Huguenot

I can't imagine that much in a pound shop is zero rated, apart from razor blades ;-)

No worries. In the main you just need to get the house back. It'll take a couple of weeks. You certainly don't want it to be personal, you don't want a battle, you just need a good general solution. Have a couple of cigarettes and just imagine there was a delay and a few extra quid in the purchase process. You'll have forgotten this in a year. ;-)

This is lounge bound methinks

:))

Mainly you need to occupy the building. I don't think you'll have much trouble if you do, most squatters aren't idiots. The only problem is that you can't actually sublet it until you have the full possession order, which may take a couple of months. You're quite within your rights to put friends and family there, so the builder is fine. If your parents have bought it as buy-to-let you may need to think quite closely about this. It was not a great idea to gain entry with a locksmith, you should avoid this. You're in danger of a criminal record for an illegal attempt at eviction. You need to calm your family down a bit and just do the paperwork.

I really don't know what you're getting at zeban. I don't post to get a rise, I'm just chatting through a few ideas that's all. Some people get a rough ride through no fault of their own. I know this. The welfare state is there for them. I'm only discussing at what level and for what purpose that support should exist. I don't really give a monkeys what it's called, what it means is asking other people to look after you. Anyone who's been through the revolving spare room door at chez Huguenot will vouch for the fact that my generosity is only limited by my means. I've had my moments in life where the weeks food was a vat of tuna shock cooked up on Sunday night that became breakfast lunch and dinner for the rest of the week. I consider it a staging post that has taught me the value of effort and application. In this situation I probably could and should have claimed benefits, but it's not in my nature. I could have been homeless I guess, but I took the shittest jobs on earth to ensure I wasn't: car indicator light factories and cable winding factories at a pound an hour. There's a lot of people who would consider that below their dignity. Especially for a primping middle class twit like me. I'm not bitter, I got through it. Thems the breaks. I get exasperated because sometimes other people won't make the sacrifices and then complain that their taxpayer lodging isn't quite what they'd hoped for.

Funnily enough Brenda.... Brewers producing less than 5000 hectolitres of beer a year benefit from tax relief at 45 quid a barrel. So your beer is effectively subsidised by tax payers, and hence the top 10% pay disproportionately more etc. Who woulda thunk it.

I think there was fraud on the song thread and weightings on the word association thread should definitely be on wordcount basis. Travesty.

Had to correct myself to really keep the pedant points high ;-)

Okay, I'll do it. The additional 2.5% on VAT would turn a pound store into at 102.1277 pence store, not 102.5. This is because the additional 2.5% is added to the pre VAT price of the product, which is 85.10638p, not the inclusive price of 100p.

As I've said DJKQ, I'm not against welfare, I'd just like to see it being applied appropriately. I've also certainly not argued that no-one gets trapped on benefits, I have no doubt that they do. However, mid twenties single ladies on 16k a year who want their own flat are most definitely not discriminated against, and not trapped on benefits. Your argument is flawed though: "Landlords are NOT reducing rents, because they have mortgages to pay and need to recoup their mortgage" If they can't reduce the rent because they're not financially robust enough to pay the mortgage without them, and if noone can afford the rent, then they're forced to sell the house... which has a deflationary effect on house prices. That's your goal isn't it? I've already argued that the housing market is distorted by the massive incentives given to wealthy middle classes to enter the market as BTL landlords. I've argued that those incentives should be removed. So I'm hardly a 'classic' gravy train-er am I? It's easy to see how an increase in accessibility and quantity of housing benefit would simply incentivise landlords to put the rent up. If we accept that clear argument, then we must also acccept that a decrease in benefits forces rents down.

This from Philip Inman: As the British Chambers of Commerce argues in a report due to be handed to ministers ahead of the autumn spending review, manufacturing is a bigger part of the economy than some reports suggest: "UK manufacturing has largely been seen as a sector in perpetual decline with little economic future," it says. "The reality of UK manufacturing is a much more mixed picture ? very few people seem to be aware the UK is actually the sixth largest manufacturer in the world, that British manufacturing output reached an all-time high in 2007 and labour productivity in UK manufacturing doubled between 1997 and 2007." "The picture is also confused by the extent to which manufacturing firms also deliver services, raising the question of whether a separate definition is even meaningful. Likewise, the outsourcing of many services that were once undertaken in-house by manufacturing firms has changed the structure of British industry." John Lucas, policy adviser at the BCC, says we should welcome the shift away from making low-margin, low-paying consumer goods to highly specialised, high-margin parts and services that play a crucial role in making global manufacturing run smoothly. "We don't make Apple iPhones in this country, but we make the computer chips that go in them," he says.

Sure, those are the challenges faced by everyone in finding flats and flatmates - it doesn't mean it deserves a handout. There are exceptions, and should be judged accordingly. I just don't think mid-twenty year olds on 16k per year who fancy having their own flat at taxpayers expense count as needy. 40 year olds with two kids to support on 12k a year do need some social support.

"[The Chinese] have put the western world out of work" That's not true either, China's manufacturing contribution has only been made over the last twenty years - a period when more people have been employed in the 'West' than at any time in history. I think you're just thinking in black and white terms about manufacturing again SteveT. 75% of our labour market work in 'Services' to which China offers no competition. The UK isn't in any 'position'. Our industry is based on high end technologies, not painted wooden trains and pillow cases. You need to let it go.

The application will take you a day or so, the processsing will take a couple of days, but the order will be granted straight away. You need to serve the order on the squatters immediately by pinning it to the front door (take a photo of it on the door) They then have 5 days to leave. If they don't leave you notify the court baliff, who will rock up with the police to evict them by force if necessary. So the whole process can be completed in two weeks. People like these guys may be able to look after the whole thing for you for a price. They're based in Battersea. I should add that I've never used them, so it's not a recommendation, just a thought.

Legally you need to move very quickly - within 28 days of discovering them. You'll apply for an Interim Posession Order (click here for details), and when it's granted the squatters must leave within 24 hours. It usually takes a few days to process, and you can get a solicitor ro apply for this for you. There will be costs for both the solictor and the application itself. At the same time you must apply for a Posession Order, which is the final, formal, agreement. However, this takes longer to process, so the Interim should be done if you want access quickly. Your squatters can contest the Interim Order, but they are still required to vacate the premises whilst appealing.

I don't think they're being stiched up. I think they're just being stupid aren't they? I don't even think most of them know what they're protesting about. They were given three options to collect enough pension money to pay OAPs - either to reduce pensions, increase contributions, or to work for longer. Even the Unions recognised that the money had to come from somewhere. The problem is that none of them could decide which was the preferred solution. Since the French couldn't get a majority agreement on any of the three options, they unanimously opted for Plan D, which mostly involved doing feck all for days on end and bringing the country to a standstill, which is precisely what got them into this mess. Most of the action is now being fronted by students anyway, who mainly protest because it's a sexual ritual. In that sense then Snorky and Mockney are both right, they really do protest because they care about something. It's just that 'something' is a pompier. They're not the brightest people in the world.

I'm afraid not zeban, but your absolute conviction that you're getting it harder than others is part of the problem. A three double bed flat in ED is 1,200 per month, quite sufficient luxury for a 27 year old. That's 400 quid a month each. When I was 27 I actually paid just over that per month, on a slightly lower salary, albeit in Balham. On 16k a year, your take home is 1,080 per month, meaning that 400 quid is about 37% of your take home - well within the 'affordable' zone. Most importantly it's definitely NOT in the zone where you should be taking money from your neighbours to pay for a more luxury or indulgent lifestyle that includes having your own flat. The people that are subsidising you through their taxation are people who have less than you!!! When Cameron cuts housing benefit I worried because I thought the recipients were the needy poor described by DJKQ, so I was very concerned. Now that I realise that actually it's going to 27 year olds who think they have a right to their own one bed flat paid for by other people I can only applaud him!

I think the BBC comedy guidelines stipulate that humour directed at groups of individuals must consider the risk of giving offence, must be proportionate to the target, and avoid risk of humiliation. Given how far down their nose the French regard the English they're about as likely to take personal offence as we are to take offence at a sarcastic bluebottle. They're quite capable of looking after themselves, and start as many wars as they lose, so it seems proportionate. And in the end it's impossible to humiliate someone further thatn the French have managed to humiliate themselves!

I imagine Admin sometimes just wants an easy life, and there was more than enough nutters on that thread to make it very difficult.

:)) That's genuinely hilarious. "no doubt lower than your expectations at my age" Bloody hell, I think you're a bit divorced from reality! At 27 I was flat sharing with two mates selling classified advertising on a salary less than yours and my only 'expectations' were to someday get pissed and shagged. Being permanently skint didn't attract either beer or girls. That's what it's like for 27 year olds. That's life. If you want the trappings of wealth that most people don't acquire until middle aged it's because you're being avaricious, not because you have a right to it. I was jealous of people who'd bought houses a few years previously after the crash in '93. There was no feasible way I could ever afford to buy a property. I probably had a vague feeling that "I'd just be happy just to pay for a simple studio flat from a modest salary" There is no doubt that you genuinely feel that you've got it harder than everyone else. You haven't. What your generation seems to have is a lot more self-regard than previous generations, and an overwhelming sense of entitlement. You're not even 'trapped' on benefits. Instead of making yourself sick you should be thinking about what the skills are that you need to acquire to get a better paid role, and then buckle down and do it. At some time over the next few years you should also think about the compromises you'll need to make to find a partner with whom you're willing to make a major joint property investment.

Whilst there are undoubtedly exceptional circumstances, I can't believe that people in their twenties whose rent is being paid for by other people should start demanding one bed flats. Up until my 30th birthday I lived in shared flats with all the trouble that brings. I didn't like all my flatmates, and they didn't all like me. I spent two years with four blokes living in a one bed flat in Kennington. I had the same problems with one flatmate who worked in the booze trade, with late nights and late starts. Getting woken at 2am when him and his pissed up colleagues arrived back for a party was a nightmare. That's life, you make compromises. The sense of entitlement that radiates from a significant number of those living on benefits is quite shocking. As I say, I believe in the welfare state, but it's NOT there to give one bed flats to people in their twenties. That's not discrimination.

That's a pretty good reason to boycott them for short sighted prejudice.

Private landlords can't afford to leave housing empty, they need to maximise return on their asset/investment. The rent defaults to the highest rate possible given the quality of the stock and means of their potential customers. There's a perfectly valid argument that housing benefits have merely subsidised exploitative private landlords, and that limiting that subsidy will drive rents down. Deflating rental returns may well make housing a less attractive investment, removing the impetus behind the price bubble and actually making housing more affordable. If that proves true DJKQ, then potentially your own arguments are the greatest enemy of your long term goals? Again, I'm a big supporter of the welfare state, and believe there are many that deserve that support. It's just important to realise that the greatest plans can go awry through exploitation, and that the welfare system does have a massively distorting effect on society.

SteveT... "[The Chinese] have in a relatively short time more or less bankrupted the western world" This is crazy talk, you're trying to blame the Chinese for the financial crisis??? The US went nuts with a low tax, high spend government that was pissing cash away on various unsuccesful international wars. Because they had no cash, they issued government bonds some of which the Chinese bought because they had more money than sense and a substantial balance of trade problem. Even so, China doesn't 'own' US debt. In total the US debt is around $13 trillion. China only owns $800bn of that. Before anyone does a nut job on that figure, Japan also owns $800bn, and guess what, the UK owns $400bn! The US electorate has absolutely no intention of stopping their stupid spend spend spend mentality. Their debt is expected to be $18 trillion within 10 years. If you want to know who's bankrupting the world, look to the US. Either way, that has absolutely nothing to do with the sub-prime crisis and the credit crunch. There's no question of 'not taking China seriously', it's a fifth of the world's population. I'm just saying that the challenge should be addressed in a sensible informed manner, not with knee jerk panic and a puke in the corner.