Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know some of these squatters very well. They are quite dishonest. They are not homeless individuals as they all live at home with their parents and take turns to stay in the house. One of them lives in my house and every time I go to work I come back wandering what else has been stolen. BE WARY.


They are not homeless individuals in need of a home.

helena handbasket Wrote:

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

> 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?


Perhaps they used the gift of eyesite.


> 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..........

>


I thought you were going to stop making things up? What's your point?

They are local. A couple live close to East Dulwich and others in Central London. They do not actually live there and go back to their parents home on a very, very regular basis. It's more of a teenage boys den than it is a squat for homeless young people desparate for somewhere to live.


Hot water, electricity - they do not need it! Their parents feed them at home, their parents do their laundry, they bath at their parents home where they live for 5-6 days a week, their parents give them pocket money and they stay at the squat when their parents let them out to play. Most of them still go to school!


Typically mum and dad will cook them their dinner at home and then they will come out to play in their den. They will go back to their parents house when they are hungry, will have a cup of cocoa, stay in a warm bed and watch TV (Satellite or cable)at their parent's expense. Most of them come from affluent backgrounds, are not homeless, live in nice houses and have caring and doting parents. It's a bit of a game!

While you may be getting water and electricity supply accounts by the book, are you able to say that members of your team are able to get finance for the water/gas and electricity by the book? Most of you are still at school aren't you? I suggest you ask members of your team to confirm they are funding the finance of your squat by legal means only, but just remember, one of your squatters lives in my house and I may already know what the answer is!


I suggest you make sure your team live above the law in all aspects of their life and do not abuse their parents' hospitality.


None of you are actually homeless are you? You have one or two people staying during the week so the squat is occupied. The rest of you are at home, watching TV with your parents.


Squats are for people who are homeless and they are not supposed to be a weekend retreat for teenagers who want to live on the edge. The hypocrisy is that the squat is your second home and you are using legislation and squatters rights to give youselves that second home. No doubt when you're all qulaified and working in the City you'll all buy a second home in the country as an alternative and look back at the radical good old days with fondness.

Their parents feed them at home, their parents do their laundry, they bath at their parents home where they live for 5-6 days a week, their parents give them pocket money and they stay at the squat when their parents let them out to play. Most of them still go to school!


Typically mum and dad will cook them their dinner at home and then they will come out to play in their den. They will go back to their parents house when they are hungry, will have a cup of cocoa, stay in a warm bed and watch TV (Satellite or cable)at their parent's expense.



Good grief - you sound like a stalker...

How the f*ck did I miss this thread?


Squatting is not 'legal' - it's just that it's not a crime per se. There is a big difference. It is trespass, and the person with the right to possession is entitled to possession subject to going through the right procedural hoops.


Did someone really post "all property is theft"?


I've seen it all now.

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

    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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