one judge rules squatters good for public, another rules eviction notice

 

1. "Fiona Henderson ruled they were not criminals and there was no evidence they carried out more anti-social behaviour than rent-paying tenants. “

   How about the fact that their behavior is, at its most basic level, theft? Not to mention the associated destruction of property. Isn’t that anti-social?

   Only in England, indeed…

   Posted by CenTexTim       09/07/2011  at  11:26 AM  



2. I am totaly anti squatters but long ago, under the Wilson attempt to destroy england, I met some unusual squatters, they had paid the deposit to have the power and gas and phone connected, were attending college and the whole road was scheduled for demolishing to make way for high rise ghettos. They were stuying building control and surveying. So they work out how many good solid victorian housed were being flattened, then looked at the plans for the high rise, then looked at the cost, given the green space planing laws the council were spending millions to produce 2 fewer homes. The squatters published this and caused an uproar (back when the English, and Londoners in particular had balls) and the homes are still there.
   Knowing this Im a little ambivalent towards some squatters but the culture enriching or traveller types, hang the bastards, all of them

   Posted by Chris Edwards       09/07/2011  at  06:08 PM  



3. So… the more we violate private property rights, the more saintly we are?

   Why do I have a problem with this?

   Posted by Christopher       09/07/2011  at  06:13 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.