Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.