Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know what the council's policy is on squatters. The old bank is a council building that has been left unfilled for over two years. Outside is a main thoroughfare for kids going to school in the mornings. Police have been called a number of times due to disturbances but don't have the power to remove.

PXL_20231101_122030096.jpg

PXL_20231101_122139361.jpg

If I was cold, skint, homeless and vulnerable then I think any four walls and a roof would be my preferred option.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would be keen to know if any curtain-twitching neighbours here on the forum can expand on the nature of any disturbances they might have imagined...

Presumably the squatters are reserving their sinister antisocial spectacles for those moments that the kids are journeying to and from school.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Many organisations with empty buildings waiting to be sold/redeveloped etc go for the guardianship options. Approved tenants pay a set rent inclusive of bills per room until the owners of property are ready to start work. My granddaughter and partner are in such a scheme in North London - a former care home. One room and ensuite loo and wash basin, communal kitchen and showers. Unfortunately the building has now received planning consent for flats so they will have to move. Joining the many other young couples seeking affordable London accommodation. When they were living at home - were paying £60 pw fares each. Both are NHS workers.

  • Like 1
On 16/11/2023 at 14:15, alice said:

Squatters are quite often children of the middle-class, having fun rather than people from the homeless or council waiting lists. 

This is just lazy Daily Mail regurgitation. The facts are available here from Crisis: https://www.crisis.org.uk/media/236930/squatting_a_homelessness_issue_2011.pdf

  • Like 4
  • 3 weeks later...

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

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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