Milo

Perhaps the GGS are art students, this is a performance piece?

What about all the Polish living there too James?

JamesF has their cause as making a teenage den. What's your relationship to the squatters James?

No. You are a very nasty and dishonest person.

Yep, Chasing trolls is a time waster.

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those windows are pretty high up. It makes me > wonder if they already knew one might be open? A > bit of a shot in the dark otherwise, no? Perhaps they used the gift of eyesite. > Now this is completely my own little fictional > narrative running through my head, but it almost > sounds like the kind of thing that might happen > when handy people are called in to do some work > and you are "mysteriously" burgled a few days > later. > > No need to shout, by my own admission I completely > made that up and there is nothing mentioned > previously to suggest this happened. Just my > imagination running away on me again.......... > I thought you were going to stop making things up? What's your point?

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Read the post right before this one. About half > way up I have an edit that says sorry you said > late 2007 not 2008 I was wrong. Read it for the > love of god read it and then give it a rest. > > Jesus on a bicycle! Oh, I see. I thought you were presenting that post as if I were editing it, and being sarcastic. Well we're all alright then.

Narnia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > My understanding is that planning permission > is > > > only valid for a certain period of time and > > > nothing like 9/10 years.I presume once it > > lapses > > > you have to reapply. Thus I'm pretty sure > Milo > > is > > > incorrect on this point. > > \ > > > > Incorrect on what point?! I don't want to get > into > > a debate about Metaphysics, but the point I > made > > did actually happen. Planning permission for > the > > development near my house was put in for during > > 1999, building work didn't start until late > 2007, > > these things actually occurred, no grey areas, > no > > opinion. > > > > You're not "pretty sure" Narnia, and similarly > > Reggie it's not that you are "not sure", you're > > both just making things up, like many of the > > posters on this forum. That's what people do > when > > they're hiding their real motivations. > > Well f*ck you too. Making it up my arse. What are > my motivations then Milo? Talk about 'tales from > the lazy acre'! I was responding to your comment that I was wrong about the development near my house, like you were suggesting I had made it up. An overreaction on my part for which I apologise. Writing f*ck doesn't disguise it, I know you were swearing.

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Meld Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > helena handbasket Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > Incorrect on what point?! I don't want to > get > > > into > > > > a debate about Metaphysics, but the point I > > > made > > > > did actually happen. Planning permission > for > > > the > > > > development near my house was put in for > > during > > > > 1999, building work didn't start until late > > > 2007, > > > > these things actually occurred, no grey > > areas, > > > no > > > > opinion. > > > > > > > > You're not "pretty sure" Narnia, and > > similarly > > > > Reggie it's not that you are "not sure", > > you're > > > > both just making things up, like many of > the > > > > posters on this forum. That's what people > do > > > when > > > > they're hiding their real motivations. > > > > > > > > > edited to add: sorry, late 2007. I said 2008. > > > I > > > was wrong wrong wrong > > > > > > Why the obsession with trying to trip someone > up > > over semantics? Perhaps he or she should have > said > > 'planning permission was ORIGINALLY granted in > > 1999' but does that actually change the point > that > > the poster is making? > > > > Good god she accused me of making up that she said > that! And there it is........ not a matter of > semantics, a matter if calling me a lier. > > > I could no longer give a flying fig. > > edited for crap spelling You did make it up, I never wrote 2008, check my post.

reggie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Milo > I admitted I had my own hole,dont look a gift hole > in the mouth. > (Freud is loving this one) Yes you did, sorry to bring it up again. :)

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Incorrect on what point?! I don't want to get > into > > a debate about Metaphysics, but the point I > made > > did actually happen. Planning permission for > the > > development near my house was put in for during > > 1999, building work didn't start until late > 2007, > > these things actually occurred, no grey areas, > no > > opinion. > > > > You're not "pretty sure" Narnia, and similarly > > Reggie it's not that you are "not sure", you're > > both just making things up, like many of the > > posters on this forum. That's what people do > when > > they're hiding their real motivations. > > > edited to add: sorry, late 2007. I said 2008. I > was wrong wrong wrong This is a strange post. I understand you're using my original text to make a point (and a kind of weak joke), but in it I didn't write 2008 as you know. Freud indeed.

It was my point she was trying to avoid.

No I didn't, stop making things up!

Perhaps they didn't Bob, they wrote that the upstairs window was open, do you have any special knowledge to the contrary? That Squatters Handbook sounds very dishonest.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheAllSeeingEye Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pk Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > TheAllSeeingEye Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > you have been asked to move on > > > > > > have they? (other than by people on here, who > > it > > > really ahsn't got anything to do with?) > > > > > > Yes, they have, as they admitted somewhere > above > > on the previous pages Im sure. > > i must've missed that bit > > seems inconsistent with most of what they've said You didn't miss it PK, they didn't say that, it's just another made up story, despite TheAllSeeingEye being "sure".

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or...... > > planning permission could have expired, then > applied for again. > > Seems to me that by using terms such as "pretty > sure" and "not sure" Reggie and Narnia have been > honest about the extent of their understanding. > Yes, planning permission could have expired, then applied for again, and the same is true of this property being squatted. Funny how those 'pretty sure' and 'not sure' turn into facts a few posts later. Just like the squatter's being aggressive and the building work which is imminent. A very useful way of putting down someone whose lifestyle you disagree with - the real motivation.

Narnia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > reggie Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Milo > > You are right, I am not sure. > > I seem to have my own hole. > > Reggie > > Milo Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Reggie, > > > > > > Regarding your 'hole' number one, how do you > > know > > > work is immenent on the house? I live next to > a > > > flat conversion development, permission for > > which > > > was granted in 1999, work didn't start until > > two > > > years ago. > > > > My understanding is that planning permission is > only valid for a certain period of time and > nothing like 9/10 years.I presume once it lapses > you have to reapply. Thus I'm pretty sure Milo is > incorrect on this point. \ Incorrect on what point?! I don't want to get into a debate about Metaphysics, but the point I made did actually happen. Planning permission for the development near my house was put in for during 1999, building work didn't start until late 2007, these things actually occurred, no grey areas, no opinion. You're not "pretty sure" Narnia, and similarly Reggie it's not that you are "not sure", you're both just making things up, like many of the posters on this forum. That's what people do when they're hiding their real motivations.

Reggie, Regarding your 'hole' number one, how do you know work is immenent on the house? I live next to a flat conversion development, permission for which was granted in 1999, work didn't start until two years ago. Huguenot, People in glass houses...

Just out of interest GGS, how are you online?

davidhealy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love all this liberal bull! > > Lets just see how any one of you would react if > you came home and it was your home invaded. Its > all very well pontificating but the real reaction > would be far different. Why would my home be 'invaded' by squatters when I live in it? Are you on drugs or just a troll?

Huguenot, who do you think creates our laws? Squatters have rights enshrined in law, the issue HAS been addressed through democratic government!!!

I took the line, "we will be less reluctant to cooperate.", as meaning we will be difficult and drag it out through use of our legal rights, perhaps I'm wrong, maybe the squatters will clear that up when they're on here next. Stating the two options available for acceptable living as being social housing, or living with parents is definitely your interpretation of life. Perhaps they didn't qualify for social housing or are on a waiting list? Perhaps there has been a family break up? Perhaps Mum and Dad are squatting too :) Why don't you ask before making judgements? As Brendon pointed out earlier, people may well squat because the government provision isn't enough.

You might be right woof, but I'm not sure that the voices critical of the squatters have their source in any broadsheet. Anger? Anger suggests passion. I think resentment and intolerance might be better words.

You've confused me more Huguenot: How do the squatters reject the law, when they're not breaking it? Where did the goosegreenteam imply they were up of 'a bit of aggro'? Why are you making stuff up? They don't live outside society, just your interpretation of how society should be. An interpretation which I would guess, based on the comments on this forum and on the opinion of the legislator, is probably not even the majority view. Re your last sentence; yep Cameron's going to do well!

"social texture" Nice expression.