# Rushcroft Road set to be evicted - 75 residents to lose their homes



## editor (Jul 2, 2013)

Say goodbye to another large chunk of Brixton's character and history: 

More here: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/75-residents-in-ruchcroft-road-brixton-facing-eviction/


----------



## 99% (Jul 2, 2013)

The proposed eviction of Jimmy Rogers tomorrow (3rdJuly) by Lambeth is part of the same process embarked upon by the council STOP jimmys eviction and Lambeth will have to rethink their policy


----------



## Rushy (Jul 2, 2013)

Are the Rushcroft Road flats officially short life, or are they squatted, or is it a mix?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 2, 2013)

I think a mix of squat, short life coop and leaseholders too.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 2, 2013)

shit - got mates in there 

Fuck Lambeth Council - they left Rushcroft Road to rot for over 30 years, but people still made their homes there and fixed the places up. Now the price is right, they want the properties back. SCUM.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 2, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> shit - got mates in there
> 
> Fuck Lambeth Council - they left Rushcroft Road to rot for over 30 years, but people still made their homes there and fixed the places up. Now the price is right, they want the properties back. SCUM.


 
i agree totally.  they really need to die in a ...


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 2, 2013)




----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 2, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Fuck Lambeth Council - they left Rushcroft Road to rot for over 30 years, but people still made their homes there and fixed the places up. Now the price is right, they want the properties back. SCUM.


 
Tories-lite.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2013)

Last time Rushcroft road came up the issue of some of it being kept as social housing was raised. Brixton Blog asked Cllrs about this. From Brixton Blog July 2012:



> Cllr Pete Robbins, cabinet member for neighbourhood services, said: “Following repossession, Lambeth is retaining and refurbishing 24 dwellings,


 
So there it is. From a Cabinet member. I did not forget this. Will see what happens now.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 3, 2013)

Well remembered Gramsci


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2013)

Just emailed Brixton Blog to see if they can ask again.

It was a definitive answer to the question of retaining at least some of the buildings as social housing.

Also not the Council say "retain". So that means Council housing not transferring to RSL.


----------



## Winot (Jul 4, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> So there it is. From a Cabinet member. I did not forget this. Will see what happens now.



Who has just been deselected according to another thread...


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2013)

Worth signing: 
Petition to Lambeth co-operative council to stop the short-life evictions is launched
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/...to-stop-the-short-life-evictions-is-launched/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Last time Rushcroft road came up the issue of some of it being kept as social housing was raised. Brixton Blog asked Cllrs about this. From Brixton Blog July 2012:
> 
> 
> 
> So there it is. From a Cabinet member. I did not forget this. Will see what happens now.


 
I've got screenprints of what he said on Brixton Blog at the time, if anyone would like me to post them up?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 4, 2013)

They're having an info/gathering thing Saturday afternoon in windrush square from 2 to 5 (or maybe 12 to 5? I will confirm that later) and would welcome musicians that fancy playing in the later part of the event, think family friendly type of affair.



> _*We are organising an anti-gentrification event on Saturday July 6th 2-5 pm on Windrush Square. We will be talking about evictions and gentrification in Brixton. There will be a quiz. There will be an art auction to raise money for the eviction fund. There will be a standing protest and finally there will be music. We invite all those with concern for the gentrification of Brixton to come and support us Saturday afternoon.*_


from here


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2013)

I'm trying to find out a bit more about that. I'm doing a show in the Albert after that night and would be happy to let them bring in leaflets/take a bucket around etc.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 4, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm trying to find out a bit more about that. I'm doing a show in the Albert after that night and would be happy to let them bring in leaflets/take a bucket around etc.


 
I'll pass that on when I next talk to my friend


----------



## leanderman (Jul 4, 2013)

Seems pretty obvious the existing residents should be allowed to stay.

Moving them out is both wrong and just creates new housing problems.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2013)

Winot said:


> Who has just been deselected according to another thread...


 
Which thread is that?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've got screenprints of what he said on Brixton Blog at the time, if anyone would like me to post them up?


 
yes please.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> yes please.


 
Here we go. I overlapped the text a bit so it couldn't be claimed that any editing had taken place (and so we'd know if Robbins wheedled the editing of what went up on Brixton Blog):


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2013)

editor said:


> Worth signing:
> Petition to Lambeth co-operative council to stop the short-life evictions is launched
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/...to-stop-the-short-life-evictions-is-launched/


 
I got sent this job at Lambeth:




> *Shortlife Housing Project Manager - Housing Services*
> 
> *PO6: Starting salary £42,258 rising in annual increments to £44,910 incl LW.*
> 
> ...


 
In plain English the Council are willing to pay over £42 000 a year to someone to evict people from there homes and then flog them at auctions.

I cannot believe the Council will pay someone £40 000 plus a year to sit in court and liaise with the ever eager Devonshires. I could do that. Its easy. I have seen the Short Life manager at work recently in court.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda

Thanks for saving those comments from Cllr Pete Robbins. They have gone from the Brixton Blog website. Not sure if blogs keep everything for a long time.

Its definite he says that properties will be kept ( around 24).

Usual meandering comments about squatting. The Labour party should have built Council housing and made sure that private landlords gave people proper tenants rights and controlled rents when it was in power. Basically put the boot into private landlords.

Its all very well Robbins saying people should play by the rules. But his party did nothing when in power to make housing "fairer" for the majority. Private landlords are out for what they can get. Thats how it works. Robbins actually says people can claim HB. That is imo a subsidy for the landlord class. It also means that people are basically living in poverty if they have to claim HB whilst working.

More recently the Labour party view on benefit cap and HB cap is ambiguous. Not sure if they will repeal Tory/LD legislation on caps or not.


----------



## Winot (Jul 4, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Which thread is that?



Petition to save 'Shortlife' co-ops
http://www.urban75.net/forums/index...save-'Shortlife'-co-ops.312432/#post-12371329


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2013)

Brixton Blog got in touch with Cllr Robbins. His reply is:




> Cllr Robbins confirmed that once an eviction takes place some of the flats would be used for social-rented housing, while the rest will be sold privately. “Following the eviction of the unauthorised occupants, three of the six blocks in Rushcroft Road will be sold, with proceeds used to bring the remaining three blocks back into use as 22 new homes for social rent.” This is two less homes than the council had promised last year.


 
There will be an event on Windrush sq tomorrow:



> The Eviction Brixton group is holding an ‘anti-gentrification event’ tomorrow at Windrush Square from 2pm to talk about evictions and gentrification in Brixton. There will be an art auction to raise money for the eviction fund, along with music and a protest.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 6, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Brixton Blog got in touch with Cllr Robbins. His reply is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I'm looking for more details on the event. Want to attend.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 6, 2013)

event is actually starting at 12 noon
I believe a norwegian space kletzmer band will be appearing (or so they say they would anyway) which I can only heartily recommend


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2013)

Photos: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/...-road-community-fights-for-the-right-to-stay/

They've just popped into Foxtons


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2013)




----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2013)

I liked the kittens


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2013)

This is good use of the square.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 7, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I got sent this job at Lambeth:
> 
> In plain English the Council are willing to pay over £42 000 a year to someone to evict people from there homes and then flog them at auctions.
> 
> I cannot believe the Council will pay someone £40 000 plus a year to sit in court and liaise with the ever eager Devonshires. I could do that. Its easy. I have seen the Short Life manager at work recently in court.


 
Is this recent? Would suggest last manager has gone/resigned/sacked/moved on....


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2013)

More kittehs:






http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/brixton-swoons-over-the-eviction-kittens/


----------



## leanderman (Jul 8, 2013)

Assuming the tenants pay a fair social rent to the council, Lambeth would probably be better off in the long term by keeping these short-life properties.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 8, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Assuming the tenants pay a fair social rent to the council, Lambeth would probably be better off in the long term by keeping these short-life properties.


have Lambeth done anything planned for the long term rather than the short term in recent years?


----------



## Thaw (Jul 8, 2013)

A brief mention of this in today's Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/london-exclusive-pads-destroy-city-communities


----------



## leanderman (Jul 8, 2013)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> have Lambeth done anything planned for the long term rather than the short term in recent years?



Are those affected in Rushcroft Road paying rent now?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 9, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Are those affected in Rushcroft Road paying rent now?


I don't live there but I've been told there are also leaseholders in the buildings concerned.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 9, 2013)

DrunkPushkin said:


> A brief mention of this in today's Guardian


 
"London needs more million-pound flats like it needs more branches of Angus Steakhouse"   couldn't agree more.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2013)

boohoo said:


> Is this recent? Would suggest last manager has gone/resigned/sacked/moved on....


 
Still there as far as I know.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2013)

Looks like Monday morning is going to be the big showdown. I'm hearing of hundreds of cops likely to be involved in this eviction.

Some people I know have already moved out, some intend to make a stand. Brixton is going to be all the worse for this and I'll be losing some good friends.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 13, 2013)

This will change the face of Brixton just as much as that poxy foody market has, imo.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Jul 13, 2013)

The flats in Rushcroft Road could all have been turned into really good quality social housing at social rent. I think the authorities assume that ordinary people do not appreciate period buildings and can be shoved any old where. This is obviously not true. There were people in those blocks who absolutely loved their homes and loved Brixton, including very vulnerable people. To force them out after many years in order to gentrify the road is very cruel. I wish it wasn't happening.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 13, 2013)

Can't see why all sides could not have done a deal: stay in return for rent.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 13, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> The flats in Rushcroft Road could all have been turned into really good quality social housing at social rent. I think the authorities assume that ordinary people do not appreciate period buildings and can be shoved any old where. This is obviously not true. There were people in those blocks who absolutely loved their homes and loved Brixton, including very vulnerable people. To force them out after many years in order to gentrify the road is very cruel. I wish it wasn't happening.



Exactly. Did the squatters offer to pay rent?


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Can't see why all sides could not have done a deal: stay in return for rent.


 
I don't think that was ever even put on the table.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 13, 2013)

Shame. I guess the council does not want the hassle. And wants to cash out.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 13, 2013)

tragic - i cant imagine how much the rents will cost. I used to live on Arodene Road, which was £700 a month for rent and considered a good deal, i imagine the rent on Rushcroft would be more like £800 a month for someone renting....how can anyone hope to afford to live in Brixton, let alone BUY a property? terrible


----------



## leanderman (Jul 14, 2013)

Yep. That's what happens when a city goes global. Everyone wants a bit of it, not least provincials like me.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 14, 2013)

how can anyone afford to buy a flat in Brixton unless they are rich? a deposit for a two bedroomed flat costs about £60,000. Maybe they earn loads and have rich parents....


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 14, 2013)

Bollocks to "social housing" and "affordable rents."
Let's build one million council homes in the next five years. Funded through direct taxation, made available to those most in need. Get people working again, learning trades, focus on the local. Build more if we need to. Take the profit out of property. You might think i'm a dreamer but i'm not the only one.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 14, 2013)

Got this today:




> *STOP EVICTING BRIXTON*
> *Rushcroft Road Eviction - this Monday 15th July.*
> *Join the people of the Rushcroft Road to stop Lambeth evicting Brixton**.*
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2013)

I won't be able to get there for 6.30am, but if anyone can get there it would be great if they could post updates.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 14, 2013)

There are a few ppl sat outside their blocks on rushcroft tonight... feeling really sad and wondering what's going to happen to our street... I can't help but feel this will fundamentally change central Brixton


----------



## colacubes (Jul 14, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> There are a few ppl sat outside their blocks on rushcroft tonight... feeling really sad and wondering what's going to happen to our street... I can't help but feel this will fundamentally change central Brixton


 

It really will. We've spent the day with a load of mates who are being evicted. Lots of gallows humour  but tis a sad day. Most of them have lived there over 10 years. They're being dissipated all over south London - Streatham, Wandsworth, Battersea. And these are all people who really are a part of the central Brixton community  Sad times


----------



## chavezcat (Jul 15, 2013)

We've been on rushcroft for about 10 years in private rented flat and I'm really sad to see that people are being evicted from the street since these blocks were lovely and filled with nice community minded individuals. I think the council should have chosen to make a deal with the tenants and develop the whole thing into council housing that London so desperately needs. People treated these flats as homes and just comparing flats, certainly have better paint jobs than ours!


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2013)

chavezcat said:


> We've been on rushcroft for about 10 years in private rented flat and I'm really sad to see that people are being evicted from the street since these blocks were lovely and filled with nice community minded individuals. I think the council should have chosen to make a deal with the tenants and develop the whole thing into council housing that London so desperately needs. People treated these flats as homes and just comparing flats, certainly have better paint jobs than ours!


 
It would have cost next to nothing to convert them into council housing - and been an investment in social housing for the future. However the name of Lambeth's game is capital receipts.
At the Lambeth Cabinet meeting last Monday a schedule of future capital expenditure was provided. Although some capital projects such as Somerleyton Road are listed in the next year or two, libraries for example have no capital funding from next year on.
The council is busy selling off the family silver (such as flats in Rushcroft Road) to keep the show on the road. They are also increasing population density progressively to be able to increase the council tax yield (since the coalition has banned council tax rises).
Brixton and Myatts Fields are currently in the throws of a council fuelled property boom similar in it's effects to the privatisation of British Rail. Similar results seem likely - more housing at higher cost and with higher government subsidy.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Eviction Brixton quiz is up:



> Quiz
> 
> Q: What is the name of Brixton community leader and squatting activist from the 1970s whose name has been appropriated by Lambeth Council to house the Finance and Housing departments?
> 
> ...


 
http://evictionbrixton.tumblr.com/post/54903134486/eviction-brixton-quiz


----------



## chavezcat (Jul 15, 2013)

I think the shame is these are well built buildings and if you have good tenants there is no problem ( I apparently live next to one of the squats but never knew) I personally don't mind that we don't have the ceiling inset lighting or an up to date kitchen via some aspirational programme in the afternoon on the beeb. it should have retained as originally intentioned - for artists and musicians, maybe they don't work at ye olde musical halls anymore but ehh it has been a hundred years. Sad about it!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

Was out on the street until about 9.30... took a few pictures, will post later. Feeling really sad and angry for the ppl loosing their homes, for rushcroft and for Brixton.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Jul 15, 2013)

"There will be no social-cleansing on my watch": The hollow promise of Boris Johnson. The long-termers here were not freeloaders, they offered to pay rent. London is being ruthlessly socially-engineered. 2000 homes for social-rent gone from the Elephant, 79 replacement social homes. If there is nowhere for the poor and vulnerable there will be rioting again. And that is what the Tories want. More social unrest, more divide-and-rule, more Police powers. It's all for your own good you know... We are all in this together. A sickening day.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Violent scenes as police and bailiffs evict Rushcroft Road squats in Brixton [video] | Brixton Buzz http://bit.ly/1anq8ZW


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

It was an utterly depressing scene today. Each time I heard the sound of breaking wood as another front door was smashed in by bailiffs, my heart sank further.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2013)

Those were high court enforcement officers, as opposed to county court bailiffs.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Violent scenes as police and bailiffs evict Rushcroft Road squats in Brixton [video] | Brixton Buzz http://bit.ly/1anq8ZW


 

I really wish I hadn't watched that.  I feel a bit sick now   Just horrible


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Jul 15, 2013)

That video shows people in abject distress. This is absolutely disgusting. Look at the pain and fear on people's faces. Lambeth Council you disgust me.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2013)

colacubes said:


> I really wish I hadn't watched that.  I feel a bit sick now   Just horrible


It was awful


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

I've just been down there and I'm editing together the footage. Always wondered why there were so many homeless people in Brixton. Today answered one or two questions, for me.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Jul 15, 2013)

Squatting communities disintegrate as eviction nears. People cannot bear the overwhelming threat and distress, knowing they will lose their homes. But anyone compiling a report on this needs to remember that people offered to pay rent and if long-termers had been able to set up a housing co-operative this would have continued to be a stable community with many people making a valuable contribution to the local area. Lambeth Council could have facilitated this, but refused. The result is that video - vulnerable people effectively being tortured.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

Sit in on Lambeth Council's facebook page, anyone??

https://www.facebook.com/lambeth.environment?fref=ts


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)

Extreme violence used by bailiffs at Clarence House as they stormed the building. They just went berserk, couldn't get a clear photo but took this video just after they forced a violent entry.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

That's me in the cream t-shirt and shorts in the first four seconds by the way.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 15, 2013)

Horrid stuff


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Full photo report up here: 












http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/...road-squats-in-brixton-monday-15th-july-2013/


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

Wishing I could've stayed longer out of solidarity with my neighbours. Hope that no one gets badly physicality hurt today


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

I am just uploading 275 pictures to flikr at the moment, the balif with the camera really needs to get the book thrown at him saw him lamp some chap and a lass and then strangle some lad who was sat on a wall with utterly no provocation.. police did not seem even remotely interested in the situation.

Depressing indeed a number of my friends lost their homes today.  Apparently round 2 tomorrow?


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jul 15, 2013)

Geez..... these scenes are horrible. Why couldn't the council just work with the people in those flats to offer them the chance to become long-term tenants. Oh, sorry, I forgot - Rushcroft Road flats now selling for £500,000....


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

I did not however appreciate the idiot squatter who dumped a fucking heavy bag out the window onto my shoulder, lucky it just clipped me and not hit me on the bonce (or camera).. then threw a mattress out of it nearly hitting two of the residents.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)




----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

The saddest thing is that if this happened 10 years ago, the streets would have been packed with supporters.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

true that.... I was however pleased to see locals coming down and not a single one of them in favor of the eviction.  At least it wasn't as bad as the clifton mansions, took days to pick out the shards of glass from my skin thanks those idiots throwing glass bottles off the roof at the protesters supporting the residents.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

Pics will be up here later: http://www.flickr.com/photos/henryclayton/  unfortunately the downside to shooting at 36mp is that it takes a dickload of time to upload images...


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)

Ruptly TV want to use the video i uploaded to YouTube, i said they could but they now want my email address to send me their "release form." I've never done this before, is this normal? I'm happy to share, what should i do?


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

a release form is basically just a standard form entitling them to use your images/video  if you are happy for them to use it then just ensure that you maintain copyright and are credited etc (or paid) standard practice, just means you cant sue them for using it without permission.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> a release form is basically just a standard form entitling them to use your images/video if you are happy for them to use it then just ensure that you maintain copyright and are credited etc (or paid) standard practice, just means you cant sue them for using it without permission.


 

Thanks, I'll have a look at the form when i get it. Not too fussed about copyright but a credit would be nice. I'd be amazed if they paid me, it wasn't that good!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 15, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> I am just uploading 275 pictures to flikr at the moment, the balif with the camera really needs to get the book thrown at him saw him lamp some chap and a lass and then strangle some lad who was sat on a wall with utterly no provocation.. police did not seem even remotely interested in the situation.
> 
> Depressing indeed a number of my friends lost their homes today. Apparently round 2 tomorrow?


 
Round 2 tomorrow?

I had to go about 9.40.

I thought it was to be done all in one go?


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

I was told that only 3 out of the 6 were being enforced upon today, though I am not sure of the specifics people seemed fairly confused by it all.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)

It's my understanding that all six were done today. Clarence House being the last one.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 15, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> Squatting communities disintegrate as eviction nears. People cannot bear the overwhelming threat and distress, knowing they will lose their homes. quote]
> 
> It did look to me that most people had gone. I can understand why. Its like you say.
> 
> ...


 
last 3 sentences are mine. Usual mess up with quotes.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jul 15, 2013)

Do you know the name of the Standard reporter? I speak to a few of them on a regular basis. Happy to put in a call.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)

RushcroftRoader said:


> Do you know the name of the Standard reporter? I speak to a few of them on a regular basis. Happy to put in a call.


 

Miranda Bryant, i think.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...in-to-kick-out-brixton-squatters-8708700.html


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

Just finished the editing of my footage. Don't worry about what the Bailiff was filming, they should be more worried about what I got. Hope to have it live in about an hour. X


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Ruptly TV want to use the video i uploaded to YouTube, i said they could but they now want my email address to send me their "release form." I've never done this before, is this normal? I'm happy to share, what should i do?


It's important that people get to see what happened and the real heartache and misery that this action created.


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2013)

why do you think there wasn't substantial levels of community support, it is a working day, does that have any bearing?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> It's important that people get to see what happened and the real heartache and misery that this action created.


Signed the release form and emailed it back to them. The more publicity the better.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Signed the release form and emailed it back to them. The more publicity the better.


 
I've got a hundred euros from one lot for non exclusive use. I'll be giving a chunk of that fee to SQUASH.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> why do you think there wasn't substantial levels of community support, it is a working day, does that have any bearing?


 
Loads of reasons, I guess, like: 6.30am Monday morning start and Nu-Brixtonites not giving a fuck.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Huffington Post have just used my video and 'forgot' to give a credit.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

32 minutes left until it uploads. Fuck, this is taking it's time.

By the way, I only actually used ten out of thirty minutes of footage. If anybody such as legal observers want the whole raw uncut rushes, I'll be very happy to supply them to them provided they live a sensible enough distance away.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Now here's a dilemma: the Mail want to use the video.
Good things: lots of people get to see the violence inflicted on people being through out of their homes
Bad thing: it's the fucking Mail and they'll probably twist it around to say that the police were defending themselves from napalm bombs or something
But: it will be seen by a lot more people who hopefully will be able it work it out for themselves
And then there's....  they can just use it anyway like the Huffington Post and I won't even get a link back to the site and to this thread.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 15, 2013)

Don't give it to the mail ffs!


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

If the Mail approached me, I'd say "Where were you when I needed you to speak for me?" You owe them nothing. Tell them it's £300 a minute.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Don't give it to the mail ffs!


They can just take it anyway, just like the Huffington Post did.
I *want* people to see how violent the cops were. Don't you?

*edit to add: I'm leaning towards telling them to FO.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Loads of reasons, I guess, like: 6.30am Monday morning start and Nu-Brixtonites not giving a fuck.


 
'Nu Brixtonites'?? What are they and why do you think that??


----------



## Winot (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Now here's a dilemma: the Mail want to use the video.
> Good things: lots of people get to see the violence inflicted on people being through out of their homes
> Bad thing: it's the fucking Mail and they'll probably twist it around to say that the police were defending themselves from napalm bombs or something
> But: it will be seen by a lot more people who hopefully will be able it work it out for themselves
> And then there's....  they can just use it anyway like the Huffington Post and I won't even get a link back to the site and to this thread.



Tell the Mail they can use it provided they donate to SQUASH?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> They can just take it anyway, just like the Huffington Post did.
> I *want* people to see how violent the cops were. Don't you?


Yes, but there's nothing you can do to stop them surrounding it with their own spin.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> I've got a hundred euros from one lot for non exclusive use. I'll be giving a chunk of that fee to SQUASH.


 
I wasn't offered any cash for mine  I'm going to email Ruptly TV and suggest they make a small donation to SQUASH.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Kanda said:


> 'Nu Brixtonites'?? What are they and why do you think that??


The only people I saw on the streets today were almost all old-school Brixtonites.  But perhaps you have a point: maybe those newly arrived, well heeled residents who can afford a half million flat are truly _deeply _concerned at the plight of the squatters but were just too jolly busy to pop along today.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> The only people I saw on the streets today were almost all old-school Brixtonites. But perhaps you have a point: maybe those newly arrived, well heeled residents who can afford a half million flat are truly _deeply _concerned at the plight of the squatters but were just too jolly busy to pop along today.


 
Or they simply didn't know it was happening. I didn't and I doubt any of the people I know in Brixton knew about it (unless they read Urban)


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Yes, but there's nothing you can do to stop them surrounding it with their own spin.


They'll spin it regardless. It's what they do. Having a link to this site may just offer an alternative viewpoint though.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Or they simply didn't know it was happening. I didn't and I doubt many people I know in Brixton knew about it (unless they read Urban)


It was widely reported on multiple blogs. Perhaps they aren't interested in those either.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

I've told the Mail they'll have to pay and the money will go to SQUASH. They probably won't pay.
They've already started the negative spin so I'm not interested anyway.


> *Street left littered with debris after angry clashes between squatters and bailiffs as they try to clear property*
> A road in central Brixton was trashed as angry squatters were evicted
> Other residents were terrified as bins were torched and bailiffs assaulted
> Many of the squatters had enjoyed rent-free living for at least 13 years
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ffs-try-clear-property.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

I nagged the Huffington Post into putting in a credit:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/15/brixton-squatters-evicted_n_3598286.html?utm_hp_ref=tw


----------



## Kanda (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> It was widely reported on multiple blogs. Perhaps they aren't interested in those either.


 
Maybe they're not interested in blogs. Many people aren't.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> why do you think there wasn't substantial levels of community support, it is a working day, does that have any bearing?


 
certianly does here - i was at work before i knew about it.  but things have changed in brixton, you know.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 15, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> certianly does here - i was at work before i knew about it. but things have changed in brixton, you know.


 
Are you Nu Brixtonite then?


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Maybe they're not interested in blogs. Many people aren't.


Pretty sure it was in the local papers too. Maybe they're not interested in them either.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 15, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Are you Nu Brixtonite then?


 
depends on how you definite "nu", i guess


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

I've now got the Mail offering cash, which I'm happy to send direct to SQUASH, to help them keep helping squatters. Maybe I should ask them what they think?


----------



## Kanda (Jul 15, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> depends on how you definite "nu", i guess


 
I think it's defined by not reading local blogs or newspapers. Something many people don't do that have lived here ages but are now branded as 'Nu Brixton'


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Kanda said:


> I think it's defined by not reading local blogs or newspapers. Something many people don't do that have lived here ages but are now branded as 'Nu Brixton'


Nicely twisted. Well done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> I've now got the Mail offering cash, which I'm happy to send direct to SQUASH, to help them keep helping squatters. Maybe I should ask them what they think?


have you so soon forgotten the furore over your sale of a photo to the telegraph? when i suggested you donate money to any legal fees incurred by the people pictured in any case arising from their involvement in the party you rather poo-pooed the notion. yet here you are proposing to do much the same thing here - i'm glad you've belatedly taken the point on board. you could put a few bob towards the ass while you're about it.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

Cash = Support. You might feel dirty for a bit, but you'll get over it...


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you could put a few bob towards the ass while you're about it.


So could you.
PS I gave the Telegraph money to a children's hospice in Wales.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> So could you.


the difference is i have done and you don't seem to.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Greenemeanie said:


> Cash = Support. You might feel dirty for a bit, but you'll get over it...


Actually, I don't think I can do it for the Mail so I'm not going to respond.

Anyway, this thread is about the people - many of whom are my friends - who have just lost their homes. It's a very sad day for Brixton. Kudos to those who came out to support the squatters today.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

My vids ready!


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Greenemeanie said:


> My vids ready!


Nice one! I've added it to the BrixtonBuzz page and given you a credit:

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/...evict-rushcroft-road-squats-in-brixton-video/


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Nice one! I've added it to the BrixtonBuzz page and given you a credit:
> 
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/...evict-rushcroft-road-squats-in-brixton-video/


Ta!


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 15, 2013)

Did the council give the residents much notice about their eviction?


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jul 15, 2013)

I had no idea the eviction was happening this morning and I am a media junkie. Probably my fault for not checking the forums in a while. But somebody should have alerted the Standard prior to this morning, briefed its reporters on the major issues and then issued a press release to drive some supportive coverage in the Standard/Guardian/Independent/Metro. At least that way some pressure could have been publicly brought to bear on the muppets at Lambeth Council. But sorry, that's probably a ghastly "nu-Brixton" PR solution to the problem.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

LX655 is the officer who apparently throttled that gentleman. 3m 20s.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

I live opposite Clarence House and slept through the whole thing - not feeling too good today. I'm sort of glad I missed it, I really liked some of the residents there, so did my cat, I would have hated to see them being manhandled. Just seeing their door and windows broken in on the video makes me tearful. I hope they've found somewhere decent to live. Plenty of them seemed Eastern European - their treatment makes me ashamed to be British.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

Can't watch the last two minutes of that. It's fucking awful. :-(


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

Those bailiffs at Clarence House were like the fucking SS.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 15, 2013)

Fucksakes 

Well done on getting it all captured on video Greenemeanie.


----------



## Corax (Jul 15, 2013)

> A spacious four bedroomed first floor flat that benefits from a great location moments from all the vibrant shops and amenities of Brixton are within easy reach, while it would benefit from some modernisation.


Yours for only £475,000.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 15, 2013)

Baliffs. I can never feel anything other than sheer contempt and disgust when seeing them at work.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> Yours for only £475,000.


 

and for shy of half a million quid looks like a dump!


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

steph said:


> Fucksakes
> 
> Well done on getting it all captured on video Greenemeanie.


 
It went like this. I was unaware any of this was happening, I was in Windrush Square waiting for the library to open and saw a right carry on. Nobody at that stage seemed to have a camera, so I rushed back to my gaff and got mine.

In situations such as these, you know that 'The Man' is videoing the whole thing, the role one must adopt is attempt to capture pretty much the same thing that he is. After all, one version is going to get online, and one isn't.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

I thought they were only evicting the first 3 buildings today and left before it got to the others as was knackered from 3 hours sleep and hungover from the weekends bender.. wish I had stayed longer


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> Yours for only £475,000.



I heard ppl on the street saying this morn you'd need to be on 30k to live in one of the flats once there done up. 30k salary would barely even get you a shared ownership flat in brixton atm. 

We're only clinging on by the skin of our teeth because we have a lovely hippy landlord who charges a fair rent. Very soon Brixton will only be for the very rich.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Nice one! I've added it to the BrixtonBuzz page and given you a credit:
> 
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/...evict-rushcroft-road-squats-in-brixton-video/


 
You can add mine as well if you like.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 15, 2013)

Greenemeanie said:


> My vids ready!




hey! it's July not June
well done on the vid!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> I heard ppl on the street saying this morn you'd need to be on 30k to live in one of the flats once there done up. 30k salary would barely even get you a shared ownership flat in brixton atm.
> 
> We're only clinging on by the skin of our teeth because we have a lovely hippy landlord who charges a fair rent. Very soon Brixton will only be for the very rich.


 
...and those in proper social housing, although given the tactics at Myatts' Fields, what they're attempting to do with Somerleyton and the "consultation exercises" elsewhere, it looks like they're finding ways and means to edge those of us in social housing out too.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> The saddest thing is that if this happened 10 years ago, the streets would have been packed with supporters.


I find that very hard to believe. Four years ago when our two blocks on Rushcroft Road (Hereford House and Rosslyn House) were illegally evicted nobody gave a flying fuck or turned out to support us.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> I find that very hard to believe. Four years ago when our two blocks on Rushcroft Road (Hereford House and Rosslyn House) were illegally evicted nobody gave a flying fuck or turned out to support us.


Didn't that one take a lot of people by surprise?

There was certainly a pretty decent turn out for the Clifton Mansions eviction in 2011.












http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixton-clifton-mansions-squat-more-eviction-day-photos/


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Didn't that one take a lot of people by surprise?
> 
> There was certainly a pretty decent turn out for the Clifton Mansions eviction in 2011.
> 
> ...


 

Busier road. It's like the Thatcher funeral, people 'lined' the route only because barriers, the cortege and curiosity stopped them getting to the other side of the road.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

Hi guys, first upload just finished.... finally... http://www.flickr.com/photos/henryclayton/sets/72157634648565303/






































and this is the cunt that I saw lamping someone then throtlling a lad who was sat on a wall without provocation and with a smug looking smile on his fucker of a face






the last 75 are uploading now.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 15, 2013)

fucking horrible shit 

My heart goes out to everyone who was evicted from their homes today by hired thugs. 

Mass protest at Lambeth Country Show next weekend. Search out the Councillors. Tell 'em what you think. Lambeth Council will have a stall bigging up their 'cooperative' shit - we should all pay them a visit.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

going to have to re-edit the links sorry


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> I find that very hard to believe. Four years ago when our two blocks on Rushcroft Road (Hereford House and Rosslyn House) were illegally evicted nobody gave a flying fuck or turned out to support us.


 

The view on this thread - that the eviction is an outrage - is not necessarily shared by everyone in Brixton.


----------



## Maggot (Jul 15, 2013)

Report of the evictions coming up on BBC London news (BBC1)


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The view on this thread - that the eviction is an outrage - is not necessarily shared by everyone in Brixton.


 


of course it isn't but Brixton has a large community of people who are pro-squatting and has done since as way back as the 70's, in some cases evicting squatters has my full support but not in this case.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> I heard ppl on the street saying this morn you'd need to be on 30k to live in one of the flats once there done up. 30k salary would barely even get you a shared ownership flat in brixton atm.
> 
> We're only clinging on by the skin of our teeth because we have a lovely hippy landlord who charges a fair rent. Very soon Brixton will only be for the very rich.


My landlady has promised to raise the rent in line with inflation, not to just charge what the market will bear. Thank God. I'm paying 1590 per month for a posh 2 bed flat in Rushcroft Rd. Plus bills.  I can barely afford food now. I've downgraded the cat from posh Felix to ordinary, she refused it for ages but has just this minute started  eating it.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> of course it isn't but Brixton has a large community of people who are pro-squatting and has done since as way back as the 70's, in some cases evicting squatters has my full support but not in this case.


 

I don't like the sell-off of half the targeted properties.

They should all be retained for social rent.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Maggot said:


> Report of the evictions coming up on BBC London news (BBC1)


 
They used my footage and 'forgot' to put in a credit to BrixtonBuzz, despite that being a clear pre-condition of their use.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I don't like the sell-off of half the targeted properties.
> 
> They should all be retained for social rent.


 

exactly... I am in need of something I can afford as well, I'm currently paying out of my arse for a room that I simply cannot cover and about to hit the point where I can no longer sustain it nor afford to move anywhere thanks to such high rent, no idea what I am going to do at the moment and Lambeth have been outright just fobbing me off since my house got torched in 2011 and my landlord illegally evicted me.  Social housing is something this area needs more than anything else.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

Does anyone know the whole history? Were the buildings compulsorily purchased in the '70s from private landlords because of the motorway plan?

And is it a myth that the squatters offered rent but the council wouldn't take it? The council has a very different story according to the BBC site: 


> "many had not paid rent since 2000, the council said."


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Does anyone know the whole history? Were the buildings compulsorily purchased in the '70s from private landlords because of the motorway plan?


There's a fair bit about the background here:
http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/rushcroft.html
http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/yuppies.html


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Does anyone know the whole history? Were the buildings compulsorily purchased in the '70s from private landlords because of the motorway plan?


 

I find it all baffling.

Lambeth says no one has paid any rent since at least 2000.

But the council also suggests that, in the 19 years prior, some cut-price rent may have been paid.

Which suggests Lambeth took hold of the properties in 1981.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> There's a fair bit about the background here:
> http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/rushcroft.html
> http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/yuppies.html


 

Interesting stuff.

The references to 'whites' are possibly over the top.


----------



## Winot (Jul 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I don't like the sell-off of half the targeted properties.
> 
> They should all be retained for social rent.



Agreed, with tenancies to go to the most in need.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> And is it a myth that the squatters offered rent but the council wouldn't take it? The council has a very different story according to the BBC site:


 
How much did they offer to pay, would seem expensive if the rents round there are around 700 per person pcm for a shared flat....


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> There's a fair bit about the background here:
> http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/rushcroft.html
> http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/yuppies.html


Thanks, that's excellent stuff. Do you know if the whole street  was scheduled for demolition? I'm wondering how the building I'm in, Mayfield House, came to be privately owned. One of my downstairs neighbours says she has owned her flat, and a share of the freehold, for a long time. I must ask her for more history.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

Looks like one of the squatters has given/sold their video footage to the Mail: 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...s-evicted-home-living-rent-free-32-years.html

I can't get this video to play. If it works for you can you check that it's not mine as I haven't given them permission.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...VIOLENT-bailiffs-clear-squatters-Brixton.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Looks like one of the squatters has given/sold their video footage to the Mail:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...s-evicted-home-living-rent-free-32-years.html
> 
> I can't get this video to play. If it works for you can you check that it's not mine as I haven't given them permission.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...VIOLENT-bailiffs-clear-squatters-Brixton.html


not playing here


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Thanks, that's excellent stuff. Do you know if the whole street was scheduled for demolition? I'm wondering how the building I'm in, Mayfield House, came to be privately owned. One of my downstairs neighbours says she has owned her flat, and a share of the freehold, for a long time. I must ask her for more history.


 

It's the same with Victorian terraces like ours. There are private homes and a couple of half-way hostels but Lambeth and three housing associations have a very large stake. Mainly L&Q.

What I can't work out is how so many homes came into public ownership in the first place.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Huffington Post have just used my video and 'forgot' to give a credit.


 

Hmmm Huff use a lot of my stuff and have never failed to give credit


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

A few photos from a walk down Rushcroft Rd this afternoon. The HCEOs seemed particularly surly. 












I wonder how long these buildings will remain empty for now. 

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/after-the-evictions-a-walk-down-rushcroft-road-brixton/


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> They used my footage and 'forgot' to put in a credit to BrixtonBuzz, despite that being a clear pre-condition of their use.


 
Is whether or not you get "credit" for your footage what's really important here?

Back to what the thread subject... I'm another long term Brixton resident, who does read blogs and these forums fairly regularly, but somehow didn't know this was going to happen today. I don't think an apparent lack of support on the street should be blamed on people not caring, or "nu Brixtoners".


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> What I can't work out is how so many homes came into public ownership in the first place.


I'd assumed that the council compulsorily purchased them to make way for the motorway.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> What I can't work out is how so many homes came into public ownership in the first place.


 
Labour Councils often used to have a 'municipilisation' policy where they would buy up private properties in order to rent out as social housing.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Back to what the thread subject... I'm another long term Brixton resident, who does read blogs and these forums fairly regularly, but somehow didn't know this was going to happen today.


This thread was on here nearly two weeks before the event, there was multiple posts about it on Brixton Buzz, and Brixton Blog ran a feature too. If you'd gone along to the Eviction Brixton rally in central Brixton last week you'd have known about it there too. And it was all over Twitter/Facebook too.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> not playing here


 

It plays on this link;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364056/Brixton-Squatters-clash-police-Rushcroft-Road.html


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 15, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Baliffs. I can never feel anything other than sheer contempt and disgust when seeing them at work.


 


they aren't even on a great deal of money either- its not like they've been bought to doi this with silly high wages. They do it because they like it.

/dc


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> This thread was on here nearly two weeks before the event, there was multiple posts about it on Brixton Buzz, and Brixton Blog ran a feature too. If you'd gone along to the Eviction Brixton rally in central Brixton last week you'd have known about it there too. And it was all over Twitter/Facebook too.


 

Yep. All over Twitter. And in strong sympathy for the evictees


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2013)

HCEOs don't have to give advance notice btw.

This seems to explain why HCEOs rather than county court bailiffs were used: http://www.vicksenforcement.co.uk/blog3.html

There's also a complaints procedure: http://www.hceoa.org.uk/regulatory-information/want-to-complain.html


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Yep. All over Twitter. And in strong sympathy for the evictees


 
 Perhaps my sin is to not be on Twitter. Not heavily enough into nu media to be a proper Brixtonite.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

A little more history from Zoe of BrixtonBlog/BrixtonBugle who wrote this last year:



> The nineteenth-century flats on Rushcroft Road have been owned by Lambeth Council since the 1970s, when they were compulsorily bought for demolition to build a new motorway and high-rise council housing in Brixton. These plans fell through and Rushcroft Road remained.
> Many of the flats were sold, but some remained council-owned and were given over to short life tenancies, essentially temporary housing agreements. These tenants were later moved out by the council, the flats left empty and finally occupied by squatters...In the past decade, several squats on Rushcroft Rd have been evicted, with the last evictions taking place in 2009 in Hereford House and Rosslyn House.


 
http://brixton.zrmt.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958

So why did the council move out the short life tenants and leave the flats empty?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> This thread was on here nearly two weeks before the event, there was multiple posts about it on Brixton Buzz, and Brixton Blog ran a feature too. If you'd gone along to the Eviction Brixton rally in central Brixton last week you'd have known about it there too. And it was all over Twitter/Facebook too.


 

Wasnt it at 6.30 in the morning? if it was that early maybe thats why more people didnt show..


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

Check out this quote from Councillor Pete Robbins in the BrixtonBlog piece I linked to a couple of posts ago:


> “The squatters at Rushcroft Road have absolutely no right to be there and I am determined to take a zero tolerance approach. We plan tough action and are in the process of applying for bailiff warrants. The squatters will be notified that proceedings are imminent, but rather than force us to spend taxpayers money on legal proceedings it would be better if they just left now.”


 
This is him http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=251


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

I believe that these guys were representing the council at todays events, but hid at the back until they were spotted and then approached at which point they asked for police intervention to let them past or something


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Check out this quote from Councillor Pete Robbins in the BrixtonBlog piece I linked to a couple of posts ago:
> 
> 
> This is him http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=251


 

For the council, it is a coup.

Instead of three large, central buildings from which they got no rent or council tax, they will now get: 

£5.5million in cash
22 new council homes
Some rent
Council tax revenues


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

pictures i took this morning are too large to upload


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

I'm still puzzled by the history. How can some people have squatted there for 32 years if the council had short life tenants there and was collecting rent in 2000?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 15, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> pictures i took this morning are too large to upload


 
resize in paint is quickest way i find


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

ddraig said:


> resize in paint is quickest way i find


 
thanks ill have a go in a bit


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

hehe try with medium format sized images, took me all day to upload my 275 shots on a superfast connection..


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> I believe that these guys were representing the council at todays events, but hid at the back until they were spotted and then approached at which point they asked for police intervention to let them past or something


 
fucking cowards.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I'm still puzzled by the history. How can some people have squatted there for 32 years if the council had short life tenants there and was collecting rent in 2000?


 

Lambeth's incompetence is legendary.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

ddraig said:


> hey! it's July not June
> well done on the vid!


 
Thanks for spotting that. Fixed!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> My landlady has promised to raise the rent in line with inflation, not to just charge what the market will bear. Thank God. I'm paying 1590 per month for a posh 2 bed flat in Rushcroft Rd. Plus bills. I can barely afford food now. I've downgraded the cat from posh Felix to ordinary, she refused it for ages but has just this minute started eating it.


 
See I still think that's expensive... I know it now seems like an ok price in comparison to what other flats are going for but theres no way that we could afford that.

On another note, the councils lackeys are causing a right bloody racket on the street. And it looks awful with all that citex up


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> My landlady has promised to raise the rent in line with inflation, not to just charge what the market will bear. Thank God. I'm paying 1590 per month for a posh 2 bed flat in Rushcroft Rd. Plus bills. I can barely afford food now. I've downgraded the cat from posh Felix to ordinary, she refused it for ages but has just this minute started eating it.


 

Bet the landlady's mortgage is no more than £500 a month, if she even has one.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> fucking horrible shit
> 
> My heart goes out to everyone who was evicted from their homes today by hired thugs.
> 
> Mass protest at Lambeth Country Show next weekend. Search out the Councillors. Tell 'em what you think. Lambeth Council will have a stall bigging up their 'cooperative' shit - we should all pay them a visit.


 
I think the very least we should do with that stall is squat on it and make ourselves at home, for the day. After all, does anyone actually live on the bit of land it'll be on?


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Bet the landlady's mortgage is no more than £500 a month, if she even has one.


 
She owns the one below too. And is selling it for 460k. I think she wants to retire early. She looks to be in her late thirties. It's another world.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Check out this quote from Councillor Pete Robbins in the BrixtonBlog piece I linked to a couple of posts ago:
> 
> 
> This is him http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=251


 
He does surgeries every Saturday. Just saying...


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

Oh, he's on Twitter, too. Very trendy. https://twitter.com/greenemeanie/status/356876685813104640


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

Greenemeanie said:


> Oh, he's on Twitter, too. Very trendy. https://twitter.com/greenemeanie/status/356876685813104640


 

he slapped me down earlier on Twitter!


----------



## shygirl (Jul 15, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> hehe try with medium format sized images, took me all day to upload my 275 shots on a superfast connection..


 
Amazing pics, thanks for sharing.


----------



## kenny g (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> She owns the one below too. And is selling it for 460k. I think she wants to retire early. She looks to be in her late thirties. It's another world.


 

Probably planning on starting a workers co-op bakery in stroud, gloucestershire or some such wank dome.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 15, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> See I still think that's expensive... I know it now seems like an ok price in comparison to what other flats are going for but theres no way that we could afford that.


 
£1590 per month plus bills for a two bedroomed flat is insanely expensive... but i guess Rushcroft Rd is the best location to live in Brixton. I prefer it down Arodene Road/ Josephine Ave myself...which is cheaper and leafier...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 15, 2013)

Russia Today  have been in contact with me on Twitter wanting to speak to people and hear about developments.

The correspondent is called @SaraFirth_RT if anyone is interested. https://twitter.com/SaraFirth_RT


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

Cheesypoof said:


> £1590 per month plus bills for a two bedroomed flat is insanely expensive... but i guess Rushcroft Rd is the best location to live in Brixton. I prefer it down Arodene Road/ Josephine Ave myself...which is cheaper and leafier...


 
I don't disagree with you but placed into context of what other two bedroom flats are going for on Rushcroft Frumious B. flat is at the cheaper end... For example, the 2 bed flat next door to ours is being rented for £2250 a month. That's insane.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

Also i saw a room for rent in clifton mansions advertised for £900 pcm. 900 for a ROOM.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 15, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> I don't disagree with you but placed into context of what other two bedroom flats are going for on Rushcroft Frumious B. flat is at the cheaper end... For example, t*he 2 bed flat next door to ours is being rented for £2250 a month.* That's insane.


 

 that's CRAZY!!!

God, what a mess !!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

Cheesypoof said:


> that's CRAZY!!!
> 
> God, what a mess !!


 
The landlord once said to me 'i dont know why ppl pay so much for a rental place, you could pay a mortgage for that money'


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> The landlord once said to me 'i dont know why ppl pay so much for a rental place, you could pay a mortgage for that money'


and so many tenants are.


----------



## happyshopper (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Eviction Brixton quiz is up:
> 
> _Q: What was the name of the old pub in central Brixton that local campaigners and a local consortium of community groups worked for eight years into a community owned community center – now sold by the council to a private developer?_
> 
> ...


 
Bradys


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 15, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> The landlord once said to me 'i dont know why ppl pay so much for a rental place, you could pay a mortgage for that money'


 

But how can anyone afford to SAVE £60,000 for a mortgage??? Supposing you don't earn much or come from a rich family? Isnt that the average Brixtonite of old?


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> he slapped me down earlier on Twitter!


 
That was just a bog standard comeback from a conference league politician. I eat those people for breakfast.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 15, 2013)

I could not get a mortgage for shit, my old mistakes from 14 years back still stain my credit record like badly shat sheets... even when I am earning decent cash it is almost impossible to pay much of them off and keep paying such high rent, let alone even think of saving for a deposit


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

Cheesypoof said:


> But how can anyone afford to SAVE £60,000 for a mortgage??? Supposing you don't earn much or come from a rich family? Isnt that the average Brixtonite of old?


 

You can't save for a mortgage.

Even if you could put aside a miraculous £6,000 a year it would take a decade -  by which time the deposit would be £120,000 in line with rising house prices.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 15, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Russia Today  have been in contact with me on Twitter wanting to speak to people and hear about developments.
> 
> The correspondent is called @SaraFirth_RT if anyone is interested. https://twitter.com/SaraFirth_RT


 

Just seen it. They used bits of my video and mixed it with another which i think Editor took.
ETA My one is the not so good video, spinning around 360 trying to get all the action and missing most of it.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 15, 2013)

i swear if any of these shower of nob-rashes show their faces at the county show they've got a fucking nerve.  *sticks some eggs out in the sun to go bad*


----------



## newbie (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> A little more history from Zoe of BrixtonBlog/BrixtonBugle who wrote this last year:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 "council" "shortlife"  and "why" don't belong in the same sentence!
they just don't. sorry. 

Over the decades the way Lambeth has treated squats (ie unlicensed occupation) and shortlife (licensed occupation) has been short-term, ludicrous and arbitrary.  Different administrations have had different approaches, with the strongest common theme being 'do nothing'. Different streets (or blocks) have been treated very differently. At times licenses were granted, at other times they were revoked. Possession orders have been applied for, granted and allowed to lapse. Negotiations have started, stalled and withered.

At no time has any administration taken the obvious, sane route and simply granted tenancies.  Nor have they ever had the guts to do what the GLC did with all their hard to let places and just give them away.  They've just left the whole thing to fester, not really as conscious decision (something "why" might apply to) but through uselessness, unwillingness to actually grasp the mess left behind by the diabolical council of the early/mid 70s. 

I don't suppose there's anybody alive who really knows the detailed "what", "when" or "how".  "why" is well beyond the sum of human knowledge.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 15, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> I could not get a mortgage for shit, my old mistakes from 14 years back still stain my credit record like badly shat sheets... even when I am earning decent cash it is almost impossible to pay much of them off and keep paying such high rent, let alone even think of saving for a deposit


 
Innit.


----------



## Casaubon (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I'm still puzzled by the history. How can some people have squatted there for 32 years if the council had short life tenants there and was collecting rent in 2000?


Some background here, in my first ever post (#44):
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/evictions-in-rushcroft-road-brixton.209361/page-2#post-7491963


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

Thanks Casaubon, most informative. I've given it a 'like', I don't think likes were available in those days! Do you think there might be any legal grounds for preventing the sale of the Rushcroft Rd so-called 'squats' to private landlords?


----------



## Manter (Jul 15, 2013)

God, those videos are shocking.  Still slightly confused by the chronology of who lived where/owned what and when, but that seems to be part of the council's tactics- disinformation and confusion that let's them spin their own story.  

Very sad


----------



## Casaubon (Jul 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Thanks Casaubon, most informative. I've given it a 'like', I don't think likes were available in those days! Do you think there might be any legal grounds for preventing the sale of the Rushcroft Rd so-called 'squats' to private landlords?


To be honest, I haven't a clue, I'm pretty out of touch with the situation. I'd imagine, and hope, that every legal avenue has been explored, but I suspect that changes to legal aid have made it impossible to fund this sort of case.
As I understand the situation, the council has had possession orders for Rushcroft for a few years now, so there was no way of preventing the evictions.
Apologies to those involved if I'm misrepresenting things.
Good luck to you all.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 15, 2013)

What if a few thousand people signed a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman? http://www.lgo.org.uk/making-a-complaint/  Ok, the squats may be history, but can we do anything to stop the council selling the buildings to the private sector?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> For the council, it is a coup.
> 
> Instead of three large, central buildings from which they got no rent or council tax, they will now get:
> 
> ...


 
I'm a bit unclear...are the new council homes going to be in Rushcroft road - or elsewhere, paid for by the money raised by the sale of buildings in Rushcroft Road?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I'm a bit unclear...are the new council homes going to be in Rushcroft road - or elsewhere, paid for by the money raised by the sale of buildings in Rushcroft Road?


 

I think somewhere on the thread it says  they are going to sell some of them and use that money (or part of it) to do up the others to be kept as council flats.  

I'm not sure how many flats were emptied today. I can't see how it will be 22 'new' council homes.  They are already 'council homes' and selling some off will reduce the number not increase it, surely.  Unless they intend to change the layouts inside to make smaller units.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 16, 2013)

Apparently, half of the vacated accommodation will be turned into 22 council homes on site. The other half of the site sold off privately.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 16, 2013)

How many flats does it comprise of now though?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 16, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> How many flats does it comprise of now though?


 
Good question. And I suspect you are right in that the units will be smaller.

And where did the squatters come from?

Are many Eastern European, as has been claimed, or are they long-established families, as otherwise reported. Bit of both?

And where will they go?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> I can't see how it will be 22 'new' council homes. They are already 'council homes'


 

I am not sure I'm convinced by the notion that squatted buildings owned by the council count as "council homes". I've no problem with the idea of otherwise vacant properties being squatted but I don't think you can really suggest that just letting people squat council-owned buildings is a sustainable or desirable method of providing social housing.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I am not sure I'm convinced by the notion that squatted buildings owned by the council count as "council homes". I've no problem with the idea of otherwise vacant properties being squatted but I don't think you can really suggest that just letting people squat council-owned buildings is a sustainable or desirable method of providing social housing.


Most people I know were very much for the idea of the property being taken back into council housing stock, with the current long-term occupants being offered the opportunity to take them on at standard council flat rates.

That would have seen a good way to go about "defending resilient communities" (TM Lambeth 'Co-Operative' Council) to me.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I am not sure I'm convinced by the notion that squatted buildings owned by the council count as "council homes". I've no problem with the idea of otherwise vacant properties being squatted but I don't think you can really suggest that just letting people squat council-owned buildings is a sustainable or desirable method of providing social housing.


 

No. I think the council building and maintaining council houses is a sustainable and desirable method of providing social housing. That is not happening. The flats are owned by the council. As I understand it it was occupied partly by LT squatters, ST squatters and shortlife tenants. At various points it seems that rent has been paid to the council and rent offered to the council but turned down by the council (It all seems very convoluted). Making one group of people who are in need of homes homeless in order to transform half of that property into unaffordable homes for purchase or private rental and half available to a slightly different group of people in need of homes doesn't seem like much of a service to the community. I also object to our assets being sold off by the council for short term gain. Once assets are sold they and any revenue or social service they could be put to are gone for ever.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 16, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> I also object to our assets being sold off by the council for short term gain. Once assets are sold they and any revenue or social service they could be put to are gone for ever.


 
This is key. How can it be legal for the council to shrink the borough's stock like this? And why can't they borrow a bit to do them up? The value would increase so much that their books would balance easily. Why throw away such a solid investment?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> This is key. How can it be legal for the council to shrink the borough's stock like this? And why can't they borrow a bit to do them up? The value would increase so much that their books would balance easily. Why throw away such a solid investment?


 

Yes. This is the problem I have with the council's action.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2013)

I feel that I don't know enough about how all the numbers add up to judge what the realistic options are in this situation.

For example what state are the buildings in at the moment (including long-term maintenance issues)? How much would it cost to bring it all up to a standard fit properly for rent as social housing (and maintain it as such)? How many flats sold off privately would pay for this?

I agree with the objections to the principle of selling off assets for short term gain.

I wonder how people would feel about an arrangement where instead of being sold, a certain proportion of the flats were still owned by the council but rented to private tenants at market rates, with the rental money somehow being used to finance the social housing bit.


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

I don't understand these questions. It's been high priority government policy to sell off public assets since Thatcher started the privatisations, refocused since austerity became the prime driver. It's waxed and waned a bit over the years but since Pickles was put in charge of local government, he's been banging on and on about it. The entire local authority finance policy is based on clear tory policies of squeezing council income, not allowing them to increase their take from council tax and thus forcing them to either/both cut services and flog assets. School playing fields (indeed, schools themselves), swimming pools, library buildings, offices and almost everything else has already gone, there's not much left. He (and previous SoS's) have also banged on about reducing council housing stock, both by discounted selloffs to tenants and moving management to ALMOs.

The current crop of Labour councils, including Lambeth, have been pushed into this. They may be spineless in their resistance but the quandry is real enough: close libraries/meals on wheels/playschemes/any other non-statutory provision or sell property. When they suggest reducing services there's an outcry, so they've looked round, found some assets that
a) bring in no income
b) need major capital expenditure to bring up to scratch
c) only really matter to a tiny minority of constituents
and decided to flog them, taking the negative publicity hit on the way.

Handwringing at this stage is pointless.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 16, 2013)

Tim Dickens on BBC London now talking about the evictions. Feltz's preamble disgraceful.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_london


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 16, 2013)

Here's the spin from Lambeth Council:

Why Lambeth is dealing with squatting on Rushcroft Road.

Plus a timely reminder from the Co-op Council this morning:

Struggling to manage your money...?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 16, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Feltz's preamble disgraceful.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_london


 

She goes on to defend squatters and their resourcefulness and says she admires their 'gumption' (and she is not being sarcastic) to an angry caller later in the show.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

I can't listen to that show whoever is on and whatever they're talking about.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 16, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the spin from Lambeth Council:
> 
> Why Lambeth is dealing with squatting on Rushcroft Road.


 
The irony of throwing people out in order to rehouse others.....completely ridiculous. If most of the houses are being sold as private freeholds, this really is about money.

Its a disgrace that the community were ignored, especially those tenants that did up the properties and contributed to the area....shows that in an era of greed, capital investment far outweighs cultural preservation. Tragic for Brixton - same with that awful 'Brixton Square.'


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 16, 2013)

I have sympathy for councils because the govt have shifted responsibility onto them for certain things but not shifted funding to them, and in fact cut the funding they had before (certainly the labour ones).  Nobody wants anything cut, understandably.  It's a fucked up situation all round.  Lambeth are still being fuckers though.  It's not a new thing, from what I hear.


----------



## eroom (Jul 16, 2013)

This whole episode is sickening.

I know it's nuanced of course, but at heart it just feels like poor people being ripped out of their homes so they can be flogged to rich people.


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

of course it's not new.  Not so long ago Ted Knight was, to his credit, once again on the steps of the Town Hall urging the Labour council to mobilise the people and to defy the government by setting an unlawful budget, just like he did when he led Lambeth Council.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 16, 2013)

When those 'For Sale' signs go up down Rushcroft Road, which they will... The council will be so busted.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2013)

Those who say nothing should be sold...what's your solution and how would it be paid for?


----------



## RedDragon (Jul 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Those who say nothing should be sold...what's your solution and how would it be paid for?


For a starter they could've had a chat with other London borough's to see how they dealt with their short-life stock. One example is Islington who a couple of years ago sold off their short-life stock to a larger/richer Housing Association, who in turn sold 25% on the open market to fund the refurbishment of the remainder, the HA then created a management agreements with the original short-life co-ops ensuring they retained their individual identities/communities.

It obvious from the start Lambeth had no interest in negotiating, preferring the bulldozer approach.


----------



## cesare (Jul 16, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> For a starter they could've had a chat with other London borough's to see how they dealt with their short-life stock. One example is Islington who a couple of years ago sold off their short-life stock to a larger/richer Housing Association, who in turn sold 25% on the open market to fund the refurbishment of the remainder, the HA then created a management agreements with the original short-life co-ops ensuring they retained their individual identities/communities.
> 
> It obvious from the start Lewisham had no interest in negotiating, preferring the bulldozer approach.


Lambeth, not Lewisham.


----------



## RedDragon (Jul 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> Lambeth, not Lewisham.


Yeah, sorry - the heats killing me  corrected


----------



## cesare (Jul 16, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> Yeah, sorry - the heats killing me  corrected




Lewisham has its own problems tbf, but they don't have Lambeth's bad rep.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

Vice mag has won me over with this piece.


> The irony of all this is that Lambeth isn't just any council, it's the flagship for the co-operative council movement – a Labour Party attempt to sound a bit nicer and less authoritarian. The movement's rhetoric about bottom-up decision making and grassroots empowerment sounds pretty seductive, but it's a hard dream to buy into when you're watching a bailiff sent by said council strangle a man to make sure he gets the fuck out of his home forever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/burning-bins-at-a-brixton-squat-eviction

*shame about the UKIP-style comments that follow the article, mind.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> For a starter they could've had a chat with other London borough's to see how they dealt with their short-life stock. One example is Islington who a couple of years ago sold off their short-life stock to a larger/richer Housing Association, who in turn sold 25% on the open market to fund the refurbishment of the remainder, the HA then created a management agreements with the original short-life co-ops ensuring they retained their individual identities/communities.
> 
> It obvious from the start Lambeth had no interest in negotiating, preferring the bulldozer approach.


 
Ok, but my question was actually to people who are saying nothing should be sold.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2013)

editor said:


> Vice mag has won me over with this piece.
> 
> 
> http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/burning-bins-at-a-brixton-squat-eviction
> ...


 


Were the buildings squatted, or were they short-life tenancies looked after by housing co-ops? The article seems a bit confused.


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

Were the buildings squatted
sometimes

or were they short-life
sometimes

tenancies
no, tenants have rights

looked after by housing co-ops
dunno but I don't think so, not formally anyway (see the post Casaubon linked to here for better details than I have)

? The article seems a bit confused.
see my post about the question "why?" further up. This has been going on for 30+ years and involves Lambeth Council. of course it's confused.


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Those who say nothing should be sold...what's your solution and how would it be paid for?


that's not something I've said, but my answer would be: the council should have mobilised the people towards defying the government and, if necessary and with popular support, then set an unlawful budget.  There is nothing whatsoever to be gained by rolling over and implementing tory cuts.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 16, 2013)

alls about money teuchter.....Lambeth council has been adamant that the 75 tenants in Rushcroft Rd paid 'no rent or council tax' in the 40 properties in 10 years.

Yet others say that the tenants offered to pay rent....which is it? and how much?

That, versus millions they can get from flogging some of the properties to Foxtons would seem too irresistable for a dysfunctional council. Its pretty clear that tenants dont have rights anymore, especially squatters...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Tim Dickens on BBC London now talking about the evictions. Feltz's preamble disgraceful.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_london


 
I caught some of it.If she was unsympathetic at beginning she changed her mind as calls went on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The view on this thread - that the eviction is an outrage - is not necessarily shared by everyone in Brixton.


 
Thank you for that statement of the blindingly-obvious.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2013)

misquote see new reply two posts down.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 16, 2013)

it is my dying wish that a select few of those commenters in that vice article will experience fathomless, unrelenting destitution and all the miseries attendant thereto, for only then will they possibly stand a chance of redeeming the black, abysmal voids that pass for their souls as they stand before a just and vengeful all powerful creator who probably doesn't exist, but now i sincerely hope does.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Perhaps my sin is to not be on Twitter. Not heavily enough into nu media to be a proper Brixtonite.


 
Perhaps your sin is actually pride?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2013)

newbie said:


> Were the buildings squatted
> sometimes
> 
> or were they short-life
> ...


 

Rushcroft road Council owned properties were Short Life under London & Quadrant. It was not Short Life Coop in Rushcroft road.

The individual flats had a license from L&Q who held the Head License from the Council.

After protracted legal action the original short life were moved out. I have heard there was one or two left. The legal action organised by Rushcroft road action group (an umbrella group of the short life in the street) was to try and show that the license was in legal terms a tenancy. Ultimately they argued they were Council tenants. Lambeth opposed this in courts over several years.

The flats were liveable in and the original short life would have been happy to stay as Council tenants.

As the original short life went the flats were squatted.

As Newbie said its a long and complicated history.

The costs of the legal action could have gone into working constructively with the residents to retain all the buildings as Council stock.[/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2013)

Greenemeanie said:


> I think the very least we should do with that stall is squat on it and make ourselves at home, for the day. After all, does anyone actually live on the bit of land it'll be on?


 
Park land, so by-laws prevent the land itself being squatted, but don't prevent the stall the land is on from being "occupied".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> fucking cowards.


 
And with poor taste in reading. SLP is much better than the Brixton Boggle!


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

yeah, but then way back when they could (perhaps) have been part of Lambeth Self Help or one of the other umbrella co-ops. No-one knew then what we know now.  People have just lost their homes, now is not the time to inquest too deeply into _what if_ and _if only_, but this is an outcome few would have chosen (though many have long predicted).


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 16, 2013)

There's a lot of background in this document which outlines the council pov

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov... Consultant t-final -post PB2 29-8-12.doc.pdf

It appears originally that all six blocks were to be retained and refurbished, but value for money is cited as the reason to sell 3 off. Of course this is all open to interpretation, but it does appear there was a belief that the blocks were home to undesirables, and also that the '  strategic' location of the problem was very much at the forefront of the councils thinking.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2013)

newbie said:


> (see the post Casaubon linked to here for better details than I have)





I think it's worth quoting in full here (this was written in 2009):





Casaubon said:


> *Rushcroft Rd - historical perspective.*





Casaubon said:


> Hi everyone.
> As this is my first post I should introduce myself.
> This is going to be very long for a first post – apologies, but I want to get a few things off my chest.
> 
> ...




Assuming that this is largely accurate, there's no doubt that it's all a big mess and has been massive waste of resources.

But given that history can't now be rewritten, I'm inclined to feel that selling some of the properties in order to properly do up the remaining ones is a preferable course of action to allowing the situation to continue; ie the buildings staying squatted and deteriorating further. While I certainly feel sorry for those who've been evicted, I don't see that they can expect to stay there indefinitely for free while the buildings fall apart around them, and the council's "assets" lose their value even further.

As I said above I recognise the objections to selling off council assets. I'd prefer a solution where they provide revenue but remain in council ownership in the long term.

I can see that there's an argument to say that the "long term" residents should be offered social housing in the building, as there's an existing community there which offers something to central Brixton. But I can also see that there would be difficulties in determining what counts as "long term" and justifying to others why they should effectively jump the queue.

As for suggesting the council mobilise the people into support for an unlawful budget... sorry but I struggle to see it as a realistic option.

Finally, while I certainly don't think that police or bailiffs should get away with using unreasonable force or violence against anyone during evictions processes, I sort of feel that all the videos and outrage about "sickening brutality" etc are a bit of a red herring. As I understand it the squatters knew this was going to happen, many left before the bailiffs showed up and the ones who made a stand at the end chose to do so. Fair play to them for doing that, but it's possible that the all the imagery of the eviction (which is what made it into the news) is a distraction from what really needs to be examined here - the history of Lambeth's ownership of the buildings, and the details of what they are now doing with it and whether they are really making the best use of what are valuable assets.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> There's a lot of background in this document which outlines the council pov
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s48769/ODDRG3 - Rushcroft Consultant t-final -post PB2 29-8-12.doc.pdf
> 
> It appears originally that all six blocks were to be retained and refurbished, but value for money is cited as the reason to sell 3 off. Of course this is all open to interpretation, but it does appear there was a belief that the blocks were home to undesirables, and also that the ' strategic' location of the problem was very much at the forefront of the councils thinking.


 
Thanks for posting this


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> pictures i took this morning are too large to upload


 
They normally are to big to upload here.

I normally upload to facebook. Then use "url" on pics there to post up here.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

You can easily resize images here: http://www.shrinkpictures.com/


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> As for suggesting the council mobilise the people into support for an unlawful budget... sorry but I struggle to see it as a realistic option.


 
fair enough. plenty of people didn't see it as realistic when Lambeth did it before, or when Liverpool did it, or when the GLC started on that course, or Clay Cross, or Poplar...

But plenty did, and saw organised fighting back, whether utlimately futile or not, as a better option than enthusiastically endorsing tory economic savagery.

I'm not the one to rouse and push such a movement. Now was Steve Reed, nor apparently is Lib Peck, nor any other Labour councillor in the country. More's the pity.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

I don't know any long term Rushcroft Road squatters who expected to "stay there indefinitely for free".


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 16, 2013)

editor said:


> You can easily resize images here: http://www.shrinkpictures.com/


 

Batch resizing software especially welcome, thanks.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 16, 2013)

editor said:


> I don't know any long term Rushcroft Road squatters who expected to "stay there indefinitely for free".


 

Did either the council or tenants say how much they offered to pay?  Nothing on that has been reported


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> While I certainly feel sorry for those who've been evicted, I don't see that they can expect to stay there indefinitely for free while the buildings fall apart around them, and the council's "assets" lose their value even further.


 
that's been one option on the table for Lambeth every single year since nineteen seventy something.  There is absolutely no excuse for them having allowed it to continue as it has done for the decades since.  Same has been true of loads of other areas, including Carlton Mansions, Villa Rd, St Agnes, Rectory Gardens, Millbrook & so on. As I said somewhere above, it's their general uselessness that's left this all festering for so long.  Contrast that with, eg, Bonnington Square, owned by the GLC who negotiated with squatters and which has peacefully transferred to a proper housing co-op. Other GLC/ILEA squats and shortlife were sucessfully transferred to private ownership or Housing Associations before those authorities were abolished.  Political will was required, which Lambeth has always lacked. 

Eventually it was bound to be sorted out, but it was never inevitable that it would be done by hamfisted thugs without imagination representing a _Co-operative Council_.

At times there have been discussions about attempting to surcharge councillors for financial malfeasance because they failed so dismally to look after public assets, but nothing has ever come of it and I think the law has changed now anyway.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Batch resizing software especially welcome, thanks.


 
If you're on a mac you can easily do it in Preview


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Batch resizing software especially welcome, thanks.


irfanview

I use the portable version
http://portableapps.com/apps/graphics_pictures/irfanview_portable


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 16, 2013)

Thanks Teuchter and Newbie. I'm on a PC. New to taking photo's and have been resizing them one by one on the camera. Uploading them in original file size Imgur is fine but would like some software to resize in batches. Will give Irfanview a try.


----------



## Winot (Jul 16, 2013)

newbie said:


> that's not something I've said, but my answer would be: the council should have mobilised the people towards defying the government and, if necessary and with popular support, then set an unlawful budget.  There is nothing whatsoever to be gained by rolling over and implementing tory cuts.



Hmm. I wonder what the job prospects would be for those Councillors in, say, central govt run by Labour and sticking to Coalition spending?


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

I'm sure that's all that matters.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 16, 2013)

Councillor Pete Robbins says on twitter that the Council can't borrow to repair the flats:


> We can't just 'borrow' - which is why we dispose of half to pay for refurb of other half: 24 new family sized council flats


 https://twitter.com/cllr_robbins
I don't understand council finances, but this puzzles me. If a private landlord can finance a 6 month refurb, why can't a council?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Councillor Pete Robbins says on twitter that the Council can't borrow to repair the flats:
> https://twitter.com/cllr_robbins
> I don't understand council finances, but this puzzles me. If a private landlord can finance a 6 month refurb, why can't a council?


The previous tory govt. restricted councils' borrowing power. They are literally not allowed to borrow money to build  council houses. It all has to come out of the operational budget. The labour govt. did nothing to lift these restrictions (AFAIK)


----------



## 99% (Jul 16, 2013)

i came down yesterday to bear witness to the eviction
and in light of what happened certain questions have to be aired
1. Why were HCEO (High Court Eviction Officers) used in the operation when County Court Baliffs were the appropriate "body" to be used.
2.Why did the Police allow the assault on occupants/protesters by HCEO in the final eviction (as seen by millions now) if the violence meted out is reasonable force we already live in a fascist state.
3.Why do Lambeth Council employ and condone the actions of thugs in the course of implementing their policies.
4.What is the connection between the Director of Housing,Regeneration and enviroment for Lambeth , a leading QC for Devonshires a law firm brought in by the Director to work on Housing/property issues and the newly appointed Short-life Housing Manager specifically employed to see through the policy program of repocessions and evictions.
5. Why does Councillor Pete Robbins mention "Squatters and others were aware" in his interview on BBC London news and if perchance the others were still resident/occupying former short-Life co-op members was the eviction still legal given the stalemate that ensued from the Kay case of 2006 because a infringement if not direct contravention of Artical 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights occurred by the action undertaken by Lambeth politicians and officers yesterday.
6.Why are local councilors being warned off and even disciplined by Lambeth Labour for getting involved in representing their constituents on these matters did any come yesterday to witness at least the results of their inaction i doubt it
my despondency at yesterdays events has lifted a little because at least the story has broken out to wider scrutiny.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Councillor Pete Robbins says on twitter that the Council can't borrow to repair the flats:
> https://twitter.com/cllr_robbins
> I don't understand council finances, but this puzzles me. If a private landlord can finance a 6 month refurb, why can't a council?


 
In fact the Council cannot ring proceeds from the sales on open market of some flats in Rushcroft road to fund the refurb of the rest.

That is not how the system works.

This has come up before. I remember one of my Cllrs mentioning it.

Councils can borrow a certain amount to build new Council housing. Though its quite restricted. Not sure if they can for refurbishment.

Private landlords/ developers are taking a risk when they borrow to sell/ rent. The Council is averse to taking a financial risk. Also private developers sell or rent to market levels. Which in London means they can make a profit. There is little controls of rent levels in London. All works in favour of developers.

Building affordable housing on borrowed money can be done. But the way housing works in this country its hard for public bodies to do it.

It needs the investor to be prepared for a long term investment with relatively low but guaranteed return. Bonds for example.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 16, 2013)

So in a few months they could turn around and say the money's been spent on other things, we can't do any refurbs, we have to sell the lot.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Thanks Teuchter and Newbie. I'm on a PC. New to taking photo's and have been resizing them one by one on the camera. Uploading them in original file size Imgur is fine but would like some software to resize in batches. Will give Irfanview a try.


 
I found if I upload to Facebook then get an URL of photos there I can post them here using the media button (looks like piece of film) .


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So in a few months they could turn around and say the money's been spent on other things, we can't do any refurbs, we have to sell the lot.


 
Yes that is what I am concerned about.

It took lobbying to get commitment from Council to retain some of Rushcroft road as social housing.

The Cllrs know its a contentious issue.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

A friend took this photo in Rushcroft Road.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

New Statesman piece:



> YUPPIES OUT! Living on the front line of gentrification in Brixton
> Inevitably, prices have risen. The average Brixton property now sells for £430,000 - up 25 per cent in a year, according to estate agents. Locals are displaced by the professionals, the monied, the university educated - pushed further from the centre or forced to work longer hours to keep their homes.
> 
> Meanwhile, pawnbrokers are springing up almost as quickly as the cafes: Sell your gold! Instant cash! Loans in minutes! Lambeth Council's housing list is now so overstretched it has suggested it could rehome homeless families 75 miles away in Margate, quite literally bussing the poorest out of the borough.
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

I looked up that phrase "Hoxton-isation' of Brixton" which the local blogs are supposed to be saying.

The only reference I could find was the New Statesman article 

However, I did find this comment by old poster ATS from 2002 in the Tribute to Pat (old Albert landlady) page:


> not really anything i can add to what everyone else has already said.. she was a brilliant and definitely unique person, and someone who repayed many times over the time spent getting to know her... it feels like the end of something in a broader sense as well, perhaps I'm being sentimental but Pat always felt like the last bastion against the Fulham-isation of Brixton... a terrible terrible shame, and my thoughts are with her family.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 16, 2013)

New people have already moved into two Clarence House flats.


----------



## Manter (Jul 16, 2013)

editor said:


> New Statesman piece:


Decent piece IMO- its not a deep discussion of the implications of housing policy, but its not supposed to be, it just captures a certain unease people like me feel- as I've said before, we loved the Brixton we moved into, but by moving in we may have been part of starting to destroy it

I've heard Brixton compared to Hoxton more than once, though not as a compound verb!


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> New people have already moved into two Clarence House flats.


squats?

I saw toilets on the pavement outside, assumed Lambeth had made the flats uninhabitable.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

newbie said:


> squats?
> 
> I saw toilets on the pavement outside, assumed Lambeth had made the flats uninhabitable.


When they kicked people out of Cooltan, the first thing they did was to smash the toilets and hand basins.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 16, 2013)

They must be the Camelot-type guardians. There are still thugs guarding the main door.


----------



## Manter (Jul 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> They must be the Camelot-type guardians. There are still thugs guarding the main door.


I was going to ask if they were occupying to stop it being occupied, IYSWIM.


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

editor said:


> When they kicked people out of Cooltan, the first thing they did was to smash the toilets and hand basins.


very longstanding Lambeth tradition.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 16, 2013)

One of the flats doesn't look in the least trashed - looks just like it did two days ago but with a different person lying on the bed watching telly.


----------



## Manter (Jul 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> One of the flats doesn't look in the least trashed - looks just like it did two days ago but with a different person lying on the bed watching telly.


at least the hired thugs are comfortable, eh?


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 16, 2013)

The thugs are out in the street! The new residents look kind of studenty. One is female.


----------



## Manter (Jul 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> The thugs are out in the street! The new residents look kind of studenty. One is female.


um.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 16, 2013)

Just been out to introduce the cat to the thugs and residents and they seem happy with her going in and out. There are only the two residents in Clarence House, the other 6 buildings are empty. Masses of thugs in all the doorways, staying until Monday-ish. The two residents are Camelot guardians. One of them knows some of the  squatters and has been in the building before as a guest. Sounds like none of the flats have been deliberately trashed.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> The thugs are out in the street! The new residents look kind of studenty. One is female.


 

doesnt tell you much about them to be fair. Rich students perhaps?  who knows


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

Excellent piece here:


> A bit of background
> 
> Six beautiful buildings on Rushcroft Road were left in a state of disrepair by Lambeth council back in the 80s. People moved into these buildings, repaired them and turned them into homes. Some residents were given short life licenses for their flats whilst other flats were squatted (the law change that bans residential squatting was not relevant here, as squatters in these flats had a tacit licence from the council). With property prices soaring in gentrifying Brixton, Lambeth council suddenly took an interest in the Rushcroft Road buildings and decided they wanted them back so they could sell them off to private property developers.
> 
> That these are people’s homes and important public housing, in a borough with massive overcrowding problems, an ever-growing housing waiting list, forced relocation of residents to seaside towns and cities north of London, didn’t perturb Lambeth council who went ahead and ordered the ‘National Eviction Team’ bailiffs, known for being particularly big and violent (and who had brought along their own FIT team with two bailiffs holding small portable cameras and filming people constantly).





> The violence used by the bailiffs and police was incredibly heavy, disturbing and traumatising.
> 
> As we defended the door to the last building I watched a friend be dragged by the bailiffs over broken glass, people getting strangled, one person on the ground being beaten up, bailiffs charging through the people with a crow bar, police pushing people who were trying to help others away to let the bailiffs get on with their violence. Rows of people were standing in front of the door to stop the bailiffs getting in.
> 
> ...


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

Cheesypoof said:


> doesnt tell you much about them to be fair. Rich students perhaps? who knows


They don't need to be rich, Camelot charges a fraction of the market rent in exchange for guardian duties.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 17, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> They don't need to be rich, Camelot charges a fraction of the market rent in exchange for guardian duties.


 

i dont understand this, sorry. Can you please explain?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 17, 2013)

Cheesypoof said:


> i dont understand this, sorry. Can you please explain?


 
its about 30/40 quid a week rent to live as a property guardian. So you dont need to be rich but possibly poor, vulnerable and maybe desperate


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

*From http://uk.cameloteurope.com/9/0/rights-responsibilities/becoming-a-live-in-guardian.html*

*



			Becoming a Live-in Guardian
		
Click to expand...

*


> Camelot manages vacant properties on behalf of property owners in the period prior to their ultimate use. Properties may be awaiting demolition, renovation, sale, letting or redevelopment. We never know in advance how long you will be able to live in a property with past management contracts ranging from 3 months to 3 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think the deal is that several guardians live in the building and somebody has to be in at all times.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 17, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> *From http://uk.cameloteurope.com/9/0/rights-responsibilities/becoming-a-live-in-guardian.html*
> 
> 
> 
> I think the deal is that several guardians live in the building and somebody has to be in at all times.


 
basically the same as squatting except you have to pay the landlord for being there - ie you have no more rights, and still have the duty to have someone in the house at all times.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

I may have made up the bit about staying in. It's not in the Camelot FAQ.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

> As a Camelot Live- In Guardian *you do not have any tenants' rights*; you live temporarily in the property based on a Guardian License Agreement.





> When you become a Guardian for Camelot your occupation in one of our properties is on a strictly temporary basis. This temporary period can vary from three months to several years depending on individual cases. When the destiny of the property is decided upon, the Guardians must clear, clean and vacate the property within two weeks.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> basically the same as squatting except you have to pay the landlord for being there -.


 

the temporariness of it all doesnt make it worth it.  And wrong to turf out squatters for this.

Does anyone know how much rent the tenants had offered to pay?


----------



## newbie (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


>


you don't approve? surely better to have homes occupied by so called guardians than have them completely trashed, remaining empty and rat infested for months or (hopefully not) years? They're fundamentally shortlife licensed occupiers, so, to answer what fs said, they have rather more in the way of 'rights' than squatters: various duty of care obligations (eg H&S), overall insurance, environmental health liabilities and so on.

Mind, I hope Camelot are better than whoever it was my friend applied to: she was told to go to a flat on Clapham Park estate for an interview, taking hundreds of pounds deposit money with her in cash. A stream of cash-laden innocents = fieldday for a street robbery team! How any reasonable company could dream up an idea like that is beyond me.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> you don't approve? surely better to have homes occupied by so called guardians than have them completely trashed, remaining empty and rat infested for months or (hopefully not) years? They're fundamentally shortlife licensed occupiers, so, to answer what fs said, they have rather more in the way of 'rights' than squatters: various duty of care obligations (eg H&S), overall insurance, environmental health liabilities and so on.


I don't approve of people having_ no tenants rights whatsoever,_ no.

Not sure why an empty property automatically becomes, "completely trashed...and rat infested for months" either. However, that appears to be the fate the council want for Carlton Mansions.


----------



## newbie (Jul 17, 2013)

well, as you said above about Cooltan, that's been the alternative until the last few years when the guardian concept has taken over.     Back in the day any vacated home earmarked for demolition/renovation sometime in the future was immediately squatted.  Often with the help of the departing residents, sometimes not.  So Lambeth took to rendering them uninhabitable, and I well remember waking to the sound of toilets, staircases and roofs being smashed.  

tenants rights? (assuming you're not using the term 'tenant' as loosely as Cheesypoof).  As I said, licensed occupiers do have some 'rights'.

There will always be circumstances where demolition or renovation requires vacant possession followed by an indeterminate period for getting acts together.  No-one is going to grant a tenancy in those circumstances, nor will those looking for a low cost, short term home realistically expect security of tenure, renewability, good quality fixtures & fittings with obligation to repair and so on.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 17, 2013)

wonder what the chances are of getting camera access today to any of them to see what the state of them is like.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 17, 2013)

really need to get myself a press card of some description sorted, been trying for a while but cant every get a reply from any local press agencies or indy media type places.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> There will always be circumstances where demolition or renovation requires vacant possession followed by an indeterminate period for getting acts together. No-one is going to grant a tenancy in those circumstances, nor will those looking for a low cost, short term home realistically expect security of tenure, renewability, good quality fixtures & fittings with obligation to repair and so on.


There's a good piece in SQUASH about Camelot:


> From one end of the bargain, landlords are paying these companies to provide a ‘security service’; namely for guarding the property against vandalism, theft, dilapidation and squatters. From the other end of the bargain, the guardians are also being charged up to £500 per month for the privilege of being live-in security guards. It’s a win-win situation … for Camelot.
> 
> Those eligible for Camelot (which excludes a significant bracket of those in need of affordable housing) choose it because there is a real need for affordable, secure housing. But by becoming guardians they forfeit all the rights of tenants, which results in a relationship that is essentially exploitative. In sidestepping the legal responsibilities of the tenant/landlord relationship Camelot, Ad Hoc and other similar companies give themselves the space to make huge profits from providing minimal living conditions for people unlikely to be able to find an alternative.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> really need to get myself a press card of some description sorted, been trying for a while but cant every get a reply from any local press agencies or indy media type places.


When I tried to get access, the twat cop at the evictions took a long look at my NUJ card and after spending some time presumably memorising all the details declared that only council-approved photographers were allowed in.

The fact that he didn't just say that at the start suggests he was making it up as he went along.


----------



## newbie (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> There's a good piece in SQUASH about Camelot:


yes, and if the guardian concept is used to keep viable homes empty in the longterm (eg for the foreign buyers looking for speculative profit we keep hearing about) then I'll endorse the criticism.

When used as I have said- indeterminate shortlife prior to demolition or renovation- it's imo better than any other realistic option.

As for win/win for Camelot, yes, I agree.  Paid by the property owner and by the licensee, they must be raking it in.  Maybe there's scope for a more ethical (ie cheaper fees, better t&c) competitor?

and no, guardians are clearly not any sort of "_solution to a housing crisis_", nor does not wanting short-term voids to be smashed up constitute any sort of endorsement for criminalising squatting.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 17, 2013)

Our council tax is paying for these evictions and services of camelot type companies. I can think of a lot better uses for the money


----------



## ddraig (Jul 17, 2013)

more about 'guardianship' and anti squat companies
http://cardiff.squat.net/press-rele...perty-guardianship-company-ad-hoc-in-cardiff/


----------



## neonm3 (Jul 17, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> wonder what the chances are of getting camera access today to any of them to see what the state of them is like.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/vjneon/sets/72157634654802841/


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

ddraig said:


> more about 'guardianship' and anti squat companies
> http://cardiff.squat.net/press-rele...perty-guardianship-company-ad-hoc-in-cardiff/


 
Good piece:


> The emergence of these companies represents a dangerous erosion of
> tenants’ rights and a further step toward the complete
> institutionalisation of bad housing.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

I've had quite a few publications trying to blag free use of my images of the evictions, yet whenever I suggest they at least pay a nominal sum to be donated to SQUASH, they quickly vanish. The tightarses.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 17, 2013)

Brixton was listed as one of 'the worlds coolest neighbourhoods` in the free magazine they givr out at the tune station - mentions the village, effra social and the lambeth..


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Brixton was listed as one of 'the worlds coolest neighbourhoods` in the free magazine they givr out at the tune station - mentions the village, effra social and the lambeth..


That was mentioned in the Brixton thread. If it directs all those cool-seeking people to those venues, that's just fine by me.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 17, 2013)

The area will stop being cool if all the interestesting people are cleansed from the area.


----------



## newbie (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Good piece:


 
no it's not, it's mostly hyperbole, trivia or wrong.

The only bit that adds anything is the claim that the company & owner write into the contract the 'right' to enter at any time without permission.  If that's true it's unreasonable, imo.   I wonder whether the courts would uphold it, ECHR Art 8 and all that? any lawyers want to venture a view?

other than that, what they're arguing against is the whole notion of shortlife licenses. Which is fair enough, but muddled imo.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> no it's not, it's mostly hyperbole, trivia or wrong.


Perhaps this piece from the Guardian will be more to your taste?


> In a more recent response to this crisis, "guardian property managers" such as Camelot Property Management Ltd and Ad Hoc Property Management have appeared. These are commercial organisations that profit from the human need for cheap, affordable housing by selling themselves as protectors of vacant property. They encourage temporary occupation by "guardians".
> 
> The "guardians" make payments to these companies to live in empty buildings, and to protect the private owners of the properties from squatters. This is touted as the "guardian scheme" solution to the housing problem.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Seems that some of Camelot's terms may not be legally enforceable. I do hope so.  Be great to see a test case coming to court.
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/03/11/property-guardians-what-is-the-law/


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

And look how Camelot treat their tenants, sorry, residents, sorry licensees


> People living in a disused hospital property as live-in guardians are being denied access to daylight in their homes by property management company Camelot. People living nearby saw workers sealing up hoarding covering windows on the ground floor of the property and became concerned for the welfare of the residents inside.
> 
> Arthur Stanley House in Tottenham Street, Fitzrovia, is owned by UCLH NHS Foundation Trust and has been empty for several years. Although supposedly having been locked and protected by security guards it has twice been occupied by squatters. Now UCLH have engaged property protection company Camelot to secure the building by housing people on the ground floor of the building.


http://news.fitzrovia.org.uk/2013/0...ight-to-light-by-camelot-property-management/

And more:


> But clearly in some instances the level of protection afforded by a licence doesn’t go far enough. Testimonies of property guardians who spoke to Inside Housing reveal poor levels of maintenance, often resulting in uninhabitable conditions, and a general sense of unfair treatment by the companies to which they pay a licence fee.
> 
> When George moved in during the throes of winter, there was no hot water because the boiler was broken. He says the company ‘fobbed him off’ for three weeks and he and his housemates were left unable to wash at the coldest time of the year. When a man from the council finally came to fix it, they were told the ‘council wouldn’t allow us to live there if they knew of the conditions’.
> 
> ...


----------



## newbie (Jul 17, 2013)

I've no argument with the view that Camelot et al are profiteering. Of course they are. 

I've used the words license and fee repeatedly, and outlined why the so called guardians are not tenants.  No-one has yet attempted to explain what the "rights enjoyed by ... squatters" are that the licensees don't have.  Anyone care to try?

I think to take this further we need a copy of the contracts between owner & company and company & licensee and a clear understanding of the insurance, fire safety and environmental health responsibilities.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> And look how Camelot treat their tenants, sorry, residents, sorry licensees
> 
> http://news.fitzrovia.org.uk/2013/0...ight-to-light-by-camelot-property-management/


 
 I walk past there regularly and there's no way that building is fit for habitation.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 17, 2013)

Didn't Cloo sister have a bad experience with one of these companies recently...


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> I think to take this further we need a copy of the contracts between owner & company and company & licensee and a clear understanding of the insurance, fire safety and environmental health responsibilities.


Camelot ensure that no one gets to see their contracts on pain of eviction, but this article gives a good indication of what you might find:


> Inside Housing did not contact the company or the council in question because the agreement forbids George from speaking to anyone about the terms of the licence - on pain of eviction.
> 
> A glance at the contract reveals how restrictive the conditions of guardianship can be. Many companies stipulate written notification for a guardian to go on holiday, require permission for the maximum number of two guests allowed to visit at and expressly prohibit parties; all while allowing the company and landlord free access to the property at any time, without warning.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

This piece argues that their policy of giving just two week's notice may not be legal either:
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2012/11/quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes/


----------



## newbie (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Seems that some of Camelot's terms may not be legally enforceable. I do hope so. Be great to see a test case coming to court.
> http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/03/11/property-guardians-what-is-the-law/


well you won't find me crying if it turns out the occupiers have rights, that's for sure

but this is nothing new, there's a looooong history of people claiming that licenses are actually tenancies, both before and since the Rent Acts were overturned.  Most are unsuccessful, particularly in the case of clear shortlife: we're discussing Rushcroft Road don't forget, exactly that argument made it to the House of Lords, but that was on the basis of 10+ year occupation, not a few months.

If someone challenges and the courts decide the lawyers who drew up the 'watertight' contract have got it wrong they'll just rewrite the contract for the next lot.


your piece about sealing out daylight is simply disgusting.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> your piece about sealing out daylight is simply disgusting.


That's what these people are like.


----------



## newbie (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> This piece argues that their policy of giving just two week's notice may not be legal either:
> http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2012/11/quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes/


It's 'legal' but not in any meaningful sense enforceable.  I'm surprised you're having so much difficulty with this, it being so much part of the local landscape.

When licenses are terminated or run out the lawful occupiers turn into unlicensed occupiers (or squatters as we say). The County Court can issue a possession order, which it's up to the owner to enforce, under the direction of the court.  It is not lawful for any owner or landlord to simply evict a tenant or licensee without the say so of a court.  If Camelot tried to do this they'd be in deep trouble, particularly if they used force of any kind.  But that doesn't stop them writing a contract that purports to give 2 weeks notice and expecting the occupiers to comply: most will and I'll be willing to bet if a bolshy one crops up Camelot will back down rather than break the law. 

Any so-called guardian can stay on after Camelot have told them to leave, and will be protected, by the law, from illegal eviction.  If they stay beyond their contract period they'll lose their deposit (I guess) and if they're there long enough for it to reach court they'll lose and will probably have costs awarded against them.  So staying is only really an option in theory, but the protection against immediate, forceful eviction without a court order is real enough. 

Look, I think we're possibly at cross purposes here, since it's not remotely my intention to big up Camelot or defend them as a company, even though I think short term licenses are preferable to trashing homes, which is what happened before.  The last thing I'd argue for is reducing people's personal right to a home.  However I think there are circumstances, and this is one, where a shortlife license is acceptable.  


Curiously, one of the cases cited in that piece is _Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust_  which I think is the Rushcroft Road case.


----------



## Ozone (Jul 17, 2013)

The thing that nobody seems to be mentioning is.....it's a choice living in a Camelot property.
People know when they sign up with them that the accommodation is temporary and that they may have to move at short notice....and they agree to that or they wouldn't sign up.

I recently spoke to some people who were guardians in a house near me, they were all young, carefree and said they enjoyed moving from place to place, they said some properties were amazing, others not. The one girl I spoke to said she got to view a property before moving in, and that she had been doing it for about three years, it's cheap and it can be fun, depending on where you live and who you live with. Some people don't want to be tied down to a long term lease and it works for them....


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

The guardians in Rushcroft Rd seem to have a pretty good setup. They didn't have to do much cleaning. I suppose they just picked the flats in the best shape.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 17, 2013)

I wonder how many people living in Brixton know about this? Completely anecdotally, a good few long-term (5+ years) residents I know had never heard about there being squats in Rushcroft Rd, and certainly had no knowledge of them being evicted. For all the chatter about housing and rents and whatnot, it seems that most people simply don't know much about it - tbh I wouldn't either if I wasn't on here.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I wonder how many people living in Brixton know about this? Completely anecdotally, a good few long-term (5+ years) residents I know had never heard about there being squats in Rushcroft Rd, and certainly had no knowledge of them being evicted. For all the chatter about housing and rents and whatnot, it seems that most people simply don't know much about it - tbh I wouldn't either if I wasn't on here.


 
Not many I'd say. I have the same, no one I know that isn't on Urban knew a thing about it.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 17, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Not many I'd say. I have the same, no one I know that isn't on Urban knew a thing about it.


And I'd like to say it's a crying shame, if it wasn't for a sneaking suspicion that a lot of "regular folks" would think "fuck'em, the filthy dirty hippies".


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> It's 'legal' but not in any meaningful sense enforceable. I'm surprised you're having so much difficulty with this, it being so much part of the local landscape.


I'm not having any "difficulty" with it at all, thanks, but I think it's a good idea to let people know how dodgy their practices can be.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Ozone said:


> The thing that nobody seems to be mentioning is.....it's a choice living in a Camelot property.


Something of a Hobson's choice for some, I'd imagine.


----------



## 99% (Jul 17, 2013)

salut 
if i may venture another perpective into this conversation given what occurred on Monday and for those of us who witnessed it in real time and others via media i am somewhat surprised that no mention has been the complete unlawful actions carried out by the Police who did not act impartially by any stretch of our collective imaginations and therefore did not uphold the law and more  shocking in its overtness  was the violent assault committed by the HCEO on the occupiers and few supporters outside the last mansion surely with all the photo/film evidence and eyewitnesses present a criminal charge is the least one would expect to come from what we saw and witnessed the needless thuggery and the willingness of the police to allow it to occur is not evil or weird it is what occurs when they know or think they can get away with it, IT being a clear message to likes of me or you and it is WE HAVE THE POWER SO FUCK YOU . But in this case they forgot themselves maybe it was the heat or an over confidence that WE havent got the ability to bring these thugs and quasi-fascists to book through the law how do we do it maybe someone has already started looking into it
i would like to think that it is my duty to fight oppression everywhere and especially in my own backyard so by what ever means necessary
anyone know a lawyer? or whether any thing has already been initiated?


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

99% said:


> i would like to think that it is my duty to fight oppression everywhere and especially in my own backyard so by what ever means necessary
> anyone know a lawyer? or whether any thing has already been initiated?


I'm happy to offer original master copies of my footage and stills to anyone taking legal action


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

Does anyone know whether any of the people assaulted were residents? Many of the squatters moved out before the eviction.


----------



## Greenemeanie (Jul 17, 2013)

If anybody wishes to have a copy of my footage for evidential purposes, they can download it from here. Good luck!

Feel free to share on your own YouTube channels too.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4cy8dbv3...f Rushcroft Road - 15th July 2013_720x480.avi


----------



## leanderman (Jul 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> And I'd like to say it's a crying shame, if it wasn't for a sneaking suspicion that a lot of "regular folks" would think "fuck'em, the filthy dirty hippies".



People I have spoken to had no idea. 

But they weren't quite so negative when the council's incompetence was explained.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

If anyone is in touch with the people who lived on the top floors of Clarence House, I've got their blinds. If I don't hear from them I'll Freecycle them in a week.

Everything else in the building is going in the bin lorry. The thugs and binmen refused to leave all the decent furniture on the pavement for freecycling. They've got their orders from the council! So much for recycling in Lambeth.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

Manter said:


> Decent piece IMO- its not a deep discussion of the implications of housing policy, but its not supposed to be, it just captures a certain unease people like me feel- as I've said before, we loved the Brixton we moved into, but by moving in we may have been part of starting to destroy it
> 
> I've heard Brixton compared to Hoxton more than once, though not as a compound verb!


 
I have said it before but I do not agree with blaming individuals.

The problem is increasing lack of affordable housing. Either private or social.

This is due to the last 30 years from the Thatcher era of decreasing support for building social housing and also lack of regulation of the private rental market.

Its a political issue.

When I was at the eviction there was a journalist asking people what they felt. One young guy who said he had rented privately in Rushcroft road for two years said he was quite happy with the squatters as neighbours. That he was concerned about lack of affordable housing and he did not want them to be kicked out.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> you don't approve? surely better to have homes occupied by so called guardians than have them completely trashed, remaining empty and rat infested for months or (hopefully not) years? They're fundamentally shortlife licensed occupiers, so, to answer what fs said, they have rather more in the way of 'rights' than squatters: various duty of care obligations (eg H&S), overall insurance, environmental health liabilities and so on.
> 
> Mind, I hope Camelot are better than whoever it was my friend applied to: she was told to go to a flat on Clapham Park estate for an interview, taking hundreds of pounds deposit money with her in cash. A stream of cash-laden innocents = fieldday for a street robbery team! How any reasonable company could dream up an idea like that is beyond me.


 
Wrong. They do not even have the rights of short life people.

Camelot entrepreneurial genius is to have people as unpaid security guards. In fact the occupants have to pay Camelot to stay.

Camelot insist they are not a landlord. "Guardian" is a category of occupant they have invented.

check this doc out

and this

There is alternative. Westminster Housing Coop will short life for private owners and public ones. I know someone in it and they are very happy.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> I've no argument with the view that Camelot et al are profiteering. Of course they are.
> 
> I've used the words license and fee repeatedly, and outlined why the so called guardians are not tenants. No-one has yet attempted to explain what the "rights enjoyed by ... squatters" are that the licensees don't have. Anyone care to try?
> 
> I think to take this further we need a copy of the contracts between owner & company and company & licensee and a clear understanding of the insurance, fire safety and environmental health responsibilities.


 
Its all in the documentary I linked up in post 353

One is that squatters have privacy. Camelot have keys to where one is staying and say they have right to make unannounced visits to check up on people.

Second is that you cannot have friends staying if they visit you.

Third is that Camelot are not keen to discuss these matters.




> Last week, Birkbeck University's law school ran a series of lectures discussing social rights and the role of law within our contemporary society. In the session on housing, one notable missing attendee was the invited John Mills, managing director of Camelot Property Management. An email received only an hour before the event proclaimed that the topics that were due for discussion deemed it inappropriate for him to attend. Discussions centred around these issues of licensing and tenants' rights, and it would have been beneficial for Camelot and the debate for Mills to have been there. The event covered the most relevant of issues that we face today within housing allocation, homelessness, squatting and guarding.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Seems that some of Camelot's terms may not be legally enforceable. I do hope so. Be great to see a test case coming to court.
> http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/03/11/property-guardians-what-is-the-law/


 
unlikely to happen when the people involved are renting from them due to their complete skintness.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

Some of the squatters have been back to collect their belongings. There are a lot of paintings in Granville House on the walls - i.e.  no canvases, just painted on the wall.  Today somebody was allowed to take away one of the paintings which was on a door. Not a full sized door, maybe it was a cupboard door or something. According to one of the thugs, one of the squatters said she had been rehoused by the council in a place with an allotment. I hope that's true.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> It's 'legal' but not in any meaningful sense enforceable. I'm surprised you're having so much difficulty with this, it being so much part of the local landscape.
> 
> 
> Any so-called guardian can stay on after Camelot have told them to leave, and will be protected, by the law, from illegal eviction. If they stay beyond their contract period they'll lose their deposit (I guess) and if they're there long enough for it to reach court they'll lose and will probably have costs awarded against them. So staying is only really an option in theory, but the protection against immediate, forceful eviction without a court order is real enough.
> ...


 
Camelot say that Guardians do not have any rights that you say they have. They are quite clear on that.

In the documentary a housing academic says that it would be possible to go to court to argue that Camelot are in fact a landlord. However ,as he said, that pits an individual up against a now large multinational company. Something understandably most people are not going to do.

Councils should not use companies like Camelot. One of our Cllrs had all this explained to them. They said in that case they thought this was not an ethical way to treat people who were in fact tenants. Even if on a short term basis.

Watch the doc


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> well, as you said above about Cooltan, that's been the alternative until the last few years when the guardian concept has taken over. Back in the day any vacated home earmarked for demolition/renovation sometime in the future was immediately squatted. Often with the help of the departing residents, sometimes not. So Lambeth took to rendering them uninhabitable, and I well remember waking to the sound of toilets, staircases and roofs being smashed.
> 
> tenants rights? (assuming you're not using the term 'tenant' as loosely as Cheesypoof). As I said, licensed occupiers do have some 'rights'..


 
I refer 'tenants' to 'the 75 people who were squatting the 40 properties, as they are to my mind, tenants whether they were paying or not.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> I
> 
> Curiously, one of the cases cited in that piece is _Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust_ which I think is the Rushcroft Road case.


 
Gary was quite a guy. Still got the Rushcroft road action group T shirt celebrating that.

Thing is the Council grind people down with threats of costs.

Instead of just letting the L&Q people become Council tenants and remain there the Council spent a fortune going through the courts.

One the law lords saw licenses as tenancies as he thought if they were allowed there was a potential for a return of "Rachmanism". Its crap when you have to rely on Law Lords to protect the rights of the individual.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

Years ago some Labour Cllrs were sympathetic to squatters. If they were in properties that the Council had no immediate plans for and could not be used for Council tenants.

How times change.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

I notice the piece the editor posted up from New Statesman has post from Cllr:

Edward Davie • 12 hours ago


> I am a Lambeth Labour councillor and am very proud that our council is borrowing and investing £500 million in social housing despite the government cutting 45% of our money and halving social housing grants; Brixton Market, voted the best in the country, has been reinvogorated with affordable places to eat that have attracted tens of thousands to the traditional stalls; we have invested millions in Windrush Square with a new Black Cultural Archive opening next year; Ofsted recently found that we have the BEST children's services in the country and the eighth best schools. All this has been achieved by prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring that resources are redirected from those who occupy property or take services illegally to those who need them most. The properties in Brixton that have been reclaimed for the wider community will directly provide 25 local, less well-off families with social housing and much needed investment for our most vulnerable people. This is not 'yuppification' it is redistributing reources from those who have taken property illegally to the most vulnerable in our community.


 
I thought BCA was funded by grants not the Council.

Windrush sq was TFL and GLA funded?

25? the number keeps changing. Brixton Blog quotes Cllr Robbins saying 22.

Brixton Village "affordable" Like the Council new definition of affordable for Brixton Square.

Saying "redistributing" is playing the game of setting one lot people against another. Real redistribution is moving towards a society that is more equal. Not one that sets squatters against Council tenants.

I met a couple of Council tenants I know at the eviction. They were not happy at the eviction.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I notice the piece the editor posted up from New Statesman has post from Cllr:
> 
> Edward Davie • 12 hours ago


Is it really him?


> 1) I know for a fact some of the squatters evicted are very wealthy


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> I think to take this further we need a copy of the contracts between owner & company and company & licensee and a clear understanding of the insurance, fire safety and environmental health responsibilities.


 
This is hard to do as:



> Inside Housing did not contact the company or the council in question because the agreement forbids George from speaking to anyone about the terms of the licence - on pain of eviction.


 
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/the-home-guard/6522444.article


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Is it really him?


 
Well at least he did not go as far as typical Evening Standard piece.

East European organised gangs squatting in nice respectable middle class home when they are away on holiday. Usually that pet hate of the ES the hordes of Romanian Roma coming here.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Edward Davie has been asked on Twitter:


> @EdDavie Re: your New Statesman comments. Could you quantify the amount of squatters who were 'very wealthy' & define their wealth levels? Ta


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Is it really him?


I'm sure some of the squatters weren't short of dosh. Some of them were commuting to work 5 days a week.  One of them had a very fancy motorbike. There've been many empty parking spaces since the eviction. That could be because the squatters owned a fair few cars, or it could be because the street has been blocked at one end by the thugs.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I'm sure some of the squatters weren't short of dosh. Some of them were commuting to work 5 days a week. One of them had a very fancy motorbike. There've been many empty parking spaces since the eviction. That could be because the squatters owned a fair few cars, or it could be because the street has been blocked at one end by the thugs.


 
I'm sure some may have had some cash, but saying that they were "very wealthy" suggests they were _really_ loaded.  

Of course if he was only referring to one or two out of the 75, then it might be worth asking why he's focusing on a such a small minority.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

Yeah, the 'very wealthy' bit certainly bears examination!


----------



## TruXta (Jul 17, 2013)

I can't see that bit.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I can't see that bit.


Here:


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Here's his preceding comment, just in case it gets deleted:


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I can't see that bit.


 
Its further down the comments. The Cllr got some stick and I think he lost it a bit when he made that comment.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 17, 2013)

I thought ed was referring to Frumious


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

How would folks here define "very wealthy", by the way?

For me it would have to be someone with millions in the bank and a big house - and that figure seems to chime with this study on the HMRC website which defines it thus:


> The working definition of ‘very wealthy individuals’ was those who owned £5m or more of disposable assets.
> 
> http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/research/report31.pdf [PDF]


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm sure some may have had some cash, but saying that they were "very wealthy" suggests they were _really_ loaded.
> 
> Of course if he was only referring to one or two out of the 75, then it might be worth asking why he's focusing on a such a small minority.


 
Perhaps he thinks he is fighting Class War?


----------



## Effrasurfer (Jul 18, 2013)

> Saying "redistributing" is playing the game of setting one lot people against another. Real redistribution is moving towards a society that is more equal. Not one that sets squatters against Council tenants.


 

Very well said.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 18, 2013)

editor said:


> How would folks here define "very wealthy", by the way?
> 
> For me it would have to be someone with millions in the bank and a big house - and that figure seems to chime with this study on the HMRC website which defines it thus:


 

For me it would be someone with half a million in assets.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 18, 2013)

Again, the facts are obscure.

It's hard to know what to make of this sorry tale.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 18, 2013)

Maybe we should have an u75 wealth wiki so we can define levels and set agreed maximums for who is allowed to squat/steal from supermarkets/fare dodge/deny being a yuppie/buy a drink in the Albert, etc etc.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 18, 2013)

editor said:


> Here's his preceding comment, just in case it gets deleted:
> 
> View attachment 36888


 

I'd like to see his evidence for the "tens of thousands" attracted to the traditional stalls in the market since its reinvigoration. Maybe he means attracted to take photos rather than to purchase vegetables.


----------



## Ms T (Jul 18, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> For me it would be someone with half a million in assets.


 
That's a flat in Brixton these days.


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I'd like to see his evidence for the "tens of thousands" attracted to the traditional stalls in the market since its reinvigoration. Maybe he means attracted to take photos rather than to purchase vegetables.


All the "traditional stall holders" I know are very much fearing for their future right now, because they say trade has plummeted.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 18, 2013)

Ms T said:


> That's a flat in Brixton these days.


 

That's the average property price in Brixton. Block i live in, central Brixton, RTB flats valued approx £130,000, one bedroom. Council rent £500 per month, "buy to let" leaseholders now charging £950 per month.


----------



## Ms T (Jul 18, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> That's the average property price in Brixton. Block i live in, central Brixton, RTB flats valued approx £130,000, one bedroom. Council rent £500 per month, "buy to let" leaseholders now charging £950 per month.


 
Many people with half a million or more in assets have owned such assets for a long time - myself and most of my neighbours for example.  Simply owning a house or flat in Brixton does not make you wealthy.


----------



## Ms T (Jul 18, 2013)

One of my friends lives in a flat in Vauxhall/Stockwell which is rented out to them by a former squatter who gained ownership of the property.  The irony.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 18, 2013)

Ms T said 





> Many people with half a million or more in assets have owned such assets for a long time - myself and most of my neighbours for example. Simply owning a house or flat in Brixton does not make you wealthy.


 
It does now! Wealth equals assets. You are talking about disposable income.


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2013)

I hate to get all picky with Mr Davie, but 'Brixton Market' was was not exactly "voted the best in the country."

The award for ‘Best Private Market’ was decided by the judging panel of the National Association of British Market Authorities (NABMA), with the accolade going to Brixton Village and Market Row.

http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixton-village-and-market-row-brixton-win-market-of-the-year-award/


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 18, 2013)

couldn't get access yesterday, but I did however manage to coax one of the new guardians out for a bender and question the fuck out of her... pics and a few thinggy whattsits later


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 18, 2013)

well anyway, I popped down there yesterday early afternoon to see if I could get access to shoot a few shots of the state of the building and was told to fuck off by the hceo's that were still there and then promptly got sidetracked by a call to beer at the albert... a few beers later and I decided I would go sit by the ritzy and have another, then heard a load of noise from rushcroft road so went along with my camera.  The drunks from the end of the road seemed to be in some kind of argument with the plod and were scattered down the street sat on the walls outside various houses.. lots of tears and mildly amused cops, but I never recall the drunks being all over rushcroft road before.
















There were a couple of council members there trying to hide papers and faces but medium format is a bitch, sorry Lambeth... not much to see other than works and guardian listings.
















The hceo's did not want their faces shot and told me I was breaking the law shooting pictures there, silly buggers, it's not like I don't know my rights and legal stance as a 7 year photographer, and then shut every door on each of the houses down the street to ensure I could not shoot anything through any, though I did manage a couple.  
















I then decided to sit down on a wall for a while and a face poked itself out through the curtains on the flat, one of the guardians so I asked her a few questions and if I could poke my camera into the room through the bars and take a few shots, she kindly obliged, I then decided to coax her out for a cider at the Albert which she agreed to just as fast as any decent human I like would and ended up spending the rest of the day hanging out with her and mildly interrogating her about the building.
















Firstly from what I learned, camelot has nowt to do with this one, the guardians are being brought in from newbuild (I know nothing about this group), there are currently two of them with more on the way, as far as their building goes the facilities were left intact and not trashed like usual but some of the flats were in a shoddy or downright disgusting state from the previous occupants (her room looked to be in great nick but she did say it took a few days to clean up), she was moved in before the evictions and had to witness the whole thing which in my eyes is not a fucking nice thing to do to anyone entering a building as a guardian before the inhabitants are booted out.  She is definitely not a student type and has been squatting with her mother for years through a shit load of mayhem and chaos, to be honest couldn't fault the lass one little bit for being there, she was genuinely upset about having to watch the eviction and community being thrown out, which I consider a fucking shitty thing to do to someone (well done lambeth).






Anyway had a nice cider filled day in good company and hopefully will be able to go have a peep inside at some point now I have made a friend there, she has no idea how long the duration of the stay will be etc and seemed fairly in the dark about the plan for her building, though the shot I got of the council members clipboard seems to indicate that a lot of works have been or were already completed (no doubt thanks to the squatters doing it).

Also a few shots of the squatters keys stuck in a tree with a few coppers 











And she also says that someone called Dave left a nice load of artwork there which is with the council and he should get in touch and go get it back, I have taken a shot of the council papers regarding storage as well.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 18, 2013)

Council member there hiding his face is Derek Brown according to his badge, not that much of what I posted at this ungodly hour has much relevance anyways


----------



## cesare (Jul 18, 2013)

Some fantastic photos Ninjaprints and sad and angry-making as it is, it's good to get more information. So interesting to see the documents and understand more about what they're doing with the "guardians". And hopefully some people will be able to get some possessions back. Thanks.


----------



## Winot (Jul 18, 2013)

^^ good effort

Love the photo of the 'guardian' in her room.


----------



## Ms T (Jul 18, 2013)

No disrespect to your new friend, Ninjaprints, but what did she expect?


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 18, 2013)

i vote we give ninjaprints the 'freedom of brixton'. and a giant mayors necklace or somesuch.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 18, 2013)

Ninjaprints do you know what block she is in as I may know the Dave in question?


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Camelot say that Guardians do not have any rights that you say they have. They are quite clear on that.


they can _say_ what they like.  The post you quote was talking about the _Protection From Eviction Act 1977_, as discussed in this article posted by the editor.  Whatever they say, however clear they claim to be, whatever they claim, doesn't change the law.

You're right though, what little appears to be known about the Camelot lease is very restrictive, and they are very reluctant to talk about it.  According to a post on the same page  _"In Newcastle some years ago Camelot were challenged on their purported licences and backed off on validity of NTQ, rent increases and deposits._"  That is not the action of a company that truly believes its contract and behaviour to be properly watertight.  They claim what they can't necessarily legally enforce.

And now it appears that the so-called guardians in question aren't with Camelot anyway.

final point, the Westminster co-op you mention is (on the face of it) a much better scheme- I suggested there ought to be room for a more ethical alternative to Camelot and their ilk upthread.  only problem is that it offers minimum of 6 month lets, which isn't necessarily appropriate for buildings in indeterminate limbo between vacating and renovation/demolition.  That's the narrow circumstance we're talking about, and the only circumstances where I would defend such an arrangement, and then only because the well worn alternative is to completely trash the place so no-one can live there and neighbours have to live surrounded by derries.

anyway, leaving all the detail aside, the photos do not show someone looking too unhappy with their lot. 

right, I've said everything I realistically can and it's a bright sunny day.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 18, 2013)

Thanks Ninja, great post!!!


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> anyway, leaving all the detail aside, the photos do not show someone looking too unhappy with their lot.


For now yes, but sadly that happiness is coming at the expense of other people's misery*.

*courtesy of the council's actions.


----------



## secateurz (Jul 18, 2013)

I have no problem with squatters getting evicted.

I do have a problem with how they have gone about it.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 18, 2013)

Ms T said:


> One of my friends lives in a flat in Vauxhall/Stockwell which is rented out to them by a former squatter who gained ownership of the property.  The irony.



Squatters I know got adverse possession in Mervan rd after a 10-yr battle and instantly let out the property to move to Croxted Rd, Dulwich, where they've now bought their second property.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

editor said:


> For now yes, but sadly that happiness is coming at the expense of other people's misery*.
> 
> *courtesy of the council's actions.


come off it, that's just emotive twaddle. 

The people who lived in RR were evicted.  that's a fact and you and I agree that it shouldn't have happened, either at all or in the way in which it did. But it has happened.

Post eviction we're having what could be a grown up discussion about what happens to the flats in the interim period before the builders go in.  You appear to dislike the arrangements that are in place, and now want to guilttrip the new occupiers, but have no views whatsoever as to what should happen.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 18, 2013)

To be fair, a few years without having had to pay rent or council tax is not to be sniffed at, especially in perma-recession.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 18, 2013)

I hope the guardian woman was aware the photos of her were going to be all over the internet.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 18, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I hope the guardian woman was aware the photos of her were going to be all over the internet.


 She was aware enough to manage a costume change.


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> come off it, that's just emotive twaddle.


I know quite a few of the people who were evicted. Some are quite vulnerable people. I'll be sure to tell them that what they're feeling is just "emotive twaddle."

And if you want a "grown up discussion" you could start by not making stuff up.  I made it _*very*_ clear that I blame the council, not the new occupants.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

"happiness is coming at the expense of other people's misery"


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> "happiness is coming at the expense of other people's misery"


I really can't believe you're being this transparently dishonest with your selective quoting, even down to taking out the asterisk!

Here's the full post. the bit you 'forgot' to include clearly lays the blame at the council's door. There was no attempt whatsoever to "guilttrip the new occupiers," because that would be a very unreasonable thing to do. I don't blame them at all. Why should I? They're not responsible.


> For now yes, but sadly that happiness is coming at the expense of other people's misery**.*
> 
> **courtesy of the council's actions.*


----------



## peterkro (Jul 18, 2013)

In spite of realising that many of the people who take advantage of the "Guardian" type house watching are in real housing need I'm afraid I'm all Stalinist about this.They are scabs nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Casaubon (Jul 18, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Gary was quite a guy. Still got the Rushcroft road action group T shirt celebrating that.
> 
> Thing is the Council grind people down with threats of costs.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Gramsci
Thanks for the compliment - but I like to think that I'm _still_ quite a guy.

From my experience I'd say that the reason Camelot et al insist on unlimited access to properties occupied by their 'guardians' is to avoid creating any sort of tenancy.
The two basic conditions for creating a tenancy are 'exclusive posession' by the occupant, in return for payment. If Camelot can claim unlimited access, then the occupants don't have 'exclusive posession' and therefore can't claim the creation of any sort of tenancy. 
(This is why lodgers can't claim any sort of tenancy.)

The legal situation of Rushcroft Rd was very complicated, to say the least. I was often reminded of Palmerston, saying of the Schleswig-Holstein question:  “Only three people...have ever really understood the......business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it."
I'm seeing and hearing a lot of opinions on legal issues related to Rushcroft, and to be honest they all seem to suffer from lack of understanding of the situation and the law.
For instance, I've seen lots of references to 'licensees' on Rushcroft. As far as I'm aware, there were never any licensees on Rushcroft - only tenants and squatters (and a few owner-occupiers)
Even among the legal community, there are very few individuals who understand the situation and the applicable statutes and precedents.
I'd take any opinion from a non-specialist with a very large pinch of salt.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 18, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I hope the guardian woman was aware the photos of her were going to be all over the internet.


 

yes of course she was aware, Im not that much of a bastard


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 18, 2013)

colacubes said:


> Ninjaprints do you know what block she is in as I may know the Dave in question?


 

the art is with the council from what I understand and she is not sure of surname, I will check with the Dave I know and see if its his as well.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 18, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> i vote we give ninjaprints the 'freedom of brixton'. and a giant mayors necklace or somesuch.


 

I'd rock that shit, can't imagine how much trouble it would get me out of


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 18, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> yes of course she was aware, Im not that much of a bastard


 

Loved photo's. It was an outstanding post, you did well to get in. It all adds to the debate.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 18, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> the art is with the council from what I understand and she is not sure of surname, I will check with the Dave I know and see if its his as well.


 

Sure, but if you tell me the block (by PM) I can assess the likeliness of it being the Dave I know as well.  Tbf there were quite a lot of Daves


----------



## aurora green (Jul 18, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> --


Great photos!!!


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 18, 2013)

Ms T said:


> No disrespect to your new friend, Ninjaprints, but what did she expect?


 

Don't think she was expecting to be there before the evictions to be honest and had been given very short notice to get her arse there for a home.  But she is no stranger to squatting so I don't think the rest came as a surprise


----------



## ddraig (Jul 18, 2013)

hey Aurora!
hope you are well


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 18, 2013)

ps, thanks for all the really nice comments folks....


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

Casaubon said:


> For instance, I've seen lots of references to 'licensees' on Rushcroft. As far as I'm aware, there were never any licensees on Rushcroft - only tenants and squatters (and a few owner-occupiers)


mostly from me and mostly relating to the 'guardians', ie after the recent evictions but if you point (here or by pm) to any that are factually wrong about the previous period I'll edit, I've no wish to mislead.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 18, 2013)

z


----------



## shygirl (Jul 18, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Squatters I know got adverse possession in Mervan rd after a 10-yr battle and instantly let out the property to move to Croxted Rd, Dulwich, where they've now bought their second property.


 
That is so fucking cyncial.


----------



## shygirl (Jul 18, 2013)

Great photos, ninja!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 18, 2013)

aurora green said:


> Great photos!!!


Great avatar


----------



## shygirl (Jul 18, 2013)

*"Squatters I know got adverse possession in Mervan rd after a 10-yr battle and instantly let out the property to move to Croxted Rd, Dulwich, where they've now bought their second property."*


For some reason, I feel incensed by this. I wonder are they charging an affordable rent, or are they cashing in on the current rates in Brixton? It reminds me of when some local business people squatted a property in Clifton Mansions only to rent it out at fairly high rates. Wrong, wrong, wrong!


----------



## nagapie (Jul 18, 2013)

It's a bit like saying some people are benefit frauds though. Most squatters won't ever be in that position and even if they were, the few who do this are not the main problem. I know that you know that but I'm not sure what the example is supposed to tell us.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 18, 2013)

time for some sunshine methinks


----------



## leanderman (Jul 18, 2013)

nagapie said:


> It's a bit like saying some people are benefit frauds though. Most squatters won't ever be in that position and even if they were, the few who do this are not the main problem. I know that you know that but I'm not sure what the example is supposed to tell us.



Yes. This is probably true.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 18, 2013)

shygirl said:


> *"Squatters I know got adverse possession in Mervan rd after a 10-yr battle and instantly let out the property to move to Croxted Rd, Dulwich, where they've now bought their second property."*
> 
> 
> For some reason, I feel incensed by this. I wonder are they charging an affordable rent, or are they cashing in on the current rates in Brixton? It reminds me of when some local business people squatted a property in Clifton Mansions only to rent it out at fairly high rates. Wrong, wrong, wrong!



Even worse, one (or both) is a lawyer.


----------



## JulesLUHC (Jul 18, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> For a starter they could've had a chat with other London borough's to see how they dealt with their short-life stock. One example is Islington who a couple of years ago sold off their short-life stock to a larger/richer Housing Association, who in turn sold 25% on the open market to fund the refurbishment of the remainder, the HA then created a management agreements with the original short-life co-ops ensuring they retained their individual identities/communities.
> 
> It obvious from the start Lambeth had no interest in negotiating, preferring the bulldozer approach.



Hi. I have heard about deals like this but would like to know more about this one!! You can email me through here or through lambethunitedhousingco-cop@hotmail.com. If folk here want to help save what is left of Lambeth's 40 year old housing co-op communities (aka 'shortlife') then please check out our site www.lambethunitedhousingco-op.org.uk and follow us in Twitter at @LambethUnited


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 18, 2013)

colacubes said:


> Sure, but if you tell me the block (by PM) I can assess the likeliness of it being the Dave I know as well. Tbf there were quite a lot of Daves


It's Clarence House, I was in there yesterday removing blinds and curtains. The guardians are allowed to have visitors so you can go in if they say you are a friend.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 18, 2013)

leanderman said:


> To be fair, a few years without having had to pay rent or council tax is not to be sniffed at, especially in perma-recession.


 

But didnt the squatters ( i said 'tenants' earlier, but just to be clear), offer to pay  rent and council tax once they knew they were going to be evicted?

No one seems to knows the answer to that.


----------



## Winot (Jul 18, 2013)

Cheesypoof said:


> But didnt the squatters ( i said 'tenants' earlier, but just to be clear), offer to pay rent and council tax once they knew they were going to be evicted?


 
I think this is where I came in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So in a few months they could turn around and say the money's been spent on other things, we can't do any refurbs, we have to sell the lot.


 
Exactly.
Not like it isn't a practice with a long history throughout local authorities in the UK.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> very longstanding Lambeth tradition.


 
Yep. Something they started doing way back in the '80s. Smash or remove the bog and other bathroom fittings, the kitchen sink, and if they were feeling particularly cunty, the handles to the stopcocks.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

70s


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2013)

Ozone said:


> The thing that nobody seems to be mentioning is.....it's a choice living in a Camelot property.
> People know when they sign up with them that the accommodation is temporary and that they may have to move at short notice....and they agree to that or they wouldn't sign up.
> 
> I recently spoke to some people who were guardians in a house near me, they were all young, carefree and said they enjoyed moving from place to place, they said some properties were amazing, others not. The one girl I spoke to said she got to view a property before moving in, and that she had been doing it for about three years, it's cheap and it can be fun, depending on where you live and who you live with. Some people don't want to be tied down to a long term lease and it works for them....


 
And for some people, the "choice" is merely Hobson's choice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2013)

editor said:


> Something of a Hobson's choice for some, I'd imagine.


 
Yup. The alternatives (high private rent, purchase or social housing) simply aren't available.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Some of the squatters have been back to collect their belongings. There are a lot of paintings in Granville House on the walls - i.e. no canvases, just painted on the wall. Today somebody was allowed to take away one of the paintings which was on a door. Not a full sized door, maybe it was a cupboard door or something. According to one of the thugs, one of the squatters said she had been rehoused by the council in a place with an allotment. I hope that's true.


 
If it's true, it's rare, because Lambeth cleared most of the land entailed to estates for allotments (and there weren't too many to start with - Thornton Gardens springs to mind for some reason) about 30 years ago, on the premise that people didn't need allotments any more, and housing could be built on it instead, and then ended up flogging it after Thatcher's 2nd government stopped the development of new-build local authority housing.
I suppose they could have rehoused her in a private place with access to an allotment. A mate rented a place in Folkestone where residence or tenancy gave you access to a local allotment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Years ago some Labour Cllrs were sympathetic to squatters. If they were in properties that the Council had no immediate plans for and could not be used for Council tenants.
> 
> How times change.


 
To be fair, back then the majority of Labour councillors, if not pillars of socialism, at least had some commitment to it.
This current shower of cunts haven't got a socialistic bone in their miserable neoliberal bodies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I notice the piece the editor posted up from New Statesman has post from Cllr:
> 
> Edward Davie • 12 hours ago
> 
> ...


 
I was a bit rude to him when he chuntered on about a comment in reply to his rubbish being "libellous", asked him why, if it was libellous, he wasn't taking action - could it be because we both knew he was talking crap?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2013)

Ms T said:


> One of my friends lives in a flat in Vauxhall/Stockwell which is rented out to them by a former squatter who gained ownership of the property. The irony.


 
To which I can only say, as I've said the multiple times this happened in Lambeth: "Shame on the council for keeping such poor track of their property portfolio".  It's a scandal that anyone could occupy a place for the 12 years necessary to be granted adverse possession, and the council not catch on.


----------



## aurora green (Jul 18, 2013)

ddraig said:


> hey Aurora!
> hope you are well


Hi ddraig


----------



## peterkro (Jul 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. Something they started doing way back in the '80s. Smash or remove the bog and other bathroom fittings, the kitchen sink, and if they were feeling particularly cunty, the handles to the stopcocks.


Seventies as someone else said.Not only smashing the toilets but pouring concrete into the soil pipes.I spent months living behind barricades as we fought the fuckers at Lambeth but it is true they were socialists compared to the present shower of cunts.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> 70s


 
I have old photos from 70s of Carlton Mansions taken by the Housing Emergency Office of the Mansions just before it was shortlifed. It show the "anti squatting" damage.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2013)

Casaubon said:


> Hi Gramsci
> Thanks for the compliment - but I like to think that I'm _still_ quite a guy.


 
 Did not realise it was you. Hope all is well.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2013)

Ninjaprints said:


> time for some sunshine methinks


 
Great piece of photo journalism.

As for the new "gaurdian" I am someone who is next in line for a friendly visit from HCEO I do not blame her for taking a place.

This is not her fault. Anger should be directed at the cops, council, HCEOs and Guardian companies.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> HCEOs don't have to give advance notice btw.
> 
> This seems to explain why HCEOs rather than county court bailiffs were used: http://www.vicksenforcement.co.uk/blog3.html
> 
> There's also a complaints procedure: http://www.hceoa.org.uk/regulatory-information/want-to-complain.html


from what I've been told by my friend the other week Lambeth were advised by their solicitornot to give a precise date for the eviction (i guess to thwart better prepared resistance plans), he is now staying in my flat until he can sort ihmself out.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 19, 2013)

leanderman said:


> For the council, it is a coup.
> 
> Instead of three large, central buildings from which they got no rent or council tax, they will now get:
> 
> ...


I'll believe that when the 22 new council homes actually show up, look up st agnes place for a reminder of what happens to their promises.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2013)

peterkro said:


> Seventies as someone else said.Not only smashing the toilets but pouring concrete into the soil pipes.I spent months living behind barricades as we fought the fuckers at Lambeth but it is true they were socialists compared to the present shower of cunts.


I heard about it happening to some squats in the '70s (Wandsworth were at it too - they did a whole estate on Vicarage Crescent in Battersea, removed the fittings and the windows) where they kicked out the occupants (I won't say "evicted", as a lot of the time they didn't exactly follow the law), but they also started doing it to voids.  When I moved to Clapham Park in '85, Lambeth, with their usual competence, hadn't removed the shuttering, put new bathroom, toilet and kitchen fittings in or replaced the RCD panel they'd ripped out.  They did mobilise pretty fast (same day), when I made it clear I'd be washing, shitting  and cooking in the neighbourhood office if they didn't get their fingers out. Probably also helped that I reminded them I could get a bus from Kings Avenue to Leigham Court Rd, so it'd take me all of ten minutes to get to the _South London Press_ offices and tell them yet another sordid tale of Lambeth incompetence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2013)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> I'll believe that when the 22 new council homes actually show up, look up st agnes place for a reminder of what happens to their promises.


 

The number has now variously been reported (sometimes by the same person) as 22, 24 and 25.  If they aren't even reading from the same hymn sheet with their PR, I'm not sanguine about them telling the truth about there being social housing full stop.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jul 19, 2013)

Just walked down Rushcroft Road. The high court enforcement officers, in their unpleasant paramilitary garb, look like an unwanted occupation force.


----------



## dotdotdot (Jul 19, 2013)

JulesLUHC said:


> Hi. I have heard about deals like this but would like to know more about this one!! You can email me through here or through lambethunitedhousingco-cop@hotmail.com. If folk here want to help save what is left of Lambeth's 40 year old housing co-op communities (aka 'shortlife') then please check out our site www.lambethunitedhousingco-op.org.uk and follow us in Twitter at @LambethUnited


 
Two or three years ago, Lillieshall Road HC had a rep from such a co-op in Islington come down and go through the process with us.
Because it was dependent on some/most people being unwillingly moved from their homes of 30+ years though, we decided as a group that it was as crap a plan as the old Mega-deals we were being pushed into accepting 15 years, or so, ago, by Lambeth.
Lose our homes, lose control of our own housing, not have any real security of tenure... might as well be rehoused by Lambeth. 

...



Cheesypoof said:


> But didnt the squatters ( i said 'tenants' earlier, but just to be clear), offer to pay rent and council tax once they knew they were going to be evicted?
> 
> No one seems to knows the answer to that.


 
One Clapham North Shortlifer who was in court fighting possession about a year or so ago, was told by the judge to start paying rent to Lambeth... Devonshires quickly said they didn't want any rent paid.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 19, 2013)

dotdotdot said:


> One Clapham North Shortlifer who was in court fighting possession about a year or so ago, was told by the judge to start paying rent to Lambeth... Devonshires quickly said they didn't want any rent paid.


 
Could pay it to a charity instead! They'd accept it


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 19, 2013)

Put it in ESCROW and then the law recognises the intent to pay?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 19, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Put it in ESCROW and then the law recognises the intent to pay?



Exactly. I was going to suggest escrow!


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2013)

'intent to pay' doesn't create a tenancy.  

If Lambeth ( Devonshires) aren't prepared to accept someone as a tenant simply bunging some money into a building society and saying "look, think of that as rent" won't change anything.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 19, 2013)

newbie said:


> 'intent to pay' doesn't create a tenancy.
> 
> If Lambeth ( Devonshires) aren't prepared to accept someone as a tenant simply bunging some money into a building society and saying "look, think of that as rent" won't change anything.


 

No. But it would be an acknowledgement of having gained from the use of a social asset (however ineptly 'managed' by Lambeth).


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2013)

who is supposed to be acknowledging what and to whom?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 20, 2013)

newbie said:


> who is supposed to be acknowledging what and to whom?


 

I suspect you know what I mean.


----------



## newbie (Jul 20, 2013)

no, I don't, not the foggiest.

This isn't a game. Someone lost their home when they ran up against the hard reality of the law. That happens round here, there are people for whom 'housing' means something other than watching the gains clock up on Zoopla.

You appear to have taken that painful, distressing post as an opportunity to waffle nonsense about giving money to a charity (what, why?), then misunderstood escrow and then post something that appears, on the face of it, completely meaningless. No, I have no idea what you're trying to say.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 20, 2013)

I'd explain, but it'd just be more meaningless nonsense. And now you've introduced me to Zoopla, I've no time for anything else!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 20, 2013)

isvicthere? said:


> Just walked down Rushcroft Road. The high court enforcement officers, in their unpleasant paramilitary garb, look like an unwanted occupation force.



It does feel that way.


----------



## Ninjaprints (Jul 20, 2013)

I have had a chat with a couple of the hceo's over the last few days and been somewhat surprised with how pleasant a couple of them have been, one of them said he was furious at the attitude a couple of them had on the day and that they responded so heavy handedly.. however the other 90% of them I have tried to chat with were full on fuckbag cunt

They do however look like some kind of militant dicksockets


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2013)

newbie said:


> no, I don't, not the foggiest.
> 
> This isn't a game. Someone lost their home when they ran up against the hard reality of the law. That happens round here, there are people for whom 'housing' means something other than watching the gains clock up on Zoopla.


 
You are right Newbie.

Its hard to get across how horrible Devonshires , the Councils lawyers, are.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2013)

isvicthere? said:


> Just walked down Rushcroft Road. The high court enforcement officers, in their unpleasant paramilitary garb, look like an unwanted occupation force.


 
Its all part of Lambeth "Cooperative Council.

I agree. Looks to me that the Council is making a show of it.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 20, 2013)

I overheard that they're all going on Monday.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 21, 2013)

Sorry I didn't mean to divert the conversation away from the f-ing awful situation that the evicted residents have faced. 

ESCROW can be used as a trust account between two parties (by using a third as an intermediary) putting the money in the control (trust) of this third party until any contract between the first two (ie. residents & lambeth) is agreed. the process of doing it - whether the amount is small, or reasonable shows intent in the eyes of the law* to maintain usual terms and conditions until the agreement is clarified. 

* the usual IANAL applies, along with chucklehead rules.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

the key word being contract: offer, acceptance, consideration, moo.

in the absence of acceptance the existence of offer & consideration (escrow'd or otherwise) is irrelevant, and there is no moo (mutuality of obligation).

Lambeth have made it clear, administration after administration since the early 70s when the mass squats started that they will not grant tenancy contracts to squatters.

So a squatter who'd been stashing their money into an escrow account since 1973 would probably have enough by now as deposit for a home but their position vis a vis Lambeth wouldn't have altered a jot. (well, 12 year rule, but that's got nowt to do with escrow)


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 23, 2013)

Article on guardianship in today's Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/22/live-stately-home-dont-get-settled

"These contracts are very careful to state 'this is not a tenancy'," says Giles Peaker, partner in the housing team at Anthony Gold solicitors. "But it doesn't matter what the document says – it's down to what the situation is in reality. The wording tries to avoid giving exclusive occupation to the guardians, but if it were tested in the courts, the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act may still apply."

"It's essentially a form of unpaid labour," says housing researcher Gloria Dawson.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 23, 2013)

Piece on Rushcroft Road and more here...... http://www.opendemocracy.net/opense...brixton-creating-housing-insecurity-in-london


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Piece on Rushcroft Road and more here...... http://www.opendemocracy.net/opense...brixton-creating-housing-insecurity-in-london


 
That's crazy:


> One person, who had entered a flat as a squatter in 1988, won adverse possession in 2001 after 13 years of habitation without a single word from Lambeth Council.


It's a good piece, I'm so glad I took that video too.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 23, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Piece on Rushcroft Road and more here...... http://www.opendemocracy.net/opense...brixton-creating-housing-insecurity-in-london


 

Despite the use of the terms 'marketisation', 'normative' and 'precarity' in the first 17 words, it is an excellent piece.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 25, 2013)

Things have gotten a lot worse since they kicked the squatters out of Rushcroft Rd. One of the new occupants is playing bongos :/


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> Things have gotten a lot worse since they kicked the squatters out of Rushcroft Rd. One of the new occupants is playing bongos :/


 
Not _that_ is worthy of immediate eviction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> Things have gotten a lot worse since they kicked the squatters out of Rushcroft Rd. One of the new occupants is playing bongos :/


 
Could be worse.

Could be a bodhran.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Could be a bodhran.


 
I had to google that, so not a hippy *feels smug*


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 8, 2013)

Today is viewing day for prospective buyers of the squats. There are about 10 people being given a tour by a council bloke. They all seem to have come in Range Rovers. There are three right outside my door.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 8, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Today is viewing day for prospective buyers of the squats. There are about 10 people being given a tour by a council bloke. They all seem to have come in Range Rovers. There are three right outside my door.


 
wee up them.


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Today is viewing day for prospective buyers of the squats. There are about 10 people being given a tour by a council bloke. They all seem to have come in Range Rovers. There are three right outside my door.


 
Can you post up some pics so I get really angry?


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 8, 2013)

Sorry, I can't find the battery charger for my camera! There was a bloke taking pics earlier, maybe he'll post some. He told me he'd seen Ninjaprints' pics in this thread.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Aug 8, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Today is viewing day for prospective buyers of the squats. There are about 10 people being given a tour by a council bloke. They all seem to have come in Range Rovers. There are three right outside my door.


Just had a peek...
was this advertised in advance as it looks like a missed opportunity?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 8, 2013)

I was chatting to a guy outside. Apparently one of the short life buildings on Clapham Road was sold to the occupants. Anyone know anything about that?


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 8, 2013)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Just had a peek...
> was this advertised in advance as it looks like a missed opportunity?


I suspect it will have been publicised on a property auctioneer's site. That's usual procedure for an auction - everyone has to view at the same time.


----------



## geminisnake (Aug 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Could be a bodhran.


What's wrong with the bodhran??  I still need an englishman's collar bone


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2013)

geminisnake said:


> What's wrong with the bodhran??  I still need an englishman's collar bone


 
In all my long years I've rarely heard one played well, outside of the auld sod. 
And don't even get me started on djembes!


----------



## geminisnake (Aug 8, 2013)

You don't know the right people obviously. I know some very good bodhran players. You should listen to the Corries occasionally


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2013)

I like the cut of this fella's jib: 




> DitBerry Dan Berry
> Parasites descend on Rushcroft Road buying empty squats... So many Range Rovers!! pic.twitter.com/7IaOFflH6l


----------



## geminisnake (Aug 9, 2013)

Where were all the traffic wardens then??


----------



## teuchter (Aug 9, 2013)

editor said:


> I like the cut of this fella's jib:


 
I don't get it


----------



## ddraig (Aug 9, 2013)

yes you do don't lie


----------



## RubyToogood (Aug 9, 2013)

geminisnake said:


> Where were all the traffic wardens then??


I was just thinking that! You can't park in Rushcroft Rd for 5 seconds without getting a ticket.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 9, 2013)

The wardens swooped as the photos were being taken, so all the Range Rovers scattered. One of them casually reversed into the BMW behind it. The driver didn't give a toss, didn't even get out to look at the damage. The BMW owner was standing right there, looking a bit nonplussed. His gf was sitting in the car when it was nudged. They both looked about 19. So I suppose if you can afford a newish BMW convertible at that age you can relax when it gets scraped. (Photo borrowed from the same source as the other one.)


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 9, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> ?.......if you can afford a newish BMW convertible at that age you can relax when it gets scraped.


Probably leased,  fwiw you could reduce the number of cars on the road by millions if people had to buy them.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 9, 2013)

ddraig said:


> yes you do don't lie


 
No I don't


----------



## ddraig (Aug 9, 2013)

oh yes you do


----------



## teuchter (Aug 9, 2013)

ddraig said:


> oh yes you do


 
The nature of your response tells me that you think Editor was saying something with his comment that he didn't want to say explicitly.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 9, 2013)

is it now

i see you have drawn your conclusions! good day


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 10, 2013)

Well anyone has to interpret editors comment as something. My assumption was an antipathy towards the deck shoe shorts wearing, stripey shirt man on the right, who is 3 miles south of his normal pastures.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 12, 2013)

Anyone know how the buildings are being sold? Presumably not, or someone would have shared.  Do I call the council to find out? I've not found anything on their site.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 12, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Anyone know how the buildings are being sold? Presumably not, or someone would have shared.  Do I call the council to find out? I've not found anything on their site.


 
Informal tender (like sealed bids). To be submitted by early September.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 13, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Informal tender (like sealed bids). To be submitted by early September.


 
In your opinion how does this compare with an auction? Informal tendering sounds capable of being rigged to me.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Aug 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Could be a bodhran.


 

what do you mean by referencing the Irish percussion instrument?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Aug 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In all my long years I've rarely heard one played well, outside of the auld sod.


 

there is a guy who plays the bodhran in Brixton....jus sayin


----------



## Greebo (Aug 13, 2013)

Cheesypoof said:


> what do you mean by referencing the Irish percussion instrument?


 
VP was scarred for life by the repeated experience of mixing with the type of celtic-style Pagans etc who thought that being Neo Pagan gives you a natural ability to play the bodhran well.  It really doesn't.  Barry the Expedant was well known for managing to sing and play a bodhran extremely well at the same time simply because that was so unusual.


----------



## Pants Man (Aug 13, 2013)

in englands 'not so green & pleasant land' free things don't last long


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 13, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Informal tender (like sealed bids). To be submitted by early September.


Ah. That ties in with something one of the prospective buyers told me - that the council is looking for someone to do them up fast. Does that mean you have to prove you have the finance to do all the work?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Ah. That ties in with something one of the prospective buyers told me - that the council is looking for someone to do them up fast. Does that mean you have to prove you have the finance to do all the work?


 
I don't know. They would normally look whether a buyer could afford to proceed at the price they were offering before accepting but I don't know if that extends to their finances to do the work. It might do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I don't know. They would normally look whether a buyer could afford to proceed at the price they were offering before accepting but I don't know if that extends to their finances to do the work. It might do.


 
I'd bloody well hope so, anyway, or all sorts of chancers will bid, rather than just the usual chancers (Golfrate etc).


----------



## Manter (Aug 13, 2013)

Just like the council checked Barratt homes could afford to build Brixton Square with social housing and commercial properties?!!


----------



## Rushy (Aug 13, 2013)

Manter said:


> Just like the council checked Barratt homes could afford to build Brixton Square with social housing and commercial properties?!!


A key difference being that Lambeth owns and is selling the Rushcroft Road properties and has not - certainly in recent history - owned the Barratt site.

Manter - you really are assimilating at an impressive rate of knots!


----------



## Manter (Aug 13, 2013)

Rushy said:


> A key difference being that Lambeth owns and is selling the Rushcroft Road properties and has not - certainly in recent history - owned the Barratt site.
> 
> Manter - you really are assimilating at an impressive rate of knots!


I've been here years... I moved here before it was fashionable, I'll have you know.  

What I meant was largely to be rude about Lambeth's financial acuity- they gave planning permission on the basis of social and commercial provision, and when Barratt Homes went back and said it wasn't viable, they said 'oh, OK' rather than ripping into their financial models.  So when they are supposed to be checking other people's funding for rapid development, you'll have to excuse me for being a bit cynical.  Even as a yuppie who's single handedly destroying the neighbourhood


----------



## Rushy (Aug 13, 2013)

Manter said:


> I've been here years... I moved here before it was fashionable, I'll have you know.


 

I was meaning Urban rather than Brixton itself. Arguing about how long you have been here is taking assimilation a step too far. Anyway, Brixton has always been _de rigueur_ amongst the discerning.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 29, 2013)

There's another viewing for developers. Apparently Lambeth want one company to buy all three buildings. They're asking £5m total. That's for 20 flats: eight three-bed ones in Clarence House and Lancaster House and four four-bed ones in Matlock House.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 29, 2013)

Far too cheap.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 29, 2013)

My back of an envelope numbers: the 3 bed flats will sell for 500 each, the 4 beds will fetch 600. Total 10.4m. Purchase price 5m. Refurb cost 50k per flat, or 1m. Stamp duty 190k. Fees and interest and bits and bobs 50k. Profit c. 3.75m.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 29, 2013)

yeah but but you've got to encourage the wealth makers by giving them some easy wealth no?


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 29, 2013)

Unto them that hath, more shall be given.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 29, 2013)

Why does Lambeth sell their property so cheaply, especially after reclaiming it so brutally?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 29, 2013)

*mutters something about brown envelopes
or "quick sale"


----------



## leanderman (Aug 29, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> My back of an envelope numbers: the 3 bed flats will sell for 500 each, the 4 beds will fetch 600. Total 10.4m. Purchase price 5m. Refurb cost 50k per flat, or 1m. Stamp duty 190k. Fees and interest and bits and bobs 50k. Profit c. 3.75m.



Yes. I came to about £4m profit. It's a joke.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 29, 2013)

Where do you hear this stuff?

They are asking for sealed bids. There is no asking price or guide price. The blocks are available together or separately.

And 50K per unit is very optimstic IMO.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 29, 2013)

From a registered would-be buyer who spoke to council's estate agent, who was here at the viewing today. Although it's sealed bids there is still a price which the seller has in mind. And the offer price is not the only criterion. It's a condition that you have to prove you have enough finance for the refurb. And maybe the agent has been told that offers from a single buyer are preferred to offers from two or three different ones.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 29, 2013)

LSH are the council's agents. Of course they have a rough idea of what the property should go for but it is sealed bids and expecting a price does not equate to "asking".

It's only sensible to check that offerors can afford to progress.

Maybe the agent has been told to give preference to joint bids. Maybe they have not. They have not advised your buddy either way, I'd wager.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 29, 2013)

Rushy said:


> expecting a price does not equate to "asking"


 If you want to dance on the head of a pin, knock yourself out. And instead of wittering on with all your maybes about conversations you haven't participated in, why don't you just call the agent?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> If you want to dance on the head of a pin, knock yourself out. And instead of wittering on with all your maybes about conversations you haven't participated in, why don't you just call the agent?


 
As the one who mentioned the figure, the burden of proof is on you, sir.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 29, 2013)

ICBA. Let Rushy engage with the real world for once.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 29, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> ICBA. Let Rushy engage with the real world for once.


 

And there was me thinking that the world in which the Frumious Bandersnatch lives was just a big fairy tale.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 20, 2013)

I just head that an offer equating to almost 400k per flat for one of the blocks has been turned down.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Sep 20, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I just head that an offer equating to almost 400k per flat for one of the blocks has been turned down.



i really hope my landlord doesn't read this site!


----------



## leanderman (Oct 26, 2013)

This sign caught my eye, and that of Gramsci, who I bumped into taking this photo of Homer House. 

Seems the social housing promise made by perfidious Lambeth (and Clegg) is being kept.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 26, 2013)

leanderman said:


> This sign caught my eye, and that of Gramsci, who I bumped into taking this photo of Homer House.
> 
> Seems the social housing promise made by perfidious Lambeth (and Clegg) is being kept.



Nice to meet you. 

I was surprised to see it as well. They are actually going to do what they promised.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 26, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Nice to meet you.
> 
> I was surprised to see it as well. They are actually going to do what they promised.



Next time, we'll talk properly!


----------



## rover07 (Oct 27, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Unto them that hath, more shall be given.





> But his lord answered him, "You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I didn't scatter. You ought therefore to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest. Take away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away. Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."



Matthew 25:14-30


----------



## CH1 (Oct 27, 2013)

rover07 said:


> Matthew 25:14-30


No doubt Dave said the same thing to the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding the gas bill.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 18, 2014)

Cabinet will be appointing a contractor for Rushcroft Road on 27 Jan to:

"undertake refurbishment works of the retained blocks and also to provide interim security post eviction to all the blocks, including carrying out the necessary enabling works required for health & safety and site security."


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Jan 18, 2014)

Wasn't the promise for 23 social rent homes? Why only 19 now?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 18, 2014)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> Wasn't the promise for 23 social rent homes? Why only 19 now?


OCEANIA HAS ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EURASIA


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 21, 2014)

A FOI has just been released relating to Rushcroft Road. It's of interest on a number of levels. Emails between Council staff and UK Evict are contained in the release. In my experience it is rare for Lambeth Council to publish emails - _redacted or not_ - in an FOI correspondence.

Email chain 1

Email chain 2

Email chain 3

I've only skimmed through it, but a few points I've picked out leading up to the evictions:

The timetable appears to have been delayed somewhat. Late May was initially penciled in for the action.

Lambeth Council and UK Evict had to get the support of the Met Police for the action. This wasn't taken as given.

The towing away of "squatter vehicles" was discussed ahead of the evictions.

UK Evict had a request from a film crew to document the evictions. This wasn't seen as a problem.

Articles about the possible evictions published in Indymedia and Brixton Blog were discussed in the various email exchanges.

It all reads incredibly cold when you see how concise the planning was to evict people from their homes. It's also uneasy reading, some five months after the event. Still useful to see how such an operation was planned though.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 22, 2014)

interesting!
coppers using comic sans


----------



## ddraig (Jan 22, 2014)

production company wanted to "film a documentary about environmental protestors/squatters and the impact they have on business, local communities and authorities"
page 16 of second link


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 22, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> A FOI has just been released...



Some interesting stuff - though let's remind ourselves that (given the references within the emails to articles on Brixton Blog, IndyMedia etc) that _this thread is likely to be a party line_.

Also, the UK Evict National Evictions Team boasts about having a strong background in counter-protest evictions:



> During the mid nineties the UK witnessed an explosion of Eco-minded people coming together in an organised and structured way, with one common purpose in mind. That purpose was, and still is, to disrupt progress, and when the talking was over, their one-line of thought was to take direct action.
> 
> We initially experienced this direct action first hand. In 1995 we were called in by Mining Company Celtic Energy, on two proposed opencast sites, where the Eco-Warriors had established their encampments by erecting their tree-top houses, and barricaded themselves into farm buildings. This for the* National Eviction Team* was where it all started, on some very cold wet days in the Welsh valleys.
> 
> ...



It's interesting to see that when Lambeth Housing Projects Manager Pauline Foster gets all in a flap over whether lawful procedures on the giving of notice have been followed, it's not the council's own legal officers to whom she turns, but Martin Leyshon, director of UK Evict (see emails of 18 June, pp17-18 on email chain 3). And when Leyshon reassures her everything is kosher, does he cite any case law? No. Does she ask for any? No. Job's a good'un!

Leyshon (not known to be a lawyer) is a career ‘bailiff’/Sheriff's Officer - now High Court Enforcement Officer, having begun his career in 1989 “during the Thatcher wars of the Poll Tax uprising”.

His company M Leyshon & Co worked on protest camp evictions in the 1990s with the likes of Richard Turner's scab climbers, and was hired by a number of Tory party-linked construction companies who were also funding and using illegal blacklists of both workers and protesters, such as Carillion and Balfour Beatty.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 22, 2014)

PS

The NET website even has a page detailing its previous evictions - with a report on the Rushcroft Road eviction now up:



> n a joint operation Police and the Authorised High Court Enforcement Officers of UK Evict Limited, The National Eviction Team were instructed by Lambeth Council to evict squatters from 6 Victorian mansion blocks a total of 40 properties at Rushcroft Road, Brixton, on one of the hottest days of the year.
> 
> The 2 year battle finally ended for the squatters who some had lived in the mansion flats for up to 32 years rent free.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 22, 2014)

PPS

Leyshon also has history as a property speculator, notably in West Glamorgan...


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> PS
> 
> The NET website even has a page detailing its previous evictions - with a report on the Rushcroft Road eviction now up:



32 years rent-free!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 22, 2014)

An earlier NET eviction in Brixton:



> *St Agnes Place Brixton Lambeth - November 2005 *
> 
> UK Evict T/A the National Eviction Team, solves a 27 year old problem in 14 hours on behalf of Lambeth Council.
> 
> ...


----------



## Casaubon (Jan 22, 2014)

leanderman said:


> 32 years rent-free!


I lived on Rushcroft for 19 years, and didn't know anyone who lived there rent-free for anything like that length of time. 
(There was one squatter who gained ownership through adverse posession, but even he hasn't been there that long.) 
It's worth remembering that during 25 of the 32 years referred to, nearly all of us were tenants.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2014)

Casaubon said:


> I lived on Rushcroft for 19 years, and didn't know anyone who lived there rent-free for anything like that length of time.
> (There was one squatter who gained ownership through adverse posession, but even he hasn't been there that long.)
> It's worth remembering that during 25 of the 32 years referred to, nearly all of us were tenants.



It did sound rather far-fetched.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2015)

And here's how it looks today: 
Former squats on Brixton’s Rushcroft Road now on the market for up to £3,000 per month


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Mar 31, 2015)

ON a vaguely related note I just checked who is building at St Agnes Place and surprise surprise: it's the same company as the Aylesbury Estate...
http://www.quadrant-construction.co.uk/projects/view/st-agnes-place


----------



## Twattor (Mar 31, 2015)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> ON a vaguely related note I just checked who is building at St Agnes Place and surprise surprise: it's the same company as the Aylesbury Estate...
> http://www.quadrant-construction.co.uk/projects/view/st-agnes-place



Formerly known as London & Quadrant Housing Association


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2015)

Apols for the bump, but thought this was relevant and interesting for a number of reasons. It's from the may/june issue of "Lambeth Talk", the cooperative council's bi-monthly propaganda sheet:

*Lambeth delivers new homes in Brixton for council tenants*

The first tenants have been handed their keys after squatters were cleared from Victorian housing blocks in south London. 

Twenty two flats with two bedrooms are being made available at council rent levels in Rushcroft Road, Brixton, after a thorough refurbishment.

Councillor Matthew Bennett, Lambeth's Cabinet Member for Housing, said: "I'm delighted that tenants are being handed the keys to some of the first new council homes in Brixton in a generation. These are proper lifetime council homes at proper social rents, being made available to local families in housing need.

"There are now 21,000 people on Lambeth's waiting list and homelessness has risen over the last year with about 1.800 families now in temporary accommodation. We are committed as an administration to 1,000 extra homes for council rent over the next four years."

The villas in Rushcroft Road have been brought back to their former glory by the council's housing management firm Lambeth Living who worked with contractors Pellings and Thomas Sinden. The work saw the complete refurbishment of three blocks of Victorian flats.

*******​
The first thing that struck me was the canard that "squatters were cleared", as we know that some people were short-life tenants.
Second, Bennett mentions "lifetime council homes", "proper social rents" and "for council rent". The former seems to imply that tenancies will be "lifetime assured tenancies", not "secure council tenancies" (the latter being more secure than the former); "proper social rents" doesn't tell us anything about the *actual* level, given that some RSLs charge up to 80% of market, and "for council rent" is also vaguer than it need be, given the local authority's expressed desire to develop "affordable" housing for rent.


----------



## CH1 (May 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The villas in Rushcroft Road have been brought back to their former glory by the council's housing management firm Lambeth Living who worked with contractors Pellings and Thomas Sinden.


A bit grandiose isn't it (villas).
N.B. Pellings were the contractors who "renovated" 336 Brixton Road - which ended in a court case. But that was a long time ago.





http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=htt...rJWM5Q&usg=AFQjCNFXqgY8J_Cf_1k5ppRltaM-25Eq0w


----------



## Manter (May 26, 2015)

CH1 said:


> A bit grandiose isn't it (villas).
> N.B. Pellings were the contractors who "renovated" 336 Brixton Road - which ended in a court case. But that was a long time ago.


Villa just means Edwardian/Victorian semi detached house. It's European usage is country house, and in the 80s we got the meanings confused.


----------



## Manter (May 26, 2015)

Also can't believe that place has ever been 'renovated'!


----------



## CH1 (May 26, 2015)

Manter said:


> Also can't believe that place has ever been 'renovated'!


They did put a disabled access ramp at the front, strip out Coutts Bank mainframe computer from the 1st floor and turn that into offices. They left the cooling equipment in the basement. That may be where it got legal - I think it was supposed to end up with basement parking (the latest plans still have this proposal).

There are before and after photos in this Brixton Buzz article http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/06/...ores-the-brutalism-of-block-336-brixton-road/


----------



## Manter (May 26, 2015)

CH1 said:


> They did put a disabled access ramp at the front, strip out Coutts Bank mainframe computer from the 1st floor and turn that into offices. They left the cooling equipment in the basement. That may be where it got legal - I think it was supposed to end up with basement parking (the latest plans still have this proposal).
> 
> There are before and after photos in this Brixton Buzz article http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/06/...ores-the-brutalism-of-block-336-brixton-road/


God it's a mess.


----------



## CH1 (May 26, 2015)

Manter said:


> God it's a mess.


It was a well intentioned mess.
Building donated by NatWest. Conversion funded by Lambeth Social Services/European Social Fund.

... and opened by Lady Diana.


----------



## CH1 (May 26, 2015)

Manter said:


> Villa just means Edwardian/Victorian semi detached house. It's European usage is country house, and in the 80s we got the meanings confused.


You got it. No way can you describe anything in Rushcroft Road as "semi-detached" or even "a house".


----------



## Manter (May 26, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It was a well intentioned mess.
> Building donated by NatWest. Conversion funded by Lambeth Social Services/European Social Fund.
> 
> ... and opened by Lady Diana.


Hmmm. Call me cynical, but natwest got shot of a useless building with complicated architectural issues, without having to set up a trust to support it etc. People like the national trust won't take buildings on without funds now to avoid the issue of people trying to get rid of expensive, crumbling piles that they can't afford to maintain and won't be able to sell. This is just a brutalist version of that, really.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2016)

A really, really cynical person might think that Lexadon unusually electing to build eight _four bedroom_ apartments into Clarence House rather than the usual mix of 1/2 bed flats might be a handy way for them to avoid having to fulfil any affordable obligations. 



> Lexadon are delighted to offer nine beautiful new flats to the market. Rushcroft Road is lined with beautiful Victorian Mansion blocks offering fantastic kerb appeal. These flat have been renovated to the highest standard. Be the first to live in these sought after buildings by contacting us directly for a priority viewing. This block is made up of eight four bed apartments, two of which have private gardens, and a gorgeous two bedtop floor flat.
> 
> Clarence House | lexadon


----------



## Crispy (Jan 4, 2016)

Given that 8 apartments, two per floor is the internal layout of the Rushcroft blocks as built, I don't see how they could be anything else. Sounds like they've split the big front room in half to squeeze another bedroom in, though.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Given that 8 apartments, two per floor is the internal layout of the Rushcroft blocks as built, I don't see how they could be anything else. Sounds like they've split the big front room in half to squeeze another bedroom in, though.


Oh, I don't know. Developers can often show great imagination in squeezing in extra apartments. Just look at those lovely people The Collective - who are all over Pop Brixton - they specialise in cramming in apartments galore into places.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 4, 2016)

I don't doubt the desire of developers to squeeze loads of tiny flats in. If Lexadon could have done so in a cost-effective manner here, they would have. But the Rushcroft blocks have a very particular layout that's hard to split up any other way, just due to the location of the supporting walls, windows, plumbing etc.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2016)

Crispy said:


> I don't doubt the desire of developers to squeeze loads of tiny flats in. If Lexadon could have done so in a cost-effective manner here, they would have. But the Rushcroft blocks have a very particular layout that's hard to split up any other way, just due to the location of the supporting walls, windows, plumbing etc.


Maybe. But this is Lexadon.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2016)

editor said:


> Maybe. But this is Lexadon.



Careful, or Big Jez will start getting all conspira-tastic again!


----------



## leanderman (Jan 4, 2016)

Lexadon will soon have enough of a share of Brixton's real estate to be forced under monopoly laws to bid for the bits they don't own.


----------



## Rushy (Jan 4, 2016)

They don't need planning permission, let alone have to meet any affordability targets, because they are refurbishing existing units rather than getting permission for new units.

In any case, the automatic exemption from affordable home building requirements for small developments (less than 10) no longer exists.


----------



## Rushy (Jan 4, 2016)

Crispy said:


> I don't doubt the desire of developers to squeeze loads of tiny flats in.


I was surprised to read that London now has the largest new properties in the UK on average. Due to London councils adopting the voluntary minimum space guidelines. The article referred to a development of 73sqm two storey _three bedroom_ houses somewhere up north. Must be practically all walls and staircases.

Obviously doesn't apply to PD / PN developments in London.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 4, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Given that 8 apartments, two per floor is the internal layout of the Rushcroft blocks as built, I don't see how they could be anything else. Sounds like they've split the big front room in half to squeeze another bedroom in, though.



My memory of seeing flats in RR is that they were two bed. So they must have altered the insides to get 4 beds in. How like a property developer to cram so many bedrooms in.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 4, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> My memory of seeing flats in RR is that they were two bed. So they must have altered the insides to get 4 beds in. How like a property developer to cram so many bedrooms in.


 You're right - they're built as 2 beds & reception, but many were occupied as 3 beds (friends over the road in Heathcliffe House lived like this). Chopping this lot up into 4 beds must make it very pokey indeed


----------

