Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B446 - Abolition Of Squatters Rights Bill 2012

Announcements Posted on
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    My idea is somewhat similar to that: make criminals endure the first half of their sentence in a repressive, nasty prison. Then the second half in a prison more like Bastoey. Show them the different paths open to them: either incarceration in an unfriendly environment; or a cleaner, more free style of living.

    Like the article says, those at Bastoey have mostly been in more traditional prisons first.
    Er wow. I didn't expect that from you, well done :lol: Although I don't think that closed prisons should be repressive and nasty, I do think they shouldn't be as good as an open prison such a Bastoey, somewhat like the prisons we have now.

    I don't think a "half and half" should be rigidly employed either, it should be judged on the needs of the person.

    Do you agree that everyone who has committed a crime should qualify for open prisons? By qualify I mean when they are assessed and are found suitable, and not barred from them simply because of the crime they've committed.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm undecided at the moment, so I'm abstaining. Maybe once I've seen more debate I'll have an opinion to voice in the Division Lobby.
    • 14 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stanlas)
    I somehow doubt the validity of that argument. True, some squatters are drunks or lazy. But then again, so are many rich people. You cannot generalise
    People are not born homeless ? so how do they get to that stage? Its usually irresponsible management of their lives; I work with offenders and see it happen to them all the time because they do little to take responsibility for their own lives and prefer the head in the sand approach until the ballifs come around to kick them out or repossess belongings for unpaid debts and bills that people rack up.

    It is no one else's responsibility to manage another persons life but that person alone.


    (Original post by stanlas)
    Generous? We have 1.5 million people on council housing waiting lists, along with thousands of homeless people. That dosen't seem like a system which is working
    Yes generous when you compare us to the likes of other countries; in other countries it means your basically screwed and on your own - no one helps you not even the state.
    Hence why everyone has a huge desire to work; such an ultimate conclusion forces people to value education and employment which is something many people have lost here in this country; its seen as a burden.

    You know why you have so many doctors, accountants, contractors, computer programmers etc that are of indian origin here in the UK? because they are far more qualified generally than the british; because they come from poor backgrounds, they work their socks of to break out of that and not run the risk of having nothing.
    Thats the background I come from and its the same with some other cultures.
    In terms of skills we have here in the UK; we have little to export over to other countries because our skills are lagging behind due to such liberal attitudes that breed lazyness.
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stanlas)
    "Violation of this Act should be punishable by a fine not exceeding £1,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months."

    Several weeks ago I asked the government if they had any plans to deal with the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society, the ones who have nothing and nowhere to go. When they replied yes, I had been expecting the building of new homes. Or tax cuts on new homes. Or plans to help squatters find a home.

    What I certainly wasn't expecting at the time is a Bill to fine and imprison the poorest in society. Yet that is essentially what we have before us today.

    Edit: QFA for the prime minister.
    The government is committed to providing new homes and a bill is in the works however that does not mean that squatters should be legally able to occupy another persons home.
    • 3 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The government is committed to providing new homes and a bill is in the works however that does not mean that squatters should be legally able to occupy another persons home.
    As I've said before, why hasn't the bill allowed for squatters to move out peacefully as soon as the owner comes back to make it their 'home' again? Yes some people have 2nd, 3rd etc homes, but unless you've got one for the week and another for the weekend, there's no way you're occupying both as a home at the same time.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The government is committed to providing new homes and a bill is in the works
    I'll believe that when I see it. At the moment, all I can see if a Bill that would imprison or fine some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

    The government should get its priorities right. The Bill to increase housing availability should come before a Bill to punish those without a home.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    As I've said before, why hasn't the bill allowed for squatters to move out peacefully as soon as the owner comes back to make it their 'home' again? Yes some people have 2nd, 3rd etc homes, but unless you've got one for the week and another for the weekend, there's no way you're occupying both as a home at the same time.
    Because the squatters have no right to be there?
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    As I've said before, why hasn't the bill allowed for squatters to move out peacefully as soon as the owner comes back to make it their 'home' again? Yes some people have 2nd, 3rd etc homes, but unless you've got one for the week and another for the weekend, there's no way you're occupying both as a home at the same time.
    Because somebodys home is not a hotel, they should not be in there at all.

    As i have said, if the squatters leave immediately then the homeowner can ask that they not be prosecuted but ultimately they should feel the full weight of the law if they have committed a crime.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How would this affect the doctrine of adverse possession?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    This bill isn't abolishing squatters' rights, it's creating a criminal offence. Squatters' rights merely meant that the owner was required to get an eviction notice in order to remove squatters from his property. This bill is taking a positive step in the wrong direction by turned what is better dealt with through civil procedures and moving it into the criminal system; and because of that, I'm voting against.

    Yes to the removal of squatters' rights (abolition? Too strong a word for something like this to be honest), and no to the creation of a new and superfluous criminal offence (Trespass already exists).
    This.
    • 3 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    Because the squatters have no right to be there?

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Because somebodys home is not a hotel, they should not be in there at all.
    They're homeless! They have no right but they do have a need.
    As i have said, if the squatters leave immediately then the homeowner can ask that they not be prosecuted but ultimately they should feel the full weight of the law if they have committed a crime.
    Why is it up to the homeowner? It should at the very least be written into the bill that if you leave when asked you won't face prosecution. Any damage etc has to be paid for, of course.
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    They're homeless! They have no right but they do have a need.


    Why is it up to the homeowner? It should at the very least be written into the bill that if you leave when asked you won't face prosecution. Any damage etc has to be paid for, of course.
    The rights of society are more important than the needs of the one.

    Because the homeowner has bought and paid for an asset which they own, they can do whatever they like with it as that is their right, to not allow this is to take away their liberty.

    It does not need to be written into the bill, if somebody goes peacefully then the owner will not prosecute them, if any damage has occurred then the owner can come to an informal arrangement or have them prosecuted for criminal damage.
    • 3 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The rights of society are more important than the needs of the one.
    That argument works both ways? We can individualise both squatters and absent property owners, whilst tying society in general to property owners and people needing somewhere to live respectively.

    Because the homeowner has bought and paid for an asset which they own, they can do whatever they like with it as that is their right, to not allow this is to take away their liberty.
    If it merely were an asset, then yes. But the fact is you're talking about homes, places to live, shelter from the elements. Homes already have different recognition under the law from other assets, because people have a need for a place to live.

    It does not need to be written into the bill, if somebody goes peacefully then the owner will not prosecute them, if any damage has occurred then the owner can come to an informal arrangement or have them prosecuted for criminal damage.
    How do you know?
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    That argument works both ways? We can individualise both squatters and absent property owners, whilst tying society in general to property owners and people needing somewhere to live respectively.

    If it merely were an asset, then yes. But the fact is you're talking about homes, places to live, shelter from the elements. Homes already have different recognition under the law from other assets, because people have a need for a place to live.

    How do you know?
    They key words in your first paragraph are 'property owners', they have control over their dominion and if they choose not to run it as a hotel, that is their choice.

    It is still an asset as it was paid for, whether treated differently or not i will not force property owners to allow people to do what they like to their home.

    Okay, let me put it to you this way.. I kick somebody in the nuts and then say sorry and go.. That person can rightfully choose whether to prosecute me or accept the apology, thus i will not enshrine what you desire into law. The vast majority of people do not want the stress and expense of a court case and thus would be unlikely to prosecute, but if they do then the squatters deserve to feel the wrath of the law for their illegal actions.
    • 3 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    They key words in your first paragraph are 'property owners', they have control over their dominion and if they choose not to run it as a hotel, that is their choice.

    It is still an asset as it was paid for, whether treated differently or not i will not force property owners to allow people to do what they like to their home.

    Okay, let me put it to you this way.. I kick somebody in the nuts and then say sorry and go.. That person can rightfully choose whether to prosecute me or accept the apology, thus i will not enshrine what you desire into law. The vast majority of people do not want the stress and expense of a court case and thus would be unlikely to prosecute, but if they do then the squatters deserve to feel the wrath of the law for their illegal actions.
    If you're doing nothing with it, and it isn't damaged, it doesn't affect you if someone else uses it. There's not even the risk of it getting lost like if someone borrowed your pen. And no, the squatters aren't 'doing what they like' if they leave it in the same condition as they found it.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    They're homeless! They have no right but they do have a need.
    Letting them trample on another's property rights isn't the way they should be helped.

    edit: just a note that I'm not in favour of this bill. But to imply that the homeless have some sort of right to someone else's property is ridiculous.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    No. This basically narrows down the options of homeless people unable to obtain council housing to jail (given that you can't sleep in a public place - or was that taken care of in a TSR bill (I remember such a bill being put up, but not if it passed. It would still be a no from me, obviously)?
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abiraleft)
    No. This basically narrows down the options of homeless people unable to obtain council housing to jail (given that you can't sleep in a public place - or was that taken care of in a TSR bill (I remember such a bill being put up, but not if it passed. It would still be a no from me, obviously)?
    The answer is building more homeless shelter, or buying and converting disused buildings into homeless shelters, not accepting what is just glorified tresspassing.
    • 3 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    Letting them trample on another's property rights isn't the way they should be helped.

    edit: just a note that I'm not in favour of this bill. But to imply that the homeless have some sort of right to someone else's property is ridiculous.
    Well, the property owner still has priority if ever they want to live there.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abiraleft)
    No. This basically narrows down the options of homeless people unable to obtain council housing to jail (given that you can't sleep in a public place - or was that taken care of in a TSR bill (I remember such a bill being put up, but not if it passed. It would still be a no from me, obviously)?
    No brown stuff, Sherlock. The whole point of this bill is to enshrine in law the stance that squatting is not an 'option'.
Updated: May 22, 2012
New on TSR

SQA results day chat

Share your grade expectations for Tuesday 5 August

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.