# Squatting - as a lifestyle choice - any good/ fun?



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 4, 2010)

This isn't meant to be a political post at all so I'm hoping (but doubtful) that this can be discussed without fighting.

I read the other post and now realise there is no shortage of empty buildings so if people want to squat I figure it's up to them.

I've only had very limited experience with squatters. I've been to a few parties and stayed at one for a couple weeks. But I don't think my experience was representative. I saw educated, artsy people enjoying the lifestyle. 

I also saw that there was the constant threat of eviction and sometimes a bit of hunger/ loneliness but overall they had no problems acquiring the basics and a few modest nicities. There were some internal politics but I figure thats inevitable when living communally.

So I was wondering if people on here who have done it through choice could tell us a bit about it. 

What were the pros/ cons (compared to a 'normal' life)?
What was difficult?
Did you have tonnes of free time?
Are there any unwritten rules?
Is there a proper brother/ sisterhood feeling where you take care of each other?
Are there certain subcultures within squatting?
Did the general public hate you for it?
Was it ever scary?

I imagine there are some current squatters here on urban. Do you use the library for the internet then? 

I'm just curious about those who have alternatives but choose to squat. I don't imagine it would be fun unless you could just call loved ones in an emergency, so I don't mean to offend anyone whos hard a hard time squatting out of necessity. But there are quite a few who choose this and I'd like to know a bit more about it all.


----------



## peacepete (Jan 4, 2010)

I'm not comfortable with thinking of it as a 'lifestyle', but more as a practical solution to the issue of housing, but I'll answer your questions.

_What were the pros/ cons (compared to a 'normal' life)?_
Free rent. no fixed term for contracts also means people can come and go much more freely than other forms of communal living. the resulting transcience can be both amazing and very stressful.

_What was difficult?_
dealing with different levels of privilege within the squatting community. basically posh kids. i've squatted in a university town which means it's swarming with students who have shit politics. i used to be a student here. after reading the squatters' handbook (www.squatter.org.uk) everything else was a doddle (ish)

_Did you have tonnes of free time?_
pretty much. capitalism eats your time. not having to earn the money to pay the rent means massive expanses of free time. however, you've got to maintain the property you live in without the help (and possibly the active hinderance) of a landlord.

_Are there any unwritten rules?_
don't let the owner or the police (or anyone right wing) into the building.

try to be clear about who is part of the collective responsible for keeping the squat going. - basically who's house is it? allow people to stay, but have a different process for people joining (if that makes sense). often the group is more important than the building, though people usually struggle to grasp this until eviction time.

_Is there a proper brother/ sisterhood feeling where you take care of each other?_
there should be. you are all on the same side after all. in my experience privelege, and how people respond to it were the biggest dividers. all this expressed in terms of gender, race and class.

_Are there certain subcultures within squatting?_
yep. everything in my local squatting scene has taken a massive punky turn, which is a huge improvement. there's also a relatively prominent art squat culture going around, though we don't get much of that up here (you read about it happening in london). the anarchist activist scene has also been significant in my experience

_Did the general public hate you for it?_
right wing people do, many ordinary people don't.

_Was it ever scary?_
yes, very. my top tip is if you think you might be violently or illegally evicted do all of the following.

1. try and slow them (police, landlord, drug gang) down from entering into the building in any way possible.
2. call as many people as possible, starting with the people who are closest and who will be the most useful - get them to call other people. be clear about what is happening so the message doesn't get confused further down the line.
3. pack together your stuff, even if it's more than you can carry. often if you do get kicked out you can argue for your stuff back, which will be a much more pleasant experience if it's all in one place.

I imagine there are some current squatters here on urban. Do you use the library for the internet then? 

mobile internet, other people's unsecured wireless are all options. or you could take up woodwork.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 4, 2010)

There are, of course, instances where the owner will turn out to be cool.

My mates in West Hampstead have this quite amazing squat, a big detached house, would be worth over a million if in better nick I reckon, and the rest.

When they found it it was overgrown with rubbish in the garden, and piled high with crap inside.  Nobody had lived there in about 10 years and the roof had collapsed, and they fixed the lot, cleaned out all the pidgeons etc.

The owner knows they are there and that they have basically sorted the place out.  He doesn't want to sell the place for whatever reason, and is happy for them to be there.

When you think about it, that's hardly surprising - before, he was lumbered with an inheritance/investment or whatever that he probably didn't know what to do with, it would have cost a fortune to repair, and then, it costs a fair amount in terms of bills etc, which they pay.

Furthermore, if he sold it now he'd have a £400,000 inheritance tax bill...


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 4, 2010)

Thanks, thats really interesting.

1. try and slow them (police, landlord, *drug gang*) down from entering into the building in any way possible.

 
So that happened? Once, or many times? Was it because somebody there owed them, or was dealing on their turf? Or did they just pick on you coz youre vulnerable?

While I'm on the topic of drugs thats another point I wonder about now. I never get paranoid smoking but I reckon if I was in a squat where cops/ landlords could break in at any time Id find it hard to relax. Every little sound would bother me. I wouldnt want to have a few pills on me either- not worth the hassle I imagine. Do you usually get busted for drugs if the cops come or can you get away with "their not mine" in the communal living type set up.


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 4, 2010)

Also - just to play devil's advocate. 

If the cops/ govt really want to put a stop to squatting could bring in a law where an owner can ask the utility companies to turn off the supply to their place until they ask for it back. If they were willing to pay reconnnection fees I imagine that would be an effective way of making it very difficult for squatters.


----------



## peacepete (Jan 4, 2010)

soulfulofsoul said:


> Thanks, thats really interesting.
> 
> 1. try and slow them (police, landlord, *drug gang*) down from entering into the building in any way possible.
> 
> ...



sorry, that was meant for dramatic effect. I've had police and owners busting in. never experienced an organised drug gang. it's worth bearing in mind though. who else might be a danger to you and what would you do. for most things a biggish list of people you can call usually helps. all this totally depends on what area you're in though.



soulfulofsoul said:


> Also - just to play devil's advocate.
> 
> If the cops/ govt really want to put a stop to squatting could bring in a law where an owner can ask the utility companies to turn off the supply to their place until they ask for it back. If they were willing to pay reconnnection fees I imagine that would be an effective way of making it very difficult for squatters.



the current legal situation for squatting is relatively accommodating. it is of course subject to change. in places where the situation is much worse squatting still happens. it just has a different character. my feeling is that squatters should make use of the current legal situation, but not rely on it. ultimately our defence comes through our willingness to stand up for ourselves and our ability to make political links with other movements.

anecdotally squatting in brighton has been made a nightmare by the police in brighton in recent years. people still give it a go though.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 4, 2010)

Squatters might not know if someone else is already using an empty building to store drugs.  This can lead to disputes on occasion.  I guess this is the sort of scenario that the other poster was referring to.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 4, 2010)

eoin_k said:


> Squatters might not know if someone else is already using an empty building to store drugs.  This can lead to disputes on occasion.  I guess this is the sort of scenario that the other poster was referring to.



or when good squats go bad and become shooting galleries/crack dens.


----------



## Reno (Jan 4, 2010)

I lived in several squats in Elephant & Castle, Brixton and Ladbroke Grove in the 80s. It wasn't a lifestyle choice, that's for sure.  I worked in very low paid jobs and had little money. The local squatters association used to break in for us and connect the electricity and we always kept the places in good nick and probably left them looking better than they were before.  

Mind there were people who lived in squats who could easily have afforded to rent or even buy somewhere. Once we shared with a horrible woman, who was a trust fund brat and who really did it because she thought it enhanced her street cred. She was a journalist for the NME and a stingy cow and she would tell me off for using too much electricity for my heater in winter. After fours years of squatting I was lucky enough to get into a Camden based Housing Co-op, which was squatting with the approval of the landlord.


----------



## mark_substance (Jan 4, 2010)

I have been squatting in and around Brixton for about 5 years now and have never experienced any problems. I think the hardest part is putting your life on hold when it comes to eviction (every 3 to 6 months for me)

I have never lost any of my belongings, been threatened or illegaly evicted but I do know people that this has happened to.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 4, 2010)

I squatted for about 9 months but, erm... it was a rather different context to anything you're likely to find here... 

An interesting experience, but not one I'd wish to ever repeat.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 4, 2010)

mrs quoad said:


> I squatted for about 9 months but, erm... it was a rather different context to anything you're likely to find here...
> 
> An interesting experience, but not one I'd wish to ever repeat.



some kind of extreme yoga?

i bet your knees hurt


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 4, 2010)

Dan U said:


> some kind of extreme yoga?
> 
> i bet your knees hurt





My brain certainly did.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2010)

Lol lifestyle choice


----------



## fogbat (Jan 4, 2010)

Dan U said:


> some kind of extreme yoga?
> 
> i bet your knees hurt



Incontinence


----------



## Onket (Jan 4, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> Lol lifestyle choice



It is for some, has to be said.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 4, 2010)

I did it for over a year in eastern Germany, mainly to save a bit of money, but also to improve my German and have a bar right under my bedroom. Got a bit cold in winter but apart from that it was an interesting experience.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 5, 2010)

I started squatting in November 2008 and kept a blog about it which is here: http://poshsquatter.blogspot.com

I'll post some thoughts in a bit once I've read the other thread; but in the meantime here are some of my better posts:

The Siege of Oxford Street http://gutshot.com/bforum/blog.php?b=573

A Trip to the Ocean http://gutshot.com/bforum/blog.php?b=444

The empty homes of the super rich http://gutshot.com/bforum/blog.php?b=586

Daddy leaves Mummy for an ugly woman http://gutshot.com/bforum/blog.php?b=502

A Guest outstays her welcome http://gutshot.com/bforum/blog.php?b=510

The right-wing squatter http://gutshot.com/bforum/blog.php?b=264

Park Lane Falls http://www.gutshot.com/bforum/blog.php?b=304


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2010)

Onket said:


> It is for some, has to be said.



Yeah, usually wankers.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 5, 2010)

It must be said, this house in west hampstead is very very impressive.  It seems that the Council actually got angry with the owner cos he didn't mind the squatters being there, and tried to do a CPO on it, but because the owner said no it was his house, they didn't.  He's been round there a few times and likes the renovations they've done on the place.

I know it might be out of the ordinary, and it's not somewhere i've actually lived, but my brother used to live there, and for me it represents a good example of the exact reverse of the Evil Squatting Suspicious Activities we're always reading about - owner had a property whose roof had collapsed and was facing huge bills for renovating it, ssquatters came in and fixed the place, and now they're getting a place in London for free while he has to contribute nothing to keep his inheritance ticking over. (i imagine the squatters have actually made him some money by now)

Who loses?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jan 5, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> I started squatting in November 2008 and kept a blog about it which is here: http://poshsquatter.blogspot.com


Your blog is great. It's also probably taught me more about squatting than anything else I've read.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 5, 2010)

Wolveryeti said:


> Your blog is great. It's also probably taught me more about squatting than anything else I've read.



Thanks!  I wonder if I should change the name now I'm taking a break from squatting.

When I read about Katherine's book, my first thought was "Damn! I should have done that!"  

But then, reading her piece, I realised I couldn't have written a book like hers anyway.  I'm not worthy enough; I'm not pure or socially committed.   

I'd have had to leave out all the self-doubt, shame and humiliation which makes up the better part of my writing.


----------



## Onket (Jan 5, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> Yeah, usually wankers.



Very simplistic view, that.


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 5, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> I started squatting in November 2008 and kept a blog about it which is here: http://poshsquatter.blogspot.com
> 
> I'll post some thoughts in a bit once I've read the other thread; but in the meantime here are some of my better posts:
> 
> ...



Hello again you degenerate nutter.  

How's the poker going?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 5, 2010)

I did it many years ago out of what I deemed necessity.  Didn't know shit all about rights, anything like that.  I'd stayed in squats as a protester but hadn't realised how much you needed to know.  Was a horrible time doing it on my own.  I'd do it again, out of necessity, any time.  But one of the things I crave is security.


----------



## da3 (Jan 5, 2010)

squattings one of those things that i wanted to try because of the chance of getting a free house at the end of it  but i live in an area that never seemed to have good opportunities for it, everywhere was boarded up or sealed shut.


----------



## aylee (Jan 5, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> Lol lifestyle choice





Onket said:


> It is for some, has to be said.





tribal_princess said:


> Yeah, usually wankers.





Onket said:


> Very simplistic view, that.



Did you expect anything else?


----------



## Onket (Jan 5, 2010)

On U75?!


----------



## Chairman Meow (Jan 5, 2010)

My husband used to squat in a tower block in Old Kent Road. He says it was shit, especially when someone broke in and stole every single thing he owned.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 5, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> Thanks!  I wonder if I should change the name now I'm taking a break from squatting.
> 
> When I read about Katherine's book, my first thought was "Damn! I should have done that!"
> 
> ...



Ive been reading your blog all day. Great stuff, its the self-doubt/shame/gambling which makes it such a compelling read...you really should put it in a book!

Much better than her worthy shit


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jan 6, 2010)

> So I was wondering if people on here who have done it through choice could tell us a bit about it.
> 
> What were the pros/ cons (compared to a 'normal' life)?


Did not really know "normal life" at the time having just come out the familial cocoon, but hey:
no rent to pay, no bills (back in the days) 
do what thou wilst
no need for a job to pay the bills



> What was difficult?


Looking after yourself and then after your co-squatters "problems" (if any)
Learning: carpentry, plumbing. electrical installation, flooring. roofing, basically all the skills to "fix" a building (it is NOT just a "gravy train" of luxurious properties waiting for you to put your feet up you know 



> Did you have tonnes of free time?


could not add it all up, sure did at the beginning



> Are there any unwritten rules?


check who is at the door!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
don't be a dick.
Just because it's asuqatt does not mean it is not a home you dimwit! (sorry but met so many idiots who thought that...)



> Is there a proper brother/ sisterhood feeling where you take care of each other?


There is when you are with the "right crew", I have ben in some shitty squatts and some great ones, all depends on the individuals in the mix really.


> Are there certain subcultures within squatting?


loads



> Did the general public hate you for it?


some did, some didn't. some loved us.



> Was it ever scary?


a few times yes, never had a gun put to my head though but know people sho did when they inadvertently squatted what used to be a drug dealer place and some gang came to rob the previous occupier.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jan 6, 2010)

soulfulofsoul said:


> Thanks, thats really interesting.
> 
> 1. try and slow them (police, landlord, *drug gang*) down from entering into the building in any way possible.
> 
> ...



Had to deal with drug gangs a couple of times, once it was a case of they turned up and (meeting only women at the time) said: we'll be back Saturday you'd better be out; we organised a big party and never saw a hint of them again. 
second time: we moved out sharpish (big fishes and all that...)

FYI: it is illegal to "break into" a squatt, not that it would stop a determined crew (whatever their "colour").  
On a side note: had the police barging in once (the latch did not work  on the front door) looking for a "criminal"; after their search  they left, I'm standing here looking at my mate when we hear some radio noise from upstairs and the whole lot of them come back piling in shouting "what did you do with him!"... one of the coppers was still upstairs and the rest thought we had kidnapped him   never heard a word about the plants on the top floor.  **happy days**


----------



## chico enrico (Jan 6, 2010)

the thing i always find strange is thinking of just how many places , if not entire streets were squatted in the early 1980s. For a while about everyone i knew stayed in squats and usually all the neighbouring flats or houses were squatted too. 

Lods of places around Old St, hackney, dalston etc were, as well as perhaps more surprising areas life islington, tufnel park, muswell hill (remembering that back then most gig venues, decent pubs, countercultural stuff was based around north london rather than east)

i stayed in some pretty mad punk squats when i was around 14/15. places with no leccy, water etc. where the other members of the band i was drumming for lived.  but at that age it was a novelty - there's no way i could live like that now. 

my mate tells me that in the 1970s there were loads of Irish labourers, black folk etc used to squat. wonder if it's the same now with eastern europeans, folk displaced through homeless legislation etc? i hope so. It'd be really sad if squatting was indeed a 'cred' lifestyle choice for trust-fund types (like some of those types you see in the papers) rather than an option (with a support network) for those genuinely homeless and in need of a place to stay.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 6, 2010)

This is actually pretty good, though I wouldn't see it as a complete guide to squatting:


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 6, 2010)

chico enrico said:


> i stayed in some pretty mad punk squats when i was around 14/15



Like this?


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 6, 2010)

One last video: Russian TV report on an opening at the Mayfair squat I was in, late in 2008: http://news.ntv.ru/144936/

No actual trustafarians involved; the group was made up of London state-school kids.


----------



## MrA (Jan 6, 2010)

The whole idea of squatting as a lifestyle choice is something I find pretty disgusting and totally unfair to the people who own the properties. Of course there may exceptions such as abandoned properties and a few other examples contained in this thread.

I would hate to think that someone could enter my property back in the UK and use it gratuitously whilst I had to pay for it's upkeep and maintain it after they'd left.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 6, 2010)

Heh, I've never squatted, but several of the posts on this thread remind me of the _endless_ conversations I listened to about squat politics (internal and between squats in some cases), much of which revolved what peacepete calls privilege which I used to find really funny, mainly because I'd hear someone espousing about the openess and whatnot of squatting and then in the same breath slag someone off for coming from a wealthy family and living in a squat 

I've also met a number of people who are 'non-scene' (if you can call it that) squatters - i.e. they squat for cheap housing, don't have 'politics' etc, who are mainly professionals (lawyers, accountants)...

I do think it's interesting that, even after 30 years of Thatcherism and hundreds of years of property law, that it's still possible to squat in the UK.



> yep. everything in my local squatting scene has taken a massive punky turn, which is a huge improvement.



Well, if you like punk I guess it would be...


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 6, 2010)

chico enrico said:


> my mate tells me that in the 1970s there were loads of Irish labourers, black folk etc used to squat. wonder if it's the same now with eastern europeans, folk displaced through homeless legislation etc? i hope so. It'd be really sad if squatting was indeed a 'cred' lifestyle choice for trust-fund types (like some of those types you see in the papers) rather than an option (with a support network) for those genuinely homeless and in need of a place to stay.


I remember when I moved to London in '91, we would buy all our drugs from rastas squatting a big house in Ladbroke Grove.
Yes in Tottenham it's most Eastern Europeans squatting.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 6, 2010)

MrA said:


> The whole idea of squatting as a lifestyle choice is something I find pretty disgusting and totally unfair to the people who own the properties. Of course there may exceptions such as abandoned properties and a few other examples contained in this thread.
> 
> I would hate to think that someone could enter my property back in the UK and use it gratuitously whilst I had to pay for it's upkeep and maintain it after they'd left.



Make sure your property is rented out and occupied rather than standing empty then. The number of vacant and under-occupied property in the UK is obscene given the number of fully and semi-homeless (i.e. those living in B&Bs, hostels etc). I have no issue with private property, but if you want to think of it as a right, then you also have a responsibility to ensure that it's utilised to the full as much as is practicable.

If you fuck off for a year and leave your home empty, not only are you wasting your own asset (insofar as you could rent it and transfer some wealth), you're also wasting an asset that could be used to get someone off the street.


----------



## Onket (Jan 6, 2010)

MrA said:


> I would hate to think that someone could enter my property back in the UK and use it gratuitously whilst I had to pay for it's upkeep and maintain it after they'd left.



Where is it? I'll go and check it for you if you want.


----------



## MrA (Jan 6, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Make sure your property is rented out and occupied rather than standing empty then. The number of vacant and under-occupied property in the UK is obscene given the number of fully and semi-homeless (i.e. those living in B&Bs, hostels etc). I have no issue with private property, but if you want to think of it as a right, then you also have a responsibility to ensure that it's utilised to the full as much as is practicable.
> 
> If you fuck off for a year and leave your home empty, not only are you wasting your own asset (insofar as you could rent it and transfer some wealth), you're also wasting an asset that could be used to get someone off the street.



I'm all for abandoned or under occupied state property or even coporation property thats left rotting away being invested in and used for homeless/semi homeless people and families.

Whether it makes economic sense or not I should have the freedom and protection to leave my property that I worked hard for, invested in and maintained, empty or rented as I see fit. Even though I'm working away I still need to be able to visit home when I want and I can't do that with tenants.


----------



## MrA (Jan 6, 2010)

Onket said:


> Where is it? I'll go and check it for you if you want.



It's at ...... wait a minute!


----------



## Onket (Jan 6, 2010)

I will accept the details by PM if you'd prefer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Heh, I've never squatted, but several of the posts on this thread remind me of the _endless_ conversations I listened to about squat politics (internal and between squats in some cases), much of which revolved what peacepete calls privilege which I used to find really funny, mainly because I'd hear someone espousing about the openess and whatnot of squatting and then in the same breath slag someone off for coming from a wealthy family and living in a squat
> 
> I've also met a number of people who are 'non-scene' (if you can call it that) squatters - i.e. they squat for cheap housing, don't have 'politics' etc, who are mainly professionals (lawyers, accountants)...
> 
> ...




Numbers game ennit? the forces who would oppose squatting are outnumbered by those who engage in it. All that can be done is firefighting iyswim


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Numbers game ennit? the forces who would oppose squatting are outnumbered by those who engage in it. All that can be done is firefighting iyswim



Really?  I'd have thought there were a lot more Daily Mail readers than squatters.

After all, how much squatting goes on outside London anyway?  Have heard of a little in Oxford, Cambridge, Brighton, Bristol, Sheffield, but not much in an organised way elsewhere.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> Really?  I'd have thought there were a lot more Daily Mail readers than squatters.
> 
> After all, how much squatting goes on outside London anyway?  Have heard of a little in Oxford, Cambridge, Brighton, Bristol, Sheffield, but not much in an organised way elsewhere.



Daily Mail readers will huff and puff. I'm talking about coppers, bailiffs etc and the time and resources they have.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Daily Mail readers will huff and puff. I'm talking about coppers, bailiffs etc and the time and resources they have.



Ah okay.  To be honest we never had any trouble whatsoever from the police.  We were always left alone.   In fact when we were doing places central, we got in the habit of calling the police ourselves and telling them we'd moved in.  They'd say "Well, did you break in?", we'd say "No, of course not!!!" and they'd say "So why are you calling us?"  But it meant that we got an incident number and if the owner later tried reporting us, the police would have to say they already knew about it.  

It came in very handy when at 6am one morning half a dozen heavies broke into the old language school we squatted on Oxford Street at the top of Soho.  They were from a west country firm of bailiffs that specialices in illegal evictions (or, as they put it, ones that don't require going to court).  So we called the police and, after a long stand-off while they tried to figure out what was going on, the police sent the bailiffs packing.

Some friends of mine had a massive party in a squatted strip club a few months ago and a lot of police did show up to that and shut it down for a couple of hours, but I guess that's a little different since neighbours had been complaining.


----------



## Nixon (Jan 6, 2010)

What were the pros/ cons (compared to a 'normal' life)?

We don't have a shower.We did but the fuse blows everytime someone has one..and it's in the room where we stick all the bikes so it's a bit f*ckin cold.The squat next door has a bathroom which we all welcome to use (we have a key to their house in ours).Make do innit.The house im in has been here for a few years and that,but there are still holes and the roof and all kindsa not so pleasureable things about living here..When they first got here there were no walls! Nothing.

What was difficult?
Mostly people and visitors treating it like their house etc..And managing things as a house like finances and stuff.The bills always get paid,but it's the extensive work which is a bit of a pain.I don't want to fork out loads to fix things like said leaky roof etc if we get kicked out in a few months.Im not in the best financial position and neither are my housemates..but we arent in the "art student" catagory of squatters really..

Did you have tonnes of free time?
Depends.I do at the moment.It's about managing your life.I've decided im sick off so much free time so starting some courses next week.I spend a lot of my free time helping to put on raves or just generally trying to get by one way or another ya know.I know plenty of people that never have a minute to themselves and help to organise a lot of awesome events..

Are there any unwritten rules?
Respect each other? Learn to communicate as adults and sh*t.Basic stuff.Depends on who your living with though innit.My house used to be vegan as a rule and now it's not..Things change depending on people.

Is there a proper brother/ sisterhood feeling where you take care of each other?
Again it depends 

Are there certain subcultures within squatting?
Can't be bothered to go into this one.

Did the general public hate you for it?
Our neighbours are mostly squatters too.The ones who aren't squatters don't mind us cause they see we are generally "good neighbours" and don't have parties all the time (although when we do have parties no one can hear or see much from the outside anyways..)

Was it ever scary?
No the scariest thing is waiting for the evicition papers/bailiffs.One time my housemates woke up to some electric company literally trying to drill the bars off the windows to get in.They went out and negotiated something and we were left alone.But i'd have to try and keep cool in a situation like that.

My expexriences of living with mostly people who are squatting because they don't have any other choice..and also mostly squatting with people from other countries as opposed to people from here.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 6, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> If you fuck off for a year and leave your home empty, not only are you wasting your own asset (insofar as you could rent it and transfer some wealth), you're also wasting an asset that could be used to get someone off the street.



This ^ ^ 

If every vacant property was used then rent would go down and the whole thing would be fairer. The endless ME ME ME thing about property is tiresome and people wasting their assets (in my world) should have them seized. Nothing wrong with a good landlord in my opinion but everything wrong with empty property during recession in a crowded country


----------



## Chairman Meow (Jan 6, 2010)

Just one thing about leaving a property empty. My dad's place has been empty since last Feb, since he died. Its going through probate, and until that is sorted it can't be let or sold. So, its empty, and yes its a waste, but there's fuck all I can do about it, and I suspect that its not the only property in the same limbo.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Numbers game ennit? the forces who would oppose squatting are outnumbered by those who engage in it. All that can be done is firefighting iyswim



iirc, squatter's rights go back to the civil war


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 6, 2010)

Chairman Meow said:


> Just one thing about leaving a property empty. My dad's place has been empty since last Feb, since he died. Its going through probate, and until that is sorted it can't be let or sold. So, its empty, and yes its a waste, but there's fuck all I can do about it, and I suspect that its not the only property in the same limbo.



I've heard about people squatting houses of the recently or not so recently deceased, which are still full of the previous occupant's belongings.  It's not something I'd ever contemplate doing.  I think it stinks.  It's not fair to add to the grief of their children etc.  Sure, you might need somewhere to live, but such properties haven't been legitimately abandoned, and you should find somewhere else.


----------



## Thora (Jan 6, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> I've heard about people squatting houses of the recently or not so recently deceased, which are still full of the previous occupant's belongings.  It's not something I'd ever contemplate doing.  I think it stinks.  It's not fair to add to the grief of their children etc.  Sure, you might need somewhere to live, but such properties haven't been legitimately abandoned, and you should find somewhere else.



I've only read about that in Daily Mail horror stories.  If someone wants to squat somewhere they're not going to go for a place that looks like it has an interested owner, just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Sir Belchalot (Jan 7, 2010)

Reminds me of the bloke who was checking out an empty in Stamford Hill in the 80's when he had an urge to take a dump.  Was scrabbling around in the dark for something to wipe his arse with when he found a £8K or so stash!


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 7, 2010)

Chairman Meow said:


> Just one thing about leaving a property empty. My dad's place has been empty since last Feb, since he died. Its going through probate, and until that is sorted it can't be let or sold. So, its empty, and yes its a waste, but there's fuck all I can do about it, and I suspect that its not the only property in the same limbo.



We had that situation in our family, (El Jugs grandmothers flat), but El Jugs brother lived there,  it meant he didn't have to rent anywhere, meaning he could save some money and buy something.  It seemed daft to not have someone living there.


----------



## Chairman Meow (Jan 7, 2010)

pinkmonkey said:


> We had that situation in our family, (El Jugs grandmothers flat), but El Jugs brother lived there,  it meant he didn't have to rent anywhere, meaning he could save some money and buy something.  It seemed daft to not have someone living there.



No-one wants to live there. It is completely unfurnished and there are holes in some of the windows ( covered by perspex sheets). It would need a new kitchen, bathrooms windows and furniture to make it habitable. Since I intend to flog it at the first possible opportunity, I'm not going to spend a penny on it. Oh, and I live 300 miles away, so its no good to me, otherwise I would do it up and move in like a shot.

So, not that daft really.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 7, 2010)

^^
Not daft in our case, not in your case. Obv.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

I think that squatting should only be considered acceptable as a last resort, not as a lifestyle _choice._


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> I think that squatting should only be considered acceptable as a last resort, not as a lifestyle _choice._



Why?


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why?



I can sympathise with people who squat out of necessity, of course. Yet, why should a stranger have rights to the property belonging someone else when they haven't worked for it or paid for it? How is that just?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> I can sympathise with people who squat out of necessity, of course. Yet, why should a stranger have rights to the property belonging someone else when they haven't worked for it or paid for it? How is that just?



But if it's been standing empty and unused for a while and someone wants to live there and not particularly damage the property then why not?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> But if it's been standing empty and unused for a while and someone wants to live there and not particularly damage the property then why not?


 
If they're leaving a room empty in mummy and daddy's familial ranch home in buckinghamshire and spending their trust fund on a few years of 'roughing it'... that's why not.

My experience there are lots of types of squats squatted for lots of reasons. Some seem eminently reasonable - some are just plain selfish and egotistical.

No right answer on this one, I reckon.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> I can sympathise with people who squat out of necessity, of course. Yet, why should a stranger have rights to the property belonging someone else when they haven't worked for it or paid for it? How is that just?



They're not really 'rights to the property' per se - very few squatters end up owners of properties (hence why it often makes the news). All you are really entitled to is a court hearing which generally results in you being given a notice period of circa 1 month before you are evicted.

I appreciate that it is annoying for the landlord, but most (not all) are speculators or investment trusts who are holding out for capital gains and deliberately keeping the property off the market. By making use of it you are increasing the efficiency with which society utilises its resources. If you would otherwise rent privately, you are creating a beneficial effect (albeit small) on the price other renters in the area will pay.


----------



## klang (Jan 7, 2010)

and why are those people selfish and egoistical?
i have squatted for lots of reasons in the past, sometimes as a last resort, sometimes to safe up money, sometimes because there was a room going in a mate's squat. 
why would somebody in financial hardship have more rights to free or cheap housing? why does it have to have a political or sociological context? 
the bottom line is - no squatter takes away housing from anybody in need - there are enough empty properties to go round for everybody.
i feel that as a social worker i do a fair bit to help society, but find it quetionable that i can't even afford a decent flat in the area i work in, and supposedly do so much for, so over the years i have learnt from society to fend for myself, without fucking others over.
everybody has the right to squat, as a last resort or as a lifestyle choice.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> I can sympathise with people who squat out of necessity, of course. Yet, why should a stranger have rights to the property belonging someone else when they haven't worked for it or paid for it? How is that just?



They don't have a 'right' to it in the sense of ownership (unless you squat somewhere a couple of decades, if that law is still in place).

As is endlessly recylced by the 'Rights come with responsibilities', having property rights also comes with responsibilities. IMO anyway.


----------



## fogbat (Jan 7, 2010)

I'd say a right to a roof over your head overrides the right to leave your property unoccupied.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> I can sympathise with people who squat out of necessity, of course. Yet, why should a stranger have rights to the property belonging someone else when they haven't worked for it or paid for it? How is that just?



How is paying rent just?


----------



## futha (Jan 7, 2010)

littleseb said:


> and why are those people selfish and egoistical?
> i have squatted for lots of reasons in the past, sometimes as a last resort, sometimes to safe up money, sometimes because there was a room going in a mate's squat.
> why would somebody in financial hardship have more rights to free or cheap housing? why does it have to have a political or sociological context?
> the bottom line is - no squatter takes away housing from anybody in need - there are enough empty properties to go round for everybody.



^^ I agree. Why shouldn't someone squat just because they could technically afford not to? As long as they aren't being a dick I see no problem.


----------



## klang (Jan 7, 2010)

yes, and most squatters are all right people who don't want to loose their houses, so behave reasonbly well. people in rentd accomodation can be right cocks as well!


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How is paying rent just?



How is stealing the use of another persons property any more just, how is the expense of evicting squatters just? If it is a genuine need then I can at least sympathise, as a life style choice? Just seems a bit low.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> How is stealing the use of another persons property any more just, how is the expense of evicting squatters just? If it is a genuine need then I can at least sympathise, as a life style choice? Just seems a bit low.



How is it just for someone to make money from such a basic need as housing?


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

fogbat said:


> I'd say a right to a roof over your head overrides the right to leave your property unoccupied.



Well that's just great then..... if we all had that attitude.. blah blah blah. 


The right to have a roof over your head doesn't mean you have a right to help yourself to what's not yours as a lifestyle choice. I suppose the right to eat gives you the right to take food, yes?


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How is it just for someone to make money from such a basic need as housing?




Oh I see, then we'd all be entitled to free housing? Is that it?


----------



## fogbat (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Well that's just great then..... if we all had that attitude.. blah blah blah.
> 
> 
> The right to have a roof over your head doesn't mean you have a right to help yourself to what's not yours as a lifestyle choice. I suppose the right to eat gives you the right to take food, yes?



It beats the right to starve.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Oh I see, then we'd all be entitled to free housing? Is that it?



Why does the right to make money override the right to survive?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Well that's just great then..... if we all had that attitude.. blah blah blah.
> 
> 
> The right to have a roof over your head doesn't mean you have a right to help yourself to what's not yours as a lifestyle choice. I suppose the right to eat gives you the right to take food, yes?



How did property rights come about?


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

fogbat said:


> It beats the right to starve.



So I one could quite possibly be entitled to a free home, free food, free utilities and free clothing?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> So I one could quite possibly be entitled to a free home, free food, free utilities and free clothing?



Why does the right to make money override the right to life?


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> But if it's been standing empty and unused for a while and someone wants to live there and not particularly damage the property then why not?


If it's a last resort and you're desperate, then by all means. However sense of entitlement alone is not a good enough reason. It's not yours to use, simple as that.



fogbat said:


> I'd say a right to a roof over your head overrides the right to leave your property unoccupied.


Yes, but I believe I've already established a difference between someone looking for a roof over their head and someone making a concerted lifestyle choice. I am assuming that those who _choose_ to live as squatters have viable alternatives.



Blagsta said:


> How is paying rent just?


Paying rent is just because you are being provided with a commodity, ie: a place to live. If you can afford it, it is right that you should pay for it. If not then you are entitled to extra help, but that's an entirely different story. I am not bashing squatters as a whole, I just disapprove of squatting as a lifestyle choice. 

In a similar vein, I can sympathise with the man who steals to feed his family, yet this does not mean that I believe theft should be encouraged as a career choice.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Paying rent is just because you are being provided with a commodity, ie: a place to live. If you can afford it, it is right that you should pay for it. If not then you are entitled to extra help, but that's an entirely different story. I am not bashing squatters as a whole, I just disapprove of squatting as a lifestyle choice.
> 
> In a similar vein, I can sympathise with the man who steals to feed his family, yet this does not mean that I believe theft should be encouraged as a career choice.



Same question to you - why does the right to make money override all others?


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How did property rights come about?



Do you know what, I really don't care, the point is that in 2010 millions of people pay rent or mortgages for their right to a property. Until there's a concerted effort to change that state of affairs that's the way it is now. 

Let me be clear, my issue is with squatting as a "lifestyle choise"...


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Why does the right to make money override the right to life?



Is there a right ot life at the expense of others?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Do you know what, I really don't care, the point is that in 2010 millions of people pay rent or mortgages for their right to a property. Until there's a concerted effort to change that state of affairs that's the way it is now.
> 
> Let me be clear, my issue is with squatting as a "lifestyle choise"...



Let me get this straight.  Your answer to why the right to make money overrides other rights is because that's the way it is.  Have I summarised accurately?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Is there a right ot life at the expense of others?



You haven't answered my question.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Same question to you - why does the right to make money override all others?



It doesn't, as I've already said, those with no other alternative should be free to squat, ie their right to shelter overrides the right of the property owner to earn money off of it. However, those with other options do not have that excuse.

Also, people who cannot find adequate shelter, warmth and food should be provided for by wider society rather than a random individual with an empty property.


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Let me get this straight.  Your answer to why the right to make money overrides other rights is because that's the way it is.  Have I summarised accurately?



I never mentioned once the right to make money, my stance is that it isn't the right of any individual to have something that isn't theirs.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> It doesn't, as I've already said, those with no other alternative should be free to squat, ie their right to shelter overrides the right of the property owner to earn money off of it. However, those with other options do not have that excuse.
> 
> Also, people who cannot find adequate shelter, warmth and food should be provided for by wider society rather than a random individual with an empty property.



You haven't answered my question.


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You haven't answered my question.



You ahven't answered mine, is it your contention that a person has the right to take what they want when they want because of their right to do so?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> I never mentioned once the right to make money, my stance is that it isn't the right of any individual to have something that isn't theirs.



You have mentioned the right to make money.  What do you think rent is?


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You have mentioned the right to make money.  What do you think rent is?



Paying for the use of a property in the same way that paying for a car or a tin of beans, it is a commodity that someone else owns.

Build your own house if thats your point.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> You ahven't answered mine, is it your contention that a person has the right to take what they want when they want because of their right to do so?



Before I can answer that, we need to talk about how things come to be owned, i.e. property rights.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Paying for the use of a property in the same way that paying for a car or a tiun of beans, *it is a commodity that someone else owns.*
> Build your own house if thats your point.



Indeed.  How did that right to ownership come about?  Why is it more important than the right to have a roof over one's head?


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You haven't answered my question.



Yes I did. I answered it by saying that the right to make money _doesn't _over-ride all others. I then qualified my answer by stating that the rights of those with a real desperate need for shelter over-rides the right of property owners to leave their property empty.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Yes I did. I answered it by saying that the right to make money _doesn't _over-ride all others. I then qualified my answer by stating that the rights of those with a real desperate need for shelter over-rides the right of property owners to leave their property empty.
> 
> Are you being deliberately obtuse?



No you didn't.  You said that if someone can pay, they should.  I'm asking you why.  Why does that right of a property owner to make money override all other rights?


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Indeed.  How did that right to ownership come about?  Why is it more important than the right to have a roof over one's head?



Like I said I do not care.


If all had that attitude there'd be no houses to squat in.....


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Like I said I do not care.
> 
> 
> If all had that attitude there'd be no houses to squat in.....



You don't care about the argument you're making?  

Why make it then?


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> No you didn't.  You said that if someone can pay, they should.  I'm asking you why.  Why does that right of a property owner to make money override all other rights?



You really are being obtuse, answer the question


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> You really are being obtuse, answer the question



I'm trying to!


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You don't care about the argument you're making?
> 
> Why make it then?



Ahh, you're on of those pendantic types who keep asking obscure questions and twisting words to your own ends.

Now behave yourself, do you believe that people have a right to take what they want when they want it because it is their right? Yes or  no.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> No you didn't.  You said that if someone can pay, they should.  I'm asking you why.  Why does that right of a property owner to make money override all other rights?



Saying that if someone _can _pay they should doesn't indicate a belief that the right of a property owner to make money overrides all other rights. It all centres on the word _if_. Now, if I were arguing that someone who is unable to pay should forfeit their other rights then your argument would make sense, but I'm not.

The right to shelter is a fundamental one, the right to earn money off of property should be considered if it is feasible for the tenant.


----------



## Thora (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> How is stealing the use of another persons property any more just, how is the expense of evicting squatters just? If it is a genuine need then I can at least sympathise, as a life style choice? Just seems a bit low.



But squatters aren't really stopping owners from using their property.  If they were using it in the first place no one would have been able to squat it - and if they decide they do want to use it then they can go to court and get them out sharpish.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 7, 2010)

I've found myself wondering how many of the squatters I know are doing it out of necessity.  The answer is almost none of them.  They're doing it because it allows them to do the things which matter to them, to not have to waste 40 hours a week in a mindnumbing job just to be able to afford to subsist.  Instead they can do what they like, whether it's volunteering, activism, art, or whatever.  They do have to make sacrifices, doing without hot water, having to improvise a kitchen, sharing bedrooms and not having personal space, etc.  But they're choosing to do it.

I would say the same applies to all the Polish, Italian, Spanish etc squatters, who're often punky types in their early twenties.  They chose to live in London, knowing there was this alternative way of living, and not wanting to work full time.  They could if they wanted to, but it doesn't suit their self-image.

Of the hundreds of squatters I've met over the last year, I can think of only a few who are doing it out of necessity.  Their lives are too chaotic, their addictions too entrenched, and their mental illnesses too untreated for them to be able to work and pay rent.  Even then, they might be better off getting help from the council.   

All this being said, I am fully supportive of the right to anyone to squat if they want to, so long as the building they take is genuinely abandoned.

For me personally, I started squatting because my addiction to online poker meant I was absolutely incapable of managing money.  I just couldn't keep hold of money long enough to save up rent.  And I wasn't making enough money as a cycle courier to pay it, anyway.   I also found renting a room in a shitty flat for £450 a month living with a couple of dull nasty anally-retentive flatmates to be a miserable and lonely experience.  

Squatting was a revelation, since I found an amazing group of people who really cared about and looked after each other.  I found happiness from communal living - always being around friends, having someone to laugh with, go somewhere with, etc.  

I did find it hard to find stuff to fill the days.  Take away the pressure to pay rent, and you need to be able to motivate yourself to find interesting alternatives to fill the day.  I never did, even as I saw those around me manage it.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> The right to have a roof over your head doesn't mean you have a right to help yourself to what's not yours as a lifestyle choice. I suppose the right to eat gives you the right to take food, yes?




You utter utter cunt.  I hope you die starving in a gutter somewhere.  Whilst people walk past and tut at you as you're inconsiderate enough to leave a mess that somebody will have to clear up, no doubt at taxpayer's expense.

You know, we don't actually have such a thing as free speech.  But you're the sort of person who probably gets huffy if someone gets offended at their cuntish idea and moans about how we don't have free speech.  You probably can't see the irony but if you're not even going to take the personal responsibility not to be a bitter offensive inhumane cunt, then how can you expect someone not to put a roof over their head or feed themselves because there may conceivably be a way you can think of that they can fund it.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

el-ahrairah said:


> You utter utter cunt.  I hope you die starving in a gutter somewhere.  Whilst people walk past and tut at you as you're inconsiderate enough to leave a mess that somebody will have to clear up, no doubt at taxpayer's expense.



I think you've missed the point, I don't think he means that people genuinely in need should not take, that people should starve, struggle and freeze rather than squat, or even be forced into horrible situations just to pay for their basic needs.  

He means people who could _easily_ provide for themselves do not have the right not to do so. Such things do not often get clarified in such discussions because many people take it as read.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 7, 2010)

el-ahrairah said:


> You utter utter cunt.  I hope you die starving in a gutter somewhere.  Whilst people walk past and tut at you as you're inconsiderate enough to leave a mess that somebody will have to clear up, no doubt at taxpayer's expense.



Comments like this don't do either this thread or this board any favours, IMO. I'm actually pro-squatting in the sense that it's ridiculous so many houses are standing empty when we have a national housing shortage, but I can also see Mr A's point of view and suspect he speaks for a lot of people. He has worked hard for the house he owns and doesn't see why someone else should simply be able to move in there whenever they feel like it.

I doubt my dad would have done either were he still alive.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 7, 2010)

I'm sure no-one ever tried to steal your dad's house whilst he was out.  Don't be melodramatic.  And your father's being dead doesn't give you or his opinions any moral high ground.  My father has cancer but I didn't bring him up despite the fact that he'd probably think MrA was a selfish shit as well.

Who gets to decide how worthy someone is of being a squatter?  You, me, MrA, your dead dad or my dying dad?  You know the homelessness rate is going up but there are plenty of people who think they should just get a job.  Those people get a vote too.


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Thora said:


> But squatters aren't really stopping owners from using their property.  If they were using it in the first place no one would have been able to squat it - and if they decide they do want to use it then they can go to court and get them out sharpish.



The point I'm trying to make, clearly not very well, is if it is for a need or neccesity then it's difficult to argue that squatting is wrong or immoral. Where I do have an issue is if it is a _lifestyle_ _choice_.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Ahh, you're on of those pendantic types who keep asking obscure questions and twisting words to your own ends.
> 
> Now behave yourself, do you believe that people have a right to take what they want when they want it because it is their right? Yes or  no.


i'm asking you to think about property rights. You seem unwilling or unable.


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

el-ahrairah said:


> You utter utter cunt.



 



> I hope you die starving in a gutter somewhere.  Whilst people walk past and tut at you as you're inconsiderate enough to leave a mess that somebody will have to clear up, no doubt at taxpayer's expense.


 Grow up.



> You know, we don't actually have such a thing as free speech.



Really?  Shut the fuck up then. 



> But you're the sort of person who probably gets huffy if someone gets offended at their cuntish idea and moans about how we don't have free speech.



WTF? Your're ranting. It makes no sense.



> You probably can't see the irony but if you're not even going to take the personal responsibility not to be a bitter offensive inhumane cunt, then how can you expect someone not to put a roof over their head or feed themselves because there may conceivably be a way you can think of that they can fund it.



I was talking about *lifestyle choices* you fuckwit, so I suggest take your head out of your ideological backside and read the full thread. If you take the time to read I have stated that if there is a need then that's a different kettle of fish.


----------



## embree (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> I'm all for abandoned or under occupied state property or even coporation property thats left rotting away being invested in and used for homeless/semi homeless people and families.
> 
> Whether it makes economic sense or not I should have the freedom and protection to leave my property that I worked hard for, invested in and maintained, empty or rented as I see fit. Even though I'm working away I still need to be able to visit home when I want and I can't do that with tenants.



I couldn't give a shit about your freedom to swan around the world compared to someone else's freedom not to die of exposure tbh


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> i'm asking you to think about property rights. You seem unwilling or unable.



I can't see the relevance, honestly.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 7, 2010)

el-ahrairah said:


> I'm sure no-one ever tried to steal your dad's house whilst he was out.  Don't be melodramatic.
> 
> 
> My father has cancer but I didn't bring him up despite the fact that he'd probably think MrA was a selfish shit as well.



Maybe so (and I'm sorry about your dad), but I'll take no lectures about in melodrama from someone who thinks this is a suitable comment to put in a debate;

"You utter utter cunt. I hope you die starving in a gutter somewhere."

You're lucky I'm not a mod here or you'd be on vacation for that one.



el-ahrairah said:


> And your father's being dead doesn't give you or his opinions any moral high ground.



True.



el-ahrairah said:


> Who gets to decide how worthy someone is of being a squatter?  You, me, MrA, your dead dad or my dying dad?  You know the homelessness rate is going up but there are plenty of people who think they should just get a job.  Those people get a vote too.



Of course they do, and governments have the job of trying to find them somewhere to live since the private sector clearly can't do it. We should build more council houses to replace the ones Maggie sold off.


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

embree said:


> I couldn't give a shit about your freedom to swan around the world compared to someone else's freedom not to die of exposure tbh



Wow that's melodramatic.
Here's a challenge, show me where I said that a homeless person shoud be left to die of exposure or that squatting for need is wrong.

You see what you want to.


----------



## embree (Jan 7, 2010)

Fair enough

I still don't really give much of a shit about property owners' rights tbh given that most of that property is obtained by means of shitting on those worse off.

Cue uncomprehending twattery


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

embree said:


> Fair enough



Good



> I still don't really give much of a shit about property owners' rights tbh given that most of that property is obtained by means of shitting on those worse off.



Fair enough, don't give a shit. But it does strike me as selfish.




> Cue uncomprehending twattery



How old are you?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> How is stealing the use of another persons property any more just, how is the expense of evicting squatters just? If it is a genuine need then I can at least sympathise, as a life style choice? Just seems a bit low.



i neither recognise nor give a fuck about your so called 'property rights'

i do give a fuck about your right to somewhere to live, and if, having been lucky in life you have been able to purchase a home you dont need to live in for the benefit of your local community then i may well avail myself of it, in gratitude, from time to time

but there wont be a financial transaction taking place between us

if however youve been lucky in life and have simply bought a property in order to screw as much money as possible out of people in your community who have less than you, then you are an anti-social cunt and deserve whatever's fucking coming to you


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jan 7, 2010)

Meltingpot said:


> I can also see Mr A's point of view and suspect he speaks for a lot of people. He has worked hard for the house he owns and doesn't see why someone else should simply be able to move in there whenever they feel like it.


I guess I don't see how the average person could justify opposing an activity that ultimately benefits them by placing downward pressure on rents. The only way I can rationalise it is if  Mr A is some kind of tard who is envious that he has to pay rent when squatters don't... or perhaps a landlord. His position would make a bit more sense then.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> i neither recognise nor give a fuck about your so called 'property rights'
> 
> i do give a fuck about your right to somewhere to live, and if, having been lucky in life you have been able to purchase a home you dont need to live in for the benefit of your local community then i may well avail myself of it, in gratitude, from time to time
> 
> ...



There's two sides to that argument. Yes you're right that some people who own and rent out houses are "antisocial cunts," but there are also people like the air hostess I knew who rented out her old house in the North while she worked in Sussex and discovered that her tenants were carving up her furniture (literally) and damaging the place in other ways, and she still couldn't get them out.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> I can't see the relevance, honestly.


you can't see the relevance of property rights in a discussion about property rights? How...odd.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> you can't see the relevance of property rights in a discussion about property rights? How...odd.



What gives you the moral right to squat a property when there is someone poorer than you who needs it more?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

littleseb said:


> and why are those people selfish and egoistical?



Because they think things like this:



> why would somebody in financial hardship have more rights to free or cheap housing? why does it have to have a political or sociological context?



Do you realise how selfish and egotistical that is?



> i feel that as a social worker i do a fair bit to help society, but find it quetionable that i can't even afford a decent flat in the area i work in



What do others in your job do? What makes you more worthy than them?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Why does the right to make money override the right to survive?



That's a charlatans argument.

Squatting to survive... because it's the only choice... no-one has a problem with that, really.

But this type of argument blagsta is making is the typical trustafarian line... it's technically true but morally bankrupt.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> But this type of argument blagsta is making is the typical trustafarian line... it's technically true but morally bankrupt.



see that thing that just flew over your head

or did you miss it completely


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 7, 2010)

So anyone going to watch Britain's Empty Homes on the BBC tonight?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pwqgm/Britains_Empty_Homes_Ray_and_Carol_Scarborough/

I think this is the episode that follows round Paul Palmer, who was Empty Homes officer for Westminster Council, as he tries to get long-abandoned Mayfair mansions back into use.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> see that thing that just flew over your head
> 
> or did you miss it completely



Morally bankrupt.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

so you missed it completely then


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

The bit that I called the charlatans argument?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

so how would you differentiate between someone who was squatting as a lifestyle choice or squatting because they have to?

and why should anyone care what you think since the answer to that is purely subjective?

and finally what the fuck does that have to do with the wider issue of the validity of property rights which was what was actually being questioned?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> *Saying that if someone can pay they should doesn't indicate a belief that the right of a property owner to make money overrides all other rights.* It all centres on the word _if_. Now, if I were arguing that someone who is unable to pay should forfeit their other rights then your argument would make sense, but I'm not.
> 
> The right to shelter is a fundamental one, the right to earn money off of property should be considered if it is feasible for the tenant.



Yes it does.  You're saying that *the owner has to get the money* otherwise the person can't live there.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Meltingpot said:


> Comments like this don't do either this thread or this board any favours, IMO. I'm actually pro-squatting in the sense that it's ridiculous so many houses are standing empty when we have a national housing shortage, but I can also see Mr A's point of view and suspect he speaks for a lot of people. *He has worked hard for the house he owns and doesn't see why someone else should simply be able to move in there whenever they feel like *it.
> 
> I doubt my dad would have done either were he still alive.



They can't neccesarily.  There are exceptions to squatter's rights such as Prior Intended Occupier, i.e. if someone lives there or intends to move in, then the squatters can be evicted very quickly (usually within 24 hours).


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Meltingpot said:


> There's two sides to that argument. Yes you're right that some people who own and rent out houses are "antisocial cunts," but there are also people like the air hostess I knew who rented out her old house in the North while she worked in Sussex and discovered that her tenants were carving up her furniture (literally) and damaging the place in other ways, and *she still couldn't get them out*.



bullshit


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> What gives you the moral right to squat a property when there is someone poorer than you who needs it more?



I don't know.  You tell me?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> That's a charlatans argument.
> 
> Squatting to survive... because it's the only choice... no-one has a problem with that, really.
> 
> But this type of argument blagsta is making is the typical trustafarian line... it's technically true but morally bankrupt.



You'll have to expand on that.  Why is it "morally bankrupt"?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Morally bankrupt.



Make the argument.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Yes it does.  You're saying that *the owner has to get the money* otherwise the person can't live there.




No I'm not. This is the last time I shall repeat myself. I said if the person is ABLE (ie: has the means, is capable of affording, is in posession of the required assets so as to make it feasible etc) *then* the owner has the right to request payment.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> so how would you differentiate between someone who was squatting as a lifestyle choice or squatting because they have to?
> 
> and why should anyone care what you think since the answer to that is purely subjective?
> 
> and finally what the fuck does that have to do with the wider issue of the validity of property rights which was what was actually being questioned?



I find it objectionable that fairly well off people take up valuable resorces 'on behalf' of the people who actually need it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> No I'm not. This is the last time I shall repeat myself. I said if the person is ABLE (ie: has the means, is capable of affording, is in posession of the required assets so as to make it feasible etc) *then* the owner has the right to request payment.



Yes I understand what you're saying.  I'm asking you why their rights to get payment override the right of someone to live there.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> I find it objectionable that fairly well off people take up valuable resorces 'on behalf' of the people who actually need it.



Which fairly well off people?  What are *you* doing to help poor people?


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> bullshit



It might be true that a landlord had difficulty getting out a bad tenant, but it has nothing to do with squatting!


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> No I'm not. This is the last time I shall repeat myself. I said if the person is ABLE (ie: has the means, is capable of affording, is in posession of the required assets so as to make it feasible etc) *then* the owner has the right to request payment.



Don't waste your time... the trustafarian types can't deal with that opinion... so they ignore it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> It might be true that a landlord had difficulty getting out a bad tenant, but it has nothing to do with squatting!



If someone is "carving up her furniture (literally)" that constitutes a breach of contract.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Don't waste your time... the trustafarian types can't deal with that opinion... so they ignore it.



which trustafarian types?  name names


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> I find it objectionable that fairly well off people take up valuable resorces 'on behalf' of the people who actually need it.



there's no shortage of empty buildings

how do you decide who is worthy btw?


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Yes I understand what you're saying.  I'm asking you why their rights to get payment override the right of someone to live there.



It depends on their circumstances. It does not override their right to live there provided they have no other alternative. Life isn't black and white, this is just a shade of grey.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Don't waste your time... the trustafarian types can't deal with that opinion... so they ignore it.



I was part of "posh squats" with middle class art student types, but I still didn't meet any trustafarians.  The people I lived with were largely London state school kids.  None of them came from particularly rich families and none had been privately educated.  None had trust funds.  Maybe in the 80s there were proper rich kids squatting, but I never met any this last year.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Which fairly well off people?



Do keep up, knobface. 



> What are *you* doing to help poor people?



I'm not the one trying to jusitfy taking what they need.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not the one trying to jusitfy taking what they need.



no, youre the one trying to justify people taking what they dont need and charging people who have less to use it


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> It depends on their circumstances. It does not override their right to live there provided they have no other alternative. Life isn't black and white, this is just a shade of grey.



But it does if they have money (property rights trump others I mean).  Why is that?

In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to steer the discussion towards property rights, how they developed, who they work for etc.  No one seems to want to get into that!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> No I'm not. This is the last time I shall repeat myself. I said if the person is ABLE (ie: has the means, is capable of affording, is in posession of the required assets so as to make it feasible etc) *then* the owner has the right to request payment.



Why?

I've never felt comfortable with squatting. Even when I haven't had the means to pay for a place to stay. 

If a property owner puts their place on the market for rent, then they may expect to meet prospective clients, agree a rent and contract etc. If they're just sitting on an empty property and someone decides to live there, then tough shit for ignoring any responsibilities as owner.

It's not difficult to get squatters evicted. If the property owner wasn't expecting income and chose not to want income, then WTF is the problem?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Do keep up, knobface.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one trying to jusitfy taking what they need.



you're a fucking prick, welcome to my ignore list


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> you're a fucking prick, welcome to my ignore list



Thank fuck for that. Best christmas present ever.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> no, youre the one trying to justify people taking what they dont need and charging people who have less to use it



No I am not.

I have nothing against squatting. In fact, done for the right reasons it can be hugely beneficial.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> No I am not.



err, yes you are, you are arguing that if someone has the means (and what those means are you refuse to explain) then they should pay rent to a landlord

in effect you're saying that a handful of squatters who you think are undeserving is a greater problem than the fact that landlords steal resources from their local community and charge people with less than them to use them


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

Well, if it wasn't for my health issues which would make it awkward I would suspect for gaining access to treatment/med, I'd definately be giving squatting a go.

I'm finding the whole 'buying/owning a home' thing a bit of a fucking overrated con really... took me ages to get together something resembling a deposit to get 'on the ladder', but well, for what really?

I mean, I'm grateful for being in the position where buying a place in London has been possible at all, and I do like my flat (tiny as it is), but at the same time, the whole expectation and celebration by society on 'buying your first home' doesn't really feel like anything more than just yet another part of the assimilationist capitalist bullshit model - or that's how I'm beginning to view it anyway. 

There again, the most ready alternative is otherwise throwing money down the drain with a private landlord


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 7, 2010)

Dunno if any of you would be interested in this event in Brixton on Saturday?: http://londonist.com/2010/01/temporary_school_of_thought_reunion.php


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> bullshit



No, that was what she said.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Meltingpot said:


> No, that was what she said.



It's bullshit.  As I stated earlier, it's a breach of contract = eviction.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 7, 2010)

Get her to ask for help on http:www.landlordzone.com/forums but it still doesn't have anything to do with squatting...


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> i neither recognise nor give a fuck about your so called 'property rights'



Jolly good.... 



> i do give a fuck about your right to somewhere to live, and if, having been lucky in life you have been able to purchase a home you dont need to live in for the benefit of your local community then i may well avail myself of it, in gratitude, from time to time



Lucky? What planet are you on? Do you think every mortgae holder is lucky? Fuck me you do live in a very narrow world, some people just happen to work very hard and earn what they have in life.

Others are less fortunate, I understand that. But what I am talking about is people choosing to squat as a lifestyle choice. I s that so hard to grasp or anyone "fortunate" enough to own a home just unlucky to be like you?




> if however youve been lucky in life and have simply bought a property in order to screw as much money as possible out of people in your community who have less than you, then you are an anti-social cunt and deserve whatever's fucking coming to you



How does that work? Do you think that millions of home owners bought their homes to screw over their community? And they didn't get fortunate by woking hard to provide a living for you to freeload and whilst you are doing that people more deserving are going without.


----------



## Chairman Meow (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> Well, if it wasn't for my health issues which would make it awkward I would suspect for gaining access to treatment/med, I'd definately be giving squatting a go.
> 
> 
> 
> There again, the most ready alternative is otherwise throwing money down the drain with a private landlord



Not neccessarily. We almost bought a place in 2007. The mortgage would have been €1500 pm for 30 years. We thought fuck that! So we rent paying €900 for the same kind of house. The same houses are now at least €100k less than in 2007, and still falling. So renting has been far from 'dead money' for us, in fact we are hoping to be able to buy in a year or two for less than half peak price. If Ireland isn't reduced to rubble by then anyway!Which means a 15 year mortgage, instead of a thirty one, with far lower monthly repayments too as there isn't so much interest to pay. The 'renting is dead money' maxim is not by any means a golden rule.

My mate on the other hand bought at peak - €270k for a two bedroom apartment thats worth half that now, even if anyone was buying as there is a massive surplus of apartments. And now she has found out that its damp, which will cost her loads to fix. She wishes she was still renting!


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> But it does if they have money (property rights trump others I mean).  Why is that?
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to steer the discussion towards property rights, how they developed, who they work for etc.  No one seems to want to get into that!



Try starting another thread then, this isn't about that. Read the OP you wally.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Jolly good....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why are the rights of property owners more important than people who don't own property?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Try starting another thread then, this isn't about that. Read the OP you wally.



It *is* about property rights, quite clearly!  It's about how people come to own things, what that means, how it's enforced etc.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 7, 2010)

It was just over 20 years ago, I don't know the final outcome. :shrug:

Thanks for posting the link anyway, someone else may find it useful.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> How does that work? Do you think that millions of home owners bought their homes to screw over their community? And they didn't get fortunate by woking hard to provide a living for you to freeload and whilst you are doing that people more deserving are going without.



try reading posts before getting on one eh

i said people who had a home they didnt need, ie an extra home, one they bought in an attempt to extract profit from those with less than them rather than one they bought to live in


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Why are the rights of property owners more important than people who don't own property?



What a stupid question. The right to vote or eat are the same whether you own a home or not, but if I own a car and you do not then how can you expect to have car ownership rights?

you are entitled to have a place to live if you do not have the means, expecting it to be provided because of a lifestyle choice is different entirely.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> What a stupid question. The right to vote or eat are the same whether you own a home or not, but if I own a car and you do not then how can you expect to have car ownership rights?



easy, you dont really own the car, the pieces of paper that say you do do not overide the basic human morality that says the car actually belongs to the people who built it or the people who need to use it


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> What a stupid question. The right to vote or eat are the same whether you own a home or not, but if I own a car and you do not then how can you expect to have car ownership rights?
> 
> you are entitled to have a place to live if you do not have the means, expecting it to be provided because of a lifestyle choice is different entirely.



This is getting frustrating.

Why does someone who owns something, have the right to get money for someone else living there?  If the person living there doesn't pay their rent, the owner can use the law to make them homeless.  How did this situation arise?  Why are is the law on the side of the owner?  What is meant by "owning" property anyway?


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> try reading posts before getting on one eh
> 
> i said people who had a home they didnt need, ie an extra home, one they bought in an attempt to extract profit from those with less than them rather than one they bought to live in



OK, 


But it could be symbiotic relationship, not that I can afford to buy two properties, but I know people who buy additional properties and rent them out as an investment. There isn't a right or wrong, people who have a need should be supported, people who choose to freeload IMO, can get stuffed.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

What is Property?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> OK,
> 
> 
> But it could be symbiotic relationship, not that I can afford to buy two properties, but I know *people who buy additional properties and rent them out as an investment*. There isn't a right or wrong, people who have a need should be supported, people who choose to freeload IMO, can get stuffed.



Freeloaders.


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> This is getting frustrating.
> 
> Why does someone who owns something, have the right to get money for someone else living there?  If the person living there doesn't pay their rent, the owner can use the law to make them homeless.  How did this situation arise?  Why are is the law on the side of the owner?  What is meant by "owning" property anyway?




Sorry... This thread is about squatting as a lifestyle choice nothing else. Get with it will you. And I have been responding to your questions, you haven't answered one of mine or other posters. Until you do..........


----------



## MrA (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What is Property?



Shit link,


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> err, yes you are, you are arguing that if someone has the means (and what those means are you refuse to explain) then they should pay rent to a landlord



No. I am saying if someone has another alternative then I think it's cheeky to take from people who don't.

And it's even cheekier and morally wrong to then try and justify it using a vague poitical point about ownership



> in effect you're saying that a handful of squatters who you think are undeserving is a greater problem than the fact that landlords steal resources from their local community and charge people with less than them to use them



This is bullshit, simplistic and not at all what I said.

In fact I finished my post with the words... there's no right answers.

If you are capable, argue with what I said... not what you wanted me to say. Blagsta isn't capable of it. Prove you are.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Sorry... This thread is about squatting as a lifestyle choice nothing else. Get with it will you. And I have been responding to your questions, you haven't answered one of mine or other posters. Until you do..........



Yes, it's about property rights.  You seem unable to engage on the subject at hand.  Frustrating!


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

MrA said:


> Sorry... This thread is about squatting as a lifestyle choice nothing else. Get with it will you. And I have been responding to your questions, you haven't answered one of mine or other posters. Until you do..........



He can't. You have to argue along his lines otherwise he can't cope. Subtle opinions confuse him.

It's interesting that people who use this line are *always* referring to other people's property.

Imagine the fuss if Blagsta bought 20 pills to sell and you took half of them without paying.. and promised to return them one day!


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> No. I am saying if someone has another alternative then I think it's cheeky to take from people who don't.
> 
> And it's even cheekier and morally wrong to then try and justify it using a vague poitical point about ownership



they arent taking it from someone who doesnt, they are taking it from someone who has enough resources that they can afford to leave a property empty

as said before, theres no shortage of empty buildings

are you prepared to answer the question of how you judge who is and isnt a worthy squatter otherwise everything youve said is just fluff anyway


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> He can't. You have to argue along his lines otherwise he can't cope. Subtle opinions confuse him.
> 
> It's interesting that people who use this line are *always* referring to other people's property.
> 
> Imagine the fuss if Blagsta bought 20 pills to sell and you took half of them without paying.. and promised to return them one day!



youre either being delibarately obtuse here or youve really failed to grasp the points being made


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> But it does if they have money (property rights trump others I mean).  Why is that?
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to steer the discussion towards property rights, how they developed, who they work for etc.  No one seems to want to get into that!



If we were to get into property rights it would have to descend into the economy, capitalism etc none of which, to be quite frank, I have the inclination to discuss. 

This isn't even about squatting, per se. It's about the_ difference_ between people who squat out of desperation, people who are forced into a way of life, people who face real hardship - who suffer because of poor distribution of wealth and those who _choose_ to live a squatters lifestyle despite having other viable options available to them.

Like I said before, it's comparable to stealing. I'm sure we can both agree that the man who steals bread to feed his starving family is not deserving of  contempt. However, that does not mean that people should be encouraged to steal food in order to fufill their fundamental right to food should they be able to obtain it by fairer means. Do you think that people should be free to simply take the food that they need rather than purchasing it if they are able?

Squatting should be a means to an end, not a lifestyle choice, that is my opinion.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> youre either being delibarately obtuse here or youve really failed to grasp the points being made



Rubbish. There is a really good argment for squatting... but neither you, nor blagsta are making it.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> If we were to get into property rights it would have to descend into the economy, capitalism etc none of which, to be quite frank, I have the inclination to discuss.
> 
> This isn't even about squatting, per se.



so its not about capitalism, economy, property rights etc but its also not about squatting

its actually about you forcing your own brand of morality on everyone else without looking at the wider issues or accepting that just because this is how things are doesnt mean we all base our system of morality on that


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Rubbish. There is a really good argment for squatting... but neither you, nor blagsta are making it.



and we're not trying to

thats the point youve consistantly failed to grasp


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> If we were to get into property rights it would have to descend into the economy, capitalism etc none of which, to be quite frank, I have the inclination to discuss.



It's at the heart of the matter though.  What is property?  Why do some people have rights with regards to property and others don't?



Bippitybop said:


> This isn't even about squatting, per se. It's about the_ difference_ between people who squat out of desperation, people who are forced into a way of life, people who face real hardship - who suffer because of poor distribution of wealth and those who _choose_ to live a squatters lifestyle despite having other viable options available to them.



Some people who choose to squat are doing so out of political beliefs.  Beliefs around definitions of property and rights etc.



Bippitybop said:


> Like I said before, it's comparable to stealing. I'm sure we can both agree that the man who steals bread to feed his starving family is not deserving of  contempt. However, that does not mean that people should be encouraged to steal food in order to fufill their fundamental right to food should they be able to obtain it by fairer means. Do you think that people should be free to simply take the food that they need rather than purchasing it if they are able?



I think that production of food should be socially managed, not in individual private hands.  This takes us to notions of property rights again...



Bippitybop said:


> Squatting should be a means to an end, not a lifestyle choice, that is my opinion.



Yes, you're opinion is fine, but I'm interested in what informs that opinion.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> so its not about capitalism, economy, property rights etc but its also not about squatting
> 
> its actually about you forcing your own brand of morality on everyone else without looking at the wider issues or accepting that just because this is how things are doesnt mean we all base our system of morality on that



Then why don't you explain to me your system of morality, or the places in which you find mine lacking so that we can expand on this further? Or would you rather continue with your holier-than-thou style preaching and not say anything of substance?


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> This isn't even about squatting, per se. It's about the_ difference_ between people who squat out of desperation, people who are forced into a way of life, people who face real hardship - who suffer because of poor distribution of wealth and those who _choose_ to live a squatters lifestyle despite having other viable options available to them.
> 
> ...
> 
> Squatting should be a means to an end, not a lifestyle choice, that is my opinion.



By and large, the English working class don't start squatting if they can't afford their rent.  They get housing benefit instead. 

The A.S.S. tried to open up empty buildings for street homeless to squat in.  I don't know how much success they had.  Homeless people often aren't confident at dealing with the police or the courts, and there's a misconception amongst them that squatting's illegal.  

In Mayfair a couple of times we found homeless guys sleeping in the cellars under the road in front of empty mansions.  They could live there in peace for years, undisturbed.  Whereas if they were to actually get inside and squat the mansion, they'd be out pretty quick./

Hasn't squatting always been a largely middle-class thing?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

There was a big squatting movement after World War 2, which saw ex-servicemen and families squatting disused military bases.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Squatting should be a means to an end, not a lifestyle choice, that is my opinion.



Would you consider those that buy up stacks of properties and then rent them out for exorbitant amounts to be pursuing a 'means to an end' or a 'lifestyle choice'?

Does a private landlords right to a 'lifestyle choice' trump the squatters right to a 'lifestyle choice'?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Then why don't you explain to me your system of morality, or the places in which you find mine lacking so that we can expand on this further? Or would you rather continue with your holier-than-thou style preaching and not say anything of substance?



i believe that all capital which is owned purely to derive profit from others is essentially theft and that the rights of people to take back what they already own outweighs any pieces of paper or guff about imagined property rights

how that is done is open to moral debate, imo if youre not holding a gun to someones head then fill yer boots


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> Hasn't squatting always been a largely middle-class thing?



no

middle class people just find it so jolly and exciting that they cant help gushing about it to all their media chums

most people just get on with being homeless quietly


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> He can't. You have to argue along his lines otherwise he can't cope. Subtle opinions confuse him.
> 
> It's interesting that people who use this line are *always* referring to other people's property.
> 
> Imagine the fuss if Blagsta bought 20 pills to sell and you took half of them without paying.. and promised to return them one day!



Yeah. Nice watch you've got on there btw. Can I borrow it? I'll return it to you, er, sometime....


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> and we're not trying to
> 
> thats the point youve consistantly failed to grasp



Good. because if I wanted people to help the cause against squatting... I might well use you two!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet doesn't understand the use of the term "property".  What a surprise, the fucking prick.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Meltingpot said:


> Yeah. Nice watch you've got on there btw. Can I borrow it? I'll return it to you, er, sometime....



Have a look at that link "What is Property?".  It might elucidate things a little for you.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> There was a big squatting movement after World War 2, which saw ex-servicemen and families squatting disused military bases.



And buildings in London, iirc the CPGB was involved.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> There was a big squatting movement after World War 2, which saw ex-servicemen and families squatting disused military bases.


That's an entirely different kettle of fish.


stephj said:


> Would you consider those that buy up stacks of properties and then rent them out for exorbitant amounts to be pursuing a 'means to an end' or a 'lifestyle choice'?
> 
> Does a private landlords right to a 'lifestyle choice' trump the squatters right to a 'lifestyle choice'?



Like I said before, there are shades of grey. People use their own judgement. In a similar vein, what's worse, stealing from a small family owned-business or a downloading illegal music from a large multi-million dollar corporation who won't notice the difference? It's essentially the same 'crime' but the implications are vastly different. It is the same difference that seperates the landowner who buys up 'stacks' of properties only to charge exorbitant prices for their rent and someone who has purchased a single property as an investment or a potential small boost to their revenue.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> Would you consider those that buy up stacks of properties and then rent them out for exorbitant amounts to be pursuing a 'means to an end' or a 'lifestyle choice'?



Agreed, but in these days of crashed  / pilfered pension plans there are people who own and rent out single houses to supplement their otherwise meagre incomes in old age. Not all private landlords are Rachmans or van Hoogstratens.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Belushi said:


> And buildings in London, iirc the CPGB was involved.



I found an interview with Jim from ASS where he mentions that



> The trouble with 1946, what you always hear about is the Communist Party (CP) stunt. In May 1946, the CP, which was very strong then, not like now, was slagging off squatting. In fact lots of the CP members were involved in squatting, but leadership was slagging off squatting, saying that “socialism is the language of priorities” and all that sort of stuff. By September it had got so big that they thought, “Oh fuck, we had better jump on this bandwagon!”
> 
> So they organized these three big spectacular squats: Duchess of Bdedford Mansions near Regents Park, and 2 hotels in Bloomsbury that had all been accommodations for offices. Well, the Dorchester Bedford Mansions was once again gonna get rented out to the rich. Rich people rented flats in those days for 30 shillings per week (that's 1 pound 50p), which was huge rent which working-class people couldn't afford. And (these squats) had huge publicity at the time. There was a big rally in Trafalgar Square in support of the squatters. The cops surrounded these squatted places. (There are) video clips of people chucking food up to the windows, most of it not getting caught. But it was all over in a few days, because they arrested so-called ringleaders and the CP backed out and left all those people who had been used as cannon fodder. They were left very much in the lurch. So as far as squatting in the 40's went, the CP arrived late and left early.



http://aaron.resist.ca/node/160


----------



## Thora (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> No. I am saying if someone has another alternative then I think it's cheeky to take from people who don't.



But, there isn't a shortage of empty buildings - there are far more buildings empty in London than squatted.  It's not like squatters are preventing homeless people from having somewhere to live 

As for having another alternative - yes, often people do, but squatting is the better alternative for them.  I've only met one person who genuinely had money and could have bought/rented somewhere else.  Most people who squat do so because they can't afford to rent in London, their alternatives are moving out of London, staying on friend's/family's sofas, going back to their home country etc.  I squatted with one girl who worked in a coffee shop but could only afford to rent a matress in a hallway before she moved in with us.  If living in a squat is a better option than your alternative then I don't see the problem.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> That's different. It's not private property.



Some mansions and a hotel in London were also squatted.

We need to define "private property" here btw.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Here's an anarchist view on private property
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html


----------



## Belushi (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I found an interview with Jim from ASS where he mentions that
> 
> 
> 
> http://aaron.resist.ca/node/160



Thanks, I only learnt about it from Andrew Marr's series about postwar Britain.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> Would you consider those that buy up stacks of properties and then rent them out for exorbitant amounts to be pursuing a 'means to an end' or a 'lifestyle choice'?



That type of landlord almost never has empty properties that are habitable.

So using them in the argument doesn't work.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> That type of landlord almost never has empty properties that are habitable.
> 
> So using them in the argument doesn't work.



Well, I was using the example more to try and ascertain what BippityBop considered as a 'means to an end' or a 'lifestyle choice'; and whether BippityBop felt that property owners/landlords/speculators were allowed to utilise property as a 'lifestyle choice', but seemingly not squatters?



Bippitybop said:


> Squatting should be a means to an end, not a lifestyle choice, that is my opinion.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Meltingpot said:


> Agreed, but in these days of crashed  / pilfered pension plans there are people who own and rent out single houses to supplement their otherwise meagre incomes in old age. Not all private landlords are Rachmans or van Hoogstratens.



tough, they shouldnt leave em empty then


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> I don't agree - I was using it to ascertain what BippityBop considered as a 'means to an end' or a 'lifestyle choice'; and whether only property owners/landlords/speculators were allowed to utilise property as a 'lifestyle choice', but not squatters?



youre confusing lifestyle choices and economic investments


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

Thora said:


> But, there isn't a shortage of empty buildings - there are far more buildings empty in London than squatted.  It's not like squatters are preventing homeless people from having somewhere to live



Then why are there still homeless people? Is it because they like it? They are to stupid?

Or is it because there are many empty buildings - most aren't suitable or will take some money to make suitable - and most of the best/easiest squats are already taken?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Then why are there still homeless people? Is it because they like it? They are to stupid?
> 
> Or is it because there are many empty buildings - most aren't suitable or will take some money to make suitable - and most of the best/easiest squats are already taken?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> Well, I was using the example more to try and ascertain what BippityBop considered as a 'means to an end' or a 'lifestyle choice'; and whether BippityBop felt that property owners/landlords/speculators were allowed to utilise property as a 'lifestyle choice', but not squatters?



You won't get an answer!  BippityBop, Mr A et al seem unable to discuss property rights for some reason.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> I don't agree - I was using it to ascertain what BippityBop considered as a 'means to an end' or a 'lifestyle choice'; and whether only property owners/landlords/speculators were allowed to utilise property as a 'lifestyle choice', but not squatters?




A means to an end as in not an ideal situtation. A last (or close to) resort. A lifestyle choice meaning something strived for or aimed at, something that you would choose despite other viable alternatives. 

Property ownership or lack thereof is not a lifestyle choice, utilising it is not the same as owning it. Technically squatters are 'allowed' to utilise property as a lifestyle choice should they so desire, I would not see that change if that's what you're getting at.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> youre confusing lifestyle choices and economic investments



Well, can't it be argued that those that have money to make economic investment in the form of property, are indeed exercising a 'lifestyle choice'?

(Regardless of whether you agree with it or not?)


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You won't get an answer!  BippityBop, Mr A et al seem unable to discuss property rights for some reason.



Because we are discussing the merits of squatting _*as a lifestyle choice*_, not squatting as a phenomenon, nor the intricacies of property ownership legislation.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> A means to an end as in not an ideal situtation. A last (or close to) resort. A lifestyle choice meaning something strived for or aimed at, something that you would choose despite other viable alternatives.
> 
> *Property ownership or lack thereof is not a lifestyle choice*, utilising it is not the same as owning it. Technically squatters are 'allowed' to utilise property as a lifestyle choice should they so desire, I would not see that change if that's what you're getting at.



Someone who chooses (by virtue of being in a privileged position, owning capital) to make money being a landlord, is not a lifestyle choice?  What is it then?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Because we are discussing the merits of squatting _*as a lifestyle choice*_, not squatting as a phenomenon, nor the intricacies of property ownership legislation.





What on earth do you think squatting is about?  If it isn't about property and who gets to use it, then what is it about?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Someone who chooses (by virtue of being in a privileged position, owning capital) to make money being a landlord, is not a lifestyle choice?  What is it then?



A job.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> Well, can't it be argued that those that have money to make economic investment in the form of property, are indeed exercising a 'lifestyle choice'?
> 
> (Regardless of whether you agree with it or not?)



indeed


----------



## Thora (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Then why are there still homeless people? Is it because they like it? They are to stupid?
> 
> Or is it because there are many empty buildings - most aren't suitable or will take some money to make suitable - and most of the best/easiest squats are already taken?


Homelessness is a bigger issue than just not having somewhere to live though isn't it?  Othewise you may as well make the same argument about council tenants - why aren't homeless people just going to the council to get housed?  Is it because less worthy people have taken all the flats?

A lot of street homeless people would probably struggle to hold things together in a squat too.  Mental health issues, substance abuse, or just not having the resources to squat somewhere.  I expect a lot of people would rather stay in hostels than squat.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What on earth do you think squatting is about?  If it isn't about property and who gets to use it, then what is it about?



Of course that's what squatting is about, but like I said, I'm not discussing squatting as a phenomenon, just the merits of squatting as a lifestyle choice.

In the same way I could discuss the merits of cycling versus driving without having to discuss how an engine works.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Someone who chooses (by virtue of being in a privileged position, owning capital) to make money being a landlord, is not a lifestyle choice?  What is it then?



Being lucky enough to choose to become a landlord is an economic choice, a source of revenue. Not a lifestyle choice.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Thora said:


> Homelessness is a bigger issue than just not having somewhere to live though isn't it?  *Othewise you may as well make the same argument about council tenants - why aren't homeless people just going to the council to get housed?*  Is it because less worthy people have taken all the flats?
> 
> A lot of street homeless people would probably struggle to hold things together in a squat too.  Mental health issues, substance abuse, or just not having the resources to squat somewhere.  I expect a lot of people would rather stay in hostels than squat.



Homelessness doesn't automatically qualify you for a council place.  You have to show "priority need".  The defintion being something like being more vulnerable on the street than an "ordinary" homeless person.

Most street homeless people do have drug problems, mental health problems etc.

I'm sure you know this, just reinforcing what you say.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> In the same way I could discuss the merits of cycling versus driving without having to discuss how an engine works.



not valid, a better analogy would be discussing the morality of people who take action against an occupation but refusing to discuss or acknowledge the morality of the occupation


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Being lucky enough to choose to become a landlord is an economic choice, a source of revenue. Not a lifestyle choice.



It's a lifestyle choice - that person could _choose_ to invest their money in something else, or even better, give the money they might otherwise spend on property/the income from renting it out, to something like charity instead?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Of course that's what squatting is about, but like I said, I'm not discussing squatting as a phenomenon, just the merits of squatting as a lifestyle choice.



You need to state your objection to it then, in a way that doesn't touch on anything to do with property rights.



Bippitybop said:


> In the same way I could discuss the merits of cycling versus driving without having to discuss how an engine works.



Analogy fail.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Being lucky enough to choose to become a landlord is an economic choice, a source of revenue. Not a lifestyle choice.



Which is a lifestyle choice, n'est pa?  A choice about how you live your life.  In the same way, squatting is also an economic choice, no?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Someone who chooses (by virtue of being in a privileged position, owning capital) to make money being a landlord, is not a lifestyle choice?  What is it then?



a lifestyle choice is going vegan, dying your hair blonde, recycling, having multiple partners

an economic choice (in this case) is about choosing the most effective way to maximise your capital, i very much doubt even the most privileged of squatters have this in mind when they choose to squat


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> It's a lifestyle choice - that person could _choose_ to invest their money in something else, or even better, give the money they might otherwise spend on property/the income from renting it out, to something like charity instead?



Unfortunately not all people can afford to be so altruistic. The world would be a nicer place if they could though, wouldn't it? 

I am not a property owner myself, and I can safely say that I'd not turn down a free property offered to me. I don't suppose many people would. That said, I have the feeling that I am being pushed into a corner of choosing between two very black and white options. Ie Anti-squatting entirely or being supportive of all squatters.

Do you not see any gradients between the two positions? Or are all squatters equal in your mind? I made a comparison earlier regarding large corporations versus small businesses, do you have any thoughts on that comparison?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> a lifestyle choice is going vegan, dying your hair blonde, recycling, having multiple partners
> 
> an economic choice (in this case) is about choosing the most effective way to maximise your capital, i very much doubt even the most privileged of squatters have this in mind when they choose to squat



Can't speak to Blagsta, but I was referring to 'lifestyle choice' in the context of the private landlord/owner/speculator and what they do with property, rather than the squatter?


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You need to state your objection to it then, in a way that doesn't touch on anything to do with property rights.


Why?



> Analogy fail.


What a lazy, not to mention juvenile rebuttal.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> Can't speak to Blagsta, but I was referring to 'lifestyle choice' in the context of the private landlord/owner/speculator and what they do with property, rather than the squatter?



a rich kid squatting presumably does so because they are attracted to a particular aesthetic or believes they will gain some kind of meaningful insight/experience by doing so

a landlord rents out property to increase their personal wealth, if spending their money on government issued bonds yielded a higher return theyd do that instead

motivations are entirely different so they arent really comparable


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> It's a lifestyle choice - that person could _choose_ to invest their money in something else, or even better, give the money they might otherwise spend on property/the income from renting it out, to something like charity instead?



That's odd. Do you give your salary to charity?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Unfortunately not all people can afford to be so altruistic. The world would be a nicer place if they could though, wouldn't it?
> 
> I am not a property owner myself, and I can safely say that I'd not turn down a free property offered to me. I don't suppose many people would. That said, I have the feeling that I am being pushed into a corner of choosing between two very black and white options. Ie Anti-squatting entirely or being supportive of all squatters.
> 
> Do you not see any gradients between the two positions? Or are all squatters equal in your mind? I made a comparison earlier regarding large corporations versus small businesses, do you have any thoughts on that comparison?



I'm completely supportive of any squatting as an action - whether that be for reasons of those persons that simply have no where else to live or lack any alternative because of their economic/personal circumstance; to those that occupy and squat purely as a political/anti-capitalist 'property is theft' act, or even those that even choose to squat as a 'lifestyle choice' ('trustafarians', or whatever).


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> That's odd. Do you give your salary to charity?



I give as much as I can after keeping myself with a roof over my own head and putting food in my cupboards.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> I give as much as I can after keeping myself with a roof over my own head and putting food in my cupboards.



Do you pay rent to a landlord? I'm sure I'd be safe in assuming that you're not a property owner yourself?

No obligation to answer of course, I'm merely curious.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Do you pay rent to a landlord? I'm sure I'd be safe in assuming that you're not a property owner yourself?
> 
> No obligation to answer of course, I'm merely curious.



I refer to my own personal situation here. I'm someone who struggled to even try to buy the place I live in now, and frankly I'm not altogether full of glee and excitement over this property owning business having done so! 



I also completely accept my own shortcomings in this respect given my other opinions


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Do you not see any gradients between the two positions? Or are all squatters equal in your mind? I made a comparison earlier regarding large corporations versus small businesses, do you have any thoughts on that comparison?



its perfectly possible to believe that all profit derived from owned capital is invalid but also to understand that we live in a society where we are left with little choice but wage exploitation, small scale capitalism, artisanship or being dirty thieving landlord scum and to target objections/action appropriately


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

Thora said:


> Homelessness is a bigger issue than just not having somewhere to live though isn't it?



Well.. if you have somewhere to live you are not homeless.



> Othewise you may as well make the same argument about council tenants - why aren't homeless people just going to the council to get housed?  Is it because less worthy people have taken all the flats?



In some cases, yes.



> A lot of street homeless people would probably struggle to hold things together in a squat too.  Mental health issues, substance abuse, or just not having the resources to squat somewhere.



So squatting is NOT for the people who might need it most?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Well.. if you have somewhere to live you are not homeless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dick.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> a lifestyle choice is going vegan, dying your hair blonde, recycling, having multiple partners
> 
> an economic choice (in this case) is about choosing the most effective way to maximise your capital, i very much doubt even the most privileged of squatters have this in mind when they choose to squat



Bippitybop is claiming that choosing to squat when you have other options is a lifestyle choice, but choosing to invest in property to rent out is an economic choice.  I'm pointing out that they can both be viewed as lifestyle choices (i.e. having choice about how you live).  Conversely, they can both be viewed as economic choices, the squatter saving money buy not renting and the landlord making money by being a landlord.  The fact that Bippitybop sees one as a lifestyle choice and the other as economic shows the strength of property rights and economics in the dominant ideology.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Unfortunately not all people can afford to be so altruistic. The world would be a nicer place if they could though, wouldn't it?
> 
> I am not a property owner myself, and I can safely say that I'd not turn down a free property offered to me. I don't suppose many people would. That said, I have the feeling that I am being pushed into a corner of choosing between two very black and white options. Ie Anti-squatting entirely or being supportive of all squatters.
> 
> Do you not see any gradients between the two positions? Or are all squatters equal in your mind? I made a comparison earlier regarding large corporations versus small businesses, do you have any thoughts on that comparison?



You're missing the point being made.  Which is why do you see a landlord as exercising an economic choice, but a squatter exercising a lifestyle choice.  Why the disparity?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> I give as much as I can after keeping myself with a roof over my own head and putting food in my cupboards.



No clothes, fags, nights out? Only home and food?

If that's true then that's pretty awesome.

But wait a minute... you're paying a mortgage... does that mean you'll give your house away when you move?

Of course not I wouldn't expect you to.

You earned it, I assume.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> dick.



Suck mine.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Why?



This is getting really annoying.  Are you not following your own argument?  You're arguing against "lifestyle" squatting yet don't want to discuss property rights.  Well go on then - make the argument.



Bippitybop said:


> What a lazy, not to mention juvenile rebuttal.



You'll have to show how the analogy holds then.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> a rich kid squatting presumably does so because they are attracted to a particular aesthetic or believes they will gain some kind of meaningful insight/experience by doing so
> 
> a landlord rents out property to increase their personal wealth, if spending their money on government issued bonds yielded a higher return theyd do that instead
> 
> motivations are entirely different so they arent really comparable



A "rich kid" squatting is also saving money on rent, which is economic.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

for Kizmet's benefit



> Homelessness means not having a home. Even if you have a roof over your head you can still be homeless. This is because you may not have any rights to stay where you live or your home might be unsuitable for you.


http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/what_is_homelessness


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You're missing the point being made.  Which is why do you see a landlord as exercising an economic choice, but a squatter exercising a lifestyle choice.  Why the disparity?



Not all squatters are exercising a lifestyle choice. Only some. However, I do see your point, honestly, I took the term 'lifestyle choice' from the wording in the thread title, economic choice would be more appropriate.

That said, there is more room for leverage with regards to squatters, those who choose to squat for political reasons, rather than financial ones could be regarded as having made a lifestyle choice rather than an economic one, for example.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> No clothes, fags, nights out? Only home and food?
> 
> If that's true then that's pretty awesome.
> 
> ...



Well, I buy most if not all of my clothes (and electrical goods) from ebay and s/h shops, don't go out much atm but that's due to other reasons. Tbf, I actually could buy more of what I do completely brand new from shops, but I choose not too and give to charity instead. I do buy lots of records and CD's though  

Frankly, if I move (even back to renting) I doubt that what I would get would really be much more than what I still owe on my mortgage. Yeah, I've constantly tried to get enough together from my earnings to get a deposit. 

But, as I say above, I'm happy to accept my own shortcomings despite my ideology!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Not all squatters are exercising a lifestyle choice. Only some. However, I do see your point, honestly, I took the term 'lifestyle choice' from the wording in the thread title, economic choice would be more appropriate.
> 
> That said, there is more room for leverage with regards to squatters, those who choose to squat for political reasons, rather than financial ones could be regarded as having made a lifestyle choice rather than an economic one, for example.



So - make the argument.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> Well, I buy most of my clothes from charity shops, don't go out much atm but that's due to other reasons, etc. I do buy lots of records and CD's though
> 
> Frankly, if I move (even back to renting) I doubt that what I would get would really be much more than my mortgage. Yeah, I've constantly tried to get enough together from my earnings to get a deposit.
> 
> But, as I say above, I'm happy to accept my own shortcomings despite my ideology!



Wish certain other people on this thread were as honest as you, steph.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> for Kizmet's benefit
> 
> 
> http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/what_is_homelessness



What a terrible definition. Trust it to come from a homelessness charity....


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> This is getting really annoying.  Are you not following your own argument?  You're arguing against "lifestyle" squatting yet don't want to discuss property rights.  Well go on then - make the argument.


You're the one who has taken umbrage with the idea of property rights, not I. Why don't you put forward your opinions on why property ownership is an invalid concept, rather than referring me to links on the subject.



Blagsta said:


> You'll have to show how the analogy holds then.


Easily, I can tell you that a car engine is a valid and integral part of the vehicle, I can even explain that the emissions it produces are harmful to the environment all without discussing how it works. I do not need to discuss something in detail just to acknowledge that it exists.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Bippitybop is claiming that choosing to squat when you have other options is a lifestyle choice, but choosing to invest in property to rent out is an economic choice.  I'm pointing out that they can both be viewed as lifestyle choices (i.e. having choice about how you live).  Conversely, they can both be viewed as economic choices, the squatter saving money buy not renting and the landlord making money by being a landlord.  The fact that Bippitybop sees one as a lifestyle choice and the other as economic shows the strength of property rights and economics in the dominant ideology.



fair enough, its getting pretty close to semantics but id be inclined to say the handful of trust fund squatters pay little thought to the economic implications of it and whereas it may well be an economic choice for the average squatter (its cheaper) it could be argued its more an economic necessity than choice, although where necessity and lifystylism diverge is not something anyone on this thread has been prepared to define

but its a bit of a distraction anyway, as you say the fundamental issue is property rights which no-one seems particularly keen to address


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

That's because the fundamental issue is NOT property rights.

You want it to be... but that's what I meant earlier about an argument that's technically true... but morally bankrupt.

It's called sophistry, I think.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

stephj said:


> But, as I say above, I'm happy to accept my own shortcomings despite my ideologies!



From what I've seen, our situations aren't so different. That being the case, it strikes me odd how you can come down so hard against people and their shortcomings (ie trying to make a living off of rented property) whilst accepting your own.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> That's because the fundamental issue is NOT property rights.



so what is it then?


----------



## Thora (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Well.. if you have somewhere to live you are not homeless.


If you're sleeping on the street then chances are your problems are a lot more complex than just not having somewhere to live.  If you have a lot of complex problems then just pointing out a nice, empty building isn't going to fix everything.  There are lots of squattable buildings in London so why aren't all the street homeless people living in them?  Maybe they don't know their legal rights, maybe they have learning difficulties or mental health problems, maybe they used to live in a squat but got kicked out cos they stole, or were violent, or difficult to live with - or left because the squat was full of violent people.  Maybe they don't have a crowbar.  Maybe they're too old or ill to do the physical work.  I don't think it has to do with a shortage of empties.




Kizmet said:


> So squatting is NOT for the people who might need it most?



I'm not sure entirely what you mean  but agree that squatting probably isn't an option for some of society's most vulnerable people.  Those people don't need squats though, they need more help than that.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> so what is it then?



In truth?

It's about taking without giving. It's about earning rights, not just demanding them.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 7, 2010)

I never "saved money" by squatting instead of renting.  Because once I started squatting and skipping, I realised I no longer needed to work full time. My priorities changed: rather than having to work to pay rent and bills, I was more concerned with being part of the group's activities - putting on events, looking after the place, getting food, forging friendships, etc.  The collective became my focus.  I was much poorer than when I was an office temp who had a lot left over after paying rent; but it was a much more rewarding life.

I can't actually think of a single squatter I know who works full time. Squatting isn't just about avoiding having to spend money; it's about not having to earn it either; and finding more worthwhile things to do with all the time that's now your own.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> In truth?
> 
> It's about taking without giving. It's about earning rights, not just demanding them.



but what if someone like me comes along and says soz mate, i dont give a flying fuck about your so called property rights

if you own something that you only posess to make profit out of others on then it aint yours, end of, i dont give a fuck whether trustafarian yoghurt weavers or brew crew take it off you, it aint yours

now given thats my position, slightly simplified, then you cant really divorce any debate about squatting from a debate about property rights as much as you might wish you could


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> You're the one who has taken umbrage with the idea of property rights, not I. Why don't you put forward your opinions on why property ownership is an invalid concept, rather than referring me to links on the subject.



I'm trying to explore what your objections to "lifestyle" squatting are.  You seem unable to articulate them.



Bippitybop said:


> Easily, I can tell you that a car engine is a valid and integral part of the vehicle, I can even explain that the emissions it produces are harmful to the environment all without discussing how it works. I do not need to discuss something in detail just to acknowledge that it exists.



This is analagous...how?  If we're discussing why people squat, in what circumstances it's OK to squat (in your opinion), people who squat for political reasons etc, then we need to (IMO) discuss what property is and rights pertaining to it.  You seem unwilling to do so.  I wonder why?


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 7, 2010)

smokedout said:


> fair enough, its getting pretty close to semantics but id be inclined to say the handful of trust fund squatters pay little thought to the economic implications of it



"Trust fund squatters" is a hoary old cliche and I doubt they exist any more.  Heck I write a blog called "the posh squatter" but the joke is I never met anyone truly posh in any of the squats I was in.  There was one public school boy, but he didn't last long; and he didn't have a trust fund anyway.  Everyone else was yer average middle class state school kid.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> From what I've seen, our situations aren't so different. That being the case, it strikes me odd how you can come down so hard against people and their shortcomings (ie trying to make a living off of rented property) whilst accepting your own.



Well, I'm largely arguing stuff in a political/ideological context. For say a family or a couple that have decided to rent out a small flat whilst living in their own place, I'm not railing against that particularly, but I do have major problems with those that build-up a huge number of property portfolio's and rent them at vastly inflated amounts (and there are certainly plenty of those that do this as a 'lifestyle choice').

I guess I'm particularly against the sheer number of properties that are left empty/disused/falling into disrepair, whether it be by councils having compulsory purchased them and then just left them standing empty, or private property magnates/corporations that have millions of pounds worth of property on their books and just don't really care about them.

And then on top of that, such councils/corporations are quick to use the law and threaten and evict those squatters (and/or homeless) that do occupy and in many cases, make such empty and rundown buildings once more habitable! 

And after such squatters have been evicted - oh, just leave them empty of course for another year again!


----------



## Boppity (Jan 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I'm trying to explore what your objections to "lifestyle" squatting are.  You seem unable to articulate them.


I have articulated them several times. It's getting tiresome. My objection to "lifestyle" squatting is simple. Those who have no real desperate need should not have the right to take from others without permission, or giving something in return. At the very least, squatters should be expected to maintain the property to within a higher or equal standard to which they found it in. The squatter has a right to shelter, yes I do not disagree with that, but if other means of shelter that aren't totally abhorrent are available, then why should the squatter have the right to choose to take from another? As I said earlier, I have no problems with people who squat as a last resort. 

 The problem seems to be that you reject the idea of ownership, meaning that to you any reference I make to ownership is invalid. With that in mind, until you can clarify your objection to the idea of 'ownership' I have no hope of understanding your position. If anything it is you who needs to explain your problem with property rights rather than me needing to explain what they are. 

If you want to learn about property legislation then google is your friend. I am no expert. 



> This is analagous...how?  If we're discussing why people squat, in what circumstances it's OK to squat (in your opinion), people who squat for political reasons etc, then we need to (IMO) discuss what property is and rights pertaining to it.  You seem unwilling to do so.  I wonder why?


Yes, in your opinion we need to discuss what property is, in my opinion it is thus far irrelevant.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 7, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> I have articulated them several times.



I haven't seen you make any argument beyond - "people should pay if they can" (I may be paraphrasing slightly).  I want to know why you think this.



Bippitybop said:


> It's getting tiresome. The problem seems to be that you reject the idea of ownership, meaning that to you any reference I make to ownership is invalid. With that in mind, until you can explain your problems with the idea of property ownershipto me I have no hope of understanding your position.



Yes, it is getting tiresome.  Problem being, you don't know what I think about property and ownership because you refuse to discuss it!




Bippitybop said:


> Yes, in your opinion we need to discuss what property is, in my opinion it is thus far irrelevant.



Yet you can't articulate your views and don't understand mine.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 7, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> I never "saved money" by squatting instead of renting.  Because once I started squatting and skipping, I realised I no longer needed to work full time. My priorities changed: rather than having to work to pay rent and bills, I was more concerned with being part of the group's activities - putting on events, looking after the place, getting food, forging friendships, etc.  The collective became my focus.  I was much poorer than when I was an office temp who had a lot left over after paying rent; but that had been a miserable, lonely life.



There aren't that many squats in london that operate on that kind of community orientated level... hmm... do I know you, I wonder?

Do the words vertigo or factory mean anything to you apart from the obvious?


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

stephj said:


> Well, I'm largely arguing stuff in a political/ideological context. For say a family or a couple that have decided to rent out a small flat whilst living in their own place, I'm not railing against that particularly, but I do have major problems with those that build-up a huge number of property portfolio's and rent them at vastly inflated amounts (and there are certainly plenty of those that do this as a 'lifestyle choice').
> 
> I guess I'm particularly against the sheer number of properties that are left empty/disused/falling into disrepair, whether it be by councils having compulsory purchased them and then just left them standing empty, or private property magnates/corporations that have millions of pounds worth of property on their books and just don't really care about them.
> 
> ...




The thing is, I do not disagree with anything in this post.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> My objection to "lifestyle" squatting is simple. Those who have no real desperate need s*hould not have the right to take from others without permission*, or giving something in return.



You're referring to property rights here.



Bippitybop said:


> At the very least, squatters should be expected to maintain the property to within a higher or equal standard to which they found it in, for example.



here too



Bippitybop said:


> If anything it is you who needs to explain your problem with property rights rather than me needing to explain what they are.
> 
> If you want to learn about property legislation then google is your friend. I am no expert.



I know what property rights are!  I want to discuss them with you.




Bippitybop said:


> Yes, in your opinion we need to discuss what property is, in my opinion it is thus far irrelevant.



Even though you're entire argument is about property rights.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

stephj said:


> Well, I'm largely arguing stuff in a political/ideological context. For say a family or a couple that have decided to rent out a small flat whilst living in their own place, I'm not railing against that particularly, but I do have major problems with those that build-up a huge number of property portfolio's and rent them at vastly inflated amounts (and there are certainly plenty of those that do this as a 'lifestyle choice').
> 
> I guess I'm particularly against the sheer number of properties that are left empty/disused/falling into disrepair, whether it be by councils having compulsory purchased them and then just left them standing empty, or private property magnates/corporations that have millions of pounds worth of property on their books and just don't really care about them.



These are mostly hoary old cliches too.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> The thing is, I do not disagree with anything in this post.



Yet you think "Those who have no real desperate need should not have the right to take from others without permission, or giving something in return."

you're all over the place


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> These are mostly hoary old cliches too.



They are also sadly all too real.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

smokedout said:


> but what if someone like me comes along and says soz mate, i dont give a flying fuck about your so called property rights
> 
> if you own something that you only posess to make profit out of others on then it aint yours, end of, i dont give a fuck whether trustafarian yoghurt weavers or brew crew take it off you, it aint yours



Like the pills I was pointing out earlier?


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I haven't seen you make any argument beyond - "people should pay if they can" (I may be paraphrasing slightly).  I want to know why you think this.


Why don't you start by telling me why you think people should be free not to pay, if they are able. You obviously disagree with me, yet you still haven't told me why.



Blagsta said:


> Yes, it is getting tiresome.  Problem being, you don't know what I think about property and ownership because you refuse to discuss it!


Then by all means, get the ball rolling. What do you think about property and ownership and while you're at it could you please explain how it is relevant to the current discussion? Please don't send me a link, you're not the only one with access to google. 



> Yet you can't articulate your views and don't understand mine.


I don't understand yours because you haven't actually said anything of real substance. You're dancing around asking questions without actually answering any or putting down any solid opinions of your own.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

stephj said:


> They are also sadly all too real.



Much less than you'd think, I believe. Often properties are left because the money to refurb them has run out. Either by councils or developers.

Like I said... the large private landlords rarely have an empty properties. They have the funds to fix them.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Yet you think "Those who have no real desperate need should not have the right to take from others without permission, or giving something in return."
> 
> you're all over the place



Not at all. You're looking at things from a very black and white perspective. Turfing out the homeless isn't what I'm supporting. I'm being very specific with the type of squatting I would seek to _discourage._ That doesn't mean that I am against all squatting, nor does it mean I support empty buildings falling into disrepair as an alternative.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

To discuss the notion of property rights with you, we have to establish some common understanding of terms.  Hence the questions, questions which you're not interested engaging with.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Not at all. You're looking at things from a very black and white perspective. Turfing out the homeless isn't what I'm supporting. I'm being very specific with the type of squatting I would seek to _discourage._ That doesn't mean that I am against all squatting, nor does it mean I support empty buildings falling into disrepair as an alternative.



Yet you can't articulate your view, without referring to property rights which you then refuse to discuss!

night night


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> To discuss the notion of property rights with you, we have to establish some common understanding of terms.  Hence the questions, questions which you're not interested engaging with.



Why ask me? Are you not capable of establishing the terms yourself? Perhaps you need acquainting with a dictionary? You're grasping at straws. You've yet to answer a single question, or attempt to defend your own position, you're playing games with semantics. It's transparent and boring.

What are property rights? Define lifestyle choice? Yawn.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> What are property rights? Define lifestyle choice? Yawn.



if you want to keep things exactly on topic without exploring the fundamental issues behind them then can you at least define what is and isn't a 'worthy squatter'

ive asked about four times already on this thread


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

smokedout said:


> if you want to keep things exactly on topic without exploring the fundamental issues behind them then can you at least define what is and isn't a 'worthy squatter'
> 
> ive asked about four times already on this thread



I thought I'd already answered this, nevertheless: 

I would define a worthy squatter as someone with a basic need. That is someone who squats out of neccessity, rather than someone who squats for the hell of it or for the 'experience' - those who can afford to pay for reasonable accomodation and choose not to for selfish or spurious reasons (after all, couldn't one argue that such squatters are just as bad as the landlords who are renting out at extortionate prices? They are selfishly hoarding their money and looking out for their own economic interests at the potential expense of others.) These are the people I would define as not 'worthy'. Of course, this is all simply my opinion.

I would also draw distinctions between those who squat in accomodations owned by large wealthy landowners as opposed to a single family owned property.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> I thought I'd already answered this, nevertheless:
> 
> I would define a worthy squatter as someone with a basic need.



a need for what, shelter, companionship, broadening horizons, annoying parents, being on the run, tax evasion, mental illness

what, in your opinion, is an acceptable need?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Thora said:


> If you're sleeping on the street then chances are your problems are a lot more complex than just not having somewhere to live.  If you have a lot of complex problems then just pointing out a nice, empty building isn't going to fix everything.  There are lots of squattable buildings in London so why aren't all the street homeless people living in them?  Maybe they don't know their legal rights, maybe they have learning difficulties or mental health problems, maybe they used to live in a squat but got kicked out cos they stole, or were violent, or difficult to live with - or left because the squat was full of violent people.  Maybe they don't have a crowbar.  Maybe they're too old or ill to do the physical work.  I don't think it has to do with a shortage of empties.



I'd agree... but all that goes to prove is that squatting is not an action of the most vulnerable or needy people in society... just dispelling the myth that somehow it's the haves vs the have nots.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

smokedout said:


> a need for what, shelter, companionship, broadening horizons, annoying parents, being on the run, tax evasion, mental illness
> 
> what, in your opinion, is an acceptable need?



I think it would ideally have to be a case by case basis, don't you? Shelter? It depends what alternatives are available. Companionship, likewise. Broadening horizons it depends. Which horizons? Someone who wants to experience another way of life, to understand the hardships that other people face etc, I could be sympathetic to that. Someone who wishes to broaden their horizons by getting an easy ride and to save some money (unless of course they were desperately in debt) not so much. Annoying parents? It depends in what way - are they genuinely abusive and unsupportive or did they take your playstation away for a week? Being on the run? From what? The law? If so, what crime was committed?

There are way way too many shades of grey for me to write off squatting entirely. 

This is why I am not against squatting as a practice, just as a lifestyle choice. The thread title mentions 'fun' - that is what I'm opposed to. Taking from others for your own sense of 'fun' without having any real need. Once more, I place a special emphasis on the difference between a large corporation and a single privately owned property.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> This is why I am not against squatting as a practice, just as a lifestyle choice. The thread title mentions 'fun' - that is what I'm opposed to. Taking from others for your own sense of 'fun' without having any real need.



so is you're argument just a wishy washy down with this sort of thing or do you have any concrete proposals to address this problem you have identified?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> I'd agree... but all that goes to prove is that squatting is not an action of the most vulnerable or needy people in society...




it proves nothing of the sort, it just shows that some of the most vulnerable or needy people in society dont squat


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

The essential point stands - if you're going to make this discussion about sociological unfairness and 'needs' then on the basic scale of need most squatters are not as needy as the homeless but more needy than the landlords. That makes them middlemen and you know what we should do with the middlemen....

So... that's a rubbish justification. Just like the 'all property is theft' justification that always applies to other people's 'property'.

Like I said at the start it's a much more complex argument than 'all squatting is good/bad' dichitomy you keep trying to make it.


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2010)

If properties are standing empty, it's a waste of space and construction. If someone occupies them rather than them standing empty - good.


----------



## badong (Jan 8, 2010)

I rent because i like the security, but I do feel frustrated that while i cant afford a mortgage (which seems to be essential for survival after retirement at the moment) I'm paying someone else's who can afford several. Given this I cant say i give a shit if someone sets home in a building that is not being used as a home, good for them.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

smokedout said:


> so is you're argument just a wishy washy down with this sort of thing or do you have any concrete proposals to address this problem you have identified?



No, but it was never my intention to provide any 'proposals' against squatting. People like you seem to think it is not possible to believe that a practice should be discouraged without necessarily being legislated against or addressed in any formal manner. 

Like I said before, I would not see a man who steals to feed his family, but that doesn't mean I'd encourage stealing for the sake of it either.


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You won't get an answer!  BippityBop, Mr A et al seem unable to discuss property rights for some reason.



You seem unable to articulate your position or to answer questions.



stephj said:


> It's a lifestyle choice - that person could _choose_ to invest their money in something else, or even better, give the money they might otherwise spend on property/the income from renting it out, to something like charity instead?



What a Utopic society that would be, we all shove our disposbale incomes into one huge pot and then it can be dished out to those who need it or, like Blagsta etc would have us believe, to anyone who just wants it because it's just poperty. 



Kizmet said:


> That's odd. Do you give your salary to charity?



Ask that to_ property ownwership is wrong brigade,_ if my need for their property, be it clothing, food or drugs was deemed to be greater then theirs then I'm entitled to take them.... Which begs the question, who decides whose need is greater? The great flaw in Anarchism.





stephj said:


> I'm completely supportive of any squatting as an action - whether that be for reasons of those persons that simply have no where else to live or lack any alternative because of their economic/personal circumstance;



And that appears to be the position of Bip, Kiz and myself.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Why ask me? Are you not capable of establishing the terms yourself? Perhaps you need acquainting with a dictionary? You're grasping at straws. You've yet to answer a single question, or attempt to defend your own position, you're playing games with semantics. It's transparent and boring.
> 
> What are property rights? Define lifestyle choice? Yawn.


i can only conclude you're not intellectually capable of such a discussion. Otherwise why the complete avoidance of debate? Disappointing.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

mr a - you're confusing property with possessions. I'm guessing this is due to your refusal to engage with any debate around definitons of property.


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> mr a - you're confusing property with possessions. I'm guessing this is due to your refusal to engage with any debate around definitons of property.



No, you're not articulating your point clealy. Now you tell me your definaition of property then perhaps we can make some progress.

Property


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

we can start by examining why the right to make money from rent takes higher priority than the right to have somewhere to live. What are your thoughts?


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> we can start by examining why the right to make money from rent takes higher priority than the right to have somewhere to live. What are your thoughts?



So you tell me.....

I've never made that point.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> There aren't that many squats in london that operate on that kind of community orientated level... hmm... do I know you, I wonder?
> 
> Do the words vertigo or factory mean anything to you apart from the obvious?



No - I was part of the Temporary School group in Mayfair a year ago.  There's a lot about us here:

http://otherexcuses.blogspot.com/2009/01/temporary-school-of-thought-round-up.html

It was/is a really amazing group.  Anyone was welcome to come to our events, but moving in was a different matter.  None of this "hey it's a squat man" attitude.  We ended up with a group of nearly 20 people who naturally knew to do their bit and treat each other and the building with respect. 

As I said earlier in the thread, there's an event in Brixton Village tomorrow discussing what we did... don't know if I'll be able to go since snowed-in and out of London, but it looks good:

http://londonist.com/2010/01/temporary_school_of_thought_reunion.php


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 8, 2010)

Ah, this looks nice: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6980028.ece


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> i can only conclude you're not intellectually capable of such a discussion. Otherwise why the complete avoidance of debate? Disappointing.



I can only conclude that you're incapable. I am not avoiding debate, I am answering your questions, you have yet to state your position without falling back on a link. 

I have asked you several times to state your problems with my position, that you have a problem has been made abundantly clear but you have yet, despite my repeated requests, to explain WHY.

When asked to qualify your opinions you switch the discussion to property rights. That's all well and good but I want to know what your positions are _first_.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> So you tell me.....
> 
> I've never made that point.



You have.



MrA said:


> The right to have a roof over your head doesn't mean you have a right to help yourself to what's not yours as a lifestyle choice. I suppose the right to eat gives you the right to take food, yes?



implicit in this statement is a certain conception of property rights, the one which is dominant in our current economic system.  This does not mean it is the only conception of property rights...

You obviously find my constant questioning challenging.  What I'm trying to do is to take you through the _process_ of understanding my pov.  Knowledge and understanding are _processes_, they don't just arrive fully formed from nowehere.  You will understand how I think a lot better if I can show you the process.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

cesare said:


> If properties are standing empty, it's a waste of space and construction. If someone occupies them rather than them standing empty - good.



If that someone then uses that property for the benefit of the local community and helps others even less fortunate.. then that's better.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> I can only conclude that you're incapable. I am not avoiding debate, I am answering your questions, you have yet to state your position without falling back on a link.



You haven;'t answered my questions.  You've avoided thinking about them, claiming them not to be relevant, while then relying on the same for your arguments.

As I said above, I'm trying to show you the process as to how I arrived at my opinions.



Bippitybop said:


> I have asked you several times to state your problems with my position, that you have a problem has been made abundantly clear but you have yet, despite my repeated requests, to explain WHY.



Implicit in my questions is the fact that I see there are differing defintions of property, yet when I try and engage you in a discussion, you claim it's not relevant!



Bippitybop said:


> When asked to qualify your opinions you switch the discussion to property rights. That's all well and good but I want to know what your positions are _first_.



I can't discuss my position without talking about differing conceptions of property rights.  You can't have it both ways!  You want me discuss property with you, without mentionining property!  That's not going to work is it...


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

badong said:


> I rent because i like the security, but I do feel frustrated that while i cant afford a mortgage (which seems to be essential for survival after retirement at the moment) I'm paying someone else's who can afford several. Given this I cant say i give a shit if someone sets home in a building that is not being used as a home, good for them.



What do you mean by afford several? Seems awfully simplistic. A mortgage is a loan... it has to be paid back.

Without income to pay it back there will be the threat of repossession and possibly losing their own home. As I keep saying it's uncommon for the rih landlords to have empty properties... often it's the ones who are struggling who are targetted by the more selfish squatters.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> No, you're not articulating your point clealy. Now you tell me your definaition of property then perhaps we can make some progress.
> 
> Property



Ok now we're getting somewhere (ignoring for a moment that a dictionary is not the best place to understand complex political, economic and historical arguments).

Let's look at def 1


> that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner:



How do we know someone owns something?  I live in a rented house, it is my home, you could say it's in my possession (my family live there, I cook and eat there, pay the bills, all my stuff is there etc).  Yet I don't own it.  Someone else does, despite them not using it as a house!  They own the house, despite not using it as a house, their use of it is to get money from me.

This should point out two competing uses of the word "property".  Property as in possessions, things I make use of to live and property as in capital, i.e. owning something to make money from.  The first definition, as a possession is easy to analyse, it's something that I use in my everday life, I have a connection with it.  The second is more tricky.  How do we know that my landlord owns my house?  Well I have to pay her rent.  What happens if I don't?  Well I get taken to court and ordered to leave.  What happens if I don't leave when ordered by a court?  Well I get the police (i.e. the power of the state) forcing me to leave.  So you can hopefully see that the 2nd notion of property, something you don't use, don't have a connection with other than an abstract one, but is enforced by violence.  The right for someone to "own" the house I live in, despite not needing it for shelter like I do for me and my family, well this right, this abstract concept of property, is deemed to override my need for shelter.

Is this just?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Always talking about thier rights... never about their responsibilities or what they do to earn those rights.

Argument of the charlatan.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Here's what the anarchist faq has to say



> Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used.


http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html#secb31


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> we can start by examining why the right to make money from rent takes higher priority than the right to have somewhere to live. What are your thoughts?



Why don't you start with why your right to have somewhere to live takes higher priority than the neediest people in society?

Oh I know why... because then your argument would be shown up for the selfish rubbish it is.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Here's what the anarchist faq has to say
> 
> 
> http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html#secb31



In other words... 'possessions' is something they have - 'property' is always someone elses...

It's ok to steal property.. but not possessions. Funny, that, innit?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Why don't you* start with why your right to have somewhere to live takes higher priority than the neediest people in society?*
> 
> Oh I know why... because then your argument would be shown up for the selfish rubbish it is.



I might...MIGHT buy this IF unused properties were siezed by the state and used to house the needy and vulnerable. But they aren't, so thats a bit of an irrelevant point IMHO


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You have.



no I haven't. Not once



> implicit in this statement is a certain conception of property rights, the one which is dominant in our current economic system.  This does not mean it is the only conception of property rights...



If it's dominant in our current culture then that's good enough for me. Anything else is relevant... yet.



> You obviously find my constant questioning challenging.  What I'm trying to do is to take you through the _process_ of understanding my pov.  Knowledge and understanding are _processes_, they don't just arrive fully formed from nowehere.  You will understand how I think a lot better if I can show you the process.



Just tell me what you're position is and answer the questions put to you if you can. Throughout this whole thread you haven't answered a single one. This is becoming tedious.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> no I haven't. Not once



You have y'know.  In defending the status quo, that's exactly what you're doing.



MrA said:


> If it's dominant in our current culture then that's good enough for me. Anything else is relevant... yet.



So your argument boils down to - it's the way it is because it's the way it is.

Why even bother?



MrA said:


> Just tell me what you're position is and answer the questions put to you if you can. Throughout this whole thread you haven't answered a single one. This is becoming tedious.



How can I enter into a discussion with someone who isn't prepared to discuss anything?  Pathetic.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I might...MIGHT buy this IF unused properties were siezed by the state and used to house the needy and vulnerable. But they aren't, so thats a bit of an irrelevant point IMHO



ignore Kizmet, he's being a dick


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I might...MIGHT buy this IF unused properties were siezed by the state and used to house the needy and vulnerable. But they aren't, so thats a bit of an irrelevant point IMHO



Siezed by the state!!  Who decides and using what criteria? 
We were talking about need v lifestyle choice btw.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> Siezed by the state!!  Who decides and using what criteria?
> We were talking about need v lifestyle choice btw.



Who decides need vs lifestyle?


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> ignore Kizmet, he's being a dick



TBH I think you are.

Unless you can actually pinpoint where he is incorrect.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I might...MIGHT buy this IF unused properties were siezed by the state and used to house the needy and vulnerable. But they aren't, so thats a bit of an irrelevant point IMHO



It absolutely is relevant. For a few reasons.

Firstly many squatted properties are council owned buildings designated for the porest and most vulnerable tenents but currently unsuitable.

And secondly that is where the justification for squatting lies... in seizing a truly unused building and using it to house those people in real need. Or to benefit the local community in some other way.

Take and give... give and take. That's the only fair way.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> TBH I think you are.
> 
> Unless you can actually pinpoint where he is incorrect.



he's setting up straw men as far as I can see.  I only see his innane ramblings when someone quotes him.


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Who decides need vs lifestyle?



There you go again, divert from the question _you _were asked.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> There you go again, divert from the question _you _were asked.



I'm asking you to clarify what you mean.  This problem of who decides using what criteria is important, it's about who has the power and why.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> ignore Kizmet, he's being a dick



You sad sad little man. Trying to get them all onside, eh?


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> How is stealing the use of another persons property any more just, how is the expense of evicting squatters just? If it is a genuine need then I can at least sympathise, as a life style choice? Just seems a bit low.





Blagsta said:


> How is it just for someone to make money from such a basic need as housing?





MrA said:


> Oh I see, then we'd all be entitled to free housing? Is that it?





Blagsta said:


> Why does the right to make money override the right to survive?





Blagsta said:


> How did property rights come about?





Blagsta said:


> Why does the right to make money override the right to life?





Bippitybop said:


> If it's a last resort and you're desperate, then by all means. However sense of entitlement alone is not a good enough reason. It's not yours to use, simple as that.
> 
> 
> Yes, but I believe I've already established a difference between someone looking for a roof over their head and someone making a concerted lifestyle choice. I am assuming that those who _choose_ to live as squatters have viable alternatives.
> ...





Blagsta said:


> Same question to you - why does the right to make money override all others?





MrA said:


> Do you know what, I really don't care, the point is that in 2010 millions of people pay rent or mortgages for their right to a property. Until there's a concerted effort to change that state of affairs that's the way it is now.
> 
> Let me be clear, my issue is with squatting as a "lifestyle choise"...





MrA said:


> Is there a right ot life at the expense of others?





Blagsta said:


> Let me get this straight.  Your answer to why the right to make money overrides other rights is because that's the way it is.  Have I summarised accurately?





Blagsta said:


> You haven't answered my question.





Bippitybop said:


> It doesn't, as I've already said, those with no other alternative should be free to squat, ie their right to shelter overrides the right of the property owner to earn money off of it. However, those with other options do not have that excuse.
> 
> Also, people who cannot find adequate shelter, warmth and food should be provided for by wider society rather than a random individual with an empty property.





MrA said:


> I never mentioned once the right to make money, my stance is that it isn't the right of any individual to have something that isn't theirs.





Blagsta said:


> You haven't answered my question.





MrA said:


> You ahven't answered mine, is it your contention that a person has the right to take what they want when they want because of their right to do so?





Blagsta said:


> You have mentioned the right to make money.  What do you think rent is?





MrA said:


> Paying for the use of a property in the same way that paying for a car or a tin of beans, it is a commodity that someone else owns.
> 
> Build your own house if thats your point.





Blagsta said:


> Before I can answer that, we need to talk about how things come to be owned, i.e. property rights.





Blagsta said:


> Indeed.  How did that right to ownership come about?  Why is it more important than the right to have a roof over one's head?





Bippitybop said:


> Yes I did. I answered it by saying that the right to make money _doesn't _over-ride all others. I then qualified my answer by stating that the rights of those with a real desperate need for shelter over-rides the right of property owners to leave their property empty.
> 
> Are you being deliberately obtuse?



Here are just a few examples, I could have gone on for pages, where you have asked questions and not answered a single one. Now, go and look through the whole thread and please link or quote just a few examples when you have answered a question or clearly stated your position. Until then I'm not playing anymore.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

If you actually bothered to read, instead of working yourself up into a froth, you'd see I'd actually posted my arguments about property a little while ago 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10163767&postcount=302

although I can go through the thread and point out where you have avoided my questions by asking me questions, if you think that will be more productive than you actually reading what is in front of you...


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> he's setting up straw men as far as I can see.  I only see his innane ramblings when someone quotes him.



I was truly grateful when blagsta put me on ignore. Because you can't change the minds of people like him. He won't listen or answer your questions because he's done all the thinking he's ever going to do.

Instead you use people like him to make points that you hope other, smarter people will respond to. Otherwise you'll go round in circles for pages... as you can probably see.


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Always talking about thier rights... never about their responsibilities or what they do to earn those rights.
> 
> Argument of the charlatan.



Throughout history in every culture no one is born with rights, not even the right to live. We strive to survive in the prevailing conditions that we find ourselves in.

These people seem to believe that they have rights without responsibility as long as _their_ rights, defined by _themselves_ are met at the expense of others whose _rights_ aren't important as defined by _them_


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> I was truly grateful when blagsta put me on ignore. Because you can't change the minds of people like him. He won't listen or answer your questions because he's done all the thinking he's ever going to do.
> 
> Instead you use people like him to make points that you hope other, smarter people will respond to. Otherwise you'll go round in circles for pages... as you can probably see.



I can see that,


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> Throughout history in every culture no one is born with rights, not even the right to live. We strive to survive in the prevailing conditions that we find ourselves in.
> 
> These people seem to believe that they have rights without responsibility as long as _their_ rights, defined by _themselves_ are met at the expense of others whose _rights_ aren't important as defined by _them_



Indeed, rights are granted by the state.  This is one of the things I've been trying to discuss with you, yet you've refused to!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> *Throughout history in every culture no one is born with rights, not even the right to live. *We strive to survive in the prevailing conditions that we find ourselves in.
> 
> These people seem to believe that they have rights without responsibility as long as _their_ rights, defined by _themselves_ are met at the expense of others whose _rights_ aren't important as defined by _them_



What do you think an aristocracy is but a hereditary line of people born into the right to privilege, power and wealth. Their rights, defined by them over the centuries. Privilege, power and wealth wrested at the expense of other people

It's all very well to talk about rights and responsibilities in abstract. But apply that selfsame logic to our actual society and it's easy to see who defines rights and who dishes out responsibilities. Hint: it aint the joint smoking crusties arguing over who has to do the washing up.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> I can see that,



From someone who refuses to enter into a debate, this is rather rich.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> Throughout history in every culture no one is born with rights, not even the right to live. We strive to survive in the prevailing conditions that we find ourselves in.



Don't say that... their answer will be that 'in a successful, educated, civillised society you have to look after the poorest and neediest.' sic.

Then you'll probably say... but how does your way of squatting do that when it's already clear that it doesn't serve the poorest and neediest?

Then they'll ignore you.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> What do you think an aristocracy is but a hereditary line of people born into the right to privilege, power and wealth. Their rights, defined by them over the centuries. Privilege, power and wealth wrested at the expense of other people
> 
> It's all very well to talk about rights and responsibilities in abstract. But apply that selfsame logic to our actual society and it's easy to see who defines rights and who dishes out responsibilities. Hint: it aint the joint smoking crusties arguing over who has to do the washing up.



Mr A doesn't want to discuss rights and how they arose as he thinks it's not relevant. lol


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Mr A doesn't want to discuss rights and how they arose as he thinks it's not relevant. lol



I find it really difficult having this type of discussion with someone who believes that property can be legally confiscated from the owner if the need, still undefined, is greater elswhere.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> I find it really difficult having this type of discussion with someone who believes that property can be legally confiscated from the owner if the need, still undefined, is greater elswhere.



I haven't said anything of the kind.


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> What do you think an aristocracy is but a hereditary line of people born into the right to privilege, power and wealth. Their rights, defined by them over the centuries. Privilege, power and wealth wrested at the expense of other people



I think nothing of it, in the same way I'd say to a racist scumbag that being born white is an accident of birth, likewise somebody born to privelage. 



> It's all very well to talk about rights and responsibilities in abstract. But apply that selfsame logic to our actual society and it's easy to see who defines rights and who dishes out responsibilities. Hint: it aint the joint smoking crusties arguing over who has to do the washing up.



If it were the crusties would it be universally accepted or any more morally just?


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I haven't said anything of the kind.



Actually I'm giving you a taste of your own medicine by putting words into your mouth and playing semantics without linking ot justifying it.   Honestly mate, you've been doing alll through this thread.


----------



## iROBOT (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> Throughout history in every culture no one is born with rights, not even the right to live. We strive to survive in the prevailing conditions that we find ourselves in.
> 
> These people seem to believe that they have rights without responsibility as long as _their_ rights, defined by _themselves_ are met at the expense of others whose _rights_ aren't important as defined by _them_



So if you were born in the 30's in Germany, you'd just go along with the policy against minorities?

Very dangerous argument.

I'm not debating btw...seems like this threads doing fine without me, just needed to say my piece.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> Actually I'm giving you a taste of your own medicine by putting words into your mouth and playing semantics without linking ot justifying it.   Honestly mate, you've been doing alll through this thread.



You're still refusing to engage with anything I've written.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> I think nothing of it, in the same way I'd say to a racist scumbag that being born white is an accident of birth, likewise somebody born to privelage.



yes. It is an accident of birth. Point being this. The newborn child at the bottom end of the social scale does not have the same rights as the prince newborn. perhaps a better word than born 'with' rights would be born 'into' rights. Rights self defined and gained over the centuries from the blood and seat of other people. The point I'm trying to make here is that rights are defined by he with the biggest stick. D'you see? 




> If it were the crusties would it be universally accepted or any more morally just?



Well, no, you don't replace one privileged elite with another. a tyranny in the name of the people is still a tyranny by another name.

Such things need collective decision making etc.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

btw, you might want to point out where I've put words into someone's mouth.

What I _have_ done is to analyse what you've said.  You don't like that.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> What do you think an aristocracy is but a hereditary line of people born into the right to privilege, power and wealth. Their rights, defined by them over the centuries. Privilege, power and wealth wrested at the expense of other people
> 
> It's all very well to talk about rights and responsibilities in abstract. But apply that selfsame logic to our actual society and it's easy to see who defines rights and who dishes out responsibilities. Hint: it aint the joint smoking crusties arguing over who has to do the washing up.



Actually it is as well. There are many levels and types of rights and responsibilities.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Actually it is as well. There are many levels and types of rights and responsibilities.



micro and macro yes. But we are discussing the bigg 'uns here, property rights being a fair old bone of contention.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

I might even oppose squatting if we had a punitive land rent tax, or disused property tax. Bit statist of me I know.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> yes. It is an accident of birth. Point being this. The newborn child at the bottom end of the social scale does not have the same rights as the prince newborn. perhaps a better word than born 'with' rights would be born 'into' rights. Rights self defined and gained over the centuries from the blood and seat of other people. The point I'm trying to make here is that rights are defined by he with the biggest stick. D'you see?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not going to get into the 'anarchist' argument. It's a purely intellecual exercise that gets nowhere... but I will say this:

You do not need anarchy to have a fair society. All you need is lots of fair people.

The argument often presented here is about people taking what they think is fair _for themselves_... what I am trying to present is the giving of what is fair too... that's just as important. Maybe more so.


----------



## Tacita (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> a tyranny in the name of the people is still a tyranny by another name.



yes, at risk of invoking Godwins (in which case, I retract the post,) 




			
				Dr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn said:
			
		

> National Socialism was the "legal revolt" of the common man against the uncommon; of the "people" (Volk) against privileged and therefore envied and hated groups.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> micro and macro yes. But we are discussing the bigg 'uns here, property rights being a fair old bone of contention.



Not quite...the conversation has been railroaded there by some folk who can only argue about that.

If there was a more open discussion you'd probably find everyone in agreement over some poorer aspects of property rights. The difference is in how people wish to deal with it. I'm suggesting that blagsta's opinion is every bit as selfish as any of the terrible landlords we all hate.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Here's a liberal view on property rights
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I might even oppose squatting if we had a punitive land rent tax, or disused property tax. Bit statist of me I know.



It's a good point. Of course, ideally a landlord/owner could avoid the taxes if they _voluntarily_ gave their property (for an amount of time) for the purposes of housing the neediest or serving the local community.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

Property rights lie at the heart of the squatting argument surely?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

here's wikipedia on property
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

here's Marx on property
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> It's a good point. Of course, ideally a landlord/owner could avoid the taxes if they _voluntarily_ gave their property (for an amount of time) for the purposes of housing the neediest or serving the local community.



or, simply have the property occupied in any way to avoid the tax. This would have the knock on advantage of reduced rents all round.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Property rights lie at the heart of the squatting argument surely?



Of course they do.

As the links I've posted show (I hope!) it's not a simple subject.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Property rights lie at the heart of the squatting argument surely?



Only the rubbish ones. There are better arguments for squatting that are not so concerned with 'rights' but with what is _right_.

In fact you just made one yourself that was already a better argument than blagsta's and shorter!


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> or, simply have the property occupied in any way to avoid the tax. This would have the knock on advantage of reduced rents all round.



Aye. That too... but by putting a social aspect to it there is the knock on benefit of providing amenities for the local community... free event/meeting/practice space and the like.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Only the rubbish ones. There are better arguments for squatting that are not so concerned with 'rights' but with what is _right_.



you keep accusing us of banging on about our rights, which no-one is, whilst simultaneously defending the 'rights' of those who own property

its very strange


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

smokedout said:


> you keep accusing us of banging on about our rights, which no-one is



That is exactly what you are doing... no matter how you dress it up.



> , whilst simultaneously defending the 'rights' of those who own property



I don't care about their rights... I only care about the best and fairest use of empty properties and resources.



> its very strange



life is complicated.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

smokedout said:


> you keep accusing us of banging on about our rights, which no-one is, whilst simultaneously defending the 'rights' of those who own property
> 
> its very strange



Indeed.

The refusal of Mr A, bippitybop et al to discuss rights whilst relying on rights for their arguments is very perplexing!


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Indeed.
> 
> The refusal of Mr A, bippitybop et al to discuss rights whilst relying on rights for their arguments is very perplexing!



Your refusal to state your position on squatting is even more perplexing! You're just dancing around posting links which you 'hope!' explains things without doing any explaining for yourself. Curious.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Your refusal to state your position on squatting is even more perplexing! You're just dancing around posting links which you 'hope!' explains things without doing any explaining for yourself. Curious.



*sigh*

another one refusing to actually read the damn thread.
Try here
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10163767&postcount=302


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> *sigh*
> 
> another one refusing to actually read the damn thread.
> Try here
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10163767&postcount=302



Where have you mentioned squatting once in that post? I am asking for your opinion on squatting, you've yet to give it. You're renting your property, you're not squatting in it. Your situation does not pertain to the discussion. 

I don't know how to make my request any clearer. It seems that you have a problem with reading comprehension. 

However, I will deal with a point made in your post, despite it not being the answer that I asked for.



Blagsta said:


> The right for someone to "own" the house I live in, despite not needing it for shelter like I do for me and my family, well this right, this abstract concept of property, is deemed to override my need for shelter.
> 
> Is this just?



This concept of property is not deemed to override your need for shelter as a whole, just your need for that _specific_ property as your shelter.

Whether or not it is just depends on your circumstances. You are assuming that everyone is equal in their need for shelter. By this I mean that we all need a roof over our head, but someone with no viable alternatives has a greater 'need' than someone who has another reasonable option for shelter. 

This is why tenants have rights, your landlord cannot simply turf you out onto the streets whenever the fancy takes him, despite the fact that he owns the property. In that regard his rights as the owner of the house do not override your right to shelter.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Where have you mentioned squatting once in that post? I am asking for your opinion on squatting, you've yet to give it. You're renting your property, you're not squatting in it. Your situation does not pertain to the discussion.
> 
> I don't know how to make my request any clearer. It seems that you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> However, I will deal with a point made in your post, despite it not being the answer that I asked for.



This is getting _really_ irritating.

I was illustrating differing notions of property, which is at the heart of this.



Bippitybop said:


> This concept of property is not deemed to override your need for shelter as a whole, just your need for that _specific_ property as your shelter.



Well if I get evicted for not paying my rent, I'm homeless.  The council wouldn't house me.  So actually, the notion of property as capital *does* override my need to house my family.



Bippitybop said:


> Whether or not it is just depends on your circumstances. You are assuming that everyone is equal in their need for shelter. By this I mean that we all need a roof over our head, but someone with no viable alternatives has a greater 'need' than someone who has another reasonable option for shelter.




We all have a need for shelter.  Everyone.  btw, you might want to look at what constitutes "reasonable" and who gets to decide this and by what criteria.



Bippitybop said:


> This is why tenants have rights, your landlord cannot simply turf you out onto the streets whenever the fancy takes him, despite the fact that he owns the property. In that regard his rights as the owner of the house do not override your right to shelter.




My landlord can turf me out with 2 months notice.  However, that's not what I'm discussing.  I'm pointing out that there are competing defintions of property.  This is at the heart of my argument.  There is property as capital and there is property as use.  Property as capital is defended by the state more readily than property as use.  This is what Proudhon was on about, presumably you've heard the phrase "property is theft"?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

You're right in one respect about why we have tenant's rights etc.  They are to mitigate some of the worst consequences of capitalist private property.  These rights haven't just been granted by the state out of them being nice.  They've been hard fought for.  Which is why looking at the history of how rights arose is important.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> This is getting _really_ irritating.
> 
> I was illustrating differing notions of property, which is at the heart of this


Yes it is. Why can't you answer question? What is your opinion on squatting?



Blagsta said:


> Well if I get evicted for not paying my rent, I'm homeless.  The council wouldn't house me.  So actually, the notion of property as capital *does* override my need to house my family.


You're only homeless if you do not use the time that you're legally entitled to to find an adequate replacement, or if you're unable.




Blagsta said:


> We all have a need for shelter.  Everyone.  btw, you might want to look at what constitutes "reasonable" and who gets to decide this and by what criteria.


Yes we all need shelter, that's what I said. People with no other form of shelter have a greater need than those who squat despite having access to other forms of adequate shelter, yes?

I would define reasonable as clean, safe and inhabitable. How would you define it?




Blagsta said:


> My landlord can turf me out with 2 months notice.  However, that's not what I'm discussing.  I'm pointing out that there are competing defintions of property.  This is at the heart of my argument.  There is property as capital and there is property as use.  Property as capital is defended by the state more readily than property as use.  This is what Proudhon was on about, presumably you've heard the phrase "property is theft"?



I'm familiar with the phrase and I will concede to your distinctions between property as capital and property as use. However, what is your point? How do you think the concept of property should be treated?

That there are competing definitions of property is not the heart of your argument as you have not laid down an argument. So far this has been an exercise in semantics. What is your argument?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Yes it is. Why can't you answer question? What is your opinion on squatting?





Seeing as I've been defending it on this thread, what do you think my opinion is? 





Bippitybop said:


> You're only homeless if you do not use the time that you're legally entitled to to find an adequate replacement, or if you're unable.





If I refuse to pay rent then I'm homeless.  Therefore property as capital overrides my requirement for housing.





Bippitybop said:


> Yes we all need shelter, that's what I said. People with no other form of shelter have a greater need than those who squat despite having access to other forms of adequate shelter, yes?





Agreed.  However, why does the need for someone to make money override all of these?





Bippitybop said:


> I would define reasonable as clean, safe and inhabitable. How would you define it?







We then get into the problem of defining clean, safe and inhabitable!  I work with homeless people, have done for nearly 4 years.  What I think is unsafe and dirty is not neccesarily what the council thinks is unsafe and dirty.  See the problem?





Bippitybop said:


> I'm familiar with the phrase and I will concede to your distinctions between property as capital and property as use.





At last!  Thank you for finally engaging with what I'm trying to say. 





Bippitybop said:


> However, what is your point? How do you think the concept of property should be treated?





Well I think my initial point on this thread was about why is renting just and squatting as a "lifestyle choice" not.  I think property should be controlled socially, not privately.  i.e. workplaces controlled by workers, housing in direct democratic control of the community.





Bippitybop said:


> That there are competing definitions of property is not the heart of your argument as you have not laid down an argument. So far this has been an exercise in semantics. What is your argument?





They are at the heart of my argument if you care to follow!  What I'm doing is asking you to tell me why you think property as capital is fair and just.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

This was the exchange that started this

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10160219&postcount=68

I'm still waiting for you to defend it.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> They are at the heart of my argument if you care to follow!  What I'm doing is asking you to tell me why you think property as capital is fair and just.



This is painful to watch you labour a really dull political point.

Property as capital is fair and just as long as all parties involved are fair and just.


----------



## Onket (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> This is painful to watch you labour a really dull political point.



But also highly amusing.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

If people don't want to discuss property, then what are they doing on a thread about property?

I don't get it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

'It's about rights and responsibilities'

'in respect to property and ownership'

'It's about fairness'

'with respect to property and housing'

'basically I object cos I reckon some people are getting a free lunch'

etc etc ad nauseum.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Well if I get evicted for not paying my rent, I'm homeless.  The council wouldn't house me.



This way of thinking stinks.

Essentially it's 'if the government won't give me what I want... I'll take it from anyone else I please... regardless of how it might affect them.'

They think the world owes them something. Couldn't really gve a fuck about the truly needy... just don't want to pay rent.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I don't get it.



Never a truer word spoken.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Onket said:


> But also highly amusing.



Only in the way 'the office' is amusing... with blagsta as the cringeworthy David Brent.


----------



## Onket (Jan 8, 2010)

As I said, highly amusing.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Couldn't really gve a fuck about the truly needy... just don't want to pay rent.



Why should you have to give a fuck about the truly needy just because you don't want to pay rent? I lived in a squat for a year and had a great time whilst the truly needy were probably all having a shit time. The two things were not connected.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I work with homeless people, have done for nearly 4 years.



Drug addicts, I thought? I bet you've got a good success rate... I'd give up heroin if it meant never having to see you again!

Fuck it, you're boring enough to make me wanna shoot up in the first place!


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why should you have to give a fuck about the truly needy just because you don't want to pay rent? I lived in a squat for a year and had a great time whilst the truly needy were probably all having a shit time. The two things were not connected.



You don't have to. Just don't make bullshit arguments about 'societal injustices' to back yourself up.

I have much more respect for it, then.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Drug addicts, I thought? I bet you've got a good success rate... I'd give up heroin if it meant never having to see you again!
> 
> Fuck it, you're boring enough to make me wanna shoot up in the first place!


----------



## badong (Jan 8, 2010)

Any one have care to expand on their experiences squatting as apposed to whether its right or wrong.

I'm quite intrigued to find out how it worked out for people.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

Was meant as a joke... did I go too far..?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Aye. That too... but by putting a social aspect to it there is the knock on benefit of providing amenities for the local community... free event/meeting/practice space and the like.



In fairness, some squatter collectives are involved in community and art projects using the squatted space. I'm not sure if this is a widespread thing or a smaller subset of squatters as a whole.

The (admittedly quite statist and thus not to anarchists liking I assume) ideas about punitive taxes on disused spaces we discussed is a viable alternative to leaving buildings unnocupied for years on end when there are people who need the space and actually do something with it. ATM it's like people living next door to fallow pastures and going hungry.

As it presently stands I can't rally raise much objection to squatting. In the absence of a statist solution, let them get on with it. Yeah there will be piss takers, hedonists and lifestylers. But then there will also be those who give back and those who squat from need. The statist idea of punitive taxation on unused spaces would actually remove the conditions that create a need for squats in the first place. 

Fucked if I can see any gov. getting such a measure voted through though...


----------



## Onket (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Was meant as a joke... did I go too far..?



Well I laughed.

But then apparently I'm a cunt, so it could go either way really.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> In fairness, some squatter collectives are involved in community and art projects using the squatted space. I'm not sure if this is a widespread thing or a smaller subset of squatters as a whole.


 I know a few in London.. one east and one north... a couple in Liverpool. There are others dotted about. When done well they can be awesome. Life changingly awesome.

There are other projects that utilise dead space for short periods of time for events or exhibitions... again when done well... they can be fantastic.



> The (admittedly quite statist and thus not to anarchists liking I assume) ideas about punitive taxes on disused spaces we discussed is a viable alternative to leaving buildings unnocupied for years on end when there are people who need the space and actually do something with it. ATM it's like people living next door to fallow pastures and going hungry.
> 
> As it presently stands I can't rally raise much objection to squatting. In the absence of a statist solution, let them get on with it. Yeah there will be piss takers, hedonists and lifestylers. But then there will also be those who give back and those who squat from need. The statist idea of punitive taxation on unused spaces would actually remove the conditions that create a need for squats in the first place.



I more or less agree. However I will call out the pisstakers and lifestylers as exactly that.. especially if they try to justify it with bullshit.... because I know many who take it much more seriously than that.



> Fucked if I can see any gov. getting such a measure voted through though...



Maybe... but it's still a darn sight more likely than an anarchist revolution.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

... and before anyone asks me... 'who are you to judge...?' I'll say this:

"I judge none, save those who seek to be judged."

And if some cleverer person hasn't already said that before me... they bloody well should've!


----------



## futha (Jan 8, 2010)

smokedout said:


> but what if someone like me comes along and says soz mate, i dont give a flying fuck about your so called property rights
> 
> *if you own something that you only posess to make profit out of others on then it aint yours*, end of, i dont give a fuck whether trustafarian yoghurt weavers or brew crew take it off you, it aint yours
> 
> now given thats my position, slightly simplified, then you cant really divorce any debate about squatting from a debate about property rights as much as you might wish you could



Can i put a scenario to you? My nan died leaving my mum (an only child) her house near London. My mum can't afford to sell it so she rents it out to tennants and uses that to subsidise her income (which by itself is hard to live on). She is still skint and struggling to live decently but without the rent money each month it would be even harder. Can I ask what you would make of this in relation to the section of your post I have highlighted bold?


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You're still refusing to engage with anything I've written.



No I'm refusing to engage you until you start to aprticipate properly. Other then that you've been obtuse, evasive and generally annoying.



DotCommunist said:


> yes. It is an accident of birth. Point being this. The newborn child at the bottom end of the social scale does not have the same rights as the prince newborn. perhaps a better word than born 'with' rights would be born 'into' rights. Rights self defined and gained over the centuries from the blood and seat of other people. The point I'm trying to make here is that rights are defined by he with the biggest stick. D'you see?



It's being born into privelage, their rights should be no greater or lesser than our own. If anything they have a head start or at worst they can abuse their privelage.





> Such things need *collective decision making* etc.



So is it by majority decision?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

you're a bit thick


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> you're a bit thick





If that's in comparison to you I'd have to be brain dead. 

You are on my avoid list, congratulations you're the first in 5 forums.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

thick fuck


----------



## MrA (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Only in the way 'the office' is amusing... with blagsta as the cringeworthy David Brent.




Oh I don't know, blagsta shades it for me.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

you and kizmet should get together you're both spectacularly thick


----------



## Boppity (Jan 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Seeing as I've been defending it on this thread, what do you think my opinion is?


Well do you believe that all squatters are equal regardless of their reasons for squatting?



> If I refuse to pay rent then I'm homeless.  Therefore property as capital overrides my requirement for housing.


That would be the consequence of your choice not to pay your rent. If you were genuinely unable to pay your rent then it would be different.



> Agreed.  However, why does the need for someone to make money override all of these?


Unfortunately, people generally need money to be able to provide for themselves. 



> We then get into the problem of defining clean, safe and inhabitable!  I work with homeless people, have done for nearly 4 years.  What I think is unsafe and dirty is not neccesarily what the council thinks is unsafe and dirty.  See the problem?


I'm happy to work with the general consensus on what is clean safe and inhabitable. Do you have a better idea?



> Well I think my initial point on this thread was about why is renting just and squatting as a "lifestyle choice" not.  I think property should be controlled socially, not privately.  i.e. workplaces controlled by workers, housing in direct democratic control of the community.


Well what is your point then? Is renting just? Is squatting a lifestyle choice? You've asked me these questions without providing your own answers.





> They are at the heart of my argument if you care to follow!  What I'm doing is asking you to tell me why you think property as capital is fair and just.


You've yet to make an argument.



Blagsta said:


> This was the exchange that started this
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10160219&postcount=68
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to defend it.


To defend what? All you've shown me is an example of you answering a question with another question, you've not made a point at all. 


As a side note, all of this 'you're thick' malarky reeks of childishness and an unwillingness to accept differing opinions or answer inconvenient questions.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> No I'm refusing to engage you until you start to aprticipate properly. Other then that you've been obtuse, evasive and generally annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Shoulda could woulda. The reality is thier rights, rights to power to privilege and wealth ARE greater than our own. Because they have the inherited privilege of 5 centuries or more of earning off the back of others whom they could subdue by arms or threat of arms. They make right, with might. D'you see?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2010)

futha said:


> Can i put a scenario to you? My nan died leaving my mum (an only child) her house near London. My mum can't afford to sell it so she rents it out to tennants and uses that to subsidise her income (which by itself is hard to live on). She is still skint and struggling to live decently but without the rent money each month it would be even harder. Can I ask what you would make of this in relation to the section of your post I have highlighted bold?



i dont know, my heart goes out to her, it must be a living hell having a house in the home counties that you cant afford to sell


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> This way of thinking stinks.
> 
> Essentially it's 'if the government won't give me what I want... I'll take it from anyone else I please... regardless of how it might affect them.'
> 
> They think the world owes them something. Couldn't really gve a fuck about the truly needy... just don't want to pay rent.



as opposed to landlords who also couldnt really give a fuck about the truly needy and just want to make money out of people in their community who have less than them

thats what stinks - greedy, anti-social landlord scum who don't give a fuck about anybody but themselves


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> Oh I don't know, blagsta shades it for me.



Go on blagsta.. do the dance... you know you want to... go on, do the dance....


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Shoulda could woulda. The reality is thier rights, rights to power to privilege and wealth ARE greater than our own. Because they have the inherited privilege of 5 centuries or more of earning off the back of others whom they could subdue by arms or threat of arms. They make right, with might. D'you see?



You weren't born into a fair world, dc. Sad as that may be. No point whinging about it, though....

The bloke who's bigger than you will take your lunch money and there's fuck all you can do to stop that either. You don't make it fairer by stealing someone elses.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

MrA said:


> So is it by majority decision?



You have to understand... blagsta is one of the safe majority - straight, white, semi-educated male... he knows he'll be ok.

So majority rule doesn't scare him. Were he to come from an obvious minority he would have a different outlook on it.

Sorry to bring race into it... but it's the main thing that worries me about any collective, majority is right, might is right ruling.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> You weren't born into a fair world, dc. Sad as that may be. No point whinging about it, though....
> 
> The bloke who's bigger than you will take your lunch money and there's fuck all you can do to stop that either. You don't make it fairer by stealing someone elses.



nor still do you make it a fairer world by playing by the bigger mans rules. There's the rub. In absence of a fair and equitable state where is the moral mandate to obey the rules laid down by those who do not and have no intention of applying to themselves?

So to decry the leftfield sorts and thier picayune violations of unfair law seems a little silly. Not that I am a massive fan of playing moral equivalence but it is worth thinking about.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

smokedout said:


> as opposed to landlords who also couldnt really give a fuck about the truly needy and just want to make money out of people in their community who have less than them
> 
> thats what stinks - greedy, anti-social landlord scum who don't give a fuck about anybody but themselves



Which makes you nearly as bad as each other. Thank god there aren't that many of either of you...


----------



## futha (Jan 8, 2010)

smokedout said:


> i dont know, my heart goes out to her, it must be a living hell having a house in the home counties that you cant afford to sell



Stepping aside from your sarcastic tone, what point are you actually making in this post please? What would your ideal 'outcome' of the scenario I posted be? You come across like a complete tool tbf.



smokedout said:


> as opposed to landlords who also couldnt really give a fuck about the truly needy and just want to make money out of people in their community who have less than them
> 
> thats what stinks - greedy, anti-social landlord scum who don't give a fuck about anybody but themselves



^^^ I know this post wasn't a reply to me but I have to say I do agree with it. In my mums case however the family who rent out my nans old house are better off than my Mum. Your standpoint of 'anyone who rents out a house is scum' doesn't wash with me. Feel free to prove me wrong though I may have missed something in this thread.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

futha said:


> I know this post wasn't a reply to me but I have to say I do agree with it.



Of course you agree with it. It's just normal decency to hate scum landlords.

You don't have to use them as an excuse to steal off other people, though. Especially as those rich landlords almost never have any empty properties.

This isn't robin hood.. unfortunately they often end up stealing from the poor to keep for themselves.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 8, 2010)

It's a myth about people squatting in empty homes with people's stuff in.

The places the squatters I know live in are either warehouses which nobody wants to use (and are likely going to be demolished at some point in the future) or are council places in very bad states of repair.  Usually they leave them in better condition than they found them.


----------



## futha (Jan 8, 2010)

Just so my standpoint is clear I am not anti squatting. Seems to be some examples on this thread alone of positive things coming out of it.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> nor still do you make it a fairer world by playing by the bigger mans rules. There's the rub.



No.. here's the rub.. perhaps it might be better to hold off on worrying about the rest of the world and concentrate on being fair yourself?

if everyone did that.... well, you know the rest.



> In absence of a fair and equitable state where is the moral mandate to obey the rules laid down by those who do not and have no intention of applying to themselves?
> 
> So to decry the leftfield sorts and thier picayune violations of unfair law seems a little silly.



Fine. But then let's not pretend it's anything more than that.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> It's a myth about people squatting in empty homes with people's stuff in.



It's not a myth. But it is rare.



> The places the squatters I know live in are either warehouses which nobody wants to use (and are likely going to be demolished at some point in the future) or are council places in very bad states of repair.
> 
> Usually they leave them in better condition than they found them.



That's a myth.

Often the shonky wiring and plumbing is unregulated, dangerous as hell and structural alterations unbalanced.

Shame though... it would be nice if it was true.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 8, 2010)

The owner of the main squat I know doesn't think it's a myth.  The place was virtually a condemned building when they found it.  Now it's a liveable building


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Sorry to bring race into it... but it's the main thing that worries me about any collective, majority is right, might is right ruling.



Might is right?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> The owner of the main squat I know doesn't think it's a myth.  The place was virtually a condemned building when they found it.  Now it's a liveable building



Habitable, probably. But that's a long way from passing all the regulations necessary to make it legally liveable.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect most of the wiring would have to be done again by a niceic electrician the gas by a corgi guy and building reg would need to go over it again.

It really doesn't save much time... or effort in the long run.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

cesare said:


> Might is right?



Majority rule is only a step away from might is right and only a century from public lynchings.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Habitable, probably. But that's a long way from passing all the regulations necessary to make it legally liveable.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect most of the wiring would have to be done again by a niceic electrician the gas by a corgi guy and building reg would need to go over it again.
> 
> It really doesn't save much time... or effort in the long run.



The roof being transformed from 'almost totally collapsed and pidgeons living in it en masse' to 'completely fixed' almost definitely does, though.  The owner knows this and that's why he can't be arsed kicking them out.  Sounds like he landed an inheritance that was more trouble than it was worth and now it isn't actually costing him anything to attempt to maintain.  They've met the owner and he's seen what they've done to the place and he's happy with it.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> The roof being transformed from 'almost totally collapsed and pidgeons living in it en masse' to 'completely fixed' almost definitely does, though.  The owner knows this and that's why he can't be arsed kicking them out.  Sounds like he landed an inheritance that was more trouble than it was worth and now it isn't actually costing him anything to attempt to maintain.  They've met the owner and he's seen what they've done to the place and he's happy with it.



Ok... fair enough. I know a place like that.... exceptions, rather than the rule, I think. And most importantly... with the owners tacit consent. 

Everyone's a winner, baby.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 8, 2010)

TBH It's the only squat I know all that well. I crash there sometimes when I go to London.  They've been in there 8 years now...


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> TBH It's the only squat I know all that well. I crash there sometimes when I go to London.  They've been in there 8 years now...



8 years, you say? May be the same place. Nice garden?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 8, 2010)

Hasn't really got a back garden.  Got a nice front garden which they've made look quite good


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 8, 2010)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Hasn't really got a back garden.  Got a nice front garden which they've made look quite good



Probably not the same place, then. Still, sounds like a good deal all round.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> No.. here's the rub.. perhaps it might be better to hold off on worrying about the rest of the world and concentrate on being fair yourself?
> .



I thought you didn't want to re-tread those anarchic themes?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 8, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Well do you believe that all squatters are equal regardless of their reasons for squatting?



I believe that shelter is a neccessity and more important than someone making a profit.



Bippitybop said:


> That would be the consequence of your choice not to pay your rent.



Yes, that's what I said.  The property rights of the landlord (property as capital) override my possession of the property (property as use/necessity).  I think that's crazy.



Bippitybop said:


> If you were genuinely unable to pay your rent then it would be different.



It depends actually.  There is housing benefit, but not all private landlords want DSS tenants.  There is council housing, which I may qualify for, having a child, but it would be temp accom initially, which is usually pretty dire.



Bippitybop said:


> Unfortunately, people generally need money to be able to provide for themselves.



Yet the right of the landlord to make money overrides my needs for housing, to have more money for my family etc.  Funny old world



Bippitybop said:


> I'm happy to work with the general consensus on what is clean safe and inhabitable. Do you have a better idea?



There isn't a general consensus is there?  At least not one that tenants and councils can agree on.  Example - Westminster council insisting that a mattress infested with bed bugs in a temp accom hotel is reasonable.  



Bippitybop said:


> Well what is your point then? Is renting just?
> 
> Is squatting a lifestyle choice? You've asked me these questions without providing your own answers.



You still can't work out my pov, even after all this?

Let me spell it out for you!  I think private property (i.e. property as capital) is unjust.  Squatting can be a "lifestyle choice", but then we have to define what that means, what necessity is, who gets to decide when squatting is necessary, when it is a choice etc.  These are essentially questions about power.  Who has it and why.




Bippitybop said:


> You've yet to make an argument.



I've been making one all the way through!  I've been asking you questions about property.  You've conceded that there are different definitions depending on use.




Bippitybop said:


> To defend what? All you've shown me is an example of you answering a question with another question, you've not made a point at all.



Except that you've now conceded my point on property.  Yet you are now complaining I haven't made a point!



Bippitybop said:


> As a side note, all of this 'you're thick' malarky reeks of childishness and an unwillingness to accept differing opinions or answer inconvenient questions.



I'm resorting to that because Mr A won't do me the courtesy of responding to any of my points.  At least you have done me that courtesy, so thank you.


----------



## oryx (Jan 9, 2010)

badong said:


> Any one have care to expand on their experiences squatting as apposed to whether its right or wrong.
> 
> I'm quite intrigued to find out how it worked out for people.



I squatted in the 80s, when as other people have said whole streets were left empty & taken over by squatters.

Our house (and the whole street) was compulsarily purchased for a school redevelopment which never happened (and as at 9 January 2010 still hasn't happened and is never going to happen). It would have been immoral _not_ to squat them!

The people I lived with were the poshest flatmates I've ever had (one of them was titled, I shit you not). I am from a middle class background (though most certainly trust-fundless) but was there because I was on the verge of homelessness, having given notice to the landlord on a privately-rented flat and subsequently having been unable to find anywhere else.

I was working but on a low income and the place in the squat came up through friends who were already living there. It had no hot water and an army of mice, but we had electricity, a phone, a cooker and even a spin dryer (oh luxury!). Though I loved the party lifestyle that came with squatting  I was very sensible and did a lot of cleaning up and negotiating with the electricity board and BT to keep our services on despite huge debts.

Me and the friend I'd moved in with ended up being the only two people left and quickly got fed up with the cold, the vermin and feeling very unsafe. (Our back door was secured by a wheelbarrow propped up against it). We got the chance to move to a very cheap rented place down the road and jumped at it.

Squatting as a lifestyle choice (though I didn't do it myself this way) is important as it draws attention to the scandal of empty property. 

i'mnotsofast's (excellent and very interesting) blog draws attention to huge, habitable homes being left empty because the owner, quite frankly, has lost touch with reality and thinks nothing of shutting up a multi-million pounds' worth of luxury mansion. Read his post about the Bishop's Avenue.

Back when I squatted and before, the squatter movement was instrumental in bringing about short-life housing and subsequently many small housing associations and co-ops. This was possible as the type of property we squatted was publicly-owned. It was also instrumental in the policy today of most local authorities having empty property officers. 

The so-called lifestyle/political squatters have a vastly important point to make about the obscenity of homes deliberately and wantonly left empty while thousands of people are in temporary accommodation or poor housing. 

Now, I do know there's no or little likelihood of an empty multi-million pound mansion on  Bishop's Avenue being turned into housing association flats. But it is important that people's attention is drawn to this appalling level of lifestyle inequality, as it was drawn to the scandal of empty publicly-owned property nearly three decades ago, and it's important that something (a taxation solution of some sort, perhaps) should come of this.

BTW, a great novel about squatting in the 80s is Doris Lessing's _The Good Terrorist_.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> No.. here's the rub.. *perhaps it might be better to hold off on worrying about the rest of the world and concentrate on being fair yourself?
> *
> if everyone did that.... well, you know the rest.
> 
> ...



I'm struggling to see how you make a distinction between the two? To be fair is intrinsically bound with worrying about the rest of the world unless you are some sort of self-serving sociopath


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Shoulda could woulda. The reality is thier rights, rights to power to privilege and wealth ARE greater than our own. Because they have the inherited privilege of 5 centuries or more of earning off the back of others whom they could subdue by arms or threat of arms. They make right, with might. D'you see?



That's life, even in some sort of collective there are decision makers, which gives them the bigger stick in comparison to the others. As longs as those born with privelage don't impinge on my rights then fuck 'em.



smokedout said:


> i dont know, my heart goes out to her, it must be a living hell having a house in the home counties that you cant afford to sell



If I were to generalise and say that all squatters were low life theiving druggy scum would that be a fair reflection? Of course not. What you appear to be implying is that all property owners don't deserve to be and should be disadvantaged in favour of those who chose a lifestyle choice based on usig what is not theirs regardless of need.



Blagsta said:


> I believe that shelter is a neccessity and more important than someone making a profit.



Shelter is a neccesity, but it is not a _right_, particularly if the property is owned by someone else and someone has the means to pay for the privelage of living in a property. What I wholeheartedly object to is people making a lifestyle choice to squat that _isn't_ based on need or circumstance.



> Yes, that's what I said.  The property rights of the landlord (property as capital) override my possession of the property (property as use/necessity).  I think that's crazy.



It's the neccesity and the right to take what you feel is appropriate especially if it isn't yours that grates me. How would you fund a housing program Blagsta?




> It depends actually.  There is housing benefit, but not all private landlords want DSS tenants.  There is council housing, which I may qualify for, having a child, but it would be temp accom initially, which is usually pretty dire.



I know 1st hand having spent time in a one bedroomed B&B with my mother, brother and sister, Telford Avenue, Streatham 1979 - 1981. We struggled through until housing was provided and my mother had two jobs to pay the rent and we recieved state benefits, not once did she consider squatting, however as a last resort with 3 kids in tow it may have been her only option. 

I think it stinks that someone would feel it appropriate to take another persons property regardless of _their _circumstances because of some musguided perception of class jealousy and lifestyle choice. There's a huge difference IMO.




> Yet the right of the landlord to make money overrides my needs for housing, to have more money for my family etc.  Funny old world



Not one poster has said that you numpty, not one. 



> There isn't a general consensus is there?  At least not one that tenants and councils can agree on.  Example - Westminster council insisting that a mattress infested with bed bugs in a temp accom hotel is reasonable.



Link please...... 




> You still can't work out my pov, even after all this?



You'd redistribute property base on need by taking property that generates weath for others. Is that it? 




> Let me spell it out for you!  I think private property (i.e. property as capital) is unjust.  Squatting can be a "lifestyle choice", but then we have to define what that means, what necessity is, who gets to decide when squatting is necessary, when it is a choice etc.  These are essentially questions about power.  Who has it and why.



Property needs to be capital driven or else funding come from where? I think I can guess the answer to this one.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

thick as two short planks


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> thick as two short planks





The tactic of a fool.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

if you do me the courtesy of following what i say then i'll return it. So far you haven't shown any willingness to do so. Until you do you can fuck off. Meanwhile ponder on why i'm still engaging with bippitybop but not you.


----------



## Tacita (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Shelter is a neccesity, but it is not a _right_,





yes it is


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

Article 25 UN Declaration of Human Rights



> Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, *housing* and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Tacita said:


> yes it is



No it isn't, everyone _needs _shelter therefore it is a neccesity. But I fail to see how it can be a _right_, if someone has no shelter then it is imcumbant on any decent society to provide it based on the individual _need_.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

Of course we then need to analyse rights, how they arose, what they mean etc.  Which means an analysis of power in society, which people have been very resistant to in this thread!


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Article 25 UN Declaration of Human Rights
> 
> 
> http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/




And? This means we all shoud take what we feel is our right or have it provided to us regardless of our circumstances? 

I think we agree that based on _need _and in severe circumstances squatting would be appropriate.

Where we disagree is that it can be a lifestyle choice, or taken because we feel that some people have more than others?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

You said housing wasn't a right.  I'm pointing out it is, at least according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights.  I've then gone on to point out we then need to analyse what rights actually mean.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Where we disagree is that it can be a lifestyle choice, or taken because we feel that some people have more than others?



Where we disagree is on definitions of property and property rights.  However, you don't want to think about it, so fuck knows what you're still doing on this thread.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Of course we then need to analyse rights, how they arose, what they mean etc.  Which means an analysis of power in society, which people have been very resistant to in this thread!




No it isn't the thread title is *Squatting - as a lifestyle choice - any good/ fun?*.  and we were debating whether it should be a lifestyle choice or a choice based on neccesity.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> No it isn't the thread title is *Squatting - as a lifestyle choice - any good/ fun?*.  and we were debating whether it should be a lifestyle choice or a choice based on neccesity.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

Why you mentioning rights then you fucking plank?

Jesus you really are fucking stupid.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Where we disagree is on definitions of property and property rights.  However, you don't want to think about it, so fuck knows what you're still doing on this thread.



The definition of property is quite explicit, how you want to interpret it doesn't matter.

What I have an issue with is that you seem to have on opinion regarding property and it's use that is not yours to use based on a lifestyle choice. 

Traditional principles of property rights include:

control of the use of the property 
the right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent) 
a right to transfer or sell the property 
a right to exclude others from the property. 

Source

These are the very things you seem to oppose.


----------



## Tacita (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> No it isn't, everyone _needs _shelter therefore it is a neccesity. But I fail to see how it can be a _right_,





Blagsta said:


> Article 25 UN Declaration of Human Rights
> 
> 
> http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/





> Article 25.
> •(1) *Everyone has the right to* a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,* housing *and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.



that's how


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> *The definition of property is quite explicit*, how you want to interpret it doesn't matter.
> 
> What I have an issue with is that you seem to have on opinion regarding property and it's use that is not yours to use based on a lifestyle choice.
> 
> ...



It's not though is it.  As I have shown.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Why you mentioning rights then you fucking plank?
> 
> Jesus you really are fucking stupid.



This will be out of character for me, but your really are an obtuse dumbfuck. you started the debate about property and property fucking rights, which, I must add isn't the thread topic. 

So fuck off and annoy someone else.....


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Property needs to be capital driven or else funding come from where? I think I can guess the answer to this one.



ah i see, you're one of those people who think that without the rich to organise everyone no-one would bother to build houses

actually the reverse is true, working class people know how to build houses, the rich, for most practical purposes, are functionally useless


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Tacita said:


> that's how





Article 25.
•(1) Everyone has the right to a *standard *of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 

Doesn't say you can take it from someone else based on a lifestyle choice. If that was the case I'd quit work tommorrow nip down to Tescos, help myself to a weekly shop and move into the first decent empty gaff I passed.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Article 25.
> 
> 
> Doesn't say you can take it from someone else based on a lifestyle choice. If that was the case I'd quit work tommorrow nip down to Tescos, help myself to a weekly shop and move into the first decent empty gaff I passed.



youre missing the point again


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> ah i see, you're one of those people who think that without the rich to organise everyone no-one would bother to build houses



Absolutley not. The very opposite in many cases but that's a generalisation.




> actually the reverse is true, *working class people know how to build houses*, the rich, for most practical purposes, are functionally useless



Yes... But how would they be funded?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> This will be out of character for me, but your really are an obtuse dumbfuck. you started the debate about property and property fucking rights, which, I must add isn't the thread topic.
> 
> So fuck off and annoy someone else.....



If squatting isn't about property and who has the right to use it, what the fuck is it about eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Article 25.
> •(1) Everyone has the right to a *standard *of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
> 
> Doesn't say you can take it from someone else based on a lifestyle choice. If that was the case I'd quit work tommorrow nip down to Tescos, help myself to a weekly shop and move into the first decent empty gaff I passed.



It says everyone has a right to housing.  You claimed they didn't.  You're wrong.  Get over it and move on.

If you want to argue that rights are a useless concept, go right ahead, I won't be far behind you!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Absolutley not. The very opposite in many cases but that's a generalisation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well now we need to analyse money, labour and commodities don't we?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Yes... But how would they be funded?



by the redistribution of capital from the rich to the people


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> by the redistribution of capital from the rich to the people



Once that is done, then how?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> *That's life*, even in some sort of collective there are decision makers, which gives them the bigger stick in comparison to the others. As longs as those born with privelage don't impinge on my rights then fuck 'em.










That's a shit arguement that is no different to 'it's human naychur ennit?'

A primitive and unreflective sort of social darwinism that comes from not really bothering to think. If we were all 'that's life!' sorts we'd still be dying at 40 and praying to the Sun-God.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> That's a shit arguement that is no different to 'it's human naychur ennit?'
> 
> A primitive and unreflective sort of social darwinism that comes from not really bothering to think. If we were all 'that's life!' sorts we'd still be dying at 40 and praying to the Sun-God.



Very witty.... 

But the sentiment remains that nothing is fair, only as fair as possible. It doesn't matter what ideology you support there are flaws in them all and the decision making process always boils down to an elite of sorts. And as much as you think it's shit, human nature plays a huge role in these matters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2010)

'life isn't fair' is a subset of the 'human nature' arguement. Life may not be fair, but does that not mean we shouldn't bother to change that? Again it's handwaving bollocks that seeks to excuse an almost nihilistic approach to life.

or should we all just lie back and lazily go 'arr that's life innit?'


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> 'life isn't fair' is a subset of the 'human nature' arguement. Life may not be fair, but does that not mean we shouldn't bother to change that? Again it's handwaving bollocks that seeks to excuse an almost nihilistic approach to life.
> 
> or should we all just lie back and lazily go 'arr that's life innit?'



This.

Creating and inspiring social change in order to improve fairness, equality, rights of certain groups, etc. simply would never happen if we all just sat back and said 'oh well, what can you do... just the way it is'.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> No it isn't, everyone _needs _shelter therefore it is a neccesity. But I fail to see how it can be a _right_, if someone has no shelter then it is imcumbant on any decent society to provide it based on the individual _need_.



Eh?

If everyone needs shelter and it is regarded as a 'neccessity', doesn't that make it a basic right? Therefore, it should be for societies/states to ensure that this right is met with some form of housing/shelter provision?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Very witty....
> 
> But the sentiment remains that nothing is fair, only as fair as possible. It doesn't matter what ideology you support there are flaws in them all and the decision making process always boils down to an elite of sorts. And as much as you think it's shit, human nature plays a huge role in these matters.


Well of course _now_ you're going to have to show that "human nature" is wholly independent of social relations...good luck with that!


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> 'life isn't fair' is a subset of the 'human nature' arguement. Life may not be fair, but does that not mean we shouldn't bother to change that? Again it's handwaving bollocks that seeks to excuse an almost nihilistic approach to life.
> 
> or should we all just lie back and lazily go 'arr that's life innit?'



Maybe I'm just tired.  Poll tax protest, miners marches, NF protests. I've done 'em.  People must *want *to change and there aren't enough people who do. 

As you get older idealism is replaced with pragmatism and you start to realise that unfair or not this may be the best of bad lot. Am I selfish, yes I am, do I care about others and would I help them, yes I do and I would. The fact remains for me, IMO, that things generally have improved since I was a kid in the 70's, could it better? Of course, but to be honest I think the system as it is today could be improved but there's not a great alternative.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm struggling to see how you make a distinction between the two? To be fair is intrinsically bound with worrying about the rest of the world unless you are some sort of self-serving sociopath



Really?

You can't see a difference between fairness in your own personal actions and requiring everyone else to be fair before you are?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> 'life isn't fair' is a subset of the 'human nature' arguement. Life may not be fair, but does that not mean we shouldn't bother to change that?



The irony is that you seem to actually change nothing and end up being unfair to other even needier people... as is being proved on this thread.

That's what I keep saying about using bullshit arguments to justify bad behaviour.

'life isn't fair so I'm going to chang that by taking your stuff.'



> Again it's handwaving bollocks that seeks to excuse an almost nihilistic approach to life.



That is exactly the same accusation that could be made to you.

Complaining that life isn't fair... then using it as an excuse to take someone else's property.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Maybe I'm just tired.  Poll tax protest, miners marches, NF protests. I've done 'em.  People must *want *to change and there aren't enough people who do.
> 
> As you get older idealism is replaced with pragmatism and you start to realise that unfair or not this may be the best of bad lot. Am I selfish, yes I am, do I care about others and would I help them, yes I do and I would. The fact remains for me, IMO, that things generally have improved since I was a kid in the 70's, could it better? Of course, but to be honest I think the system as it is today could be improved but there's not a great alternative.



You're no different to any of the people arguing with you.... their argument is also selfish and pragmatic...


... except that perhaps you don't seem to be looking for political excuses to take what you feel you need from other people.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

stephj said:


> This.
> 
> Creating and inspiring social change in order to improve fairness, equality, rights of certain groups, etc. simply would never happen if we all just sat back and said 'oh well, what can you do... just the way it is'.



It will also never happen by a few well off people squatting for a few years to save some money.. no matter how many false arguments they give you.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

oh look it's lots of strawmen! You dishonest wanker kizmet.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

stephj said:


> Eh?
> 
> If everyone needs shelter and it is regarded as a 'neccessity', doesn't that make it a basic right? Therefore, it should be for societies/states to ensure that this right is met with some form of housing/shelter provision?



Erm. Why is it societies responsibilty and not yours?

Surely societies responsibility is to make sure no-one takes your home from you illegaly?

Society doesn't have to give you anything... all it should do is make sure no-one can take away what you earn for yourself.

Protect you... not nurture you like a baby attached to it's tit.

To look at society as being like your mum and dad is childish.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> oh look it's lots of strawmen! You dishonest wanker kizmet.



Me? Dishonest?

Don't make me laugh. I'm not the one taking other people's stuff with bullshit excuses.

I have way more respect for goldencitrone's attitude. At least it's not bullshit.

Now put me back on ignore please you useless waste of DNA.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Erm. Why is it societies responsibilty and not yours?
> 
> Surely societies responsibility is to make sure no-one takes your home from you illegaly?
> 
> ...



Well, society includes 'me' and everyone. So, it's _all_ our responsibility.

I don't see what's so controversial about a society/state that merely ensures that everyone has some (even basic) roof over their head?

The rest you seem to be asserting stuff that I don't think I've actually even offered an opinion for/against about - so I'll leave you lot to it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> The irony is that you seem to actually change nothing and end up being unfair to other even needier people... as is being proved on this thread.
> 
> That's what I keep saying about using bullshit arguments to justify bad behaviour.
> 
> ...




except I don't. Pointing out injustice is not 'complaining'. It's stating simple facts. I love how how often people claim you are complaining when you are simply pointing out obvious facts, calmly.

And again we are back to property, which you claimed was not relevant. All over the shop.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 9, 2010)

I liked this thread so much more for the first few pages when it was people talking about their experiences of squatting, and trying to answer the original post, rather than arguing with each other about I'm not exactly sure what....


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

stephj said:


> Well, society includes 'me' and everyone. So, it's _all_ our responsibility.
> 
> I don't see what's so controversial about a society/state that merely ensures that everyone has some (even basic) roof over their head?



Nothing. As long as you always remember that this is a blessing...

Just have a look at conditions of people in the world around you.

To then use it as an excuse to take someone else's stuff is just mean, IMO.



> You also seem to be asserting a lot of things that I haven't even mooted myself, so I'll leave you lot to it.



Like what pray tell? If you're going to venture an opinion.. youu should have the cojones to back it up.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2010)

Sorry, kismet, I re-phrased my last bit just as you replied. Sorry, just got bigger worries atm than some sort of 'who is the mightier' on a forum.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> except I don't. Pointing out injustice is not 'complaining'. It's stating simple facts. I love how how often people claim you are complaining when you are simply pointing out obvious facts, calmly.



You're pointing out injustice to excuse a particular point of view... that makes it whinging.



> And again we are back to property, which you claimed was not relevant. All over the shop.



How is a shop relevant?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

stephj said:


> Sorry, kismet, I re-phrased my last bit just as you replied. Sorry, just got bigger worries atm than some sort of 'who is the mightier' on a forum.



Is that what you think this is?

It's not just people who believe what they are saying having an argument about it?

We all got bigger worries, mate... some of us use this as a distraction.

But thanks for being judgemental about it. Most kind. Good luck with whatever it is.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

you're a disgrace kizmet


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2010)

So aggressive


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> *You're pointing out injustice to excuse a particular point of view.*.. that makes it whinging.
> 
> 
> 
> How is a shop relevant?



No I'm not. You just made that up.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> arguing with each other about I'm not exactly sure what....



... was predominantly my experience of squatting... 

In fact, written high up on the wall of one of them are the words:

"Let's all pretend we're in love."

Fucking pertinent, that.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

stephj said:


> So aggressive



You stepped into the middle of an argument where people are slinging insults at each other, write it off as a 'who is mightier' contest... and now you're wondering why you might have got a dismissive response?

Wow.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> No I'm not. You just made that up.


That's his modus operandi. Make shit up and attack that rather than addressing the actual arguments. A cunt's trick.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> No I'm not. You just made that up.



Did I? Are you not using societies unfairness to justify squatting?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Did I? Are you not using societies unfairness to justify squatting?



I believe I was discussing socities unfairness wrt rights with MrA as a side arguement about the nature of rights. As previously stated I am in favour of a statist solution that renders squatting entirely unnecessary but in the meantime I don't really care as for as many hedonist piss takers there will be those who squat through need and give back in the form of art collectives etc.

So, bizarrely, your totally misrepresenting me.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> You're no different to any of the people arguing with you.... their argument is also selfish and pragmatic...
> 
> ... except that perhaps you don't seem to be looking for political excuses to take what you feel you need from other people.



This is exactly why it doesn't convince as a political argument. There's no sacrifice involved in squatting if you can afford to pay for somewhere to live, so there's nothing to admire in it.

You may as well screw lots of women and say you're making a political argument for free love.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I believe I was discussing socities unfairness wrt rights with MrA as a side arguement about the nature of rights. As previously stated I am in favour of a statist solution that renders squatting entirely unnecessary but in the meantime I don't really care as for as many hedonist piss takers there will be those who squat through need and give back in the form of art collectives etc.
> 
> So, bizarrely, your totally misrepresenting me.



You see that discussion as a side issue, do you? Fair enough. Then I'll retract it.

I saw it as integral to MrA's argument against the pisstakers and hedonists. That is ultimately what he is arguing about... it's quite clear he doesn't have a problem with squatting in general.

If you're claiming not to support them, then I'm sorry... you got caught it the crossfire.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

go on then make the argument meltingpot


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> You see that discussion as a side issue, do you? Fair enough. Then I'll retract it.
> 
> I saw it as integral to MrA's argument against the pisstakers and hedonists. That is ultimately what he is arguing about... it's quite clear he doesn't have a problem with squatting in general.
> 
> If you're claiming not to support them, then I'm sorry... you got caught it the crossfire.



Nah, I said in the absence of a statist solution then I don't care, let them get on with it. you seem to keep coming back to 'what about the neediest'. Myself I'm actually becoming convinced that  squats should be allowed to thrive and have massive parties. Just to annoy you


----------



## futha (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> i dont know, my heart goes out to her, it must be a living hell having a house in the home counties that you cant afford to sell





MrA said:


> If I were to generalise and say that all squatters were low life theiving druggy scum would that be a fair reflection? Of course not. What you appear to be implying is that all property owners don't deserve to be and should be disadvantaged in favour of those who chose a lifestyle choice based on usig what is not theirs regardless of need.



So smokoedout, care to respond to this? Are all people who rent property out scum?


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> That's his modus operandi. Make shit up and attack that rather than addressing the actual arguments. A cunt's trick.



Then you have cunt written all over you plus you address questions with questions which makes you a double cunt.



Kizmet said:


> I saw it as integral to MrA's argument against the pisstakers and hedonists. That is ultimately what he is arguing about... *it's quite clear he doesn't have a problem with squatting in general.*



Clear to only those without a lifes not fair, I want my rights victim mentality.

It strikes me that the old adage of the "haves and have nots" has become the "haves and the we want so we'll take it off you to make it fair".



DotCommunist said:


> Nah, I said in the absence of a statist solution then I don't care, let them get on with it. you seem to keep coming back to 'what about the neediest'. Myself I'm actually becoming convinced that  squats should be allowed to thrive and have massive parties. Just to annoy you



Why can't people use state assistance to make it on their own instead of expecting the state, which is really other people, to provide it?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

futha said:


> So smokoedout, care to respond to this? Are all people who rent property out scum?



why cant she afford to sell?


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

futha said:


> So smokoedout, care to respond to this? Are all people who rent property out scum?



Can't wait for this answer....... Because he doesn't have a property to rent _of course_ it's unfair so therefore landlords are all scum.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> why cant she afford to sell?



Do you know what I would say to him?

Good luck to your mother, her parents worked hard, paid their mortgage so that she could have a better life.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> It strikes me that the old adage of the "haves and have nots" has become the "haves and the we want so we'll take it off you to make it fair".



Whats wrong with that?


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

rover07 said:


> Whats wrong with that?



It isn't yours to begin with...... and it's only fair based on the person recieving what isn't theirs. Totally unfair to the person having it redistibuted.


----------



## Edie (Jan 9, 2010)

I'm a landlord  My property empire consists of a tiny back to back house that we lived in for 5 years then couldn't sell when we wanted to move. We HAD to move cos my husband's arthritis was getting bad and this house was up a pedestrianised street. So we rented it out and rented a semi ourselves.

TBH it's a pain in the arse being a landlord scum, cos you have to keep on doing shit. It is pretty good to get the mortgage paid though. We've bought our semi now, so will maybe try and sell other or maybe not. TBH I'm shitting myself about not being able to sell it and the two mortgages crippling us within months so I'm tempted to keep it occupied with tenants.

It may not sell anyway cos the street it's on has gone down like a sack of shit with two houses squatted, one with junkies, and the other squat nicking lekky off this lass whose on the game in her house with her 4 year old kidda asleep in the next room. I cannot fucking tell you how pleased I am not to live in that street no more. 6 years I put up with that shit with two young kids.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I believe that shelter is a necessity and more important than someone making a profit.


I agree, but when someone already has access to shelter, then the person's right to make a profit and provide for their own needs overrides the other's right to pick and choose. Hence my disapproval of some squatters over others.



Blagsta said:


> Yes, that's what I said.  The property rights of the landlord (property as capital) override my possession of the property (property as use/necessity).  I think that's crazy.


They don't override it completely. If they did he could kick you out on a whim, which he is not entitled to do.



Blagsta said:


> It depends actually.  There is housing benefit, but not all private landlords want DSS tenants.  There is council housing, which I may qualify for, having a child, but it would be temp accom initially, which is usually pretty dire.


Dire perhaps, but it's still shelter. Probably not too much different to the average squat.



Blagsta said:


> Yet the right of the landlord to make money overrides my needs for housing, to have more money for my family etc.  Funny old world


If that were completely true tenant's rights would not exist. You asked me earlier why paying rent was just, I put it to you to explain how it is just for someone not to pay rent?



Blagsta said:


> There isn't a general consensus is there?  At least not one that tenants and councils can agree on.  Example - Westminster council insisting that a mattress infested with bed bugs in a temp accom hotel is reasonable.


That is a topic for a different conversation. How does this justify squatting? 




Blagsta said:


> You still can't work out my pov, even after all this?
> 
> Let me spell it out for you!  I think private property (i.e. property as capital) is unjust.  Squatting can be a "lifestyle choice", but then we have to define what that means, what necessity is, who gets to decide when squatting is necessary, when it is a choice etc.  These are essentially questions about power.  Who has it and why.


You're asking a lot of questions but providing no answers.  What do you think squatting as a lifestyle choice means? When do you think it's justified? Do you draw distinctions between the truly desperate and those who squat for fun? Do you draw distinctions between private property owners and large corporations? Is squatting always right?




> I'm resorting to that because Mr A won't do me the courtesy of responding to any of my points.  At least you have done me that courtesy, so thank you.


You aren't responding to many points, you ask a lot of questions yet do not answer those posed to you. Also, I've noticed that despite your claim that you will not engage MrA anymore you're actually cherry picking which of his posts you choose to respond to.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> It isn't yours to begin with...... and it's only fair based on the person recieving what isn't theirs. Totally unfair to the person having it redistibuted.



But life isnt fair. Most property in this country is inherited, the owners have not earned their wealth. 

Its human nature that people should try and provide for themselves the best way they can...fair doesnt come into it.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Edie said:


> I'm a landlord  My property empire consists of a tiny back to back house that we lived in for 5 years then couldn't sell when we wanted to move. We HAD to move cos my husband's arthritis was getting bad and this house was up a pedestrianised street. So we rented it out and rented a semi ourselves.
> 
> TBH it's a pain in the arse being a landlord scum, cos you have to keep on doing shit. It is pretty good to get the mortgage paid though. We've bought our semi now, so will maybe try and sell other or maybe not. TBH I'm shitting myself about not being able to sell it and the two mortgages crippling us within months so I'm tempted to keep it occupied with tenants.
> 
> It may not sell anyway cos the street it's on has gone down like a sack of shit with two houses squatted, one with junkies, and the other squat nicking lekky off this lass whose on the game in her house with her 4 year old kidda asleep in the next room. I cannot fucking tell you how pleased I am not to live in that street no more. 6 years I put up with that shit with two young kids.



Clearly you are a capitalist scumbag money grabber..... Your depiction of squatting is far removed from those described by these chaps, apparently its all kumbaya and DIY parties....


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

rover07 said:


> But life isnt fair. Most property in this country is inherited, the owners have not earned their wealth.



Calling dot.communist!!!!!   So if you wouldn't leave all your worldly possesions to your family when you cark it? And in comparison to some you could be a "have", are they entitled to take from you to balance the state of affairs?




> Its human nature that people should try and provide for themselves the best way they can...fair doesnt come into it.



Quite right.... You won't hear an argument from me here. So we are agreed that if people have more because they earned it or inherited it then it's fair that they should keep it?


----------



## futha (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> why cant she afford to sell?



Because she needs the rent money every month, she is on her own and her job doesn't pay big wages or anything. My dad fucked off and didn't pay his child support properly either so she had to look after two kids.She would love to get rid of it I am sure. Don't get me wrong she isn't starving or anything but she lives in a small run down house with a car that is on its last legs which she needs for work. I am not trying to pretend I am hard done by or anything honestly I was just interested in how you would view this situation given that you seem to have a very dim view of ALL landlords (not just the greedy ones which we can all agree to hate!).


----------



## futha (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Do you know what I would say to him?
> 
> Good luck to your mother, her parents worked hard, paid their mortgage so that she could have a better life.



Me grandad worked on the docks then worked on the post trains. Not exactly big earner afaik


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Totally unfair to the person having it redistibuted.



tough. fucking. shit.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> So we are agreed that if people have more because they earned it or inherited it then it's fair that they should keep it?



There is no fair. If you want to try and keep it ...fine. But if someone wants somewhere you 'own' to live in then you're going to have to fight for it.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> tough. fucking. shit.



Then it's tough fucking shit you don't have what others do is it? It's only fair if it's fair to you, that about sums it up, whose the scum again?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

futha said:


> Because she needs the rent money every month, she is on her own and her job doesn't pay big wages or anything. My dad fucked off and didn't pay his child support properly either so she had to look after two kids.She would love to get rid of it I am sure. Don't get me wrong she isn't starving or anything but she lives in a small run down house with a car that is on its last legs which she needs for work. I am not trying to pretend I am hard done by or anything honestly I was just interested in how you would view this situation given that you seem to have a very dim view of ALL landlords (not just the greedy ones which we can all agree to hate!).



i was bing flippant because ive addressed this earlier in the thread

the notion of income derived from profit is vile and tantamount to theft

unfortunately a gargantuan web of cops, courts, laws, bailiffs and ultimately armies and air forces have been developed to ensure this theft continues - part of that is making it impossible to live in anything other than dire poverty without having to compromise to some extent

so i dont blame people necessarily for small scale profiteering from other's misery but id hope theyd develop some analysis that recognises thats exactly what they are doing

and im sure your mum is second only to dotcoms in lovliness


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

rover07 said:


> There is no fair. If you want to try and keep it ...fine. But if someone wants somewhere you 'own' to live in then you're going to have to fight for it.



OK, If someone wanted what _you own_ because they can't or don't have it then it's fair that they can take it from you?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Then it's tough fucking shit you don't have what others do is it? It's only fair if it's fair to you, that about sums it up, whose the scum again?



and round we go again

im talking purely about property which is solely used to derive an income, a concept you seem too obtuse to understand


----------



## oryx (Jan 9, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> I liked this thread so much more for the first few pages when it was people talking about their experiences of squatting, and trying to answer the original post, rather than arguing with each other about I'm not exactly sure what....



innit.

@ Edie - nothing intrinsically wrong with being a landlord - people in the real world will always need rented property. I've had some decent landlords over the years who will get repairs don't and don't bother you.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

futha said:


> Me grandad worked on the docks then worked on the post trains. Not exactly big earner afaik



My grandfather worked on Hull docks, my father was in the Army, hardly raking it in. What I learned was that I had to work hard(er) than my contemporaries to achieve what I wanted in life, the three disadvantages I felt I had were my upbringing, my race/colour and education. 


I never had a sense of entitlement, if I needed state support (council house) I sought it and as soon as I was able I gave it back. I take a sense of pride in what I have achieved and everything I own I earned.


----------



## futha (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> i was bing flippant because ive addressed this earlier in the thread
> 
> the notion of income derived from profit is vile and tantamount to theft
> 
> ...



Fair enough I thought I might have missed something you said earlier. I think I can see your point, I guess its hard to be objective when its your own family isn't it! What would you class this view as politically? Anarchist? Socialist?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> My grandfather worked on Hull docks, my father was in the Army, hardly raking it in. What I learned was that I had to work hard(er) than my contemporaries to achieve what I wanted in life, the three disadvantages I felt I had were my upbringing, my race/colour and education.
> 
> 
> I never had a sense of entitlement, if I needed state support (council house) I sought it and as soon as I was able I gave it back. I take a sense of pride in what I have achieved and everything I own I earned.



yet you still cant help whinging about people who live on the scraps thrown from the table


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

futha said:


> What would you class this view as politically? Anarchist? Socialist?



honest


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> and round we go again
> 
> im talking purely about property which is solely used to derive an income, a concept you seem too obtuse to understand



No I fully understand. If the property is used to drive an income for the benefit of the owner then how does that impinge on you?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> No I fully understand. If the property is used to drive an income for the benefit of the owner then how does that impinge on you?



because it further entrenches the unceasing transfer of wealth from the people who actually produce the things we need and have the least into the pockets of those who contribute nothing and have the most


----------



## futha (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> My grandfather worked on Hull docks, my father was in the Army, hardly raking it in. What I learned was that I had to work hard(er) than my contemporaries to achieve what I wanted in life, the three disadvantages I felt I had were my upbringing, my race/colour and education.
> 
> 
> I never had a sense of entitlement, if I needed state support (council house) I sought it and as soon as I was able I gave it back. I take a sense of pride in what I have achieved and everything I own I earned.



that seems fair enough to me. To be completely honest though I will hold my hand up and say I am no expert when it comes to politics, the economy, housing etc. It is something I am still doing my research in. I will say the balance of wealth in this country is pretty sickening though. Did anyone watch that channel 4 doc where the tribesmen came over? They couldn't believe people slept on the streets. They just couldn't comprehend it. The family they were living with couldn't explain why it was the case either 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2007/oct/05/meetthenativesandshowyour


----------



## rover07 (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> OK, If someone wanted what _you own_ because they can't or don't have it then it's fair that they can take it from you?



Fair doesnt come into it, property laws mean i can call on the state to help me keep what i 'own' ...but most of the wealth/land/ property in this country is held by a tiny fraction of the population. So what i 'own' has already been taken from me.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> yet you still cant help whinging about people who live on the scraps thrown from the table



Stop misrepresenting me, people who "live from the scraps of the table" as you've put it, I have absolutely no problem with them taking the steps they need to. My issue is with people who squat for "fun" or a "lifestyle choice" when they have the means not to. 

Wouldn't you agree that this limits the opportunities for those you are truly in need?


----------



## futha (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Wouldn't you agree that this limits the opportunities for those you are truly in need?



I think someone touched on this earlier, there are more than enough empty buildings to go round if that is what you mean?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

futha said:


> I think someone touched on this earlier, there are more than enough empty buildings to go round if that is what you mean?



precisely, all it does it limit the means of the rich to get richer

i say good


----------



## Tacita (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> I never had a sense of entitlement, if I needed state support (council house) I sought it and as soon as I was able I gave it back.



Just to be clear, you terminated a council tenancy and bought property that had never been allocated as social housing?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Then you have cunt written all over you plus you address questions with questions which makes you a double cunt.



If you want to quote where I've set up a strawman, go right ahead. 



MrA said:


> Clear to only those without a lifes not fair, I want my rights victim mentality.
> 
> It strikes me that the old adage of the "haves and have nots" has become the "haves and the we want so we'll take it off you to make it fair".



No one has said anything like that.  You're setting up strawmen now.



MrA said:


> Why can't people use state assistance to make it on their own instead of expecting the state, which is really other people, to provide it?



What's the difference?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> I agree, but when someone already has access to shelter, then the person's right to make a profit and provide for their own needs overrides the other's right to pick and choose. Hence my disapproval of some squatters over others.



Who gets to decide?  Who decides who is squatting out of necessity and who isn't? 




Bippitybop said:


> They don't override it completely. If they did he could kick you out on a whim, which he is not entitled to do.




Well he is.  He can give me 2 months notice and kick me out with no reason.  Anyway, that is not the point I'm making (I'm repeating myself here!).  The point is that if I don't pay rent, then the landlord has the power of the state to enforce his property rights (property as capital).  These rights override one's need for shelter.

This is the point you are failing to address, despite conceding that there are differing defintions of property dependent on use.



Bippitybop said:


> Dire perhaps, but it's still shelter. Probably not too much different to the average squat.
> 
> 
> If that were completely true tenant's rights would not exist.



I already addressed this.  If you go back 100 - 150 years, there were no tenant's rights, no worker's rights.  These rights were fought for, they weren't just granted by the state to be nice.  This is why a historical analysis is important here.



Bippitybop said:


> You asked me earlier why paying rent was just, I put it to you to explain how it is just for someone not to pay rent?



We've been through this already.  It's about differing definitions of property.  Property as capital and property as neccessity.




Bippitybop said:


> That is a topic for a different conversation. How does this justify squatting?



You could at least pretend to follow your own arguments. 



Bippitybop said:


> You're asking a lot of questions but providing no answers.



I've given you my thoughts! Please read them.



Bippitybop said:


> What do you think squatting as a lifestyle choice means? When do you think it's justified? Do you draw distinctions between the truly desperate and those who squat for fun?



I don't give a fuck.  It's you who has the issue with "lifestyle" squatters.  So justify it.



Bippitybop said:


> Do you draw distinctions between private property owners and large corporations?



What do you mean by property here?  Property as capital?  I have a problem with people who live entirely off the backs of others, such as commercial landlords (i.e. people whose sole income is property).  People like Edie I have no problem with.



Bippitybop said:


> Is squatting always right?



Who cares?  You're the one that has a problem with some types of squatting.  I'll add this though.  Anyone who squats a property already in occupation (e.g owners on holiday) is scum.  There are laws to get them out very quickly though (PIO, I mentioned it earlier).



Bippitybop said:


> You aren't responding to many points, you ask a lot of questions yet do not answer those posed to you. Also, I've noticed that despite your claim that you will not engage MrA anymore you're actually cherry picking which of his posts you choose to respond to.



I'm responding to all your points.  You could return the favour, it's rude not to.

Mr A is a rude cunt who only responds to certain posts.  E.g. he linked to a dictionary definition of property, which I responded to.  He declined to respond back, yet continued to complain I hadn't responded to him.  I kindly pointed my response out to him, he continued to ignore me.  That's really fucking rude.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> No I fully understand. If the property is used to drive an income for the benefit of the owner then how does that impinge on you?



This has already been gone through umpteen times.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Tacita said:


> Just to be clear, you terminated a council tenancy and bought property that had never been allocated as social housing?



Yes in Milton Keynes. Once I was able I bought a property albeit small in a better catchment area for schools.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Mr A is a rude cunt who only responds to certain posts.  E.g. he linked to a dictionary definition of property, which I responded to.  He declined to respond back, yet continued to complain I hadn't responded to him.  I kindly pointed my response out to him, he continued to ignore me.  That's really fucking rude.




I have attempted to answer your questions up to the point that they became  inane, repetative, obtuse and abusive and this when you were avoiding answering in return, only latterly have you made a half hearted attempt at responding to bippitybop.

The thing is you wouldn''t know hardship and fairness if it bit your on the arse, the fact is in comparison to the majority of the planet you're a privelaged rich fucker who doesn't know he's onto a good thing and you have the audacity to moralise about rights and fairness as long as it's not your rights and it's fair to you. 

Piss taking twat.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> I have attempted to answer your questions up to the point that they became  inane, repetative, obtuse and abusive and this when you were avoiding answering in return, only latterly have you made a half hearted attempt at responding to bippitybop.
> 
> The thing is you wouldn''t know hardship and fairness if it bit your on the arse, the fact is in comparison to the majority of the planet you're a privelaged rich fucker who doesn't know he's onto a good thing and you have the audacity to moralise about rights and fairness as long as it's not your rights and it's fair to you.
> 
> Piss taking twat.



You're possibly one of the densest rudest people I've ever come across on here.

Why don't you get the fuck off this thread if you're not interested in the subject?


----------



## Boppity (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> *I don't give a fuck. * It's you who has the issue with "lifestyle" squatters.  So justify it.



And it's you who thinks that squatting is an acceptable lifestyle, why don't you justify that? Wait, you won't. Answering questions is not your style. And you have the audacity to call other people rude!

Well that sums it up doesn't it? I very very rarely use profanity on discussion boards like this, but I'll make an exception for you. You're happy to ask questions but  you don't like to answer them. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm under no obligation to respond to your posts so you can shove this nonsense about being rude up your arse quite frankly.

Considering your problem with Mr A and how  he is supposedly offending your sensibilities you're very quick with the profanity and insults yourself. You're a fucking hypocrite, now kindly piss off so that I can respond to other posters who I may disagree with, and who may disagree with me but at least have a semblance of common courtesy.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You're possibly one of the densest rudest people I've ever come across on here.



Mr A can stick up for himself, but remember he was told it would be good if he died in a gutter. I didn't see you or anyone else complaining about that post.

Face it, this whole board has a problem with rudeness, abuse and flaming, not just one or two people. Basically, swearing a lot and throwing abuse around is really "right on", isn't it?


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You're possibly one of the densest rudest people I've ever come across on here.
> 
> Why don't you get the fuck off this thread if you're not interested in the subject?



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh dear, you have a habit of pissing people off even the most patient.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> And it's you who thinks that squatting is an acceptable lifestyle, why don't you justify that? Wait, you won't. Answering questions is not your style. And you have the audacity to call other people rude!



I have made the argument.  Over and over.  There's only so many times I can say the same thing!  If you have a problem with "lifestyle" squatting then justify it.  That's what started this entire exchange off.  I asked you to justify a particular conception of property.  You prevaricated, avoided, ducked and dived, refused to answer questions and here we are however many pages later and still can't justify it!  Despite you conceding to my argument!



Bippitybop said:


> Well that sums it up doesn't it? I very very rarely use profanity on discussion boards like this, but I'll make an exception for you. You're happy to ask questions but  you don't like to answer them. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm under no obligation to respond to your posts so you can shove this nonsense about being rude up your arse quite frankly.
> 
> Considering your problem with Mr A and how  he is supposedly offending your sensibilities you're very quick with the profanity and insults yourself. You're a fucking hypocrite, now kindly piss off so that I can respond to other posters who I may disagree with, and who may disagree with me but at least have a semblance of common courtesy.



As I said above, there's only so many times I can repeat my views.  You concede to my argument about property, then continue to argue that I haven't made any points, you concede to my point yet carry on as if you haven't!

I realise that my way of thinking is probably difficult to get you're head round if you've never given this stuff any thought.  The liberal view on property rights is after all, the dominant one in our society.  However, as I've pointed out several times on this thread, it is not the only one, nor have views on property been static throughout history.  I have given you some pointers to read up on this stuff with links on this thread, yet you don't want to read them.  There's only so much that I can write on here about the subject, it's a complex one, encompassing history, politics, economics, philosophy etc.  However if you want to engage on a subject, then maybe you have some responsibility to do some reading yourself?  Otherwise why bother?  We just get to this impasse where you don't understand where I'm coming from and I get irritated that you won't do any reading on the subject!  Thinkers such as Locke, Mill, Rousseau, Marx, Proudhon, Friedman etc have had  lots to say on the subject, yet you don't think it's relevant.  Wikipedia has a long article on the subject, yet you seem to think it's not worth thinking about, 'cos everyone knows what property is, right?

Now either do me the courtesy of engaging with what I say or fuck the fuck off.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

Meltingpot said:


> Mr A can stick up for himself, *but remember he was told it would be good if he died in a gutter*. I didn't see you or anyone else complaining about that post.
> 
> Face it, this whole board has a problem with rudeness, abuse and flaming, not just one or two people. Basically, swearing a lot and throwing abuse around is really "right on", isn't it?



I'm sure he can defend himself.

The insults I flung at Mr A started when he refused to read anything I posted yet accused me of not responding.  That's rude not to mention dishonest!  The insults to Kizmet were me responding in kind to being called a knobhead.  He then went on to misrepresent me and others on here.  I know at least one person has given up on this thread due to Kizmet's misrepresentations.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Oh dear, you have a habit of pissing people off even the most patient.



I've been very patient with you.  You're rude and dishonest.  Go fuck yourself.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> the fact is in comparison to the majority of the planet you're a privelaged rich fucker who doesn't know he's onto a good thing



So are you. Although Warrington is a complete shithole it is true.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> So are you. Although Warrington is a complete shithole it is true.



Yes I am. I'm not disputing that I am extremely fortunate but then I wouldn't squat as a lifestyle choice because I don't need to.  

I take it you've been to Warrington?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Yes I am. I'm not disputing that I am extremely fortunate but then I wouldn't squat as a lifestyle choice because I don't need to.
> 
> I take it you've been to Warrington?



I'm ashamed to admit that I grew up there. Although I did only go to Mr.Smith's nightclub once and that was under duress.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> I'm ashamed to admit that I grew up there. Although I did only go to Mr.Smith's nightclub once and that was under duress.



Mr.Smiths is now called Halo, still full of kids getting ratted and fighting, .

I live in Appleton when I'm at home. Where did you grow up?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Mr.Smiths is now called Halo, still full of kids getting ratted and fighting, .
> 
> I live in Appleton when I'm at home. Where did you grow up?



Used to play Appleton at football with the school. Spent my teenage years in Birchwood on the new estates as they were back then. Haven't been back since I escaped to Manchester Uni when I was 18.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Used to play Appleton at football with the school. Spent my teenage years in Birchwood on the new estates as they were back then. Haven't been back since I escaped to Manchester Uni when I was 18.



I quite like the location, Manchester and Liverpool just up the motorway and it's relatively quiet and a paradise compared to here let me tell you. But that's anther thread.....


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> The insults I flung at Mr A started when he refused to read anything I posted yet accused me of not responding. That's rude not to mention dishonest! The insults to Kizmet were me responding in kind to being called a knobhead. He then went on to misrepresent me and others on here. I know at least one person has given up on this thread due to Kizmet's misrepresentations.


 
Yes... I did all these things... and I eat babies.. and I'm sure I may have killed Kennedy. Because I am EVIL!

Rarr!



I called you a knobhead, blagsta, because I am used to your shitty way of arguing now. Pages and pages have gone by of you and other unlucky posters going round in little circles because you refuse to listen to anyone's point of view.

I don't really care what you call me.. because I think you're an idiot and it's a good sign if idiots don't like you.

Therefore any names you call me are actually like a compliment.



All this stuff about 'misprepresentation' and shit... jeez.. you're squealing like a stuck pig.

I'll admit - I misread dottie's intention of what he wrote and jumped down his neck... but, you know mistakes happen and I apologised.

But you do it all the time - and you never apologise... but you jump down people's neck when they do it and call them dishonest, evil and misrepresenting you.

It's so pathetically childish. You should stop it now.

Longest post to you in ages.. normally I wouldn't waste this many words on you.. but here it endeth.


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Yes... I did all these things... and I eat babies.. and I'm sure I may have killed Kennedy. Because I am EVIL!
> 
> Rarr!
> 
> ...



You just wasted a few minutes of your life with that post. You'd be better off jabbing a pencil in your eye, it's less painful than trying to reason with that idiot.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> Why can't people use state assistance to make it on their own instead of expecting the state, which is really other people, to provide it?



why can't they use state assistance without using state assistance? What the hell are you on about?


----------



## futha (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> why can't they use state assistance without using state assistance? What the hell are you on about?



Yeah I don't get that either


----------



## MrA (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> why can't they use state assistance without using state assistance? What the hell are you on about?



No, why can't they use state assitance until they have independant means. As opposed to expecting the state to provide for them indefinitely.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Nah, I said in the absence of a statist solution then I don't care, let them get on with it.


 
So did I, in the post directly after yours. In fact the only difference was that I said it annoyed me when people used bullshit political justifications for doing it.



> you seem to keep coming back to 'what about the neediest'.


 
Well, yes. Because if you are going to use a bullshit 'equality' argument for squatting then the fact is it generally only benefits the middle level of societies need.. the most needy are still fucked over. Which is what makes it bullshit.



> Myself I'm actually becoming convinced that squats should be allowed to thrive and have massive parties. Just to annoy you


 
Oh Dorothy... this isn't kansas anymore. Opinions are a bit more complex than that.

What on earth makes you think that would annoy me?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> You just wasted a few minutes of your life with that post. You'd be better off jabbing a pencil in your eye, it's less painful than trying to reason with that idiot.


 
I know. But at least I tried.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Well, yes. Because if you are going to use a bullshit 'equality' argument for squatting then the fact is it generally only benefits the middle level of societies need.. the most needy are still fucked over. Which is what makes it bullshit.



18 pages in and neither you or MRA have yet to tell us where the line is drawn between good and bad squatter and who decides


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2010)

MrA said:


> No, why can't they use state assitance until they have independant means. As opposed to expecting the state to provide for them indefinitely.



No, nobody has suggested what you say in your second sentence. 

First one is bizarrely pointless as it is what most people do when they are made redundant or get sacked.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> What on earth makes you think that would annoy me?



86 posts?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> 18 pages in and neither you or MRA have yet to tell us where the line is drawn between good and bad squatter and who decides


 
I can't speak for MrA but I know he posted something broadly similar earlier...

.. there isn't a line. You are the ones banging on about how 'all squatting is good' and making out we're saying 'all squatting is bad'.

It's just not as simple as that. Some squatters I know are awesome people trying to make a real difference in this world.. other are selfish twats using up space unnecessarily for their own selfish reasons. And there are an awful lot in between.

My experience is that the ones who tend to use bullshit political arguments to back themselves up often turn out to be the more selfish types.

The ones who say "Yeah, I know man, but it was empty, and we can put on some awesome parties here..."... I respect those ones a lot more.

So.. in answer to your question - there isn't a line. Give me an example and I'll try and tell you. If it really matters so much.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> 86 posts?


 
You clearly haven't been reading them and been relying on blagsta or someone to work out my opinion.

For shame, dottie.


----------



## Boppity (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> I can't speak for MrA but I know he posted something broadly similar earlier...
> 
> .. there isn't a line. You are the ones banging on about how 'all squatting is good' and making out we're saying 'all squatting is bad'.
> 
> ...



This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Why can't people accept that it's possible to disapprove of some squatters without hating them all, or that there is a difference between large corporate landlords and an honest landlord with a single property trying to boost their own income so that they can provide for their own needs? Aren't they entitled to earn enough for food and shelter? Or should they give up their property and become squatters too?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> Why can't people accept that it's possible to disapprove of some squatters without hating them all


 
They can.. but they won't - because it totally defeats their argument.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> I
> My experience is that the ones who tend to use bullshit political arguments to back themselves up often turn out to be the more selfish types.
> 
> The ones who say "Yeah, I know man, but it was empty, and we can put on some awesome parties here..."... I respect those ones a lot more.



i see, you the people whove set up the bulk of social centres in london and beyond are selfish but people who open a building just to party it are to be respected

you have very strange opinions, youd almost think you didnt have a clue what youre talking about


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> i see, you the people whove set up the bulk of social centres in london and beyond are selfish but people who open a building just to party it are to be respected
> 
> you have very strange opinions, youd almost think you didnt have a clue what youre talking about


 
Yeah.. and guess what... the more you twist my words.. the stranger they will seem!

Now isn't that a fun game.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> They can.. but they won't - because it totally defeats their argument.



how does it defeat my argument

i believe profit gained from private property is wrong, therefore i dont care if people choose to squat those properties and they dont have to suffer some kind of means testing before i decide its acceptable

theres no inconsistencies in my argument, you and MRA on the other hand are all over the fucking place


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Yeah.. and guess what... the more you twist my words.. the stranger they will seem!
> 
> Now isn't that a fun game.



i didnt twist your words, i quoted you


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> how does it defeat my argument
> 
> i believe profit gained from private property is wrong, therefore i dont care if people choose to squat those properties and they dont have to suffer some kind of means testing before i decide its acceptable
> 
> theres no inconsistencies in my argument, you and MRA on the other hand are all over the fucking place


 
Of course there are no inconsistencies. Because it's simplistic, childish and unrealistic.


Your stated position is that 'all squatting is absolutely fine'. For you to accept that sometimes it's not... would make your opinion void. That's why it defeats your argument.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> i didnt twist your words, i quoted you


 
Missing out a key sentence or two, of course.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Missing out a key sentence or two, of course.





> My experience is that the ones who tend to use bullshit political arguments to back themselves up often turn out to be the more selfish types.



is this what you think?

if yes then you'll have to concede that the social centre movement, founded as it is in anarchist ideology and resistance to profit, is, as you say, selfish


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> is this what you think?
> 
> if yes then you'll have to concede that the social centre movement, founded as it is in anarchist ideology and resistance to profit, is, as you say, selfish


 
Same post, one sentence above:



Kizmet said:


> It's just not as simple as that. Some squatters I know are awesome people trying to make a real difference in this world..


 
That's what's called twisting someone's words, smokedout. Did you really think no-one would notice?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Your stated position is that 'all squatting is absolutely fine'. For you to accept that sometimes it's not... would make your opinion void. That's why it defeats your argument.



all squatting is fine, there are extreme circumstances where squatters may choose to negate their rights (and have) because they recognise they are causing real financial hardship to someone, but that doesnt differentiate from the fundamental principle

and its very rare, most squats are commercial properties, abandoned houses, buildings scheduled for demolition and derelict council properties

i give less than a fuck why people choose to squat them, i hope that they will make them available to the local community in some form, but thats merely a personal aesthetic, not a political position


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Same post, one sentence above:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what's called twisting someone's words, smokedout. Did you really think no-one would notice?



thanks for pointing out the glaring inconstistency in your post, i was going to but assumed most people spotted it


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> thanks for pointing out the glaring inconstistency in your post, i was going to but assumed most people spotted it


 
Of course they did.

And they also spotted the words "It's just not as simple as that."

I'm pretty sure most are smart enough to understand that there really isn't much of an inconsistency to it.


Just in case YOU are not smart enough to understand.. let me spell it out: The people who set-up the 'social blah blah centre' you are going on about would be using _that_ to back themselves up.. not just a bullshit political argument.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> all squatting is fine, there are extreme circumstances where squatters may choose to negate their rights (and have) because they recognise they are causing real financial hardship to someone, but that doesnt differentiate from the fundamental principle


 
Yes it does.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

how


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

Come on, man. Read what you wrote yourself. Isn't it obvious?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

no, its a political position rather than a whinge

ill clarify

all squatting of private property (ie property only owned in order to derive profit) is fine with me

squatting of personal property (ie someones home) is a fuck up which can be dealt with in 24 hours by an IPO and which the squatters themselves would ackowledge is a fuck up

occassionally squatters may enter into negotiation with an owner of private property and agree a date between them to voluntarily leave because they recognise its causing the owner hardship, i only mentioned this because i know of it happening once

none of this contradicts the first point - all squatting of private property (ie property only owned in order to derive profit) is fine with me




> And they also spotted the words "It's just not as simple as that."



which appears to mean dont depend on any position you state because it may change on a whim, thats if you actually put forward a position 

so far all there has been is rambling and incoherent prejudice


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> no, its a political position rather than a whinge
> 
> ill clarify
> 
> ...


 
Clear as mud, mate. 

Let me try:

Your opinion:

squatting = fine

causing financial or physical hardship to another = not fine

causing financial or physical hardship + squatting = not fine

= opinion fail.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

You're going to have to get yourself a grown up opinion, smokedout. One that depends a lot on circumstances.

Sorry about that. Chin up.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> 18 pages in and neither you or MRA have yet to tell us where the line is drawn between good and bad squatter and who decides



Exactly.  Yet the wank on about not being responded to when it's them who have shown themselves totally incapable of thinking and responding.  Hypocritical gobshites, both of them.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)




----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Why can't people accept that it's possible to disapprove of some squatters without hating them all,



You haven't said why you disapprove of "lifestyle" squatters, beyond some vague handwaving about ownership.  I've tried to explore what is meant by ownership, you haven't wanted to go down that road.  I guess that maybe you're not used to Socratic questioning and if you're not used to analysing things, then maybe it's a bit irritating.  However, as I already said, I'm trying to show you the _process_ of how I got to my views.  Opinions don't just arrive from nowhere, there is a process.  Same as tenant's rights or capitalist property rights didn't arrive from nowhere.  There was a historical process.  This is what I want to explore with you.  You don't think it's relevant, yet you rely on these things (property rights, ownership etc) for your own arguments.




Bippitybop said:


> or that there is a difference between large corporate landlords and an honest landlord with a single property trying to boost their own income so that they can provide for their own needs?



I've already drawn that distinction.  You either ignored it or missed it.  I'm not responsible for your laziness.



Bippitybop said:


> Aren't they entitled to earn enough for food and shelter? Or should they give up their property and become squatters too?



This is a strawman.  Again.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> You're going to have to get yourself a grown up opinion, smokedout. One that depends a lot on circumstances.
> 
> Sorry about that. Chin up.



so to summarise your position

squatting, cos like, people are poor and stuff is like okay, but if like they do it and have like tonnes of money and stuff thats like so wrong, and like, when they use like politics then thats like totally selfish, except like when they put on amazing parties and then, like i guess its ok, but not if its like a lifestyle or something

is that a fair description of where you stand?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

fuckin'ell, I've even posted a link defending capitalist property rights 

if you want to make that argument, go ahead, I've even given you a head start!


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> as I already said, I'm trying to show you the _process_ of how I got to my views.


 
Don't you understand some people don't want to follow that process 'cos they can see it'll get them _nowhere_?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> so to summarise your position
> 
> squatting, cos like, people are poor and stuff is like okay, but if like they do it and have like tonnes of money and stuff thats like so wrong, and like, when they use like politics then thats like totally selfish, except like when they put on amazing parties and then, like i guess its ok, but not if its like a lifestyle or something
> 
> is that a fair description of where you stand?


 
If I'm fucked on k and can barely speak, yeah.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> If I'm fucked on k and can barely speak, yeah.



have you been fucked on k for most of this thread then?


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> have you been fucked on k for most of this thread then?


 
I asked for that. Although it has felt like it.... 

Actually.. tidy it up a little.. make it a bit more accurate.. and I'll let you pass it off as your opinion.

You should.. it's way better than your current one.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Actually.. tidy it up a little.. make it a bit more accurate.. and I'll let you pass it off as your opinion.
> 
> You should.. it's way better than your current one.



blags was right about you, now your argument appears to consist of my opinion (whatever that is, its still unclear) is better than yours nah nah

bored now, big brother appears to be more intellectually challenging than bothering with this


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> big brother appears to be more intellectually challenging than bothering with this


 
For you, I think you'll find it is. Bye.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

still no substantive argument from kizmet I see.  What a fucking tool.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> a fucking tool.


 
Something I suspect you lack.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 9, 2010)

I'd be interested to know where I called anyone "evil" btw Kizmet.  Can you quote?  Oh you can't 'cos I didn't and you're bullshitting again.

You fucking liar.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 9, 2010)

Yes.. that's what it was.. a fucking terrible lie! A sin, I tell you.



Not just taking the piss, like?

Seriously, put me back on ignore. I could do with the rest. Kicking your sorry arse is becoming exhausting.


----------



## MrA (Jan 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> First one is bizarrely pointless as it is what most people do when they are made redundant or get sacked.



Actually it's very difficult to get if you have assets and savings or a redundancy payout. Until all your finances are exhausted you don't get a bean. So it isn't bizzarely pointless, it's unfair to the person who has looked after their financial affairs, or should they recieve state assistance immediately?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2010)

> No, why can't they use state assitance until they have independant means



It's 2k. 2k of savings/redundancy money etc. They class this as independent means.


----------



## MrA (Jan 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> It's 2k. 2k of savings/redundancy money etc. They class this as independent means.



Is it as simple as that?  That's even worse than I thought it was.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 10, 2010)

MrA said:


> Actually it's very difficult to get if you have assets and savings or a redundancy payout. Until all your finances are exhausted you don't get a bean. So it isn't bizzarely pointless, it's unfair to the person who has looked after their financial affairs, or should they recieve state assistance immediately?


 
Personally I think state assistance should be directly linked to periods of income. In other words... when income stops.. assistance starts. Full stop, no questions asked.

I think savings are pretty irrelevant.

To be fair.. if you have made an effort to look after your affairs.. chances are you probably won't claim until you have to anyway.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?


----------



## MrA (Jan 10, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> Personally I think state assistance should be directly linked to periods of income. In other words... when income stops.. assistance starts. Full stop, no questions asked.
> 
> I think savings are pretty irrelevant.
> 
> ...



You have got the correct end of the stick.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 10, 2010)

The squat I lived in was in Magdeburg and most of my fellow squatters were students. Back then all the old, run down DDR buildings were being reclaimed by West Germans so they could do them up and charge very high rents. The East Germans had had housing provided by the state and were understandably upset by the return of the wessies and a lot of the squatting scene there was a reaction to that. So it was out of the interests of historical and sociological research that I lived there, but also to save on rent. I remember coming home from work one day to find all the doors barricaded and when I finally got in I found out it was Hitler's birthday and everyone was preparing for a visit from the local skinheads who lived on a nearby estate. Thankfully they never turned up. Interesting times.


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 10, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> .... So it was out of the interests of historical and sociological research that I lived there.....


 
What was her name..?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 10, 2010)

Kizmet said:


> What was her name..?



There was a very cute 18 year old who lived next door to me. She got off with the trainee carpenter in the next room.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jan 10, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> But it does if they have money (property rights trump others I mean).  Why is that?
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to steer the discussion towards property rights, how they developed, who they work for etc.  *No one seems to want to get into that!*



As per the request from the OP that this not turn into a fight:


soulfulofsoul said:


> This isn't meant to be a political post at all so I'm hoping (but doubtful) that this can be discussed without fighting.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 10, 2010)

Threads develop.  If someone posts that they don't approve of "lifestyle" squatting, they should at least be prepared to back it up!


----------



## MrA (Jan 11, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Article 25 UN Declaration of Human Rights
> 
> 
> http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/



Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 11, 2010)

Yes, and?

You could at least try and follow your own arguments!


----------



## Kizmet (Jan 11, 2010)

> Main Entry: *soph·ism*
> Pronunciation: \ˈsä-ˌfi-zəm\
> Function: _noun_
> Date: 15th century
> *1* *:* an argument *apparently correct in form* but *actually invalid*; _especially_ *:* such an argument used to deceive


 
Is a word that perfectly describes _your_ argument, however.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 13, 2010)

This is inflammatory nonsense, even for the Mail:

Family shut out of their 'dream home' by Romanian squatters who moved in over Christmas

They don't bother explaining that the law was changed a few years ago to make it very easy to kick out anyone who squats your home.  By the sounds of it, they won an IPO within a week of the squatters getting in.  So there's no story there.


----------



## MrA (Jan 13, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> This is inflammatory nonsense, even for the Mail:
> 
> Family shut out of their 'dream home' by Romanian squatters who moved in over Christmas
> 
> They don't bother explaining that the law was changed a few years ago to make it very easy to kick out anyone who squats your home.  By the sounds of it, they won an IPO within a week of the squatters getting in.  So there's no story there.



So in your opinion a family locked out of their home for a week is no great shakes?   

You cannot apply for an IPO within the first 28 days that you become aware that your home is being occupied without your constent.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 13, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> This is inflammatory nonsense, even for the Mail:
> 
> Family shut out of their 'dream home' by Romanian squatters who moved in over Christmas
> 
> They don't bother explaining that the law was changed a few years ago to make it very easy to kick out anyone who squats your home.  By the sounds of it, they won an IPO within a week of the squatters getting in.  So there's no story there.



I just left a critical comment.  No doubt it will not get published.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 13, 2010)

MrA said:


> So in your opinion a family locked out of their home for a week is no great shakes?
> 
> You cannot apply for an IPO within the first 28 days that you become aware that your home is being occupied without your constent.



Eh, you've got that the wrong way round.  If you're applying for an IPO, you have to do it WITHIN 28 days of the property being squatted.  As they've done here.

I note that the property has been empty for 30 months, and the family have been able to afford to pay rent elsewhere that whole time.  But it makes a nicely inflammatory story for the Daily Mail.


----------



## MrA (Jan 13, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> Eh, you've got that the wrong way round.  If you're applying for an IPO, you have to do it WITHIN 28 days of the property being squatted.  As they've done here.



Yes I misread it.



> I note that the property has been empty for 30 months, and the family have been able to afford to pay rent elsewhere that whole time.  But it makes a nicely inflammatory story for the Daily Mail.



As long as there wasn't any damage to the property and the squatters moved out promptly then no real harm done. 

I wonder if it was a life style choice by the squatters?  Kidding,


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 13, 2010)

MrA said:


> So in your opinion a family locked out of their home for a week is no great shakes?
> 
> You cannot apply for an IPO within the first 28 days that you become aware that your home is being occupied without your constent.



Rubbish.  The rules are that you can only apply for an IPO within the first 28 days of you becoming aware that your premises are occupied against your consent.  The DRO (Displaced Residential Occupier) can also force entry into their home.
http://www.letlink.co.uk/letting-fa...s-and-the-rules-for-obtaining-possession.html


----------



## MrA (Jan 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Rubbish.  The rules are that you can only apply for an IPO within the first 28 days of you becoming aware that your premises are occupied against your consent.  The DRO (Displaced Residential Occupier) can also force entry into their home.
> http://www.letlink.co.uk/letting-fa...s-and-the-rules-for-obtaining-possession.html



Yes I know, so before you open your trap read the thread properly there's a good chap.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 13, 2010)

MrA said:


> Yes I know, so before you open your trap read the thread properly there's a good chap.



You're making a habit of "misreading" things aren't you.


----------



## futha (Jan 13, 2010)

I can't believe this thread is still going strong. 24 pages


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 13, 2010)

The comments on that article are retarded, even by DM standards. This one encapsulates pretty much any comment ever left on any Daily Mail article:

"Goodbye England. Goodbye common sense. Goodbye any idea of fairplay. 
We are now the underclass in our own country!

- Victoria Thomas, Birmingham England, 12/1/2010 23:40"


----------



## oryx (Jan 13, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> This is inflammatory nonsense, even for the Mail:
> 
> Family shut out of their 'dream home' by Romanian squatters who moved in over Christmas
> 
> They don't bother explaining that the law was changed a few years ago to make it very easy to kick out anyone who squats your home.  By the sounds of it, they won an IPO within a week of the squatters getting in.  So there's no story there.



I like the way the usual hysterical mob on the Daily Fail comments are a) up in arms about how the squatters can't be evicted, when even this emotively-written and biassed article says they've been given their marching orders within 24 hours; and b) blame the government - AFAIK the law around PIOs and DROs was the same or pretty much the same under the previous government!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 13, 2010)

The current law around DRO's and PIO was introduced in 1995 under a tory government.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 13, 2010)

God, I hate expats.  There should be a law that once you move out of the UK you lose all rights to ever make any comment on any aspect of UK life.  Especially on the Internet.


----------



## MrA (Jan 13, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> God, I hate expats.  There should be a law that once you move out of the UK you lose all rights to ever make any comment on any aspect of UK life.  Especially on the Internet.



I've been out of the UK for less than a year, I visit England all the time, I have a property there, family there etc.

Just because I'm a temporary expat doesn't mean I've emigrated.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 14, 2010)

Here's the DM's follow-up article.  The final paragraph is the most annoying bit - of course this case shows that squatting laws make it EASY for homeowners to quickly reclaim their property, and certainly don't need changing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-pay-2-000-say-squatters-finally-evicted.html


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 16, 2010)

More anti-squatter press this week:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152106/Our-lives-have-been-ruined-by-squatters

I see their plan was to convert the property into ten bedsits.   But "Slum landlord briefly inconvenienced by type of people they'll later exploit" isn't such a catchy headline, is it?


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 16, 2010)

The Daily Mail this week certainly succeeded in stirring up hatred with their story about Romanian squatters.  

Bemused and outraged discussions could be found on forums as diverse as the Jamaica Star and one for North Texan truck-driving, gun-firing rednecks.

This was a typical reaction:

"Sinting missing from dis ya story. How di rass dis can happen and the police or the owner nu have dem a run fi dem life? Dem need two hooligan fi visit dem and show dem di error of their ways and if dat nu wok den bun it rass dung. Get two bobo dread pan two S90 bike fi give dem the notice fi move."

Over on the Jamaica Star forum, they didn't understand it either...


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 16, 2010)

..


----------



## rover07 (Jan 16, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> More anti-squatter press this week:
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152106/Our-lives-have-been-ruined-by-squatters
> 
> I see their plan was to convert the property into ten bedsits.  So, a slum landlord is briefly inconvenienced.  Fuck'em, I say.



I felt sorry for the guy who owns 192 properties in Milton Keynes. He gets really frustrated with squatters and those tenants who refuse to pay rent.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 21, 2010)

There's a long discussion of squatting here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...tivist?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2010)

The usual crop of twats on Cif
Wh





> en I once had to leave a property empty for an extended period in an area where squatters had been invading properties, Following advice from an estate agent friend, I left a dozen stale herring strategically placed but very well hidden, then I sealed the house. I made a note of where I had left the fish. Within a week, the interior STUNK to such an extent it would make anyone entering wretch. A year later, I returned, stuffed some cottonwool up my nose, located then flushed the herring down the loo, aired the place for a few hours, and the stink was gone. No squatters!!!



Yeah, even if that was true which it patently isn't, you won cos you stunk your own property out with rotting fish. A winnar is you.


----------



## oryx (Jan 21, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> There's a long discussion of squatting here:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...tivist?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments





> I would, however, question the intentions and principles of those willing to let their own buildings decay uninhabited for 40 years while homeless people die every winter from exposure. How to rationalise that?



Well summed-up.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 22, 2010)

I've just started watching this interview with the homeowners who had the Romanian squatters

I am sure it will infuriate me, for exactly the opposite reasons for the ones they intend

http://www.itv.com/lifestyle/thismorning/more/squatters/


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 22, 2010)

Selected comments from that long Guardian thread:


Thatcherism has triumphed in Britain and, it seems, elsewhere too. Homelessness, unaffordable housing, no public housing being built, etc ? Not a problem. People moving into houses lying empty for decades? A terrible affront to civilised society. The rich breaking the law? Not a problem at all, do carry on, have some more money while you're at it. The poor breaking the law? A disgrace, absolutely shameful, etc.
_______
i've met plenty of squatters, but never met a squatter who'd previously been poor and homeless. 
on the other hand, i've met plenty of squatters who come from nice middle class backgrounds and whose mummy and daddy would be able to afford them a flat. 
middle class bohos squat to look 'street' and 'radical'. 
poor people pay their fucking rent, no matter how much it costs and how many hours they have to work to do it.
____________
Squatters I knew were far from homeless. In fact they would refuse to share their space with a real homeless person. 
Squatters are adventuress middle class kids or young travellers who claim to have a case and confident enough to take on the system. 
They vote who would join them in the house and it is normally for someone with similar social background and pretty girls. Meanwhile homeless will remain homeless.
_________
I disagree. In my experience anyone had a chance to be part of the community. If you were homeless and came from a working class background, but were an unintelligible drunk who shat his pants every day, then no chance. But if you were homeless and working class and were willing to do your share in the squat (like cleaning), and/or could add something to it (like cooking skills, music, general jovial nature) then that person would be a valued and useful member to add. 
Different squat communities obviously had different takes, there are no official rules of course. If the system were made legal, and there was an official Association, then one could think about how to make rules of entry to communities fairer. 
But I knew many London squatters and class truly was a stranger, and things like racial background or mother tongue were also relatively unimportant. Important was, that the 'applicant' could add to the community in some way. 
This obsession with class most Englanders have does not apply here. The only way to even guess at someone's class in the underground communities is to check if the person is english and then to study his/her accent. 
Utterly unimportant.
______________
If I was rich enough to own houses I forgot about I might not mind squatters but I would specify no cliches,i.e 
No white man's dreadlocks 
No Che T-shirts 
No vegans 
No macrame or weaving on the premises 
No stupid shoes shaped like cornish pasties. 
Otherwise ok
_______

If you want to squat then go ahead and do it, good luck to you. Just stop trying to make out you're acting out of social conscience rather than self-interest and convenience.


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 24, 2010)

> I would, however, question the intentions and principles of those willing to let their own buildings decay uninhabited for 40 years while homeless people die every winter from exposure. How to rationalise that?



I've got nothing against squatting whether out of necessity or through choice. But a lot of the people who do it as a lifestyle seem to use this argument. I think that if a building is left empty then taken over by squatters, then it would be likely to be the kind of squatters who would *not *otherwise freeze to death. That's from my limited personal experience and also what I've read on this thread. 

I'd find it interesting to hear how lifestyle squatters justify/ rationalise what they do. Once again - I'm not anti-squatting- but I do wonder whether "all property is theft" and "people should be able to treat property as capital" are the underlying philosophies behind all lifestyle squatters? I kind of would have expected a better jusitfication but I have no idea what.

Everyone has the right to do whatever it takes to keep themselves from sleeping on the streets. But most squatters don't fall into that category though do they (serious question)?

Also, it would be great to hear more about what it was like for people who have or are still squatting. I've enjoyed hearing about people's experiences. That was meant to be what this thread was about.


----------



## Thora (Jan 24, 2010)

soulfulofsoul said:


> I'd find it interesting to hear how lifestyle squatters justify/ rationalise what they do. Once again - I'm not anti-squatting- but I do wonder whether "all property is theft" and "people should be able to treat property as capital" are the underlying philosophies behind all lifestyle squatters? I kind of would have expected a better jusitfication but I have no idea what.



I need somewhere to live.  Here is an empty building.

Or indeed - I need somewhere for a social centre/benefit party/anything else.  I need a building and no-one's using this one.


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 24, 2010)

Thora said:


> I need somewhere to live.  Here is an empty building.
> 
> Or indeed - I need somewhere for a social centre/benefit party/anything else.  I need a building and no-one's using this one.



I guess I assumed that there was an underlying philosphy. If it's like that then I'm a bit disappointed and probably don't agree with squatting in many cases. That sounds pretty selfish, lazy and lacking in morals to me. 

Most of the squatters I've meant to seem to have politics behind it though. They are usually anarchists or just think capitalism is evil and exploitive. I've got more respect for people who have some sort of justification for their actions.


----------



## Thora (Jan 24, 2010)

Well, I do have justification.  If you're not using a building why shouldn't someone else?


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 24, 2010)

People who aren't using a building should encourage or at least let others use it. But you aren't entitled to use whatever you want if someone else isn't. Imagine if that applied to everyone and everything. If other people could come along check out our possessions, see what we aren't using, realise that they want one of those and just take it. I'd lose my bike, some books etc. Or does that rule only apply to housing for you?

I do agree with some of the people on here that sometimes buildings aren't being used and the owners have a valid reason for them being empty. Who are you (squatters) to decide what's right?


----------



## Thora (Jan 24, 2010)

What's a valid reason for leaving a building empty?

There's a difference between personal possessions and property.


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 24, 2010)

Thora said:


> What's a valid reason for leaving a building empty?



I don't know much about this so I won't speculate but I'm sure there would be cases, especially in the short term. Wasn't there someone on this thread who said their mum is not too well off but had an empty property. 



> There's a difference between personal possessions and property


Why do you see them as different and apply different rules to them?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2010)




----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 24, 2010)

I've just remembered an example.

 Some elderly relatives of mine had inherited a house in London to share between a few of them. A very old, childless man had been living there and recently passed away. The house was in a terrible state and they wanted to do it up and sell it. All of these people were fairly poor. So they got his stuff out, got the builders in and pretty quickly realised they were getting ripped off. In fact the builder did a runner. These people were old, very naive, lovely, sweet and just not really cut out for dealing with stuff like this. So the place stayed empty for at least a year while they saved (or something) so that a younger more capable nephew could go across and arrange to do it up, sell it etc.

I mentioned to them at one point that they could surely find someone to live there, either for free or minimal rent, but they were very wary of letting someone they didn't know live in the property. That was probably fuelled a little by the daily mail stories of squatters ending up owning a property etc. 

But in their case I was hoping that squatters wouldn't move in coz it would have caused good people (who were just old and set in their ways) lots of grief.


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 24, 2010)

Blagsta said:


>



Has anyone clearly articulated this? You seem to think you have, did I miss it? Not in a link or something, but please just write a short, simple summary and set me straight if it has been explained.


----------



## Thora (Jan 24, 2010)

soulfulofsoul said:


> I don't know much about this so I won't speculate but I'm sure there would be cases, especially in the short term. Wasn't there someone on this thread who said their mum is not too well off but had an empty property.


Well, I've never squatted a building belonging to an individual.



soulfulofsoul said:


> Why do you see them as different and apply different rules to them?


Personal possessions are things you can take with you.  Land and buildings - use it or lose it.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 24, 2010)

soulfulofsoul said:


> ...
> 
> But in their case I was hoping that squatters wouldn't move in coz it would have caused good people (who were just old and set in their ways) lots of grief.



Old folk hey? Cunts the lot of them


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2010)

it's what i've been trying to do throughout the thread. Draw the distinction between different types of property. I've linked to a few sources that explain as well.


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 24, 2010)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Old folk hey? Cunts the lot of them





I've kinda noticed that Blagsta but I'm pretty sure that I clicked on a link or two of yours that were long and I wasn't in the mood. Now this thread is so long I don't know where to look. Could you point me to a short link or (even better) just paraphrase that yourself here.


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 24, 2010)

Thora said:


> Well, I've never squatted a building belonging to an individual.



That's cool then.


----------



## Thora (Jan 24, 2010)

soulfulofsoul said:


> That's cool then.



Tbh, no one with any sense is going to choose to squat somewhere owned by an individual when there are loads of empty buildings owned by councils, institutions etc where you're likely to be able to stay for ages before they even notice it's squatted.


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Jan 24, 2010)

It sounds like there are far more empty buildings than I realised. 

What about companies, or did you only squat govt buildings/ institutions?
Also, I imagine you wouldn't object to squatting in a building owned by an extremely wealthy individual which used to be their office space or factory or something? Or even their 42nd house in a property portfolio? I don't think I would either, but there is a bit of a slippery slope there and at what point does someone become so rich that it's ok?


----------



## Thora (Jan 24, 2010)

soulfulofsoul said:


> It sounds like there are far more empty buildings than I realised.
> 
> What about companies, or did you only squat govt buildings/ institutions?
> Also, I imagine you wouldn't object to squatting in a building owned by an extremely wealthy individual which used to be their office space or factory or something? Or even their 42nd house in a property portfolio? I don't think I would either, but there is a bit of a slippery slope there and at what point does someone become so rich that it's ok?



Well, when you're choosing a place it's not really a case of finding out who the owner is and deciding if they deserve it.  You're thinking about the likelihood of being able to stay a decent amount of time.  So, an old factory or warehouse that has been empty for a couple of years, no security checking on it, no one going in or out is a pretty safe bet.  A well maintained house on a residential street that's been empty for 3 months is not a good prospect as there's likely to be an interested owner who wants to use the building at some point it the near future.

Council places are good because councils tend to leave buildings empty and ignored for years.


----------



## Thora (Jan 24, 2010)

Also, councils/institutions/big companies are much less likely to send thugs round to kick your head in than a wealthy individual.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 24, 2010)

Thora said:


> Also, councils/institutions/big companies are much less likely to send thugs round to kick your head in than a wealthy individual.



Although the richer an individual is, the more likely they'll get their lawyers to deal with it and the less likely they'll send round thugs, since they've got more to lose.  There may be exceptions, however.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 24, 2010)

Personally I can't see the attraction of squatting through choice (apart from free rent of course) i'm far too private a person to live in some sort of commune, I can't even do house shares all that well.  However, if you're homeless then needs must, even if you wanna do it out of choice I can't see the problem if you squat an old council building or whatever.

I don't see why the state can't just take all these empty buildings, spend a bit of dosh doing them up and then give them to people for cheap rents, it's surely got to be cheaper than building new public housing.  There's what? 1 million or so buildings empty? A fair chunk of them are probably condemned but I bet there's a fair size more that just need doing up, it would cut the rate of homelessness in half.


----------



## Tacita (Jan 24, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I can't see the problem if you squat an old council building or whatever.
> 
> I don't see why the state can't just take all these empty buildings, spend a bit of dosh doing them up and then give them to people for cheap rents, it's surely got to be cheaper than building new public housing.



lol 

Decent Homes legislation killed council housing and any chance of that kind of common sense 



> All property owned and managed by the council must meet the Decent Homes standard. To meet the standard, property must have reasonably modern facilities, be warm and weatherproof.



sounds reasonable but the criteria used to judge compliance make it cheaper to demolish, in many cases.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 24, 2010)

Tacita said:


> lol
> 
> Decent Homes legislation killed council housing and any chance of that kind of common sense



Well yeah, obviously stupid legislation puts paid to that idea.  I remember reading on shelter that something like 7 million homes don't reach the government's own standard.  I guess the legislation isn't stupid in its intent but all buildings should be brought up to standard first before legislating.





Tacita said:


> sounds reasonable but the criteria used to judge compliance make it cheaper to demolish, in many cases.



Yeah demolish but fail to replace, except with yuppy developments that are out of most people's price range.  

Looking at my mate's situation says a lot about how fucked housing is in this country.  He earns about 34 grand a year, pays taxes, law abiding, all the stuff you're 'supposed' to do and yet he still lives with his parents because he can't afford to buy a place.  He could of course rent but he doesn't want to pay someone else's mortgage for them and I can understand that.


----------



## Tacita (Jan 24, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> He earns about 34 grand a year, pays taxes, law abiding, all the stuff you're 'supposed' to do and yet he still lives with his parents because he can't afford to buy a place. .



why?

1bed flat brixton £75000
10% deposit £7500
5.3% APR
HSBC fee £599 
repayment £464pcm 

Unless he's just left school and it's a new job

priorities


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 24, 2010)

Tacita said:


> why?
> 
> 1bed flat brixton £75000
> 10% deposit £7500
> ...



I just took a look at 1-bed flats for sale in Brixton.  They ranged in price from £167k to £300k, with most around the £200k-£240k mark.   

I searched some more and found some for £125k to £170k


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 24, 2010)

Tacita said:


> why?
> 
> 1bed flat brixton £75000
> 10% deposit £7500
> ...



75k for a flat on Brixton? What planet do you live on!? If one were to go for such a price it would be an absolute shit box, cheapest I saw, just having looked, was £105k for a shitty studio, fuck living in a studio.  I think deposits are slightly higher than 10%, plus don't forget ya conveyancing fees and all that malarky, probably closer to 16k before you've even moved in.

Edit: In all fairness he probably could afford it but I think he wants to stay round the area, Kingston, which is obviously well expensive.  Even if he did move to Brixton he'd still be spending most of his wages on living, which of course isn't unheard of.  The reason for making the post is he earns above median wage and yet still finds it a bit of push, the majority of the people earn less than median, factor in kids and all that and there's a real struggle, particularly for single parents.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 24, 2010)

By the way if squatting was just about having a roof over your head, how come there's almost no squatting in Liverpool or the North East where there's the vast majority of empty properties?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2010)

maybe they're keeping their head down and you just don't see em


----------



## Tacita (Jan 24, 2010)

duh i typed brixton and it gave me westcliffe sorry as you were


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> By the way if squatting was just about having a roof over your head, how come there's almost no squatting in Liverpool or the North East where there's the vast majority of empty properties?


Cheaper rents


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 24, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Cheaper rents



Isn't it just that nobody would want to live there?


----------



## Greebo (Jan 24, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Cheaper rents



If you've got more than just yourself to worry about, cheap rent isn't a lot of good in an area where you'd struggle to find fulltime permanent work.


----------



## badong (Jan 25, 2010)

Your right about liverpool, I caught a coach there a while back and passed through street after street of sitex'd houses must have seen 100 just on my bus route. looking at you blog I'mnotsofast there seems to be a pretty good support network for squatters in london with those with experience showing those new to it the ropes. I haven't heard of anything similar elsewhere in the country, maybe someone will correct me.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 25, 2010)

badong said:


> Your right about liverpool, I caught a coach there a while back and passed through street after street of sitex'd houses must have seen 100 just on my bus route. looking at you blog I'mnotsofast there seems to be a pretty good support network for squatters in london with those with experience showing those new to it the ropes. I haven't heard of anything similar elsewhere in the country, maybe someone will correct me.



I think that's it - the support network is strongest in London, maybe also in Bristol, but just isn't there in somewhere like Liverpool.  And I hear the council are very quick to evict anyone who tries to squat buildings up there anyway.  

I'm guessing it would be harder to skip food too, since you don't have so many sandwich shops chucking stuff out as you do in central London.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 25, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> Although the richer an individual is, the more likely they'll get their lawyers to deal with it and the less likely they'll send round thugs, since they've got more to lose.  There may be exceptions, however.



Ah yes, he's a nasty piece of work. I was talking to a guy in Brighton who mentioned him and the poor conditions people endured in his flats. I replied, "A rent strike, that's the way to deal with it." He replied, "If you tried that with him, you'd probably get your knees broken."


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2010)

My mum worked as a solicitor and used to represent some of Hoogstraten's tenants. She said he was a truly terrifying piece of work who used to strut around london with a whip.


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Jan 25, 2010)

I'm doing an "ask me anything" on Reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/atopv/i_squatted_mansions_in_mayfair_london_ama/


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 26, 2010)

http://squat.net/


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Feb 5, 2010)

This could have gone here, too - my review of a book about squatting in London.  Sorry for wall of text:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10279579&postcount=338


----------



## paolo (Feb 24, 2010)

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/report_growing_ranks_of_nouveau

(apols if already posted)


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Apr 2, 2010)

Pretty typical article about a crew I once lived with:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/c...=newsislg&itemid=WeED01 Apr 2010 17:29:55:550

"But the squatters, many of whom are trying to lead a cash-free existence, claim they are merely taking care of what would otherwise have been an abandoned property.

And they insist their lifestyle - in which they travel around on bicycles, eat food that would have been thrown away, and refuse to claim benefits - is not affecting the neighbours."

SCANDAL!!!


----------



## Swagger... (Apr 7, 2013)

As much as I don't really mind squatting if you've no other alternative, there are some truly retarded liberals on this thread. Blagsta being the mong-in-chief.


----------



## jakethesnake (Apr 7, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> As much as I don't really mind squatting if you've no other alternative, there are some truly retarded liberals on this thread. Blagsta being the mong-in-chief.


you're a bit of a knob


----------



## Swagger... (Apr 7, 2013)

Perhaps. But at least I haven't got my head in the clouds.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 7, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> As much as I don't really mind squatting if you've no other alternative, there are some truly retarded liberals on this thread. Blagsta being the mong-in-chief.


 
Who the fuck are you calling a liberal, cuntychops?


----------



## jakethesnake (Apr 7, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> Perhaps. But at least I haven't got my head in the clouds.


up your arse perhaps


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 7, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> As much as I don't really mind squatting if you've no other alternative, there are some truly retarded liberals on this thread. Blagsta being the mong-in-chief.


 
twat.

and what a waste of time to bump a three year old thread


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 7, 2013)




----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 7, 2013)

3 yr old thread bump for beef stew call out madness shock horror

Naughty calling people mong / retard / liberal btw


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 7, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> As much as I don't really mind squatting if you've no other alternative, there are some truly retarded liberals on this thread. Blagsta being the mong-in-chief.


 
"retarded" "mong"


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 7, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> twat.
> 
> and what a waste of time to bump a three year old thread


Never get any good tolls these days.


----------



## Swagger... (Apr 7, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Who the fuck are you calling a liberal, cuntychops?


 
The clowns who are defending trustafarian "lifestyle squatters". You being one of them, Fagsta.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 7, 2013)

In all honesty very few of the 'lifestyle squatters' I know are trustafarians, perhaps I mix in the wrong circles.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 7, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> The clowns who are defending trustafarian "lifestyle squatters". You being one of them, Fagsta.


 
I see your ability to comprehend the written word hasn't improved much.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 7, 2013)

2/10 must try harder.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 7, 2013)

Which returnee is this?

Not very subtle this one.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 7, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Which returnee is this?
> 
> Not very subtle this one.


No, not really. Odd to go straight for this thread as well - was anyone banned during it?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 7, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> The clowns who are defending trustafarian "lifestyle squatters". You being one of them, Fagsta.


 
bit out of order using retard as an insult.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 7, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Which returnee is this?
> 
> Not very subtle this one.


 
Its either Mr A or Kizmet, still smarting from the drubbing they got on this thread 3 years ago.  That's a long time to nurse internet butthurt.


----------



## Swagger... (Apr 7, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> twat.
> 
> and what a waste of time to bump a three year old thread


 
I'm actually quite intrigued by the lifestyle and the reasons people do squat in empty properties, and after Googling "squatting lifestyle" I happened upon this thread. What could made for an interesting read was interrupted by some socialist halfwits with an axe to grind against common sense and reality.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 7, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Its either Mr A or Kizmet, still smarting from the drubbing they got on this thread 3 years ago. That's a long time to nurse internet butthurt.


Properly long time. Jail?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 7, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> I'm actually quite intrigued by the lifestyle and the reasons people do squat in empty properties, and after Googling "squatting lifestyle" I happened upon this thread. What could made for an interesting read was interrupted by some socialist halfwits with an axe to grind against common sense and reality.


 
If you wish to engage in debate, go ahead.  What were you having difficulty with?


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 7, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> some socialist halfwits with an axe to grind against common sense and reality.


 
Do I smell the faint whiff of lightweight fash?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 7, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Properly long time. Jail?


 
So, swagger as in toter of a swag bag, rather than one with a cocky stride, you think?


----------



## Swagger... (Apr 7, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> If you wish to engage in debate, go ahead. What were you having difficulty with?


 
Mainly your attitude and obtuse stonewalling. And contrary to what some recently furthered conjecture, I'm not the reincarnation of an unwelcome user who commented on this thread three years ago. In spite of leaning quite heavily towards the right, I really don't have a problem with people who, for whatever reason, have fallen on hard times and need a roof over their head and don't impact negatively upon their neighbours. But I acknowledge that the property owner is well within their rights to have the squatters evicted.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 7, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> Mainly your attitude and obtuse stonewalling. And contrary to what some recently furthered conjecture, I'm not the reincarnation of an unwelcome user who commented on this thread three years ago. In spite of leaning quite heavily towards the right, I really don't have a problem with people who, for whatever reason, have fallen on hard times and need a roof over their head and don't impact negatively upon their neighbours. But I acknowledge that the property owner is well within their rights to have the squatters evicted.


 
So....what in particular were you having difficulties with?


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 7, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> So....what in particular were you having difficulties with?


Eating a whole thesaurus in one go?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 8, 2013)

Swagger... said:


> As much as I don't really mind squatting if you've no other alternative, there are some truly retarded liberals on this thread. Blagsta being the mong-in-chief.





Swagger... said:


> The clowns who are defending trustafarian "lifestyle squatters". You being one of them, Fagsta.


As well as this being a bizarre and suspicious bump, this is definitely not acceptable language.


----------



## Pingu (Apr 8, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> As well as this being a bizarre and suspicious bump, this is definitely not acceptable language.


 
indeed

I, for one, am offended by the use of the word "clown" far too often on this site.


----------

