Jump to content

squatters on goose green (Lounged)


maryopl

Recommended Posts

Are the squatters hampering the process though? Have they already been asked to leave? I may have missed some of their posts.


No idea but there is normally considerable delay in the development (at great cost) when squatters have to be removed.


James Barber posted that there are 5k empty properties already in Southwark. So is creating another 1-2 actually solving a problem? Or is the problem much more complicated than this?


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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've never renovated a house myself, but I'm

> thinking 'not being able to get inside it' could

> slow things up.



I take your point, and again I may have missed some posts, but I'm not sure that there has been any confirmation that any renovation work is definitely planned or was due to begin any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

two different discussions are being held here


1. Is squatting justifiable? From our distant perspective and given the criminal waste of habitable properties, it seems most people think so yes


2. Is this squatting of this particular building on Goose Green "justified"? Well we've pretty much established there's nothing illegal going on, though I don't think the squatters have helped their case much. They have done a brave thing by posting on the forum - in the wolves den - and introducing themselves but I don't think they could have expected much more than the usual daily mail vs che guevara arguments - this here forum is as partisan as it gets.


fact is, now the whole internet knows where they live. i seriously doubt they'll be any trouble. if they move on when asked then no harm, no foul.


now get back to work. all of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this post makes me really glad I don't live in E Dulwich. Not the squatters, it's the judgemental, swivel-eyed reactionaries I'd find hard to take, particularly with their sweeping generalisations about 'middle class scroungers'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know what is going on here. You seriously don't know the full story.


Our group consists of 7 college students, we aren't even at University yet. To be honest ?30 a week EMA doesn't cut it in the 21st centuary. We all live on the top 2 floors of our house.


On the bottom 3 floors there are 10 Polish people, who were recently evicted from their squat, therefore homeless in this country. We won't go into the logistics of it all, but they all work full time on wages that the likes of the majority of you wouldn't survive on. They are a group of intelligent, civilised and exstremely creative people.


Stop creating stupid stereotypes for us, don't talk about what you have no clue about.


This is the 21st century, be a bit more open minded.


On the other hand. We would like to thank everyone who has been supporting us.

The Goose Green Squatters. x



RIP Guru.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe you think your posts are convincing....there's so so many holes to pick.....maybe you're trying to convince yourself. or maybe you should just ring up mum and ask if she'll take you back.


Don't con yourself mate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are just interested in what you think those holes are?


When we said "pick your words carefully," we were trying to say, that you shouldn't make assumptions about our situations, because its unjust.


Now, we have explained ourselves, would you mind explaining what you meant?


The Goose Green Squatters. xxx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alice, You should have a look at you own tone, what holes?


You may have been lucky enough to ask mummy to take you back, but not everyone is in that situation.


In fact, I've met many young people who cannot live at home and struggle on EMA.


They can claim benefits if involved with social services but many do not want to go down that route.


I seriously think a lot of people posting here have led very diffrent lives and there eyes are shut to how the other half live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guru died? i have to go back and read this thread... no way, i thought it was just a stroke. i must have this wrong and i'm completely off topic... alas i would argue that after step in the arena it was downhill.


right off to read countless pages of bickering to check on an old rappers fate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to save me reading all this stereotypical cliched nonsense whose won the argument, the unbearably righteous spotty middleclass, class warrior freeloaders or the smug, suited, magnolia and organic olive oil drenched yuppie scum?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goosegreenteam

Here is a list of holes in your argument...because you asked.

1 You begin by claiming that you are partly motivated by rescuing a lovely old building from decay when it turns out that you know the building has only been empty for weeks and awaiting imminent work from the landlord. DIY to make yourself cosy it not the same as restoration.

2 You claim to be causing no upset to anyone while turning a blind eye to the obvious upset to the owner who you seem to be aware of but have little sympathy for.

3 You want to win a moral argument by insisting you have the law on your side.Legal rights are not the same as moral responsibilities.

4 Insisting on the owner asking you nicely to vacate is disingenuous due to the clearly confrontational nature of your actions.

5 You are painting your actions as similar to other squatter actions while they bare small resemblance to the occupation of unwanted public buildings that have fallen into neglect.

6 Your cause has little political weight above your own needs for cheap rent.

7 Because you are by your own admission intelligent,creative, able bodied and mostly in work, your claims to free housing do not compare well to the needs of less able.

8 thats enough holes...ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that was a splendid summary reggie, let's hear it for honesty.


I'm surprised by the number of twerps who actually think these 'squatters' are anything but freeloaders.


Regards the squatters, I don't think that saying 'woo woo we've explained ourselves' means you've explained yourself at all. There's only one thing you've actually said that could claim to be a fact - that you're students.


You also lied about being legal, because secretly you know you targeted the house and jiggled it a bit - forced entry.


When people make assumptions, it's because you've left an absolute vacuum. If you'd like to create an air of mystery (like a sixteen year old sporting a unicorn t-shirt in a pub being mysterious to attract women) then fine. But don't pretend you've explained yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Also those of us who are currently represented by Harriet Harman (who is standing down of course) will not be able to vote for her successor (Miatta Fahnbulleh) as the change of boundaries also puts us in with Reeves, rather than Peckham. I think this is a rather clever way for the conservatives to have taken the wind out of the sales of the end of one great career and its baton passing. (Hope that makes sense).
    • I presume that was you who won the Fantasy football though, James? That's a bit of consolation! As there appears to be at least a couple of Spurs fans amongst us, can anyone advise what is the best way to get to their new stadium from ED? I'm going to see the egg chasers on Saturday. I haven't been to Tottenham in about 30 years! Then it was quite a long walk from the tube if I remember correctly. I'd like to avoid that if possible. I'm in but I need to do a bit of research I think........
    • I certainly hope she’s not standing down. She’s a great MP both locally and nationally. 
    • I had certainly heard that Helen Hayes was planning to stand down from being an MP - although I don't think I've seen that confirmed anywhere that I recall. If so, that is a shame, she was generally very competent and she knew the area well. A very good constituency MP and  had performed reasonably creditably in a minor Front Bench role. A loss to Parliamentary politics, in my view, if she is standing down.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...