel if I came back from holiday and was shut out of the home I have spent such a large part of my life working and paying for! To put it mildly, I would not feel very charitable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 There must be a better way of helping the homeless - or helping them help themselves perhaps! As a house owner I know how I would feel if I came back from holiday and was shut out of the home I have spent such a large part of my life working and paying for! To put it mildly, I would not feel very charitable! "There must be a better way of helping the homeless - or helping them help themselves perhaps!" yes, but rather than do that, our government has sought to outlaw one of the few simple direct ways to address poverty- if you need somewhere to live, find somewhere that isn't being used, and live there. I think the answer to the question posed in the title of the thread is "If you own so many properties that you are generally not resident in any of them" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 1, 2012 Author Share Posted September 1, 2012 The problem is much bigger than most people think, if taken as a world issue, it has been estimated that 1 in 7 people are squatters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting If this number is even close, in Britain, then the new law will create far more problems than it solves. Joatman Whilst I agree that your home is your castle, so to speak, I really don’t think, many home owners will come back from their annual holiday to be faced with a squatter issue. Besides which a tweak in the law to make it easier to evict squatters from a primary residence, would address that issue reasonably well. This law, however, isn’t really aimed at the ordinary homeowner, for me it smacks of protectionism of the wealthy upper middle and upper class’. Do we really want a return to the inequities of the Victorian era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joatmon Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Here is one example of someone who was away from their home for a weekend:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14564949 It does happen and so I feel there is a need to make this a criminal offence. If you see this as a government issue then surely what you are saying is that there is a need for more social housing. If properties are unoccupied for an extended period I would not be against officialdom being able to warn the owners that if they don't find tenants the properties could be properly and legally taken over and let by (say) the local council. The proceeds being given to the owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 What happened in that case was already illegal- that's why the court evicted the thieves. Why change the law on something which is already illegal? And wouldn't it be better to spend the taxpayers' money on social housing rather than drafting new laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joatmon Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 What happened in that case was already illegal- that's why the court evicted the thieves. Why change the law on something which is already illegal? And wouldn't it be better to spend the taxpayers' money on social housing rather than drafting new laws? Firstly, as I understand it, squatting up to now has not been a criminal offence but a civil matter. Which means (or has meant) calling the police won't help you. You have had to go through the civil courts with the delays and expense that entails. I'm all for increasing social housing, it was probably a mistake selling council houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Except there will be no increase in social housing. This law will simply create a bigger underclass of people who slip through the welfare net. They will be left with a stark choice, live on the streets or be imprisoned, because let’s face it, by definition; they will not be able to pay any sort of fine. Can we really afford to overload, even more, an already creaking prison system? As I stated in my previous post “A tweak in the law to make it easier to evict squatters from a primary residence” to deal with your only objection. In the 70’s the problem was dealt with in a much more sympathetic way that worked reasonably well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joatmon Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 So let us put into the general case what you are saying. Some person or organisation has something you need that they are not using. You should be free to use it. Is that what you are saying? For example, being retired I only get my car out about once a week. Do you think I should not complain if you used it for the other 6 days? If you think that's how it should work would you think it OK for you to refuse to give it back unless I took you to court? A building is an object owned by someone and I feel that ownership should be respected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 No. Nobody is putting forward that general case are they? But there is a view that it applies to the specific case of somewhere to live. You don't need a car but you need somewhere to live. If someone wanted to take your car because they needed it to get their child to hospital would you say no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 3, 2012 Author Share Posted September 3, 2012 So let us put into the general case what you are saying. Some person or organisation has something you need that they are not using. You should be free to use it. Is that what you are saying? For example, being retired I only get my car out about once a week. Do you think I should not complain if you used it for the other 6 days? If you think that's how it should work would you think it OK for you to refuse to give it back unless I took you to court? A building is an object owned by someone and I feel that ownership should be respected. This is a little disingenuous, as you well know; this is not what I’ve said. There’s a big difference between, the fundamental need for shelter and the desire for a car or other chattels. Also there’s a big difference between an owner/occupier and, for instance, a developer who board up an otherwise useable dwelling or a council with more homes than they can afford to maintain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joatmon Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 This is a little disingenuous, as you well know; this is not what I've said. There's a big difference between, the fundamental need for shelter and the desire for a car or other chattels. Also there's a big difference between an owner/occupier and, for instance, a developer who board up an otherwise useable dwelling or a council with more homes than they can afford to maintain. So it seems there is a problem - homeless people. There is a solution - empty property. It is possible to solve the problem legally. It only takes money. Who's money? The governments money - your money and mine. The answer - we must pay more in taxes because there is no such thing as a free lunch. Part of the solution could be similar to that which provided lots of homes after WWII - cheap prefabricated housing known as Prefabs. I know people, still living, who found them very suitable. It certainly is a problem - and needs addressing wholemeal, not piecemeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 So it seems there is a problem - homeless people. There is a solution - empty property. It is possible to solve the problem legally. It only takes money. Who's money? Can we start with the people who can afford two homes? Most of us have enough trouble paying for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joatmon Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) Can we start with the people who can afford two homes? Most of us have enough trouble paying for one. I would go further than this. There are some extremely rich people who could bail this country out and hardly feel the pinch! I own one home and spent a large part of my life paying for it - keeping money very tight for several of the first years. That home, its contents and a car are about all I have of value. Edited September 3, 2012 by Joatmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 Just making the rich and wealth members of our country pay some tax would be a great start. However, we all know, trying to prize even a modicum of tax from these people is like pulling a muscle from a rock with just your fingers. In the meantime, at the other end of the spectrum, people in our society with nothing will be criminalised for wanting to exist with shelter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joatmon Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Just making the rich and wealth members of our country pay some tax would be a great start. However, we all know, trying to prize even a modicum of tax from these people is like pulling a muscle from a rock with just your fingers. In the meantime, at the other end of the spectrum, people in our society with nothing will be criminalised for wanting to exist with shelter. IMO although you probably wouldn't agree I think you realise the strength of my argument. When you have a problem then before you can solve that problem you have to understand and analyse the situation. What is needed is affordable housing and income at the ordinary level that makes it possible for people to honestly acquire a home. If that means taxing the very rich more then that is where the law should be applied. The fact that the very rich avoid even paying their share under today's rules should strengthen resolve to ensure they do. Let's all live in law abiding dignity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 IMO although you probably wouldn't agree I think you realise the strength of my argument. When you have a problem then before you can solve that problem you have to understand and analyse the situation. What is needed is affordable housing and income at the ordinary level that makes it possible for people to honestly acquire a home. If that means taxing the very rich more then that is where the law should be applied. The fact that the very rich avoid even paying their share under today's rules should strengthen resolve to ensure they do. Let's all live in law abiding dignity! I do agree with your premise, if we lived in an ideal world, however, with money you not only have access to homes, cars, luxuries etc... You also have access, and influence, to politicians. As we all know the political system we have is very short term in its thinking and very much doesn’t want to rock the boat, this means they are likely to make headline statements like “lets tax the rich” and speciously implement such a tax on the rich, knowing full well that without plugging the loopholes that exist in the system, nothing will change and the rich will continue to pay practically nothing in tax. What we actually have now is a law that attacks the fundamental needs of the poorest in our society but does nothing to enable them to, as you say, “Honestly acquire a home”. I would be happy to see this law implemented if there were measures such as you suggest. The gov’t run the risk of swelling the numbers of the disenfranchised to the point, that with nothing to lose, they will turn on the rest of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joatmon Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) I do agree with your premise, if we lived in an ideal world, however, with money you not only have access to homes, cars, luxuries etc... You also have access, and influence, to politicians. As we all know the political system we have is very short term in its thinking and very much doesn't want to rock the boat, this means they are likely to make headline statements like "lets tax the rich" and speciously implement such a tax on the rich, knowing full well that without plugging the loopholes that exist in the system, nothing will change and the rich will continue to pay practically nothing in tax. What we actually have now is a law that attacks the fundamental needs of the poorest in our society but does nothing to enable them to, as you say, "Honestly acquire a home". I would be happy to see this law implemented if there were measures such as you suggest. The gov't run the risk of swelling the numbers of the disenfranchised to the point, that with nothing to lose, they will turn on the rest of society. Sounds like you advocate a revolution? "Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and force a new one that suits them better." Abraham Lincoln Quotes Edited September 6, 2012 by Joatmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 Sounds like you advocate a revolution? "Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and force a new one that suits them better." Abraham Lincoln Quotes I don’t advocate a revolution but I do see the potential for one. It’s never good to be in the middle of a revolution, as the mythical Chinese curse, “may you live in interesting times”, suggests such times are to be avoided if at all possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now