Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Waldo, ImpetuousVrouw... affordable housing is important, of course. BUT... while student accomodation in London isn't cheap, it is affordable with student loans and part-time work.


As for the Poles sharing the squat... surely the costs of living and their likely wages would be something they investigated before coming over here? If the numbers didn't add up, I don't know why they'd bother. I don't really have a lot of sympathy if they've voluntarily put themselves in a position where they need to squat.

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 wasnt suggesting that the hypothetical car was being 'stolen'. I was saying it was being used without the owner's consent simply by virtue of the fact that the owner wasn't him/herself actively using it. Whether or not the person taking the vehicle intended to leave it back afterwards or not is irrelevant.


If you think that it is ok in principal for someone to access and use someone else's possessions simply because the owner isn't actively using them at that point in time (which effectively is what happens with squatting), then logically you are obliged to extend the same principle to all possessions. If you balk at doing so you are clearly sensing something wrong with the basic moral principle. If that is so...why is squatting acceptable?


I wonder if these squatters would be very happy if I sneaked into their squat, took their laptop and borrowed it for a few days if they were away at a music festival or something? I bet they would kick off like h**l! Yet, morally, I would be applying exactly the same principle they are using to justify squatting.

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!'


Some of your points are valid, but I begin to disagree the minute you lapse into "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." What does 'coolness' have to do with it? What do you know of these people's home situations (are their parents even in London at all, or are these homes they can actually live in? We have no idea!) or what income they are able to make, what jobs they are able to secure in the present market?


It's such a typical and ignorant way of sniping at the other party and it only devalues your argument. You disagree with the idea that it's okay for people to move into someone else's property without permission - fair enough, and an argument that has much to back it up. But what do you actually know about these people, how they spend their day, what activities & work they're engaged in? Just because you disagree with their ethics doesn't validate any assumptions about their 'laziness' or otherwise, and letting your argument relate so heavily to these assumptions just makes you sound reactionary.

we do know something about the squatting boys ...they havent signed on as homeless in southwark - for that they would need to prove they cannot go back to parents. Young men in that group get housing benefit - for reasons they havent made clear they dont want to do that. Its not unreasonable, therefore, to consider the possibility that parents have refused to sign the homeless chitty or indeed that the boys dont actually want that done. Being 'cool' is a huge motivator for any action by a young person. It is irrelevant whether they are lazy, unpleasant, cute, academic, industrious etc

I agree genwilliams, that I don't know these boys personally and therefore admittedly don't know, as you say, whether or not they have the option of staying with parents.

I would however find it really quite a coincidence if every single one of a group of seven mates of pre-university age (the GGT state that they are college age and haven't been to uni 'yet') have all been simultaneously told they are no longer welcome at home by their parents. Perhaps it is partly their petulant tone when they refer to not being able to pay 'stupid rent charges in london' that adds fuel to my personal guess that they are not likely to be a group of underprivileged or genuinely 'homeless' people who can see no other option but to forcibly take someone else's home.


I note they say they are at college and have not been to university 'yet' - does this fit with the suggestion that they are a disadvantaged, underprivileged, homeless group? Who can say. I'm not sure how many of the homeless people sleeping rough on the embankment are planning on paying to go to uni anytime soon.



I don?t want to be too harsh here but that really isn?t what crosses the mind of people who are trying to get away for a better life. Or if it does enter the equation then faith and optimism override it


If I knew what I would be living on when I arrived in England I probably wouldn never have emigrated here ? doesn?t mean it wasn?t the right thing for me. When you are coming from a place with nothing (and Ireland in the 80s qualifies as close to that) then the (even minimal) chance of something better means you don?t over-worry about cost-of-living and wages. You just jump before it?s too late

Coming from Poland and coming from Ireland is not the same. The language issue means that a lot of Polish people are forced to work in menial lower paid jobs. Why would they think it is OK to make a new prosperous life in a place where you don't speak the language? Hopefully the message has got through now.

It wasn?t information or lack of that is a problem. I don?t think you need to worry about being misinterpreted ? but nor do I think I ever will convince you.


I just don?t think you have ever been in a situation (upbringing/geography) where desperate measures (with a sideorder of a gamble) are required


I know I said ?if I knew how much I would be on..? I may not have come over ? but the truth is I would have because the opportunity to better that existed in England in a way it just didn?t at home. It really is a no brainer

Cate ? have to question you on:


?The language issue means that a lot of Polish people are forced to work in menial lower paid jobs.?


Are you really not aware that it is only in recent years (say mid 80s or so) that the Irish have managed to escape from the role of badly paid menial jobs and labourers? I don?t see any signs up in B&Bs which expressly forbid Polish people in the way that Irish people were either

None of the posts about homelessness or financial hardship or destitution or whatever make the slightest bit of difference IMO. The owner of a property is the owner of a property and whatever he/she decides to do with it is up to him/her (as long as it doesan't actively harm others of course).


If those putting forward the homelessness/social conscience-type argument really believe that entitles people to use other people's belongings as they see fit - let me ask you a question. Do you have a spare room, piece of floor, couch etc in your own home that a homeless person could sleep on? That would be better than sleeping on the street, even if it isn't high luxury? If you do, how would you feel if a homeless person turned up on your doorstep, demanding the right to sleep in your house because there was sleeping space available that you weren't fully using? I doubt you would be very happy. WHat would you say if they pointed out that they needed shelter and you weren't using that box-room or corner of the lounge anyway?

I have Irish relatives and friends who emigrated to the US and the Caribbean. They did not work in low paid jobs for long.


I think the Irish you are talking about doing badly paid menial jobs are a good generation or two away. People who would be in their seventies or eighties now. From what I saw a lot of them had terrible alcohol problems and were quite possibly their own worst enemies. I am also guessing that they weren't as well educated as recent economic migrants from Ireland are. By recent I mean the Seventies and Eighties. After the Irish economy took off there were far less Irish needing or wanting to come over.


The reason I brought this up in the first place was because the GGT mentioned that there were Polish people living in the squat because they didn't get paid very much. Then you tried to align Irish immigration with that and I believe that the language difference means that it is not comparable.


I never saw signs forbidding Irish people in B&Bs although I understood that they existed. Black people were also forbidden. Wasn't that in the Fifties and Sixties? Obviously that would be illegal now.

cate Wrote:

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

> I have Irish relatives and friends who emigrated

> to the US and the Caribbean. They did not work in

> low paid jobs for long.

>

> I think the Irish you are talking about doing

> badly paid menial jobs are a good generation or

> two away. People who would be in their seventies

> or eighties now. From what I saw a lot of them

> had terrible alcohol problems and were quite

> possibly their own worst enemies. I am also

> guessing that they weren't as well educated as

> recent economic migrants from Ireland are. By

> recent I mean the Seventies and Eighties. After

> the Irish economy took off there were far less

> Irish needing or wanting to come over.

>

> The reason I brought this up in the first place

> was because the GGT mentioned that there were

> Polish people living in the squat because they

> didn't get paid very much. Then you tried to

> align Irish immigration with that and I believe

> that the language difference means that it is not

> comparable.

>

> I never saw signs forbidding Irish people in B&Bs

> although I understood that they existed. Black

> people were also forbidden. Wasn't that in the

> Fifties and Sixties? Obviously that would be

> illegal now.


What difference does language make in terms of whether it is right or not to squat in other people's property? If an Englifh speaker moved to Germany or France or Greece would they therefore be entitled to squat?


Furthermore, do we know that these polish people don't speak ENglish? I know many Polish people with superb English. Pop into any number of places on LL.

Domitianus, I am not defending anyone's right to squat. I was responding to Sean's statements. It is possible that the Polish people in the squat are there because they can't get 'better jobs' because they can't speak English very well. And perhaps not. Maybe they just fancy squatting, which I said I wasn't condoning. I too know many Polish people with superb English. Many of them have their own companies.


PK - The message as I see it is think about where you are going to make a new life, especially if you don't speak the language. The same goes for English speakers moving to other countries like Spain and France.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> cate:

>

> > Why would they think it is OK to make

> > a new prosperous life in a place where you don't

>

> > speak the language? Hopefully the message has

> got

> > through now.

>

> Something no Briton would ever consider, right?


Reminds me of a time many moons ago when I worked for a charity based in Belfast. The Director, a ghastly woman who allowed her politics to permeate the workplace once declared, whilst drunk, her objection to English people moving over to Northern Ireland and taking Irish people's jobs!!! The irony of her statement seemed lost on her.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> cate:

>

> > Why would they think it is OK to make

> > a new prosperous life in a place where you don't

>

> > speak the language? Hopefully the message has

> got

> > through now.

>

> Something no Briton would ever consider, right?



Eh? See my comment above. Which part of Ireland are you from Sean?

I understand the concept of "starting a new life" , that's how I came to Britain myself, but I was more than aware of the cost of living in London and ED is not an inexpensive neighborhood. There are loads of places in England that one can make a go of a better life without paying the London premium, particularly if your skill set is not white collar.

Again, all of this is interesting but IMO no amount of debate about whether individuals are hard up, destitute, should have known better, can't speak the language etc etc, alters the fact that taking over another person's property and using it without permission is morally abhorrent.


Any government that had guts would introduce legislation that squatting become illegal and that property owners have the right to use any reasonable force to expel them from their premises. In fact, I would welcome any government move to make the act of squatting a criminal offence and give police the right to remove squatters from a building instantly and prosecute them.


Btw, I am not sure if the spokesperson for the GGT answered my question as to how they had gained access to the house in the first place. I don't plan to trawl back over a dozen pages but did anyone see an answer?

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?


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..........




*spelling edit

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...