*Bob*

These figures simply reinforce why this particular squatting action seems wrong. With nearly half a million properties empty 'for more than six months' why target one which was only sold a matter of weeks ago - thus potentially delaying the very work which will turn it back into a fully-occupied, livable dwelling?

My God - you're right, Moos. How exciting.. it's like invisible ink.

It's not a case of asking nicely, as such. The way it works is: the squatters hope that the owners will follow the legal route to get them out (as opposed to the 'steaming in at 4am with baseball bats and balaclavas' route. The legal route takes a certain length of time. So if this is indeed what happens, it's a trade-off. The squatters get some living time (presumably to eye-up their next abode, and the owner gets his property back without kippers inserted under the floorboards and all the fireplaces removed.

One thing which would be useful (if possible?) would be a total number of votes cast. It's great to see 'our boys' out in the lead, but if there have only been 42 votes it's not so impressive.

You were the one who started with the car analogy! I was just running with it. I'm in agreement with you - with regards to this particular case, but not RE squatting in general. The circumstances can be so wildly varied that a blanket position on the thing would be ridiculous. There would even be a point somewhere down the line at which you would agree with a situation that was, technically, a squat. You'd just have to go a lot further down the line than I would.

I think it's slightly odd comparing a means of transport with basic shelter requirements, but: There's a burnt-out car outside, with no wheels, which hasn't been removed for ten years. If you can get it back on the road, make it less of an eyesore - and make use of it until someone can be bothered to show and ask for it back - why not.

I'm sure Keef would be more than happy with that allocation.

One thing about squatting is that it seems to elicit the same reaction from a lot of people as it does with regards to people who live their lives on benefit, despite - despite - neither situation being one that most rational people would ever want to find themselves in or be envious of in any way. It's a crap way to live. I wish them better - all of them, really. I'm sure they'd rather it wasn't that way too. I just don't agree with this 'total abdication of any sort of responsibility' when the situation you've found yourself in starts to impinge on other people in such a direct manner. That's all.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. It's a dirty business: both getting into places other people don't want you to be in, and getting people out of places you don't want them to be in. I expect lies and skulduggery and are the order of the day.. on both sides.

Milo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- it's > just another made up story, despite > TheAllSeeingEye being "sure". Like the one about not having forced entry (as detailed in squatters handbook chapter x: always maintain you didn't force entry)

"Too little birds (with one little stone)".. love that track.

Yes please. Send to: *Bob*, Ivory Towers, SE22.

If this is the case (and no doubt, it is) then how does perpetuating this life of misery - by way of supporting it - help? eg Does selling and buying The Big Issue help homeless people, or exacerbate the situation?

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why did the GGT go for this paricular property > (which they knew had only been bought 9ish weeks > before) when vacant properties are apparently > falling out of trees elsewhere in the borough? Its > a buyers market where squats are concerned... Didn't you hear?! It is, by all accounts, 'a very beautiful house'.

I've never renovated a house myself, but I'm thinking 'not being able to get inside it' could slow things up.

Meld Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- And the more people there > are that take direct action, the more I chance I > think there is that a Government will eventually > act. If it's a form of direct action then surely it would make more sense to squat on government property?

I had some friends who squatted (up in Sheffield) and their rules were always simple. Always local authority, and always properties which had been interminably unoccupied, thus serving no-one who either wanted them or needed them. The moment you fix your sights on a privately-owned property, you run the risk of massively inconveniencing (in all sorts of ways) an individual whose personal circumstances and those surrounding the property you know nothing about - and clearly care nothing about. But even if you are looking at a privately-owned property, one which was only sold a few months back is taking the piss!

Well I think I've heard enough now. The house was only bought a few months ago - by a private landlord, with planning permission pending. If the acceptable end of squatting (and I think there is one) is occupying a derelict building, owned by a faceless public body who leaves it to rot in perpetuity - then this particular occupation is nearer the other end. If the landlord went round there in the middle of the night and encouraged them to leave - with the aid of a big stick - good luck to him.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're no better than Somali pirates. Albeit without the automatic weaponry, murdering and seven-figure ransom demands.

Four whole months?

I base my facts entirely on an episode of 'The Bill' from 1992.

It's anarchy, I say.. anarchy! I was planning on booking a holiday, but now I can't - for fear of returning to discover that a troupe of white, dreadlocked vegetarian lesbians from the home counties have moved in, changed the locks and painted an enormous rainbow mural on side return wall.

I don't see anything offhand about those comments. Most of the main players in WW2 (England, Germany, Russia) had already engaged in their own indiscriminate mass-killing of non-combatants (in one way or another) - before America dropped the bomb - and to little effect with regards to overall purpose and intention. But dropping the bomb was the only action taken that had an immediate and permanent effect with regards to ending the war. In that respect it was one of the more clear-cut decisions that was taken.

It's the party thing. The middle classes don't have proper parties. The rich don't care if anything gets broken and the poor don't have anything to break.

I do read some stuff in here, but to be honest I usually skip over a lot of the 'point-by-point rebuttals'. The content might well be pertinent and useful but they just look really, really boring.