Stealing houses set to become illegal

Pobby

`ere leave Ruth out of it. She used to be one of my customers. Very nice lady !

olly300

CLAPTON wrote: »

local authorities already have the power to compulsory purchase such a property and there is no need for vigilantism in these circumstances whether they are well behaved children of champagne socialists or vandals.

It takes many years and many complaints from neighbours before the council gets around to do that.

Councils don't want these properties. They want owners do use them or sell them.

CLAPTON

olly300 wrote: »

It takes many years and many complaints from neighbours before the council gets around to do that.

Councils don't want these properties. They want owners do use them or sell them.

Indeed this is so; and in many cases the threat of action does lead to either proper useage or sale. If the law isn't working then lets improve the law.

However whatever the outcome, allowing vigilantism isn't an appropriate solution.

ILW

Blacklight wrote: »

Vulnerable seems to be the new pc way of saying scum.

Has been for years, the term "the most vulnerable members of our society" generally meant "the most violent chavs/gangstas in our society".

chewmylegoff

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Yeah, of all the celebrities you chose Posh Spice?

Really?

Now you know why flagellants exist.

ruggedtoast

FTBFun wrote: »

Any evidence of this?

Because they're squatting.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

They should make parking on yellow lines a criminal offence next

It is already an offense. It is a symptom of an unjust and corrupt 'situation' that rewards the 'have nots' [i.e. have not a car] and penalises the 'haves' [i.e those that have a car].

ruggedtoast wrote: »

or mooning a swan

This is cruelty to animals. That is a crime. All swans are owned by The Queen. To moon at a swan is to moon at the Queen.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

or being a day late paying rent to your landlord and master.

I think you are being a bit harsh here. Unlike you, I don't believe this should be a criminal offense. Rather, it should be prima facia evidence of the breaking of the rental contract. Bailiffs should be empowered to go in immediately, and re-possess, leaving all the tenant's possessions in the street.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Criminalise some more innocent people.

This is a contradiction in terms. either someone has commited a criminal offense. Or they are innocent.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Most squatters are in dire need of homes and are a symptom of an unjust and corrupt housing situation.

Sometimes, I am in dire need to relieve myself. Can I do it through your letterbox? I'm also in dire need of more money. Can I mug an old lady in the street and steal her purse?

ruggedtoast wrote: »

A situation that rewards the haves and ever more penalises the have nots.

The only 'situation' that would please you, is an out-and-out communist state. Unless or until the public vote in Ed Milliband, we do not live in a communist state.

North Korea is just about the only truly communist country remaining in the world. Please emigrate there (if they will have you) and you will understand that even the 'haves' have nothing, while the 'have nots' have nothing either, making it the perfect egalitarian society.

You can squat in an empty Pyongyang apartment and let us all know whether or not that's illegal there.

PS Sorry. Just remembered. People aren't allowed to use the Internet in North Korea.

Loughton_Monkey

olly300 wrote: »

......So you are saying that all laws in place are used for their intended purpose?

Read my post again. I was saying nothing of the kind. I was simply rebutting your suggestion that we shouldn't 'criminalise' people who are 'doing no harm'.

olly300 wrote: »

Public bodies are snooping on people using anti-terrorism legislation. How is a council checking that a parent lives in the catchment area of a school terrorism?

As you suggest, they are using 'the law' to do it. If you think they are breaking the law, then take them to court.

If you are suggesting that it is OK to lie about where you live, without any legal way for the authorities to check, then I cannot agree. Electoral Roll information is in the public domain. It is not illegal to look at it.

olly300 wrote: »

A criminal trespass law would be used by well-connected people to terrorise the people they didn't like.

Interesting use of the word 'terrorise'. Why don't we wait and see how 'criminal trespass' laws work, shall we? I don't 'like' they little sod who burgled my house, but felt happy that the law applied. I wouldn't 'like' a person who squatted in my home.

'Well-connected' doesn't count for anything does it? It is usually the Crown Prosecution Service that authorise criminal proceedings. Are you saying they only do this on behalf of "well connected" people?

olly300 wrote: »

Good luck trying to get into my computer and you would be damn disappointed by my phone messages.

Somehow, I suspected that already.

FTBFun

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Because they're squatting.

That's not evidence!

olly300

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Read my post again. I was saying nothing of the kind. I was simply rebutting your suggestion that we shouldn't 'criminalise' people who are 'doing no harm'.

You said my second point and my second point was that laws aren't used how they are intended when they pass through parliament.

In regards to criminalising people - do you think it's OK to criminalise a child for playing on private land outside where they can clearly be seen?

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

As you suggest, they are using 'the law' to do it. If you think they are breaking the law, then take them to court.

If you are suggesting that it is OK to lie about where you live, without any legal way for the authorities to check, then I cannot agree. Electoral Roll information is in the public domain. It is not illegal to look at it.

I'm not saying it's OK to lie about where you live. However I'm also making it clear it's not OK for public bodies to use laws put in place to fight anti-terrorism to snoop on people whether they may be lying about where they live or putting their bins out on the wrong day.

In the case I mentioned the people concerned were alleged to have rented a place near to the school they wanted to get their child into. They then changed their information on the Electoral Roll etc to make it look like they lived in the rented property. Neighbours and others claimed the rented property wasn't used. The council investigated but then said they found that there was no law against what couple did so couldn't prosecute them.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Interesting use of the word 'terrorise'. Why don't we wait and see how 'criminal trespass' laws work, shall we? I don't 'like' they little sod who burgled my house, but felt happy that the law applied. I wouldn't 'like' a person who squatted in my home.

The little sod who burgled your house, and the slightly more mature druggie that burgled mine who got away with nothing but got caught and spent 4 months inside, are both covered by the criminal law as they did or intended to commit burglary.

Being a trespasser isn't criminalised. Otherwise you could argue that any unwelcome visitor to your property like Jehovah's Witnesses are criminals.

What is criminalised is being a trespasser and going with the intent to or actually committing things like theft or fraud, and now squatting. One reason why the police can pick up people with tools that are commonly used to commit crimes.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

'Well-connected' doesn't count for anything does it? It is usually the Crown Prosecution Service that authorise criminal proceedings. Are you saying they only do this on behalf of "well connected" people?

In difficult cases yes.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Somehow, I suspected that already.

I actually work in the IT industry and have done some highly secure projects so know not to email or say things on phones I don't want used against me.