Alan, an art teacher in his late 40s, began squatting a few months ago when his marriage broke down. He enquired about social housing, but was told none was available.
"I was born in London and have lived here all my life but it seems I'm expected to go somewhere else where I know nobody," he says.
"Is that what the big society is all about?"Who knows?
I know what it isn’t about, though.
It isn’t about theft. It isn’t about parasitism. It isn’t about entitlement. It isn’t about people getting a free ride on the work of others because they aren’t prepared to make changes.
From Saturday Alan and up to 20,000 other squatters in England and Wales face eviction as police prepare to enforce a radical change to the law which criminalises those occupying residential buildings.The police will probably make a few high-profile raids then go back to fobbing people off at every turn, but hey! It’s a start…
Squatters' rights organisations say the change in the law is unnecessary when legal remedies already exist for property owners …The problem is that they are costly, time-consuming, enrich more - *spit* - lawyers and don’t prevent your home being trashed. Nor do they adequately punish the miscreants.
… while housing charities say that it could trigger a sharp increase in homelessness.Nonsense! By definition, these squatters are already ‘homeless’. They are just hidden from stats!
Police are refusing to comment on any plans to embark on evictions over the weekend, but some eviction notices have already been reported in London.Good. Bring ‘em on!
The ‘Guardian’ continues with it’s cavalcade of sob stories:
Rachel, not her real name, is in her late 20s. She does voluntary work with the NHS.
"This house may be classified as residential," she said, "but it's not fit to live in. We had to stop leaks in the roof and replumb the building.
"We want to improve the building so that we can have an agreement with the owners to stay. Unfortunately they won't talk to us. I have never claimed benefits before but I may have to consider it. Suddenly becoming a criminal overnight is tough. Housing is a basic need."Food is a basic need too. That doesn’t mean we are entitled to steal it from others whenever we want without sanction…
There are, of course, plenty of fakecharities lining up to get their views known:
Myk Zeitlin, a volunteer at the Advisory Service for Squatters, said: "This legislation is badly designed. It is a response to a myth started by sections of the media that people were having their homes squatted while they were out.
"There were already laws to cover such non-existent circumstances."It’s ‘a myth’, is it? Tell that to these people!
Duncan Shrubsole, director of policy for Crisis, the charity for single homeless people, said: "The majority of people squatting are in empty buildings. Forty percent of homeless people have squatted at some time. We will see street homelessness rise if there's a blitz against squats. It will have a dramatic impact."Good. It’s meant to!
Catherine Brogan of Squash, the campaign group which opposed the bill, said: "It's the wrong time to be criminalising homeless people. Rents keep going up. Vulnerable people are being demonised. This will benefit landlords who leave their premises empty."Rather begs the questing, then, when is the right time to be ‘criminalising the homeless’?
And why shouldn’t they leave their premises empty? It’s their property. Who are you to tell them how they should use it?
Peter Risdon argues that the medieval age had a far better solution (citing the blighting effects on future employment prospects of criminalising squatters), but I disagree.
Thieves is what they are. Why shouldn’t they finally be treated as such?
James Higham believes this is just laying the ground for the dystopian nightmare of future rent increases, but again I disagree.
Most of the sqautters that come to press or blog attention aren't ordinary people who've fallen on hard times, but parasites or professional criminals.
Much as it pains me, I salute the ConDems for at least getting something right!
14 comments:
"I was born in London and have lived here all my life but it seems I'm expected to go somewhere else where I know nobody"
Housing is allocated on the basis of need, art teacher Alan, and a family of umpteen Somalis has a greater need:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2751333/Former-asylum-seeker-lives-in-luxurious-home-paid-for-by-housing-benefit.html
Welcome to the world you and the Guardianistas created.
I supported squatting/adverse possession in properties held vacant for no reason other than capital gain. Having confessed to this great sin, the majority of honest and hard working citizens, myself included, lost sympathy in an exponential fashion.
The moral ground has totally evaporated. That weekly visit to Tesco is now accompanied by Italian and Eastern European phobia. The fear of a huge, non-English speaking family, changing the domestic locks whilst you squander time examining wine labels, tends to focus the mind on the return journey.
Criminal law was not the solution. The state is not your friend. You should simply be entitled to use all necessary force to remove trespassers and then be able to pay security firms, not lawyers, to act. You don't have to go back to the Middle Ages to find the courts saying that an Englishman's home is his castle.
"This will benefit landlords who leave their premises empty."
Yes, there's nothing that a landlord likes more than to have a fallow property. Who the hell wants revenue, anyway?
Anon at 10:10 makes a good point. Look at the congenital idiots in the comments "we need more affordable housing". We have it, but the Sandalista gave it to people from overseas.
And the sooner some Guardian reader has his iPad taken during a mugging, or his daughter violated by one of these enrichments, the better.
Squatting is pure theft. It is depriving someone of the use of their property. So the law is right to be implemented and backed by the state. You can use private security such as bailiffs to evict them, but you need the law to back them up along with the police who would be handling any other major theft case for the criminal act part.
As for homelessness. The figures include people who are in a home, but not just the right home. So a family with four children living in a two bed flat are classed as homeless. It's called statistics. You know, lies, damned lies, and stats. Actual number of people sleeping rough are more like dozens or less in each city.
I'm grateful to have never had to experience the hassle of having soap dodgers in my house, uninvited that is.
If I ever did, they would be expelled as burglars with extreme prejudice, pronto.
"Alan, an art teacher in his late 40s, began squatting a few months ago when his marriage broke down. He enquired about social housing, but was told none was available"
There is a solution to the lack of social housing in London only give it to people who work in London. Everyone can get housing in Glasgow or somewhere like that.
A bit tough on Glasgow I know but they do get subsidised by London taxpayers.
I presume that art teachers get paid, so it's not like this scrounger is what you'd call skint is it. The solution to squartting in the sense of coming home to find some Latvians have changed the locks is: 1. A few large lads, say five. 2. A nice new pick handle apiece. 3. Fifty quid and a six pack of special brew each.
Insert among scum, stand well back.
Followed the link to the guardian page, where I found this little gem, currently 250+ approvals, from kommissar 'wordsareimportant'
"The scandal is that the law allows property owners the right to do what they wish with their own property, even if they wish to leave it empty. If you feel they are right to waste limited resources because they own it, then you are morally bankrupt."
This is what we're up against.
Love it when you wax lyrical. :)
"Welcome to the world you and the Guardianistas created."
Mmm, he is rather hoist on his own petard, isn't he?
"I supported squatting/adverse possession in properties held vacant for no reason other than capital gain."
Really? Do you support car theft where people have 'too many' vehicles?
"Criminal law was not the solution. The state is not your friend. "
In this case, I think it might prove to be, if not a friend, at least a handy acquaintance.
"And the sooner some Guardian reader has his iPad taken during a mugging, or his daughter violated by one of these enrichments, the better."
Sadly, it happens all the time. It doesn't seem to have any effect though! Other than to encourage them to move out of the swamp they helped fill.
"As for homelessness. The figures include people who are in a home, but not just the right home. So a family with four children living in a two bed flat are classed as homeless. It's called statistics. You know, lies, damned lies, and stats. "
Homelessness, like poverty, ain't what it was...
"This is what we're up against."
I think there's more of us, and fewer of them than anyone thinks!
Dear Art Teacher Alan complains about having to move to somewhere where he "knows nobody", implying that he currently has at least a couple of friends/family in the area in which he wishes to stay. Does not one of these friends/family members have a sofa, air bed or even a tent in the garden to spare while he saves enough of his art teacher wage for a deposit on a room in a shared house or a bedsit? Or do they all secretly wish he actually would move somewhere else?
I don't know what they are complaining about, this law provides the means to rehouse them at the cost of the state. True, it's only for up to six months at a time and in a prison not of their choosing but it's a start.
Post a Comment