Jump to content

squatters on goose green (Lounged)

maryopl

By maryopl
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Milo

Milo

Posted
Posted

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.

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

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.

Barn Seeker

Barn Seeker

Posted
Posted

Goose Green Team, I know what you mean!


A number of years ago now (crikey!) my friends and I also squatted a property. It was an old bank which had been left empty for about 1 year. There was a lovely flat upstairs - we entered through double doors with grand columns in front, walked up the lovely staircase with a mahogany balustrade, and when you reached the flat itself it was just lovely. Hardwood floors, double high ceilings, a fireplace in every room, a huge claw foot tub. Absolutely gorgeous. So my friends and I moved in, we were all working, I was a marketing assistant at the time, so fully suited and booted. We had a great year there before the Canary Wharf bombings, when the police decided to investigate all the empty properties near to major transport links for possible terrorists. So, one Sunday night while sitting in our jim jams with a cup of tea we were a bit shocked to suddenly have our lounge filled with coppers. But the police were very kind, said what a great place it was and that it ?wasn?t like the usual squats?, refused a cup of tea, but said they would have to tell the bank. We moved out over the next few days, and a few months later they tore the place down, which made me very sad. Ah well, I had a great year with great friends and we saved loads of money. And, like you said, we took care of the place, it was most defo in better shape than we found it. Houses go down hill quickly if they are left unoccupied.


Good luck to you, enjoy and do no harm.

SteveT

SteveT

Posted
Posted

davidh wrote:- of course they won't. they are just a stoopid little gang of wannabe working class heroes. all of them students and all of them slack arsed bludgers. their attitudes are certainly fascist.



Look here david tell it to us straight don't wrap it up in flowery language:))

TE44

TE44

Posted
Posted

according to the Audit Commission?s annual inspection. Southwark had the joint second worst inspection report in London.


The council?s failure to improve council housing and a sharp deterioration in its social care services were singled-out in the report for particular criticism. Southwark is one of only two councils in London to receive a ?red flag? for its housing services, which means that housing problems are ?not being tackled adequateley"


In the weekly mag for bidding, there is a page telling you last weeks places, what band and length of time on waiting list,

very depressing for those living in unbearable situations.

Meld

Meld

Posted
Posted

plimsoul Wrote:

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

> there are apparently 43,000 properties empty

>

> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-1372038

> 3-43000-empty-homes.do



...in London


That article was published in 2004.


The Guardian published this one more recently:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/04/empty-houses-guardian-research

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

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?

Meld

Meld

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> 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?


It is just going round in circles now. The same speculation about this scenario has been repeated enough times that it is now being quoted as fact.

Meld

Meld

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> If the house is still untouched in a year, I'll go

> round and deliver a delicious casserole to any

> residing squatters.

>

> Up until then, I feel the benefit of the doubt

> should reside with the person who only recently

> paid over ?700k for it.



You just did it again!

pk

pk

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> If the house is still untouched in a year, I'll go

> round and deliver a delicious casserole to any

> residing squatters.

>

> Up until then, I feel the benefit of the doubt

> should reside with the person who only recently

> paid over ?700k for it.


i kinda agree with bits of it, but i don't think that the (presumably) rich, (possibly) ruthless property developer really cares about the social side of things - creating homes to take people off the streets, they're in it to line their own pockets and the flats won't be cheap i'm sure (or that (s)he needs the help of those on this board to fight their battles, when they want the squatters out i'm sure they'll get them out)


Property developers extending and turning beautiful old housing into flats for the own personal gain are now seen as the good guys and the victims, who woulda thunk it?


(i have assumed that the property in question is indeed the one that was recently bought for ?715k and for which planning permission to turn into flats has been sought and granted, if not, i accept that the above might not be relevant)

Meld

Meld

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Did what?

>

> I don't understand. Unless you're somehow saying

> the house wasn't sold recently?

>

> Please explain?!


I meant quoting speculation as fact.


Do we know for sure that the house was in fact sold recently and for ?700k etc etc or is it one person speculating who claims to have inside knowledge about it? Much like on a recent dangerous dogs thread on here where a full description of the dangerous dog's owner was posted by someone who was sure that they knew who it was - before it transpired that they had the wrong guy!

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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