http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361061/Father-John-Hamilton-Brown-begs-squatters-letterbox.html

An Englishman's home is his castle, so the saying goes.

After squatters moved into John Hamilton-Brown's new £1million five bedroom home he has been forced to beg them to get out through his letterbox.

The group of foreigners were granted legal aid to fight to stay - while he was forced to represent himself.

The father-of-two was having the property renovated for his wife and two young daughters before they moved in when a dozen people from France, Spain, Poland and England sneaked in during the night.

The occupants are part of a growing army of squatters banding together and seeking out empty homes.

It emerged today that squatters, often young people, are swapping information online as they move from property to property before they get evicted.

On a forum details of empty homes are being posted - and squatters are advertising for housemates to move in with them.

Squatting is legal as long as occupants do not use force to break in.

On the Advisory Service for Squatters, users swap tips for getting into properties and bypassing alarms.

One user said: 'i can help you to open/secure buildings. i have my own tools. price up on agreement, quality work.'

Another person asked for assistance getting into a different London home. He wrote: 'I'll be opening a new house in Highgate in the following days, if you can move in immediately and possibly help out opening it as it's kind of tricky, call me...'

The group occupying Mr Hamilton Brown's home qualified for legal aid because they are EU citizens and unemployed.

One of the squatters, who said he was 20, told the Sunday Telegraph: 'There are many empty homes and we should be able to live wherever we want.'

Shoreditch County Court refused to issue an interim possession order forcing them to vacate the property within 24 hours because of a technicality - and it could now be six weeks before they are told have to go.

An eviction order was made by the judge but it could be weeks before they are out.

Mr Hamilton-Brown, who has a wife and daughters aged four and two, bought the home in December and was having the place done up while living in a nearby flat.

‘I was horrified they were given legal representation,’ he said. ‘As I work and pay taxes, I’m at a disadvantage.
Room available: Squatters swap tips and discuss empty properties on forum

Room available: Squatters swap tips and discuss empty properties on forum

‘I’ve saved up for ten years to move into this house and this is what I get. It’s remarkable that they can get away with this.’

The house in Archway, North London, is near the homes of actress Patsy Kensit and comedian Rob Brydon.

A legal notice put in the front window by the squatters states that anybody who enters without their permission could face six months in jail and a £5,000 fine.

A neighbour said: ‘They have more rights than we do.

‘They know what they’re doing on the legal side of things as they’ve been in houses before in the area.’

Neighbours have told Mr Hamilton-Brown that squatters forced entry to his property - although it is almost impossible for him to prove in court.

The father-of-two, who has a business graphics company, has had to appear before a court five times to get the order made.

It is thought that squatting has increased dramatically since the onset of the recession.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman confirmed they are looking whether the law can be strengthened to give homeowners greater protection.

Cliffs:
Dude is renovating home
Random people come in and start living there
Dude who owns house has to represent himself in court to get the random people out

Srsly, strong WTF there England. you mad?

Discuss

That's ridiculous. Aren't they considered trespassing or something?

How is it not illegal to just refuse to leave someone else's house??

That happens here in America as well.

It is stupid.

Someone will most likely disagree with me but too bad because I'm not budging from this position.

Chowderhead wrote:That happens here in America as well.

If this was me, I'd forcibly remove them from my house.

It's my house, so get the feth out or I'll make you. That kinda deal.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:That happens here in America as well.

If this was me, I'd forcibly remove them from my house.

It's my house, so get the feth out or I'll make you. That kinda deal.

This is what guns are for.

And really big mean a** dogs

And NRA drinking buddies.

And Frazzled, I'm pretty sure being on good terms with him would help in this situation.

This happens all the time, the fact the press are making comments on it now is perhaps because the government wants to change the law.

Some of the laws here in the UK are a complete mystery; why do we have them? Who knows? Why aren't they changed? Again, who knows? Only one thing is 100% about our laws, and it's that the average, working taxpayer will always get the gak-covered end of the stick.

Orlanth wrote:This happens all the time, the fact the press are making comments on it now is perhaps because the government wants to change the law.

Is there ever a case where the homeowner just forces the squatters out?

rubiksnoob wrote:

Orlanth wrote:This happens all the time, the fact the press are making comments on it now is perhaps because the government wants to change the law.

Is there ever a case where the homeowner just forces the squatters out?

Squatters know their rights and are real rules lawyers, they rely on the law of Forced Entry, which is intended to protect people against physical abuse. The law of Forced Entry doesn't take into account who owns the property it only takes into account that someone was inside and resisting being broken into.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/After-Miamis-Ritzy-Bubble-Bursts-Squatters-Move-on-Up-61444367.html?__source=Facebook

I'm so moving to Florida.

The best way to change the current law on squatting without getting in the way of entry onto genuine derelict land is to create a time threshold. A property must be proven unoccupied for a minimum period before a squat can be attempted. So people back from holiday, or shopping cannot find their houses taken over.

Chowderhead wrote:That happens here in America as well.

It does? Just shoot them. Whats the problem?

Orlanth wrote:The best way to change the current law on squatting without getting in the way of entry onto genuine derelict land is to create a time threshold.

He's on the case.

The article is from the Daily Mail and should be regarded as "Little England" propaganda.

In this kind of case, where the house is unoccupied for repairs and building work, the squatters will be quickly evicted once a court order is granted.

Guy Ritchie got the squatters out of his home in about a week.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

The father-of-two was having the property renovated for his wife and two young daughters before they moved in when a dozen people from France, Spain, Poland and England sneaked in during the night.

The occupants are part of a growing army of squatters banding together and seeking out empty homes.

Srsly, strong WTF there England. you mad?

Discuss

Daily Mail

I stop at this point and take a deep breath. It's worth pointing out that the rest of the article is likely to be distorted to fit the views of this particular rag. It's a wet dream for the Daily Mail, look, nice middle england married couple with little kids have had their house taken over by foreigners. "They have more rights than we do"!! Yadda yadda.

Squatting is and old thing based on very old laws, it's not unique to the UK and requires certain circumstances to occur. I've no real sympathy for squatters making someone's life a misery, but equally there are empty houses up and down the country that are being sat on by rich people who refuse to do anything with them so it's not always entirely unjust that squatting does occur. That said what irks me is an American reading a right wing rag like the Daily Mail and then ragging on as us saying "WTF there England. you mad?"instead of stopping and taking the 'facts' presented with a pinch of salt. Because it's almost guaranteed the situation isn't quite as they've painted it.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

The father-of-two was having the property renovated for his wife and two young daughters before they moved in when a dozen people from France, Spain, Poland and England sneaked in during the night.

The occupants are part of a growing army of squatters banding together and seeking out empty homes.

Srsly, strong WTF there England. you mad?

Discuss

Daily Mail

I stop at this point and take a deep breath. It's worth pointing out that the rest of the article is likely to be distorted to fit the views of this particular rag. It's a wet dream for the Daily Mail, look, nice middle england married couple with little kids have had their house taken over by foreigners. "They have more rights than we do"!! Yadda yadda.

Squatting is and old thing based on very old laws, it's not unique to the UK and requires certain circumstances to occur. I've no real sympathy for squatters making someone's life a misery, but equally there are empty houses up and down the country that are being sat on by rich people who refuse to do anything with them so it's not always entirely unjust that squatting does occur. That said what irks me is an American reading a right wing rag like the Daily Mail and then ragging on as us saying "WTF there England. you mad?"instead of stopping and taking the 'facts' presented with a pinch of salt. Because it's almost guaranteed the situation isn't quite as they've painted it.

+1

If your naive enough to believe everything you read in the papers at face value then you need a reality check.

Everything is biased in newspapers towards making someone look bad. (this is the simple version there is a longer one)

And it's the daily mail as been said. That's like going to the Enclyopedia Dramatica for research.

But the Daily Fail is the only paper worth quoting on the internet, it generates all the discussion. Quoting the Daily Telegraph would mean we'd all have to sit in armchairs in front of the fireplace, put on our reading glasses and finest evening gowns and remnisce about old times as we sip our aged whisky and smoke our pipes.

Then there's quoting the sun, where every other line you be "Get yer baps out love!" and page three would have strange white stains all over it that nobody will admit to.

For the purposes of the internet, the Daily Fail is the most appropriate paper to quote.

Kilkrazy wrote:The article is from the Daily Mail and should be regarded as "Little England" propaganda.

In this kind of case, where the house is unoccupied for repairs and building work, the squatters will be quickly evicted once a court order is granted.

Guy Ritchie got the squatters out of his home in about a week.

Again, why can't you just say you showed up to check on the house, they thre so you beat them with haggis?

Sort it out with feral Haggis down the chimney.

Exactly.

Kilkrazy wrote:The article is from the Daily Mail and should be regarded as "Little England" propaganda.

In this kind of case, where the house is unoccupied for repairs and building work, the squatters will be quickly evicted once a court order is granted.

Guy Ritchie got the squatters out of his home in about a week.

Here's the news from a free legal services company, dated 2 days before the Daily Mail. It's also available at the Telegraph.

Presumably these aren't "Little England" propagandists?

What about this? Fumigate your home.

Show up, announce to the squatters that you are getting rid of some pests and start opening up cans of this stuff:

Lord Scythican wrote:What about this? Fumigate your home.

Show up, announce to the squatters that you are getting rid of some pests and start opening up cans of this stuff:

excellent.

Frazzled wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:What about this? Fumigate your home.

Show up, announce to the squatters that you are getting rid of some pests and start opening up cans of this stuff:
SNIP

excellent.

It has to be legal right? It's my house I need to get rid of pests

I mean it even says so on the box: "Use raid Fumigator to rid you home of Spider, ticks, fleas, sqautters, bed bugs, hornets, wasps, and any other pests". Or at least it should.

thr brits never had much luck holding onto their property. Heck they let North America slip away to "squatters" as well...

CT GAMER wrote:thr brits never had much luck holding onto their property. Heck they let North America slip away to "squatters" as well...

We were squatting in India at the time, it's only fair.

Just out of interest do any of Dakka's right leaning Britons think that the Mail is anything but a rag? I think we may need to educate our cousins on which UK Newspapers they should be reading.

How about nobody reads any newspapers and just goes along with their own views instead of having other people's views spoonfed to them because they lack the willingness or ability to judge for themselves?

Or am I the only one who feels this way?...

Yeah... awkward...

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The article is from the Daily Mail and should be regarded as "Little England" propaganda.

In this kind of case, where the house is unoccupied for repairs and building work, the squatters will be quickly evicted once a court order is granted.

Guy Ritchie got the squatters out of his home in about a week.

Here's the news from a free legal services company, dated 2 days before the Daily Mail. It's also available at the Telegraph.

Presumably these aren't "Little England" propagandists?

The Daily Fascistgraph is. They are pretty solid on defence matters but the rest of their stuff is basically Daily Fail for the elderly propertied classes.

If you want to trust a "free legal service" web site, I've got some Jackalope eggs I need to unload quickly, and I can let you have them for a good price.

Seriously, the reason why these squatters are still in the house is that a "technical error" invalidated the petition to have them evicted. It turns out the husband did his own legal work to save money. That turned out to be a false economy.

This is a man who reportedly was able to save £100,000 a year cash in order to buy the property. He was too cheap to spend a few hundred quid on a solicitor and now it has gone wrong he's run crying "wah wah wah" all the way to the right wing press, who embrace his cause because the squatters are from Yurop. My heart does not bleed.

As I said, Guy Ritchie was in the exact same situation, and had the squatters out in a week.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The article is from the Daily Mail and should be regarded as "Little England" propaganda.

In this kind of case, where the house is unoccupied for repairs and building work, the squatters will be quickly evicted once a court order is granted.

Guy Ritchie got the squatters out of his home in about a week.

Here's the news from a free legal services company, dated 2 days before the Daily Mail. It's also available at the Telegraph.

Presumably these aren't "Little England" propagandists?

The Daily Fascistgraph is. They are pretty solid on defence matters but the rest of their stuff is basically Daily Fail for the elderly propertied classes.

Perhaps I could get a list of non-fascist and non-propaganda websites that I could link to that would be appropriate for posting in the Off Topic area? Since you're a MOD, I assume you're the gatekeeper of appropriate topics and sources for discussion.

I have already learned that Fox News ("Faux News") is always false (see here) and Rush Limbaugh will subject one to derision and un-moderated scorn from certain posters here. It appears that the same is true regarding the Daily Mail and Telegraph, and that attempts to substantiate a story from such a publication is also unacceptable.

Are there any others I should be aware of? Presumably Alex Jones, Media Matters, Russia Today, and MSNBC are all acceptable sources. I would assume Pravda and other state-run media outlets are also allowable.

biccat wrote:Are there any others I should be aware of? Presumably Alex Jones, Media Matters, Russia Today, and MSNBC are all acceptable sources. I would assume Pravda and other state-run media outlets are also allowable.

Stick to the broadsheets, The Times, The Independent and The Guardian as fas as UK newspapers go. Tabloids, especially the 'red tops' really are a waste of space.

Is Gailbraithe back or what?

I'm certainly not going to tell you particular sources are allowed or disallowed. You will however find that some sources are regarded with derision by seriously minded people, because they have a history of distorting, cherry picking or even making things up.

From an academic and scientific viewpoint, data or references from a single source is always a potential source of errors. The point of publishing research is to let other people test it, either by reviewing the analysis of the data, or by repeating the experiment.

When you're discussing political subjects, which tend to be subjective, there are two ways of adding validity to an argument.

1. Look at the story as depicted in a media source from the other side of the political spectrum. For example, if The Telegraph runs a story, see what The Guardian has to say about it. If both "sides" agree there is a problem, there probably isn't much political bias involved.

2. Research some evidence on the matter. A chart showing the number of squatting cases over time for the past 65 years might be interesting. This sort of info is published, often on the internet nowadays, and can be very revealing. If we found a steady rate of squatting cases coming before the courts from 45 to 75, then a marked and continuing increase due to entering the EU, it might be taken as being significant. We should perhaps expect another jump when the eastern nations entered the EU. Or maybe it would all be correlated with general economic conditions.

Frazzled wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:That happens here in America as well.

It does? Just shoot them. Whats the problem?

For once we are of a simular mind.

Khornholio wrote:Is Gailbraithe back or what?

Howard A Treesong wrote:
That said what irks me is an American reading a right wing rag like the Daily Mail and then ragging on as us saying "WTF there England. you mad?"instead of stopping and taking the 'facts' presented with a pinch of salt. Because it's almost guaranteed the situation isn't quite as they've painted it.

Lol dude I don't know which newspapers are "right wing" and "left wing" in England, I just call 'em like I see 'em. That being said I did feel like there was a little bias for the "common Englander" as it were but that's that. No need to get all uppity haha

I find this highly amusing:

Daily Fail wrote:
The chap who has enough money to buy million pound houses is outraged that people who don't earn enough to afford their own place to live get legal aid! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

The Daily Mail tends to be sounder when it comes to defence issues, and they're excellent at picking up little things the government would rather you didn't know. Anything other than that, and they're a waste of space. I've seen them copy-paste Times articles two days later so much, I just buy the Times to get the news that will be in the Daily Fail two days earlier.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm certainly not going to tell you particular sources are allowed or disallowed. You will however find that some sources are regarded with derision by seriously minded people, because they have a history of distorting, cherry picking or even making things up.

From an academic and scientific viewpoint, data or references from a single source is always a potential source of errors. The point of publishing research is to let other people test it, either by reviewing the analysis of the data, or by repeating the experiment.

When you're discussing political subjects, which tend to be subjective, there are two ways of adding validity to an argument.

1. Look at the story as depicted in a media source from the other side of the political spectrum. For example, if The Telegraph runs a story, see what The Guardian has to say about it. If both "sides" agree there is a problem, there probably isn't much political bias involved.

2. Research some evidence on the matter. A chart showing the number of squatting cases over time for the past 65 years might be interesting. This sort of info is published, often on the internet nowadays, and can be very revealing. If we found a steady rate of squatting cases coming before the courts from 45 to 75, then a marked and continuing increase due to entering the EU, it might be taken as being significant. We should perhaps expect another jump when the eastern nations entered the EU. Or maybe it would all be correlated with general economic conditions.

i hope Frazzled reads your post.

I'm just sayin...

It's just like the 80's all over again!

Mental Tories in power, squatters, houses reposessed.

Oddsbodkins! There will be power dressing and shoulder pads making a comeback next and everyone tucking their jerseys into trousers! Oh Lawks no, mullets and jacket sleeves rolled up past the elbow!

With any luck the End of the World next year will prevent all that.

Khornholio wrote:Is Gailbraithe back or what?

Nah, he hasn't launched into a 'anyone who isn't liberal is evil' rant yet. Not to mention, there are no humorous circumventings of the language filter.

But thanks for the list of more reliable newspapers. I assume the BBC is also considered fairly reputable?

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

The father-of-two was having the property renovated for his wife and two young daughters before they moved in when a dozen people from France, Spain, Poland and England sneaked in during the night.

The occupants are part of a growing army of squatters banding together and seeking out empty homes.

Srsly, strong WTF there England. you mad?

Discuss

Daily Mail

I stop at this point and take a deep breath. It's worth pointing out that the rest of the article is likely to be distorted to fit the views of this particular rag. It's a wet dream for the Daily Mail, look, nice middle england married couple with little kids have had their house taken over by foreigners. "They have more rights than we do"!! Yadda yadda.

Squatting is and old thing based on very old laws, it's not unique to the UK and requires certain circumstances to occur. I've no real sympathy for squatters making someone's life a misery, but equally there are empty houses up and down the country that are being sat on by rich people who refuse to do anything with them so it's not always entirely unjust that squatting does occur. That said what irks me is an American reading a right wing rag like the Daily Mail and then ragging on as us saying "WTF there England. you mad?"instead of stopping and taking the 'facts' presented with a pinch of salt. Because it's almost guaranteed the situation isn't quite as they've painted it.

So what if rich people leave houses empty, they pay the taxes on them do they not? Squatting on property that is not yours is never justifified. As for ragging on england well if your laws state someone can just enter a unoccupied home and have legal rights to that home simply because force wasn't used, thats just BS.

Orlanth wrote:The best way to change the current law on squatting without getting in the way of entry onto genuine derelict land is to create a time threshold. A property must be proven unoccupied for a minimum period before a squat can be attempted. So people back from holiday, or shopping cannot find their houses taken over.

The squatters have to be in the property for 12 years without anyone noticing in order to claim the right to remain.

So your improvement to the law is, more or less, already part of the law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Here's the news from a free legal services company, dated 2 days before the Daily Mail. It's also available at the Telegraph.

Presumably these aren't "Little England" propagandists?

Did you read the stories? The second article is just an opinion piece, it contains no news about the story.

The first story is reasonable, and paints a very different story. The squatters recieved hundreds of pounds of legal aid. Hundreds. As in, someone turned up to process the case for them on the day, we're talking half a day's legal time at most. Something that's very necessary when we're looking at people that don't even speak English, let alone understand the court process.

The case was thrown out on a technicality, because the rich guy did his own paperwork and screwed it up. Because he was a cheap git the squatters can remain in the house for another six weeks at most. Unless of course, they've actually been in the property for twelve years.

The only lesson here is to get a lawyer to complete your submissions for you. All the shock about foreignors taking homes is just Daily Mail fantasy. It's stupid and people should feel bad for letting themselves be so stupid as to believe it.

Actually, that's the other lesson, Daily Mail lies and reading it will make you stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Are there any others I should be aware of? Presumably Alex Jones, Media Matters, Russia Today, and MSNBC are all acceptable sources. I would assume Pravda and other state-run media outlets are also allowable.

Really dude? Really?

Good, accurate reporting has nothing to do with political bias. There are right leaning papers that maintain excellent standards, such as The Times already mentioned by George Spiggott. Over here The Australian is an excellent paper, though it definitely leans right.

It's really up to you. If it doesn't worry you that the outrageous story you're reading might be entirely fictional, then by all means keep getting your news from crappy sources like FOX and The Daily Mail. But be aware that you will spent your life embittered and angry over outrages that are mostly fantasy, and this will make you stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

misfit wrote:So what if rich people leave houses empty, they pay the taxes on them do they not? Squatting on property that is not yours is never justifified. As for ragging on england well if your laws state someone can just enter a unoccupied home and have legal rights to that home simply because force wasn't used, thats just BS.

Ragging on England for the law makes no sense, because it exists in the US and Canada as well.

The law also exists for good and sensible reasons. Property ownership can be a mess, and an ancestral home can be found to have been improperly acquired generations ago, with technical ownership therefore passing to some completely random person. So instead we say that use of the property determines ownership, although we require that use to have been for a very long time - it depends on the area but it needs to have been for at least a decade.

If you have so little interest in a property of yours that you didn't notice people living in it for more than a decade, well tough.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Khornholio wrote:Is Gailbraithe back or what?

Nah, he hasn't launched into a 'anyone who isn't liberal is evil' rant yet. Not to mention, there are no humorous circumventings of the language filter.

But thanks for the list of more reliable newspapers. I assume the BBC is also considered fairly reputable?

On just about everything except Israel. They're disgustingly pro-Arab in that regard, but having identified that one blind spot, you can read between the lines of most of what they say.

misfit wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

The father-of-two was having the property renovated for his wife and two young daughters before they moved in when a dozen people from France, Spain, Poland and England sneaked in during the night.

The occupants are part of a growing army of squatters banding together and seeking out empty homes.

Srsly, strong WTF there England. you mad?

Discuss

Daily Mail

I stop at this point and take a deep breath. It's worth pointing out that the rest of the article is likely to be distorted to fit the views of this particular rag. It's a wet dream for the Daily Mail, look, nice middle england married couple with little kids have had their house taken over by foreigners. "They have more rights than we do"!! Yadda yadda.

Squatting is and old thing based on very old laws, it's not unique to the UK and requires certain circumstances to occur. I've no real sympathy for squatters making someone's life a misery, but equally there are empty houses up and down the country that are being sat on by rich people who refuse to do anything with them so it's not always entirely unjust that squatting does occur. That said what irks me is an American reading a right wing rag like the Daily Mail and then ragging on as us saying "WTF there England. you mad?"instead of stopping and taking the 'facts' presented with a pinch of salt. Because it's almost guaranteed the situation isn't quite as they've painted it.

So what if rich people leave houses empty, they pay the taxes on them do they not? Squatting on property that is not yours is never justifified. As for ragging on england well if your laws state someone can just enter a unoccupied home and have legal rights to that home simply because force wasn't used, thats just BS.

Our laws don't state that. You have to be in occupancy unopposed for a long period of time. Several people have got houses by the law which allows a property to be transferred after 12 years of unopposed occupancy. I can't remember the name of the law.

Kilkrazy wrote:Our laws don't state that. You have to be in occupancy unopposed for a long period of time. Several people have got houses by the law which allows a property to be transferred after 12 years of unopposed occupancy. I can't remember the name of the law.

Adverse possession. As I explained above the law is roughly the same in the US and Canada, so the complaints about the UK being crazy about this are silly.

Ketara wrote:

On just about everything except Israel. They're disgustingly pro-Arab in that regard, but having identified that one blind spot, you can read between the lines of most of what they say.

So if I watch BBC and Fox News in conjunction with each other when it comes to the Middle East, I should be able to figure out what's true!

misfit wrote:So what if rich people leave houses empty, they pay the taxes on them do they not? Squatting on property that is not yours is never justifified. As for ragging on england well if your laws state someone can just enter a unoccupied home and have legal rights to that home simply because force wasn't used, thats just BS.

Well actually you get a discount on a second home and don't pay council tax at all on unoccupied homes. So no, a lot of these houses are costing their owners nothing to leave sitting around empty for long periods. But that's hardly the point, the UK isn't alone in having squatting laws so singling the UK out is rather silly.

CT GAMER wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm certainly not going to tell you particular sources are allowed or disallowed. You will however find that some sources are regarded with derision by seriously minded people, because they have a history of distorting, cherry picking or even making things up.

From an academic and scientific viewpoint, data or references from a single source is always a potential source of errors. The point of publishing research is to let other people test it, either by reviewing the analysis of the data, or by repeating the experiment.

When you're discussing political subjects, which tend to be subjective, there are two ways of adding validity to an argument.

1. Look at the story as depicted in a media source from the other side of the political spectrum. For example, if The Telegraph runs a story, see what The Guardian has to say about it. If both "sides" agree there is a problem, there probably isn't much political bias involved.

2. Research some evidence on the matter. A chart showing the number of squatting cases over time for the past 65 years might be interesting. This sort of info is published, often on the internet nowadays, and can be very revealing. If we found a steady rate of squatting cases coming before the courts from 45 to 75, then a marked and continuing increase due to entering the EU, it might be taken as being significant. We should perhaps expect another jump when the eastern nations entered the EU. Or maybe it would all be correlated with general economic conditions.

i hope Frazzled reads your post.

I'm just sayin...

All I have to say is:

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The best way to change the current law on squatting without getting in the way of entry onto genuine derelict land is to create a time threshold. A property must be proven unoccupied for a minimum period before a squat can be attempted. So people back from holiday, or shopping cannot find their houses taken over.

The squatters have to be in the property for 12 years without anyone noticing in order to claim the right to remain.

So your improvement to the law is, more or less, already part of the law.

Only 12? Not bad. It's 15 in the US.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Here's the news from a free legal services company, dated 2 days before the Daily Mail. It's also available at the Telegraph.

Presumably these aren't "Little England" propagandists?

Did you read the stories? The second article is just an opinion piece, it contains no news about the story.

The first story is reasonable, and paints a very different story. The squatters recieved hundreds of pounds of legal aid. Hundreds. As in, someone turned up to process the case for them on the day, we're talking half a day's legal time at most. Something that's very necessary when we're looking at people that don't even speak English, let alone understand the court process.

The articles were submitted as corroborating the original story.

sebster wrote:The case was thrown out on a technicality, because the rich guy did his own paperwork and screwed it up. Because he was a cheap git the squatters can remain in the house for another six weeks at most. Unless of course, they've actually been in the property for twelve years.

The only lesson here is to get a lawyer to complete your submissions for you. All the shock about foreignors taking homes is just Daily Mail fantasy. It's stupid and people should feel bad for letting themselves be so stupid as to believe it.

Right, the guy should have gotten a lawyer, it probably only would have cost a few hundred to file the paperwork. Then the legal aid attorneys would have requested a hearing, which would entail another few thousand from the homeowner. Then the legal aid group instructs them not to leave, meaning the homeowner has to get an eviction order and have the sheriff (constable? bobbie? Whatever they're called in England) enforce it, with the appropriate 6 weeks notice period (which they'll claim they never received service).

What I got from the article was twofold: squatters are a problem, they get free legal representation, and they cost the homeowner a lot in legal fees.

The bit about "foreigners" was a throwaway line.

sebster wrote:Actually, that's the other lesson, Daily Mail lies and reading it will make you stupid.

So are you suggesting that what the Daily Mail reported wasn't true? That there were not squatters in the man's house who refused to leave and required him to go to court to get them 'evicted'?

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Are there any others I should be aware of? Presumably Alex Jones, Media Matters, Russia Today, and MSNBC are all acceptable sources. I would assume Pravda and other state-run media outlets are also allowable.

Really dude? Really?

Really. A MOD chimed in and called the source "Little England propaganda". I took this to mean that the source in question wasn't appropriate for this forum. I merely inquired as to what sources I should and should not be allowed to use.

It has already been confirmed that state-run media outlets are allowable, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

sebster wrote:It's really up to you. If it doesn't worry you that the outrageous story you're reading might be entirely fictional, then by all means keep getting your news from crappy sources like FOX and The Daily Mail. But be aware that you will spent your life embittered and angry over outrages that are mostly fantasy, and this will make you stupid.

The events reported weren't fictional. They really happened. So what exactly is your beef with the article? That it didn't report the other side, or present a sympathetic pro-squatter position, like the Guardian?

I was always told that if the property was on fire, anyone could enter as it posed a risk to human life and therefore any passer by had a duty of care to the occupants.


Also Both the gaydian and mail are complete dross and only fit for starting said fire

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The best way to change the current law on squatting without getting in the way of entry onto genuine derelict land is to create a time threshold. A property must be proven unoccupied for a minimum period before a squat can be attempted. So people back from holiday, or shopping cannot find their houses taken over.

The squatters have to be in the property for 12 years without anyone noticing in order to claim the right to remain.

So your improvement to the law is, more or less, already part of the law.

Only 12? Not bad. It's 15 in the US.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Here's the news from a free legal services company, dated 2 days before the Daily Mail. It's also available at the Telegraph.

Presumably these aren't "Little England" propagandists?

Did you read the stories? The second article is just an opinion piece, it contains no news about the story.

The first story is reasonable, and paints a very different story. The squatters recieved hundreds of pounds of legal aid. Hundreds. As in, someone turned up to process the case for them on the day, we're talking half a day's legal time at most. Something that's very necessary when we're looking at people that don't even speak English, let alone understand the court process.

The articles were submitted as corroborating the original story.

sebster wrote:The case was thrown out on a technicality, because the rich guy did his own paperwork and screwed it up. Because he was a cheap git the squatters can remain in the house for another six weeks at most. Unless of course, they've actually been in the property for twelve years.

The only lesson here is to get a lawyer to complete your submissions for you. All the shock about foreignors taking homes is just Daily Mail fantasy. It's stupid and people should feel bad for letting themselves be so stupid as to believe it.

Right, the guy should have gotten a lawyer, it probably only would have cost a few hundred to file the paperwork. Then the legal aid attorneys would have requested a hearing, which would entail another few thousand from the homeowner.

... ...

That's nothing more than an assumption on your part to support your case.

In the Guy Ritchie case, which is nearly identical except that Guy Ritchie hired a lawyer instead of representing himself, the eviction order was issued immediately, and the squatters were evicted within four days.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356924/Guy-Ritchies-6-mansion-raided-squatters-plan-set-school.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/8335343/Squatters-evicted-from-Guy-Ritchies-6m-home.html

If you investigate further, you'll see that the Daily Mail made a big splash about the squatters entering the property. and totally failed to report their swift legal ejection.

http://explore.dailymail.co.uk/people/ritchie_guy

One can only suppose that the facts of the case did not suit the Daily Mail's "Little Englander" agenda.

And that is a symptom of why it's nicknamed the Daily Fail.

4 days is not swift. Any period of time more than 10 minutes after discovery is piss poor. Ten minutes should be the period of time for the police to come.

Frazzled wrote:
All I have to say is:

Not until after the first date.

...The Guardian...

Good one.





Wait, are you being serious? Wow.

The Guardian is like the Bizarro Mail - just a complete mirror image. FWIW, I agree with you on The Times.


For my part, when I pick up a newspaper (which is fairly rare) it's The Times. That said, I do regard reading a newspaper as somewhat akin to driving to work in Fred Flinstone car.


I prefer the using the internet or watching BBC News 24 to stay up-to-date.

Frazzled wrote:4 days is not swift. Any period of time more than 10 minutes after discovery is piss poor. Ten minutes should be the period of time for the police to come.

So you don't believe it should be more like the 10 seconds it takes you to pull out your gun, blow out the lock and go squatter huntin'?

Frazzled wrote:4 days is not swift. Any period of time more than 10 minutes after discovery is piss poor. Ten minutes should be the period of time for the police to come.

It is a civil matter so the police won't involve themselves.

The Daily Fail's complaint is that the current system is too slow and biased against rich Englishmen, as demonstrated by the several weeks in the Hubert-Dubbllbarrell case.

Which is refuted by the facts of the Guy Richie case.

Albatross wrote:The Guardian is like the Bizarro Mail - just a complete mirror image. FWIW, I agree with you on The Times.

George Spiggott is the one who suggested the Guardian. Kilkrazy suggested it was a good place to check as well.

Besides, who buys the dead tree media anymore?

Albatross wrote:I prefer the using the internet or watching BBC News 24 to stay up-to-date.

This is something I never understood. It's well recognized that government-sponsored television is generally full of pro-government crap and is merely propaganda. Yet somehow you folks over in MOE seem to love having the government tell you what's going on.

Over here, NPR is taken for what it really is, a DNC hobbyhorse. They're pro-government when talking about Democrats and anti-government when talking about Republicans. Generally the opposite of (the perception of) Fox News.

Kilkrazy wrote:Which is refuted by the facts of the Guy Richie case.

Ah, but he is rich and famous.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:4 days is not swift. Any period of time more than 10 minutes after discovery is piss poor. Ten minutes should be the period of time for the police to come.

So you don't believe it should be more like the 10 seconds it takes you to pull out your gun, blow out the lock and go squatter huntin'?

Is reading a difficulty for you? I said ten minutes. That ten minutes involves waiting for the police.

biccat wrote:This is something I never understood. It's well recognized that government-sponsored television is generally full of pro-government crap and is merely propaganda. Yet somehow you folks over in MOE seem to love having the government tell you what's going on.

However, the BBC isn't funded by the government. It takes its funds directly by the public (via a charge you have to pay if you want a TV in your house). It is politically as neutral as it is possible to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Is reading a difficulty for you? I said ten minutes. That ten minutes involves waiting for the police.

Please forgive my attempt at lighthearted banter.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:4 days is not swift. Any period of time more than 10 minutes after discovery is piss poor. Ten minutes should be the period of time for the police to come.

It is a civil matter so the police won't involve themselves.

The Daily Fail's complaint is that the current system is too slow and biased against rich Englishmen, as demonstrated by the several weeks in the Hubert-Dubbllbarrell case.

Which is refuted by the facts of the Guy Richie case.

Its trespassing. It should only be a civil matter if they are there under some color of law. They are not at all, therefore they are tresspassers and should get the nightstick mambo upside the head from the local constabulary.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:This is something I never understood. It's well recognized that government-sponsored television is generally full of pro-government crap and is merely propaganda. Yet somehow you folks over in MOE seem to love having the government tell you what's going on.

However, the BBC isn't funded by the government. It takes its funds directly by the public (via a charge you have to pay if you want a TV in your house). It is politically as neutral as it is possible to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

"The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law."

Sounds like a tax to me. Government has control over the content by being able to set the rates and enforcing non-payment of the tax.

But I do like the idea of privatized tax collection, it injects an element of accountability into the process.

Frazzled wrote:Its trespassing.

which in the UK is a civil offence, not a criminal one.

It's well recognized that government-sponsored television is generally full of pro-government crap and is merely propaganda.

..wow, you really have never watched much British tv.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its trespassing.

which in the UK is a civil offence, not a criminal one.

And thats why you lost the Empire!

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its trespassing.

which in the UK is a civil offence, not a criminal one.

And thats why you lost the Empire!

We lost the Empire by paying back the cripling lones you lot made to us during and after WW2.

biccat wrote:"The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law."

Sounds like a tax to me. Government has control over the content by being able to set the rates and enforcing non-payment of the tax.

But I do like the idea of privatized tax collection, it injects an element of accountability into the process.

While the level of the fee is controlled by the government, this does not, and has never (as far as I am aware) dictated what the BBC produce in terms of politically siding with one party or another. If you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Allegations_of_bias you will see that although there are those who believe there is a bias in one direction (say, left wing), there are others who believe that it is more right wing in its leanings.

You can also see that in the time of Thatcher, when the conservatives (central/right wing) were in power, there were many complaints from those in power that the BBC was biased more towards the left than towards the right and yet it was not shut down, it never had funding cut, etc.

In the UK an ASBO is a civil issued order but it's breach is a criminal offence..

Any way if someone was in my home (weather they broke in or not..) and would not leave politely I think that would be the line.

I'd just get the rest me Irish 'boyz', my brother in law and essentially assault the building. One chance to get out of my house or else there will be no survivors. Infact I'd be asking any inquirers 'what squatters?'

The whole notion is disgraceful, daily fail hype aside, and it is probably where I'd draw the line.
Your home is your castle, certain aspects non-withstanding (such as the necessity for the state to intervene in some areas)

I think I've just turned into an american conservative (pro life but I want to have guns and shoot people on my property?)

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:4 days is not swift. Any period of time more than 10 minutes after discovery is piss poor. Ten minutes should be the period of time for the police to come.

It is a civil matter so the police won't involve themselves.

The Daily Fail's complaint is that the current system is too slow and biased against rich Englishmen, as demonstrated by the several weeks in the Hubert-Dubbllbarrell case.

Which is refuted by the facts of the Guy Richie case.

Its trespassing. It should only be a civil matter if they are there under some color of law. They are not at all, therefore they are tresspassers and should get the nightstick mambo upside the head from the local constabulary.

Well obviously all our police and courts are ignorant of the law then.

Maybe we could borrow some of your dogs to sort them otu.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:4 days is not swift. Any period of time more than 10 minutes after discovery is piss poor. Ten minutes should be the period of time for the police to come.

It is a civil matter so the police won't involve themselves.

The Daily Fail's complaint is that the current system is too slow and biased against rich Englishmen, as demonstrated by the several weeks in the Hubert-Dubbllbarrell case.

Which is refuted by the facts of the Guy Richie case.

Its trespassing. It should only be a civil matter if they are there under some color of law. They are not at all, therefore they are tresspassers and should get the nightstick mambo upside the head from the local constabulary.

Well obviously all our police and courts are ignorant of the law then.

Maybe we could borrow some of your dogs to sort them otu.

Maybe your law is ignorant?
Redy said in the UK trespass is civil. In the US thats criminal. (although "trespass" is also civil doctrine under the old term).

Frazzled wrote:Maybe your law is ignorant?
Redy said in the UK trespass is civil. In the US thats criminal. (although "trespass" is also civil doctrine under the old term).

I've said before (I believe when the farmer shot someone who repeatedly broke into his farm [in the act of breaking in again] and the farmer got into trouble) that I wished our home defense laws were more like those in the US.

There are two types of trespass in the UK, a civil offence and a criminal offence.

SilverMK2 wrote:While the level of the fee is controlled by the government, this does not, and has never (as far as I am aware) dictated what the BBC produce in terms of politically siding with one party or another. If you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Allegations_of_bias you will see that although there are those who believe there is a bias in one direction (say, left wing), there are others who believe that it is more right wing in its leanings.

You can also see that in the time of Thatcher, when the conservatives (central/right wing) were in power, there were many complaints from those in power that the BBC was biased more towards the left than towards the right and yet it was not shut down, it never had funding cut, etc.

I'm not disputing that the BBC may be balanced, I just find it curious that there's so much support for a government-run broadcasting station. The government is the one telling you what's going on, but maybe they do it in a balanced manner.

It's just that in most other countries (China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela), government-sponsored television is either a joke or propaganda (or both). Does much of Western Europe have state-run media, or is it just the UK?

Kilkrazy wrote:There are two types of trespass in the UK, a civil offence and a criminal offence.

Same. Then why isn't it criminal? Again I say this is why you lost Australia, you tried to take 'em to court! You don't take killer drop bears to court!
US:
Criminal trespass is entering someone's property or abode without your consent.
Civil trespass to property is the common law equity doctrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:While the level of the fee is controlled by the government, this does not, and has never (as far as I am aware) dictated what the BBC produce in terms of politically siding with one party or another. If you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Allegations_of_bias you will see that although there are those who believe there is a bias in one direction (say, left wing), there are others who believe that it is more right wing in its leanings.

You can also see that in the time of Thatcher, when the conservatives (central/right wing) were in power, there were many complaints from those in power that the BBC was biased more towards the left than towards the right and yet it was not shut down, it never had funding cut, etc.

I'm not disputing that the BBC may be balanced, I just find it curious that there's so much support for a government-run broadcasting station. The government is the one telling you what's going on, but maybe they do it in a balanced manner.

It's just that in most other countries (China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela), government-sponsored television is either a joke or propaganda (or both). Does much of Western Europe have state-run media, or is it just the UK?

Agreed. BBC has been called on and admiitted to certain biases in the past.

Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. BBC has been called on and admiitted to certain biases in the past.

Bias, or the deliberate dissemination of factually incorrect information?

One is irrelevant, and the other is inexcusable.

The intersting way to remove the squatters is call the cops at night and report suspiscious people having entered your house while you were out. Wait until the police arrive. And then light a firecracker or two in the back yard. Cops will then enter with guns drawn and remove suspects. Once the house is clear enter the house entryway and do not allow any squatters back in.

You have now reclaimed the house with out using any violence nor forced entry. And the squatters can not re-enter the house without forcing entry past you. A little bit of misdirection and confusion goes a long way. Its how magic is done all over the world.

Have any of you non-Brits ever even WATCHED the BBC? And I'm not talking about World Service.

The Beeb is ace. Their cultural programming and documentaries are peerless.

Albatross wrote:Have any of you non-Brits ever even WATCHED the BBC? And I'm not talking about World Service.

yes, its a favorite.

Whu...? Well, then what the feth are you on about!?

What I don't really get is how, upon the owners of the home returning, the squatters can refuse to let the OWNER into HIS OWN house.

IT'S HIS HOUSE! NOT THEIRS!

Does not compute.

rubiksnoob wrote:What I don't really get is how, upon the owners of the home returning, the squatters can refuse to let the OWNER into HIS OWN house.

IT'S HIS HOUSE! NOT THEIRS!

Does not compute.

Agreed. They have no color of law to do anything except hurry up and die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Whu...? Well, then what the feth are you on about!?

Something can be both a favorite and still have biases. I am not sure I get what your point is.
Rant on:


Whats with all the cooking shows talking about the best cuisine, but they (aka that Ramsey) completely forget about an entire continent's food. Has the UK never heard of South American cuisine?

Genghis Connie remarking about Ramsey yelling at someone on the TV: "He sounds just like you dad."

rubiksnoob wrote:What I don't really get is how, upon the owners of the home returning, the squatters can refuse to let the OWNER into HIS OWN house.

IT'S HIS HOUSE! NOT THEIRS!

Does not compute.

Also the fact that locks would need to be picked and in some cases alarm systems disabled makes it make less sense to me. Would video proof of them doing this even make a differnce?

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:While the level of the fee is controlled by the government, this does not, and has never (as far as I am aware) dictated what the BBC produce in terms of politically siding with one party or another. If you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Allegations_of_bias you will see that although there are those who believe there is a bias in one direction (say, left wing), there are others who believe that it is more right wing in its leanings.

You can also see that in the time of Thatcher, when the conservatives (central/right wing) were in power, there were many complaints from those in power that the BBC was biased more towards the left than towards the right and yet it was not shut down, it never had funding cut, etc.

I'm not disputing that the BBC may be balanced, I just find it curious that there's so much support for a government-run broadcasting station. The government is the one telling you what's going on, but maybe they do it in a balanced manner.

... ...

That is because you are not British.

There are two possibilities: (1) All British people are brainwashed idiots, or (2) You don't know the whole story, and therefore are making mistaken assumptions.

The BBC has chicks with cool accents. enough said.

rubiksnoob wrote:What I don't really get is how, upon the owners of the home returning, the squatters can refuse to let the OWNER into HIS OWN house.

IT'S HIS HOUSE! NOT THEIRS!

Does not compute.

If you are the police, how would you know which of two bunches of people own a property?

Is it really a good idea to choose one lot to chuck out, when there is no proof who owns the place?

That might lead to a lot of incorrect evictions. All a squatter would need to do is claim that Guy Ritchie's builders have occupied his house, and have the Police throw them out.

What happens is that the true owner goes to court, and proves his title by reference to the Land Registry. He is granted an eviction order. He serves this on the squatters. If they do not leave within 24 hours, the police or a court bailiff can arrest them.

Kilkrazy wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:What I don't really get is how, upon the owners of the home returning, the squatters can refuse to let the OWNER into HIS OWN house.

IT'S HIS HOUSE! NOT THEIRS!

Does not compute.

If you are the police, how would you know which of two bunches of people own a property?

Is it really a good idea to choose one lot to chuck out, when there is no proof who owns the place?

That might lead to a lot of incorrect evictions. All a squatter would need to do is claim that Guy Ritchie's builders have occupied his house, and have the Police throw them out.

What happens is that the true owner goes to court, and proves his title by reference to the Land Registry. He is granted an eviction order. He serves this on the squatters. If they do not leave within 24 hours, the police or a court bailiff can arrest them.

Well, if the homeowner is forced to go through that process to regain access to his home, the squatters should be forced to pay all legal or otherwise expenses incurred by the homeowner as a result of them occupying his home without his permission.

If they can't pay, well, they should've thought about that before taking up residence in someone else's home.

Kilkrazy wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:What I don't really get is how, upon the owners of the home returning, the squatters can refuse to let the OWNER into HIS OWN house.

IT'S HIS HOUSE! NOT THEIRS!

Does not compute.

If you are the police, how would you know which of two bunches of people own a property?

Is it really a good idea to choose one lot to chuck out, when there is no proof who owns the place?

That might lead to a lot of incorrect evictions. All a squatter would need to do is claim that Guy Ritchie's builders have occupied his house, and have the Police throw them out.

What happens is that the true owner goes to court, and proves his title by reference to the Land Registry. He is granted an eviction order. He serves this on the squatters. If they do not leave within 24 hours, the police or a court bailiff can arrest them.

Meanwhile they've destroyed the property or burned it down, and fled.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:While the level of the fee is controlled by the government, this does not, and has never (as far as I am aware) dictated what the BBC produce in terms of politically siding with one party or another. If you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Allegations_of_bias you will see that although there are those who believe there is a bias in one direction (say, left wing), there are others who believe that it is more right wing in its leanings.

You can also see that in the time of Thatcher, when the conservatives (central/right wing) were in power, there were many complaints from those in power that the BBC was biased more towards the left than towards the right and yet it was not shut down, it never had funding cut, etc.

I'm not disputing that the BBC may be balanced, I just find it curious that there's so much support for a government-run broadcasting station. The government is the one telling you what's going on, but maybe they do it in a balanced manner.

... ...

That is because you are not British.

There are two possibilities: (1) All British people are brainwashed idiots, or (2) You don't know the whole story, and therefore are making mistaken assumptions.

What exactly is your problem with what I said?

Is the BBC not a government run station? They are paid for by tax dollars which are mandatory (if you own a TV).

Is the government not telling you what's going on? The BBC is a government entity and broadcasts the news.

Is the BBC inherently unbalanced? I didn't take a position on this because I don't know British politics well enough to make an informed decision. Maybe you're right and they are completely off the deep end and I don't recognize it not being British.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:What I don't really get is how, upon the owners of the home returning, the squatters can refuse to let the OWNER into HIS OWN house.

IT'S HIS HOUSE! NOT THEIRS!

Does not compute.

If you are the police, how would you know which of two bunches of people own a property?

Is it really a good idea to choose one lot to chuck out, when there is no proof who owns the place?

That might lead to a lot of incorrect evictions. All a squatter would need to do is claim that Guy Ritchie's builders have occupied his house, and have the Police throw them out.

What happens is that the true owner goes to court, and proves his title by reference to the Land Registry. He is granted an eviction order. He serves this on the squatters. If they do not leave within 24 hours, the police or a court bailiff can arrest them.

Well, if the homeowner is forced to go through that process to regain access to his home, the squatters should be forced to pay all legal or otherwise expenses incurred by the homeowner as a result of them occupying his home without his permission.

If they can't pay, well, they should've thought about that before taking up residence in someone else's home.

Why do you think people with no money can pay a lot of legal costs?

biccat wrote:What exactly is your problem with what I said?

Lets find out shall we?

Is the BBC not a government run station?

No, it is not. It is an independent body. It even has a Royal Charter (renewed every 10 years) and is autonomous - http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/what.shtml

They are paid for by tax dollars which are mandatory (if you own a TV).

Well, a few things - we don't use dollars (small point just for laughs), it is not a tax, it is a service fee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#United_Kingdom

Is the government not telling you what's going on? The BBC is a government entity and broadcasts the news.

I refer you to point one above. The BBC is not a government body. It is an independent, autonomous company. You can read related papers here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/purpose/charter/

biccat wrote:
Is the BBC not a government run station? They are paid for by tax dollars which are mandatory (if you own a TV).

Is the government not telling you what's going on?

Because it's not state run in the way that you're meaning it.

It's like saying that as your TV stations are granted broadcast licenses and are overseen by the FCC that your TV is state run.

It is, to a point, as -- like most things in a modern society -- it's overseen and ultimately "approved" -- even if disliked -- by the govt. of the day, but that does not make it an arm of of the govt.

Its not independent. Its government:
The BBC Trust was formed on 1 January 2007, replacing the Board of Governors as the governing body of the Corporation. The Trust sets the strategy for the corporation, assesses the performance of the BBC Executive Board in delivering the BBC's services, and appoints the Director-General.

BBC Trustees are appointed by the British monarch on advice of government ministers.[28] The current members of the Trust are:

Sir Michael Lyons (Chairman)

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:What exactly is your problem with what I said?

Lets find out shall we?

Is the BBC not a government run station?

No, it is not. It is an independent body. It even has a Royal Charter (renewed every 10 years) and is autonomous - http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/what.shtml

They are paid for by tax dollars which are mandatory (if you own a TV).

Well, a few things - we don't use dollars (small point just for laughs), it is not a tax, it is a service fee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#United_Kingdom

Is the government not telling you what's going on? The BBC is a government entity and broadcasts the news.

I refer you to point one above. The BBC is not a government body. It is an independent, autonomous company. You can read related papers here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/purpose/charter/

"The Trust is made up of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and ten Trustees. Four Trustees take special responsibility for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from Ministers after an open selection process."

So let me get this straight:

The BBC was created by a Royal Charter, and requires a Royal Charter to continue to function.
The BBC is supported by mandatory fees that are set by the government and enforced by means of criminal sanctions.
The people who run the BBC are appointed by the Queen and her Ministers.

...and the BBC is not a government body.

Well, I suppose we have different definitions of "government body."

Although reading up on the BBC, it does appear that they have some duty to be independent, at least, they're not controlled directly by parliament or the PM.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do you think people with no money can pay a lot of legal costs?

I think that the point in the first post saying that they are getting legal support because they lack income led to his point of view.

You just go ahead and prove you own the house with a deed, land registry to the english I guess, and then the squatters are evicted. Some places in america don't let squatters have the right to stay somewhere just because its derelict. Most squatter's rights laws require a certain amount of time on the property and then intent to improve the property, some places require 5 continuous years on the property.

Ribon Fox wrote:

We lost the Empire by paying back the cripling loans you lot made to us during and after WW2.

Payback is a b**ch. You shouldn't have tried to tax the tea so heavily...

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do you think people with no money can pay a lot of legal costs?

I think that the point in the first post saying that they are getting legal support because they lack income led to his point of view.

You just go ahead and prove you own the house with a deed, land registry to the english I guess, and then the squatters are evicted. Some places in america don't let squatters have the right to stay somewhere just because its derelict. Most squatter's rights laws require a certain amount of time on the property and then intent to improve the property, some places require 5 continuous years on the property.

If the squatters are getting legal aid and that aid is used to pay the court costs to the millionaire, it means I have subsidised the millionaire out of my taxes. I can't get legal aid because I earn too much. That would not be fair IMO.

Yes. The Land Registry is where the deeds of ownership are held in England and Wales. Things are probably a bit different in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

biccat wrote:"The Trust is made up of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and ten Trustees. Four Trustees take special responsibility for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from Ministers after an open selection process."

So let me get this straight:

The BBC was created by a Royal Charter, and requires a Royal Charter to continue to function.
The BBC is supported by mandatory fees that are set by the government and enforced by means of criminal sanctions.
The people who run the BBC are appointed by the Queen and her Ministers.

...and the BBC is not a government body.

Well, I suppose we have different definitions of "government body."

Although reading up on the BBC, it does appear that they have some duty to be independent, at least, they're not controlled directly by parliament or the PM.

It may be difficult for "an outsider" to understand, but it is not a government body

1) It is not paid for by government.
2) It is not controlled by government (in terms of they do not run it day to day, or inform its broadcasting etc).
3) While the Queen appoints the Trustees and is advised by government ministers, candidates for the positions can put themselves forwards from any walk of life. It is also a point to note that Trustee-ship of the BBC is not a government office or position. It is also a point to note that the Queen is the Queen - her position is markedly different from a head of state such as the President of America. Her favour is linked to no party or political group. She represents "the country and her people", not "the government/current ruling party".
4) Criminal sanctions are applied in the same way that you would be charged for not paying any other utility. Although I grant that they have their own special place in UK law.

Of course, that is just how I see it. I know the majority of people in the UK see the BBC as apart from the government as well, though their thoughts on the reasons for this may differ.

biccat wrote:
Well, I suppose we have different definitions of "government body."

Although reading up on the BBC, it does appear that they have some duty to be independent, at least, they're not controlled directly by parliament or the PM.

Is your judiciary separate from your govt ?

My understanding is that Congress can remove Judges from their office, and the courts are -- correct me if I'm wrong -- funded by tax payers. And yet one of the key roles of the judicary is to be a separate force from the govt. (as a legislative entity) and if needs be use their power/s to prevent the govt. of the day doing whatthecasemaybe ?

And all your TV ( ..and radio ? Dunno.) Stations are answerable to the FCC and dependant upon them for their broadcasting license, I don't see much difference there except exactly which state ( or head of) allows them to broadcast in the first place.

Technically, everything legitimate in the whole of the USA is run by the government.

It is operated under the law, which maintained at gunpoint by armed police.

It uses dollars, a made-up currency issued by a monopoly government department and enforced at gunpoint by the Secret Service.

Blah blah blah.

killkrazy
Well obviously all our police and courts are ignorant of the law then.

Wouldn't be the first time...

frazzled
The BBC has chicks with cool accents. enough said.

I married to one... bow chicka wow wow...

Kilkrazy wrote:Technically, everything legitimate in the whole of the USA is run by the government.

It is operated under the law, which maintained at gunpoint by armed police.

It uses dollars, a made-up currency issued by a monopoly government department and enforced at gunpoint by the Secret Service.

Blah blah blah.

..if only there was some similar system, perhaps one that had worked for even longer, in this country !

) It is not paid for by government.
***Its paid by a forced tax no? That’s government power.
2) It is not controlled by government (in terms of they do not run it day to day, or inform its broadcasting etc).
***Its controlled by people appointed by the government. That’s, er..government control.

3) While the Queen appoints the Trustees and is advised by government ministers, candidates for the positions can put themselves forwards from any walk of life. It is also a point to note that Trustee-ship of the BBC is not a government office or position. It is also a point to note that the Queen is the Queen - her position is markedly different from a head of state such as the President of America. Her favour is linked to no party or political group. She represents "the country and her people", not "the government/current ruling party".
***Whoop de frigging woo. Its still the government.
4) Criminal sanctions are applied in the same way that you would be charged for not paying any other utility. Although I grant that they have their own special place in UK law.
***So it confirms that it’s a government forced tax. Love it.

You’re really just saying its like PBS. Lie it or don't like it, but don't kid yourselves.

*any* tax as such is , by your somewhat unique definition of, forced.apparently... .and.. so what ?

There is a clear difference between something running under the rule of law and being ran by the govt.


" Whoop de frigging woo. Its still the government " No. The Monarch, or the crown rather, is not the Govt. That's one of, if not perhaps, THE key point of the whole set up we have got going.

reds8n wrote:*any* tax as such is , by your somewhat unique definition of, forced.apparently... .and.. so what ?

There is a clear difference between something running under the rule of law and being ran by the govt.


" Whoop de frigging woo. Its still the government " No. The Monarch, or the crown rather, is not the Govt. That's one of, if not perhaps, THE key point of the whole set up we have got going.

If you don't pay the fee what happens? Who enforces it?

Wait so the Queen is not government now? She not the titular head of Great Britain?

Frazzled wrote:Wait so the Queen is not government now? She not the titular head of Great Britain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom

"She and her immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial and representational duties. As a constitutional monarch, the Queen is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours, dissolving Parliament and appointing the Prime Minister. Though the ultimate executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, in practice these powers are only used according to laws enacted in Parliament or within the constraints of convention and precedent."

Well, we're kind of going seriously OT when I'd rather waive my epeen around and cry havoc about the squatters, so I'll let he BBC thing go.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait so the Queen is not government now? She not the titular head of Great Britain?

... you really asking this ? Seriously ?

I'm somewhat baffled as to how far you're stretching this line of reasoning.


By your logic, Fox News is a govt. run agency. They're licensed by and ultimately responsible to the FCC.. who are funded by tax payers.. and if you don't pay your taxes the govt. locks you up.
*thats* the kind of stretch you're making here.

Are you saying then that your judiciary system is a branch of , and therefore subserviant to, the elected govt. of your country ? And if not, why not ?

Fox isn't governed by the FCC. Its on cable. Sorry...

.. I almost feel guilty about this...

How can I file a complaint against my cable company?
Complaints about rates or service should be directed to your local franchise authority. A franchising authority is the local municipal, county or other government organization that regulates certain aspects of the cable television industry at the state or local level. The name of the franchising authority may be on the front or back of your cable bill. If this information is not on your bill, contact your cable company or your local town or city hall.

So once again, it's the govt. , via those hard working tax payers, who get to decide who can and can't broadcast.

Well, we're kind of going seriously OT

yeah. whoops !

[/hijack]

reds8n wrote:.. I almost feel guilty about this...

How can I file a complaint against my cable company?
Complaints about rates or service should be directed to your local franchise authority. A franchising authority is the local municipal, county or other government organization that regulates certain aspects of the cable television industry at the state or local level. The name of the franchising authority may be on the front or back of your cable bill. If this information is not on your bill, contact your cable company or your local town or city hall.

So once again, it's the govt. , via those hard working tax payers, who get to decide who can and can't broadcast.

Well, we're kind of going seriously OT

yeah. whoops !

[/hijack]

You can't get away that easily Red, because I really need to add this line-

I find your lack of faith in the Queen disturbing...

Frazzled wrote:I find your lack of faith in the Queen disturbing...

Sometimes I love having photoshop

Fools!

The Queen does not use Teh Force to strangle people who oppose her will.

She has equerries to do it for her.

Indeed, that is why Darth Vader is known as Lord Vader...

reds8n wrote:Is your judiciary separate from your govt ?

No, the Judiciary is part of the government.

reds8n wrote:And all your TV ( ..and radio ? Dunno.) Stations are answerable to the FCC and dependant upon them for their broadcasting license, I don't see much difference there except exactly which state ( or head of) allows them to broadcast in the first place.

Yes, you're right, TV and radio are answerable to the FCC and dependent upon them for their broadcasting license.

However, the content is not provided by taxpayers, but by advertisers. That means that the TV stations aren't answerable to the taxpayer, but to the advertising agencies.

The heads of the TV and radio stations are also not appointed by or subject to approval of the U.S. Government. The only people the heads are answerable to are the shareholders, as most media companies are corporations.

Also note cable and the internet is NOT under control of the FCC.

I so wish I could see the Queen Vader pic...

Frazzled wrote:Also note cable and the internet is NOT under control of the FCC.

I so wish I could see the Queen Vader pic...

The Queen inspecting the troops with Lord Vader.

excellent!

biccat wrote: That means that the TV stations aren't answerable to the taxpayer, but to the advertising agencies.

And the BBC is answerable as well to those who pay the license fee. They don't operate in a vacuum, and consistently score high approval ratings for their overall behaviour.


As is the govt too of course..... although, obviously, there approval ratings are somewhat more prone to fluctuations.

The heads of the TV and radio stations are also not appointed by or subject to approval of the U.S. Government.

Take your word for it, I was under the impression that there were certain criteria that could indeed see a person barred from owning certain media franchises -- monopolies and mergers aside -- but that not now/have veer been the case.

No, the Judiciary is part of the government.

And yet (in theory anyway I'll grant you) despite being funded by tax payers via the other branches of the govt. it is free to act within its legal remit and defined role.

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote:*any* tax as such is , by your somewhat unique definition of, forced.apparently... .and.. so what ?

There is a clear difference between something running under the rule of law and being ran by the govt.


" Whoop de frigging woo. Its still the government " No. The Monarch, or the crown rather, is not the Govt. That's one of, if not perhaps, THE key point of the whole set up we have got going.

If you don't pay the fee what happens? Who enforces it?

Wait so the Queen is not government now? She not the titular head of Great Britain?

If you don't pay the fee you don't get TV

It would be like someone here stealing cable and not paying for it.

biccat wrote:Only 12? Not bad. It's 15 in the US.

Actually I believe it varies from state to state, but yes, a similar law is in place in the US.

The articles were submitted as corroborating the original story.

I know that's why you put them there, but if you'd read them properly you'd have noticed how they paint a much clearer picture of what's happening.

Right, the guy should have gotten a lawyer, it probably only would have cost a few hundred to file the paperwork. Then the legal aid attorneys would have requested a hearing, which would entail another few thousand from the homeowner. Then the legal aid group instructs them not to leave, meaning the homeowner has to get an eviction order and have the sheriff (constable? bobbie? Whatever they're called in England) enforce it, with the appropriate 6 weeks notice period (which they'll claim they never received service).

What I got from the article was twofold: squatters are a problem, they get free legal representation, and they cost the homeowner a lot in legal fees.

Well, yes, legal processes cost money. That's life. Your estimates on the time and costs involved are quite inaccurate, though, and you'd know that if you'd read your own links, the hearing this guy screwed up the paperwork for today was to have the squatters evicted, had it succeeded there'd have been no further hearing, the squatters would have been immediately evicted. Nor is a legal aid guy going to be particularly obstructive, the value of his time was hundreds of pounds, that means he turned up today, just to follow through the process.

And no, in the UK there's nothing as anachronistic as a sheriff's office tasked with enforcing court orders. Those functions are tasked to the local police.

So are you suggesting that what the Daily Mail reported wasn't true? That there were not squatters in the man's house who refused to leave and required him to go to court to get them 'evicted'?

I'm suggesting that it greatly misled the reader. This is true in that it gave no value to the amount of legal aid given to the squatters, this is true in that the reason the man was unable to reclaim his house almost immediately was hidden in a single line halfway through the article.

It is obvious in the reaction of the various posters in this thread, and those who took the article at face value came away with a mistaken understanding of the events, but exactly the intent The Daily Mail intended to give;

"How is it not illegal to just refuse to leave someone else's house??"
"Only one thing is 100% about our laws, and it's that the average, working taxpayer will always get the gak-covered end of the stick."

Really. A MOD chimed in and called the source "Little England propaganda". I took this to mean that the source in question wasn't appropriate for this forum. I merely inquired as to what sources I should and should not be allowed to use.

You're allowed to use whatever sources you want. Don't play silly games pretending anyone is stopping you from using whatever sources you want. People are just pointing out to you that if you use poor sources you'll end up with poorly thought through conclusions, and that in the long run this will likely make you stupid.

It has already been confirmed that state-run media outlets are allowable, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

That's just silly. Keep up that approach and it won't be poor sources that make you stupid, it'll be your own dishonesty.

Certain state run media outlets are excellent news carriers, the BBC in the UK and ABC in Australia maintain very high standards of reporting. Pretending otherwise will make you stupid.

The events reported weren't fictional. They really happened. So what exactly is your beef with the article? That it didn't report the other side, or present a sympathetic pro-squatter position, like the Guardian?

You can state only facts while still producing a misleading story. Stating in the third line of the story that the squatters received legal aid, while not stating that it was only a few hundred pounds worth misleads the reader. Waiting until about halfway through the story to explain what actually happened to prevent this guy throwing the squatters out as quickly as possible, and then keeping it to a single throwaway line, misleads the reader.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:The Guardian is like the Bizarro Mail - just a complete mirror image. FWIW, I agree with you on The Times.

The Guardian is decent, if you keep away from the opinions columns. It does slant left but this doesn't significantly affect the information in it's articles. It's actually more like the left wing version of The Times, though I find the quality of reporting in The Times a little better the bias is about equal (except the opinion columns, where The Times bias is notably less).

Both paper are utterly different to The Daily Mail, which presents a picture so skewed that you will likely end up less informed about the world after reading it than you were beforehand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Is the BBC not a government run station? They are paid for by tax dollars which are mandatory (if you own a TV).

There is a difference between government run and government funded. While the government provides the funding they have no control over the content.

As a result, the government of the day is not capable in any way of influencing content. Please understand this and move on.

sebster wrote:The Guardian is decent, if you keep away from the opinions columns. It does slant left but this doesn't significantly affect the information in it's articles. It's actually more like the left wing version of The Times, though I find the quality of reporting in The Times a little better the bias is about equal (except the opinion columns, where The Times bias is notably less).

Both paper are utterly different to The Daily Mail, which presents a picture so skewed that you will likely end up less informed about the world after reading it than you were beforehand.

Yeah... I seem to recall a Guardian article, that MGS posted, shrieking about the gov't selling off our forests. It was nonsense. I maintain my position.

It has a ridiculous amount of left-wing bias.

Albatross wrote:Yeah... I seem to recall a Guardian article, that MGS posted, shrieking about the gov't selling off our forests. It was nonsense. I maintain my position.

It has a ridiculous amount of left-wing bias.

I haven't sat down and read a copy in maybe three years, so it might have gotten worse. There was always a threat that it'd slide into telling the sandal wearers what they wanted to hear.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yeah... I seem to recall a Guardian article, that MGS posted, shrieking about the gov't selling off our forests. It was nonsense. I maintain my position.

It has a ridiculous amount of left-wing bias.

I haven't sat down and read a copy in maybe three years, so it might have gotten worse. There was always a threat that it'd slide into telling the sandal wearers what they wanted to hear.

Well, yeah - the 'forest sell-off' was a prime example. It was intentionally misleading in that it neglected to mention that more than 80% of Forestry Commission forest was already in private hands, and that no decision had even been made on the matter, as it was just a consultation.

Also, Polly Toynbee writing about how she will leave the UK now that the Tories are in power (which they aren't, technically...). Brilliant.

Thoughtful and considered analysis has led me to two possible conclusions :

A. She doesn't actually exist and her entire journalistic output is either a satire or piece of performance art, that one day will be revealed and we will marvel at its majesty.

or

B. She is in fact some form of gestalt entity, karmic empowered and created as a form of balance to the Jeremy Kyle show.

Albatross wrote:I haven't sat down and read a copy in maybe three years, so it might have gotten worse. There was always a threat that it'd slide into telling the sandal wearers what they wanted to hear.

Well, yeah - the 'forest sell-off' was a prime example. It was intentionally misleading in that it neglected to mention that more than 80% of Forestry Commission forest was already in private hands, and that no decision had even been made on the matter, as it was just a consultation.

Also, Polly Toynbee writing about how she will leave the UK now that the Tories are in power (which they aren't, technically...). Brilliant.