Check the photo attached to this news article for en example of the sort of damage caused by "squatters": http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7087
Here's a counter-example to your article: http://londonist.com/2009/01/temporary_school_of_thought.php
Musicians, artists, digital media designers, programmers and TV-types - someone who is now a producer at the BBC doing wonderful things - actors, writers, some of the more politically-involved people I've met - a fairly broad swathe of not-entirely-negative character types.
Sure, some of these character types might personally irritate me from time to time, but Goddamn if this city wouldn't be culturally poorer without them...
Whereas - the boors and hooligans, the litterers and asocial egoist vandals I've met in my time are typically what you'd presumably consider 'normal' people - generally middle class, some from the lower tracts, some from the higher - mostly employed, mostly bemonied and self-satisifed. There's a higher catchment of people in this demographic who appear to feel little social compunction, little value in the world they find themselves in, little incentive to invest in others or in society.
Squatters at the very least appear to have considered their place in society and what society means to them and those around them - not something I'd say for the vast lump of the placated population.
imho, naturally.
We moved out and rented premises and homes as soon as we could, which was after about two years. Nobody noticed we were there (no visibility from any other properties or the street, even though it's bang in the centre of a city), and we left it with no leaks, clean windows, the floor restored, everything repainted and cleaned, and the rats and gulls cleared out.
About six months after we left, they bricked up the one and only entrance, and it's once more sitting there, quietly rotting.
Do you actually go up to and introduce yourself to the scumbags? If not, then I call hyperbole.
That is simply not true but thank you for providing an example of the hot air about homelessness that I referred to.
Squatters rely on section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which creates an offence of using or threatening unauthorised violence for the purpose of securing entry into any premises, while there is known to be a person inside opposing entry. As I said, this was originally implemented to prevent slum landlords from using violence to drive out tenants who benefited from statutory rent controls.
No UK government has ever passed any law that legalises or permits squatting.
I'm not sure what you mean about "hot air about homelessness"? Do you think squatters have nice warm homes that they could actually go back to if they weren't being such frightful brutes?
Remember this legal philosophy gem next time you read about a corporation using a tax loophole.
This is not to mention that tax law is a lot more complex and likely to result in subtle loopholes than this specific, evidently well-known one.
Actually, it did in 2012.
Still, it's a start and there are indications that the government is taking the problem seriously. Last year, MPs were asked to provide evidence of the scale and impact of squatting in commercial premises in their constituencies, which provided an opportunity for constituents to highlight the problems caused by squatters.
"Offence of Squatting in a Residential Building" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
It's some pretty curious moral arithmetic you've got going on there.
You are a part of civilization. Accept it.
Perhaps a compromise in which property is protected but the protection comes in exchange for some limitations on how you can use it... isn't actually the end of the world?
I don't disagree, though I'm not so sure that the only possible alternative is Mad Max.
That said, historically, setting rules for how property should be used is as much a part of the State's existence as protecting its owners.
I know quite a few people who've lived in squats from time to time over the years, and they're generally lovely people.
So, you know, we can all have an opinion.
And if you had 5, 10, or 20 squatters... how long do you think it would take one jerk to ruin the place top to bottom.
Squatters don't need to be all bad to destroy properties. Only a tiny percentage of them have to be destructive, and then building will look like a hellhole by the time the owner sees what's been done.
You have made some logical errors here.
The fact that there is a hole in the wall is not ascribed to squatters and could equally be attributed to general disrepair.
I accept you might say: "there has been at least some crime, so there has been at least one criminal"... but you still don't know if that one criminal was a squatter or how many squatters there were who were not committing such crimes.
In the end, this anecdotal/circumstantial evidence teaches us nothing.
But I do take the point about the cost of evicting plus lost revenue. Use of empty properties could be a good solution for homelessness if well managed but the Govt. doesn't want to put resources towards that because it's easier to let charities deal with it.
"The housing situation in London is shocking. Young people, students and people who are low paid just cannot get places to live.
"Rather than going for that legal framework, we should be looking at ways where the owners of those buildings are encouraged to enter in to short term agreements that people will leave as soon as they need the building.
Does she realise that she's advocating the creation of formalised (temporary) slums? These are office buildings, in no way fitted out for residential use.
Building can be empty for all sorts of reasons - between tenancies, pending repairs or building work, or awaiting the granting of planning permission for redevelopment.
It's as if someone hacks into your computer while you're asleep, but you're not allowed to kick them off or even reboot/switch off the computer, unless you go to court first.