A great victory for the new squatting law

giraffe69

not much point in sentencing him to another prison term which would have been served concurrently and which would probably have expired before the sentence he is been recalled for ends,

not a lot of point in concurrent sentences either!

the new law is draconian

Any other good points?

Yes, he should have stayed in Plymouth where there were no jobs for him and signed on forever. He may as well have, now he's got previous.

If he had difficulty in getting a job in Plymouth then entirely reasonable he should go elsewhere and attempt some breaking and entering and some squatting with his mates.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

.......In any case, regardless of your somewhat predictable right wing opinion that the poor are to blame for bringing their own poverty calamitously down on their own heads, and deserve every ounce of pain; it is a bit harsh, is it not, to send someone down for 3 months for doing something that wasn't even a criminal offence last year...

It's also a bit harsh to interpret my post as saying "the poor are to blame for bringing their own poverty calamitously down on their own heads, and deserve every ounce of pain."

I am suggesting the it is often not 'luck' or 'fortune' as is too commonly assumed. If this guy set out to go to London without money specifically intending to squat, that that's bordering on 'criminal'. If he didn't think about money, but just went there penniless thinking a job would fall into his lap, but it didn't so he squatted, then it's stupidity. If he went there fully prepared, got mugged, late at night, and so squatted just for the night, then that's probably "unfortunate".

My right wing views (as you put them) are not "predictable". Everyone who knows me knows me to be "unpolitical". I hate politics. I am mathematically/scientifically educated and worked in pragmatic 'operations'. I was bought up in a council house, by a father who worked 51 years on the factory shop floor [never promoted], and my mother died after a long illness when I was 14. My grammar school uniform was paid for by part time char work by my mother. This is not a background that lends itself to politics of a right wing nature. It is a background that screams that you will only get somewhere if you work and if you develop a sense of personal responsibility.

So the only 'predictable' thing about my views is that I will thunder against those who prefer to be looked after by the state rather than themselves. Those who don't value an education or see the benefits of a 'responsible' [within reason!]lifestyle. I would thunder equally loudly at that little rich public school kid who idled his youth away, scrounged off parents, and when 'cut off' simply embezzled, or conned rich little old ladies....

British Society has become so mollicoddled, politically correct, cushioned.... burdened by so-called 'human rights' which are without any 'human responsibilites' whatsoever. It should be re-named "Human Privileges". What we see these days is the result of years of this type of 'conditioning'. I happen to think it is not 'healthy'.

Graham_Devon

Somerset wrote: »

You don't seem bothered that the Housing Association probably had a queue of people, desperate for that flat, in fact any flat, and that may have been 'on the list' for year's making do or overcrowded or in a flea-pit B&B, possibly vunerable themselves. But it's ok for them to be deprieved of a home so a young fit male can get himself sorted.

No one seems to have picked up, on what I think is a rather pertinant point. Seems this post just assumed people were queueing up.

Given the fact that people are so desperate for houses....why on earth was a housing association flat not occupied, and indeed, empty for a year, enabling it to be used for squatting purposes?

It's alright having a go at this lad...he wouldn't be able to afford a place as an aprentice brickl;ayer, so you could suggest at least he was trying to better himself.

But for the flat to be empty for that long is probably yet another backhander type situation. Keep it empty for a couple of years until it's sold cheap to an invester. This scam was highlighed about 3 years back.

It's over the top really IMO. The flat should have been occupied properly. That's exactly what housing association flats are for and why we pay taxes. We now seem to be paying taxes for an empty property and taxes to keep someone in prison...someone who could have been learning his trade if he's simply been moved on.

We don't know the full story, and squatting is wrong....but in my mind, I'd rather have taxpayers property used by a taxpayer if the housing association are just going to leave it empty when there are so many who could make use of it.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.......It's over the top really IMO. The flat should have been occupied properly. That's exactly what housing association flats are for and why we pay taxes. We now seem to be paying taxes for an empty property and taxes to keep someone in prison...someone who could have been learning his trade if he's simply been moved on.

We don't know the full story, and squatting is wrong....but in my mind, I'd rather have taxpayers property used by a taxpayer if the housing association are just going to leave it empty when there are so many who could make use of it.

The Housing Association had taken prospective tenants round in August and discovered the squatters. They claim they didn't do anything because it was not 'criminal' at the time.

One assumes they 'grassed' to Mr Plod, who were most anxious to get some easy arrests under their belt, and who promptly called at the house on September 2nd.

Police have, after all, been asked to be "robust" in policing this.

As for the sentence, then you are right. We don't know the full story. It is often said that sentences are mostly considered 'correct' by those actually present in court throughout the trial. They hear the whole thing, good and bad. You often hear this when it's the other way round. Joe Public says Cripes! only 12 months for Burglary with violence..... but those at the trial hear much, much, more.

Perhaps Housing Association incompetence is involved anyway, and maybe that should be the next thing to be criminalised!

The_White_Horse

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/27/first-squatter-jailed-new-law



Well thats just great. a criminal who has committed the dreadful crime of entering a private property that isn't his and which he hasn't paid for, whilst millions of decent people pay their mortgage or rent now has a criminal record and 3 months in prison alongside rapists and armed robbers.

This is progress.

i changed it for you. i think this is what you really meant.

zagubov

Where I grew up, squatting's always been illegal and liable to swift action, and I totally support it being illegal here too.:beer:

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

It's also a bit harsh to interpret my post as saying "the poor are to blame for bringing their own poverty calamitously down on their own heads, and deserve every ounce of pain."

I am suggesting the it is often not 'luck' or 'fortune' as is too commonly assumed. If this guy set out to go to London without money specifically intending to squat, that that's bordering on 'criminal'. If he didn't think about money, but just went there penniless thinking a job would fall into his lap, but it didn't so he squatted, then it's stupidity. If he went there fully prepared, got mugged, late at night, and so squatted just for the night, then that's probably "unfortunate".

My right wing views (as you put them) are not "predictable". Everyone who knows me knows me to be "unpolitical". I hate politics. I am mathematically/scientifically educated and worked in pragmatic 'operations'. I was bought up in a council house, by a father who worked 51 years on the factory shop floor [never promoted], and my mother died after a long illness when I was 14. My grammar school uniform was paid for by part time char work by my mother. This is not a background that lends itself to politics of a right wing nature. It is a background that screams that you will only get somewhere if you work and if you develop a sense of personal responsibility.

So the only 'predictable' thing about my views is that I will thunder against those who prefer to be looked after by the state rather than themselves. Those who don't value an education or see the benefits of a 'responsible' [within reason!]lifestyle. I would thunder equally loudly at that little rich public school kid who idled his youth away, scrounged off parents, and when 'cut off' simply embezzled, or conned rich little old ladies....

British Society has become so mollicoddled, politically correct, cushioned.... burdened by so-called 'human rights' which are without any 'human responsibilites' whatsoever. It should be re-named "Human Privileges". What we see these days is the result of years of this type of 'conditioning'. I happen to think it is not 'healthy'.

People like you would have had !!!!!! Whittington and his cat locked up in a paupers prison at the gates of London before they have even set foot inside.

Sometimes people have to take risks to get ahead.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

People like you would have had !!!!!! Whittington and his cat locked up in a paupers prison at the gates of London before they have even set foot inside.

Sometimes people have to take risks to get ahead.

you mean the sort of risks associated with breaking and entering?

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

you mean the sort of risks associated with breaking and entering?

He wasn't convicted for breaking and entering. He wasn't convicted for upsetting the neighbours, being rude to the queen, being an unwashed poor person or any of the other crimes you people have attributed to this story because it involves someone you look down on.

He was convicted, of squatting, for which he now has a criminal record and 3 months inside.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

People like you would have had !!!!!! Whittington and his cat locked up in a paupers prison at the gates of London before they have even set foot inside......

I wouldn't be that cruel to the animal.

!!!!!! Whittington didn't break the law as far as I know.

I think Boris got to be mayor of London in a slightly easier way.