[tufc]

(Original post by Hopple)
Well, the property owner still has priority if ever they want to live there.

Housing is not the property of the state. If someone wants to keep their house empty, that's their choice. Your stance that people have the right to take something just because its owner is not using it is utterly absurd.

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
The answer is building more homeless shelter, or buying and converting disused buildings into homeless shelters, not accepting what is just glorified tresspassing.

I'd probably agree with this if everyone in the UK has some sort of basic shelter, or any alternative to squatting. Clearly, this isn't the case at the moment, so as I see it, this bill would be punishing people for doing something they have very little alternative to.

(Original post by tufc)
No brown stuff, Sherlock. The whole point of this bill is to enshrine in law the stance that squatting is not an 'option'.

What options would remain to the people affected, then?

[tufc]

(Original post by Abiraleft)
I'd probably agree with this if everyone in the UK has some sort of basic shelter, or any alternative to squatting. Clearly, this isn't the case at the moment, so as I see it, this bill would be punishing people for doing something they have very little alternative to.



What options would remain to the people affected, then?

I don't know. But the options open to those people is not the concern of the person who owns the property. It's their house, and if they want to keep it empty then they have the absolute right to do so.

You realise that this mad, Marxist dream of yours where everyone lives in state-provided accommodation that's been liberated from the rich (who have been beheaded), and go out to suck on the state teat will never happen, right?

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by tufc)
I don't know. But the options open to those people is not the concern of the person who owns the property. It's their house, and if they want to keep it empty then they have the absolute right to do so.

I suppose that's one way to look at it, but I don't think the state should be punishing people for (what I see as) systematic failings. These people have, though whatever process, been forced into a corner and left with little choice on ways to live.

You realise that this mad, Marxist dream of yours where everyone lives in state-provided accommodation that's been liberated from the rich (who have been beheaded), and go out to suck on the state teat will never happen, right?

Heh. I suppose one can only hope.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by Abiraleft)
I'd probably agree with this if everyone in the UK has some sort of basic shelter, or any alternative to squatting. Clearly, this isn't the case at the moment, so as I see it, this bill would be punishing people for doing something they have very little alternative to.



What options would remain to the people affected, then?

but we should not punish private property owners for what is essentially the government's failure. Where I live there's a huge depeartment store building, been empty for about 20 years, it's never gonna get bought now because the renovation costs of having it as a dept store again would be too much. The government could perhaps turn buildings like that into sheltered accommodation.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
but we should not punish private property owners for what is essentially the government's failure. Where I live there's a huge depeartment store building, been empty for about 20 years, it's never gonna get bought now because the renovation costs of having it as a dept store again would be too much. The government could perhaps turn buildings like that into sheltered accommodation.

Yes exactly, it should be the responsibility of the local authority to provide shelter for its citizens, not a homeowner.

[Hopple]

(Original post by tufc)
Housing is not the property of the state. If someone wants to keep their house empty, that's their choice. Your stance that people have the right to take something just because its owner is not using it is utterly absurd.

If there were more places to live, then I'd agree. But as is, there are huge numbers of homeless people, and huge numbers of unused places they could live, but are unable to afford. I'm not saying the state grabs these properties and gives them out to the homeless, rather they do not prosecute someone who leaves the property as they found it and when the owner wants it.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
but we should not punish private property owners for what is essentially the government's failure. Where I live there's a huge depeartment store building, been empty for about 20 years, it's never gonna get bought now because the renovation costs of having it as a dept store again would be too much. The government could perhaps turn buildings like that into sheltered accommodation.

What's the punishment? Being unable to use your house? Fine, make it easier to evict squatters. Having your stuff broken by squatters? Do them for damages, and hey, at least you know who it was rather than mystery burglars.

As for your example, who's sitting on the department store? Or would you be happy with the government taking it as it's been abandoned (something I wanted clarification of in my first criticism of this bill, but I'm guessing the intention wasn't to distinguish between a home left for a weekend or a building left for 20 years), and then doing it up? Of course, you could say something along the lines of why should the taxpayer be punished for a speculator's failed investment (if the government has to pay to own the property to be developed)?

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by Hopple)
What's the punishment? Being unable to use your house? Fine, make it easier to evict squatters. Having your stuff broken by squatters? Do them for damages, and hey, at least you know who it was rather than mystery burglars.

As for your example, who's sitting on the department store? Or would you be happy with the government taking it as it's been abandoned (something I wanted clarification of in my first criticism of this bill, but I'm guessing the intention wasn't to distinguish between a home left for a weekend or a building left for 20 years), and then doing it up? Of course, you could say something along the lines of why should the taxpayer be punished for a speculator's failed investment (if the government has to pay to own the property to be developed)?

The department store is up for sale. The government should have to purchase it as it is private property. The taxpayer isn't necessarily punished, I simply suggested it as it is readily available and with the time its had a for sale sign on it, it would be available at a knock down price probably. The taxpayer is punished more if their homes are occupied by squatters, there stuff damaged etc., especially if the government appears to conone it.

[CyclopsRock]

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...0#post35226280

I don't think you can easily (or practically at all) try and get damages for squatters. How do you take them to court? They don't have an address. Their last known address would be YOUR house.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...0#post35226280

I don't think you can easily (or practically at all) try and get damages for squatters. How do you take them to court? They don't have an address. Their last known address would be YOUR house.

That's pretty tragic.

[Lipvig]

(Original post by Hopple)
What's the punishment? Being unable to use your house? Fine, make it easier to evict squatters.

Problem with that is you then have the accommodation costs, and you can't simply argue that the squatter should pay them, seeing as if he did then they wouldn't be squatting now would they?

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by Lipvig)
Problem with that is you then have the accommodation costs, and you can't simply argue that the squatter should pay them, seeing as if he did then they wouldn't be squatting now would they?

so it'd become more of "surprise rent"

I agree completely though

[Hopple]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
The department store is up for sale. The government should have to purchase it as it is private property. The taxpayer isn't necessarily punished, I simply suggested it as it is readily available and with the time its had a for sale sign on it, it would be available at a knock down price probably. The taxpayer is punished more if their homes are occupied by squatters, there stuff damaged etc., especially if the government appears to conone it.

I only see the damage as a 'punishment', that's the only inconvenience if the squatters leave as soon as the owners arrive. And the damage is already a crime.

The reason I say the taxpayer buying the department store is being 'punished' (again, that's in a loose sense) is because of the large scale of developers snapping up properties and holding onto them until they get a profit, even if that's never likely to happen. In this case, whoever bought that store has seen their investment flop, but if the government were to have an obligation to buy then the taxpayer will be ripped off.

(Original post by Lipvig)
Problem with that is you then have the accommodation costs, and you can't simply argue that the squatter should pay them, seeing as if he did then they wouldn't be squatting now would they?

Why is that punishing the property owner? You could chase up the squatters for any utilities they use if you like.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by Hopple)
I only see the damage as a 'punishment', that's the only inconvenience if the squatters leave as soon as the owners arrive. And the damage is already a crime.

The reason I say the taxpayer buying the department store is being 'punished' (again, that's in a loose sense) is because of the large scale of developers snapping up properties and holding onto them until they get a profit, even if that's never likely to happen. In this case, whoever bought that store has seen their investment flop, but if the government were to have an obligation to buy then the taxpayer will be ripped off.



Why is that punishing the property owner? You could chase up the squatters for any utilities they use if you like.

People have a right to own property. They have a right to deny others entry to their property, squatting is illegal, it is the invasion of someone elses home. Why should they enjoy the shelter of that person's home for free, when that person has to pay for it? Also, they must have broken in to be squatting, so there is already criminal damage as soon as they enter. It is illegal and should not be defended or condoned

[Hopple]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
People have a right to own property. They have a right to deny others entry to their property, squatting is illegal, it is the invasion of someone elses home. Why should they enjoy the shelter of that person's home for free, when that person has to pay for it? Also, they must have broken in to be squatting, so there is already criminal damage as soon as they enter. It is illegal and should not be defended or condoned

The overall effect to society of large numbers of people buying up more properties than they can live in and sitting on them means even more people are unable to access that first right you mention. That's clearly a bad thing, though some would argue it's the lesser of two evils. However, you need not make a land grab in order to give shelter to the homeless, and squatting is a workable solution.

[Lipvig]

(Original post by Hopple)
Why is that punishing the property owner? You could chase up the squatters for any utilities they use if you like.

but the fact is that in cases where the individual has only one home, and that home is being illegally occupied, they have to pay for alternative accommodation. Now, presuming they have to pay for it, how can you argue that is not a form of punishment?

[Hopple]

(Original post by Lipvig)
but the fact is that in cases where the individual has only one home, and that home is being illegally occupied, they have to pay for alternative accommodation. Now, presuming they have to pay for it, how can you argue that is not a form of punishment?

Why wouldn't the homeowner be able to boot out the squatters upon return? If that's not the case with this bill (I've suggested it in this thread), then it'd make sense to write that in rather than go to extremes and ban squatting completely under threat of prison and fines.

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

Division!!