Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So is that squatting as a form of political protest?


We used to have sit-ins at University, but we generally chose high-profile buildings like the senate, because it was more likely to have an impact than a slug infested Coventry lean-to.


Or is it squatting as a form of preservation?


I've seen loads of other successful conservation campaigns too. Likewsie they've generally been more successful if they've engaged the local community rather than sitting in a boarded up cess pit with five other people that don't wash.


We even have a moderately successful government initiative - listed buildings.


So it makes me think that those excuses are a bit tired too.

Bottom line is, as far as I am concerned, if I own something (a house or anything) it is entirely up to me to decide what I do with it. If I want to leave it empty - so be it. That is my right.


If I chose to leave my car parked in my driveway for a considerable period of time without using it, would someone else be entitled to come along, use it, drive around in it and treat it as there own and justify the fact on the grounds that they had replaced the brake-pads, topped up the oil and generally avoided crashing it? Of course not.


Why should houses be different? I have always found the notion of squatting intrinsically morally repugnant - simply because of the act of theft that is implicit in the act.

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> Bottom line is, as far as I am concerned, if I own

> something (a house or anything) it is entirely up

> to me to decide what I do with it. If I want to

> leave it empty - so be it. That is my right.

>

> If I chose to leave my car parked in my driveway

> for a considerable period of time without using

> it, would someone else be entitled to come along,

> use it, drive around in it and treat it as there

> own and justify the fact on the grounds that they

> had replaced the brake-pads, topped up the oil and

> generally avoided crashing it? Of course not.

>

> Absolutely agree.

Huguenot, despite your "grammatical competence", your post doesn't really make sense. I haven't seen any evidence of GGT being "menacing" on this thread and I can't see how you are infering any threats of violence. The reason they post as a "team" is because the individual poster is representing the group, not in an attempt to intimidate (and I can't understand how you can be "intimidated" by posts on a internet forum).

Huggers Wrote:

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

> its not like stealing a car though is it. Theyre

> not going to sell it on. Its more borrowing.And I

> mean that as an analogy by the way.



i agree, they're not necessarily going to 'permanently deprive' the owner and they're not going to move it so that the owner can't find it


an alternative analogy would be: finding a football in the park with no apparent owner and playing with it in that park but not taking it away, so that the owner is still able to find it and claim it (something that i see often in playgrounds)

Apart from the fact that a house costs a few hundred thousands times more, hasn't been left 'lying around' and creates slightly more complicated issues if the borrower doesn't want to give it back.


No, its exactly like a football.

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote:

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

> Apart from the fact that a house costs a few

> hundred thousands times more, hasn't been left

> 'lying around' and creates slightly more

> complicated issues if the borrower doesn't want to

> give it back.

>

> No, its exactly like a football.


analogies aren't supposed to be exactly the same, if they were they wouldn't be analogies


cars aren't exactly the same as houses either (you can drive them for a start, but i am not going to get into an argument about which of a car or a football is more like a house)

"The zoopla site that someone mentioned estimated a rental income for this house as a figure that I calculated as roughly 5% of purchase cost. While it's unrented, the owner is forgoing that."


Quite true, had the owner been planning to rent it out right now, but it seems the owner is planning on doing a complete refurb, and presumably wasn't planning on renting it out until the work had been completed, in which case they aren't forgoing that at all.

I don't think they did themselves any favours coming on here, but it was brave nevertheless.


The fact of the matter is, affordable housing in London doesn't exist. I think it a very inventive thing to do whilst studying and shows great initiative and resourcefulness. Even if it's not a political standpoint and they are just freeloading, I salute them.

Look on the bright side. Perhaps the people who own the house are the same property developers who have bought the flat next door to my house, erected what we experience on our side as a seven foot fence and turned the light out in our sunny south facing garden in the twinkling of an eye while erecting whatever they want behind it. Now that would be karma.

Food, water and shelter are the fundamental needs of all humans.


The enclosing of common land started the commodification of land and homes and Thatcher then Blair took it to a level that means that one of the most fundamental needs of all human beings is now out of reach of millions.


Living in a caravan or tent is not an option for most as there are too many restrictions on where you can pitch/park.


Cars and other property are not something that is fundamental to survival, so if people are homeless and rich property owners have more homes than they need or can be bothered to look after then I think it's perfectly acceptable for homeless people to satisfy their fundamental human need for shelter by squatting the empty property.

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote:

>

> if people are homeless

> and rich property owners have more homes than they

> need or can be bothered to look after then I think

> it's perfectly acceptable for homeless people to

> satisfy their fundamental human need for shelter

> by squatting the empty property.



define homeless? A bunch of students with laptops and internet access does not scream 'homeless' at me. Not many homeless people are enrolled at college and spend their free time chatting in forums on the internet. Not wanting to work your arse off like most people in order to pay rent or to stay at your mums because it's like, waaaaay cooler maan to break into someone else's house does not equal homeless.

do we really think that if the GGT weren't squatting in this house they would be sleeping rough? With their laptops tucked into their sleeping bags?

And who said the owner 'can't be bothered to look after his property?' - they have only just bought it and are most likely assembling a crew/waiting for paperwork to be signed off to start renovating it! If you went abroad for a few weeks holiday and when you got back 7 students had broken in and decided your home was now theirs, would you think, 'fair play, I wasn't really looking after the place!'

hellosailor Wrote:

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

> ImpetuousVrouw Wrote:

> >

> > if people are homeless

> > and rich property owners have more homes than

> they

> > need or can be bothered to look after then I

> think

> > it's perfectly acceptable for homeless people

> to

> > satisfy their fundamental human need for

> shelter

> > by squatting the empty property.

>

>

> define homeless? A bunch of students with laptops

> and internet access does not scream 'homeless' at

> me. Not many homeless people are enrolled at

> college and spend their free time chatting in

> forums on the internet. Not wanting to work your

> arse off like most people in order to pay rent or

> to stay at your mums because it's like, waaaaay

> cooler maan to break into someone else's house

> does not equal homeless.

> do we really think that if the GGT weren't

> squatting in this house they would be sleeping

> rough? With their laptops tucked into their

> sleeping bags?

> And who said the owner 'can't be bothered to look

> after his property?' - they have only just bought

> it and are most likely assembling a crew/waiting

> for paperwork to be signed off to start renovating

> it! If you went abroad for a few weeks holiday and

> when you got back 7 students had broken in and

> decided your home was now theirs, would you think,

> 'fair play, I wasn't really looking after the

> place!'



Funny! Hello Sailor just posted on another thread that his or her property has been valued at 90k more than what he she paid for it 4 years ago. A profit of 90k over four years = ?22.5k per year, which is almost the national average salary.

A profit that's all down to his or her hard work I'm sure. And now that same property will be a further ?90k out of reach of all those people who aren't on the ladder. No matter though, it's all their fault for not working hard enough, right? The system is working great for you, isn't it?

Actually Meld several of us family members put all our savings together to put a deposit down on the flat I mentioned in the other thread, in order to rent it out to generate an income, 100% of which pays for carers for my mother as she is too ill to wash, dress or cook for herself, and we couldn't afford to pay for her to have the level of care she needed without selling the home we grew up in and spending the savings we had tried to put aside in our early 20s. not an easy feat considering that we were in our mid twenties at the time and none of us have ever earned more than 18k a year. I only hope the flat has gone up 90k, as my mother is not yet 60 and will need increasing care for the rest of her life. So I'm not on the ladder either - I spent the money I could have put towards 'getting on the ladder' on paying for care for my mother because having worked hard all her life the 'system'which you confidently assert is 'working great for me' does not see fit to look after her.

Still find it 'funny'?


edited to add

just read over your other posts on this thread including the sophisticated response to helena handbasket, 'why not wind your neck in and climb back into your box?' and now wish I hadn't taken 2 minutes out of my life to reply to your last 'contribution'.

Things vary according to where you live ( politics ) but here in Southwark I help care for a lady in her 90's who lives alone with no mobility etc .

She has not had to sell the family home and makes a nominal contribution towards the 10 carers provided by social services who call every day .

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Things vary according to where you live ( politics

> ) but here in Southwark I help care for a lady in

> her 90's who lives alone with no mobility etc .

> She has not had to sell the family home and makes

> a nominal contribution towards the 10 carers

> provided by social services who call every day .



Are you kidding? Do you lot not find this a little insensitive considering what's been said?


Well done for looking after that old lady though - I'm sure that acts as an appropriate counterbalance for being a cretin the rest of the time.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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