Judge Henderson said she accepted that disclosure of the list would ‘facilitate squatting and associated crime’, that this would cost public money to prevent and that ‘the feeling of security of people living in neighbouring houses’ would be undermined'.Translation: 'But it won't happen to me, so...*shrug*...'
It came as a surgeon and his wife begged squatters to leave their new London home amid fears the stress could complicate the birth of their first child, who is due tomorrow.Perhaps Oliver and Kaltun Cockerell should find out where this ignorant bewigged bitch lives and squat in her house? Just until the baby's ohh, say, at toddling stage? Wouldn't want to impose, after all.
Did we need any more evidence that the political class isn't the only problem we face in this country?
H/T: Tattyfalaar in comments
12 comments:
As the Mouth of the Mersey demonstrated, it is far, far easier to implement comrade Gramsci's plans by getting your friends and family to appoint you a judge, than it is to stand for election and win.
If Cameron were any use, his main priority would be defenestrate all those entryist Marxists who really run the country and who were put in place by Blair and hs fellow student politicians.
It's difficult to believe that the story is true - if it is, then it's the most legally activist judgement that I've heard of this century.
On what authority does the Judge expect the property lists to be provided? How can private trusts/organisations be compelled to comply?
One can thank Prescott that property owners can have unoccupied homes 'taken over' by the council for up to 7 years - this is the logical next step in expropriating property rights.
Considering the high value the law frequently places on property and ownership it is always a puzzle how we came to be so lax about squatters.
Most people who have squatters taking what isn't theirs would not be opposed to the use of big boots and baseball bats to tidy the place up. But perhaps the righteous and privileged don't want to do anything about squatters because that's how their own ancestors got to be powerful generations ago.
(WV = "bling" yes, at last, a word I can use!)
Another extremist hiding beneath a wig. As soon as I saw the name, "Information Rights Tribunal", I knew it was one of Blair's front organisations for judicial activism.
Everyone should ignore the judgement, it is laughable and not based on law, only far left lunacy.
Silly bitch !!!
So, just WHO is surprised?
"Considering the high value the law frequently places on property and ownership it is always a puzzle how we came to be so lax about squatters."
Because the common law on which squatters' rights are based weren't constructed to take account of a bunch of crusties invading your home while you're at your Mum's 'cause the builders are in, or you're on holiday, but because of the wholesale clearances of tenants by unscrupulous (often noble) landlords going back centuries.
With the mass increase in owner occupation, I'll break with my normal and suggest this is definitely one for statutory revision on the basis of "sole or main residence" for the owner versus signed tenancy agreement and escrowed deposit for the "occupier".
Yes, I know - I'm asking for a new law - but only to clear up the existing legislative mess.
And, as unfortunately happens so rarely, some good news. Albeit from the Daily Heil:
"The 11-strong group, who invaded the West Hampstead home, promised to move out an hour before Katun Cockerell's husband, consultant neurologist Oliver, was due to go to court to secure an eviction order."
And this from back in March. NFA, of course, like pretty much all of the actually good ideas from the Coalition, as opposed to all of theier 'god' ideas.
I apologise for the complete failure of my spelling today.
Although it was an interestingly Freudian slip. Not "theier", of course ...
"As the Mouth of the Mersey demonstrated, it is far, far easier to implement comrade Gramsci's plans by getting your friends and family to appoint you a judge, than it is to stand for election and win."
Oh, indeed. They've been playing the long game too. This didn't start with NuLabour. It started long, long before.
"It's difficult to believe that the story is true..."
Once upon I time, I'd have thought that too.
"...it is always a puzzle how we came to be so lax about squatters."
Indeed! But as SE points out, it does have it's root (like most of our laws) in a far, far different society than we now find ourselves in.
""
"And, as unfortunately happens so rarely, some good news."
Rather confusing, this one. Earlier the 'Evening Standard' was proclaiming that the squatters had had a change of heart and AGREED to go!
Change of heart ...bollocks...they were either shamed into it by the nationwide publicity OR someone with a little less regard for the law than the rightful homeowners made them an offer they didn't dare refuse which should always have been been Plan A. Burden of proof being what it is these days...
Post a Comment