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.

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.