Monday, 16 March 2009

Squatters - filthy immoral thieving scum

There's been a case recently of 50 squatters taking over a £3m mansion in Clifton, it's now reported they've moved out, but their weak justifications for their actions are enough to boil anyone's piss.

Jake Eisenstein, 27, who described himself as a "professional squatter" said about 100 people attended the meeting.

"We took over this building to hold an international meeting of squatters," he said.

Professional waster, more like. What an arrogant cunt. These people justify their actions, only to themselves, by sort of viewing themselves as some sort of a modern-day Robin Hood. In truth, they're jealous Marxists of the worst kind, as they don't have a job, can't be bothered to work, but expect someone else to put them up or provide them with a house. They are jealous of what people work hard to have, but don't want to work themselves to get it.

Miriam Green, one of the squatters, said: "It is his house, yes, but it's his house for development and the real issue here is that many of us, myself included, will not be able to afford to get onto the property ladder.


Maybe Miriam, you grasping cunt, you could do us the common fucking courtesy of explaining why it is his responsibility to provide you with a house? Why should he even care whether you can afford to get onto the property ladder? I can't afford to get onto the property ladder at the moment, so do you know what I do? I rent, which I pay for using the money from a JOB I have. I don't suppose you'd consider doing the same would you?

I'm still surprised in this day and age that squatting is legal providing you haven't broken in. If you kick the door in to a property and come back a few days later and "find it already damaged", how can the police prove anything? Or worse, break a window, move in, then repair it?

16 comments:

bristle said...

Oh Dave, think of your blood pressure!

PS

We know what you think of the squatters, but how do you feel about property speculators (especially since you yourself "can't afford to get onto the property ladder")?

Bristol Dave said...

Property speculators only mildly annoy me as they do reduce the chances of getting on the housing ladder, but they've bought the house legally and fairly and are only one of many contributors to the housing problem.

When you compare this to squatters, who take over a property that in no way belongs to them, just because they deludedly believe they have a "moral right" to it because it's empty (and how long it's empty for seems not to matter, ref: stories of people returning from a month-long holiday to find some people have "taken over" their house) the difference is huge. Property speculators deserves a slight amount of contempt, squatters deserves their face being stamped on, multiple times, and then a long lesson in why you should earn things in life rather than steal them.

I can barely imagine the levels my blood pressure would reach if I came home from holiday and found that some filthy soap-dodging "world owes me a living" scrounger
had decided to move in, let alone if I'd actually bought the house.

So yes, property speculators are mildly annoying, but life's too short to be jealous of other people for too long (although not for the squatters, obviously) and it would go against my staunch support of capitalism somewhat.

Old Bag said...

now, the squatters were merely "liberating" the property in the wonderfully leafy clifton!

Bristol Dave said...

Yeah, funny how they didn't choose a skanky run-down building in Stokes Croft.

AngryDave said...

Dirty squatting bastards are right up there on my shit list with fucking pikey's.
I am with Dave on this one, and the very thought of it boils my piss and makes me feel all violent.

Chris Hutt said...

Hey, chill out man. I used to be a squatter. It was just about the only way to find a place to live, at the time (1970s).

There were thousands of old terraced houses standing empty as a result of erstwhile plans to demolish huge swathes of London to make way for ring roads and tower blocks. So we occupied them, paid our rates and utility bills and repaired and improved the houses. We would have gladly paid rent too, but the council wouldn't accept it.

It was an example of people taking direct action to solve their problems rather than sitting around waiting for the state to do it. Far from depriving anybody of accommodation, we were making short-life housing available to many who would otherwise be joining council housing waiting lists.

So what was so terrible about that?

Bristol Dave said...

Chris - I think things might have been a bit different back in the 70s, with rows of houses ready to be demolished and paying bills for the property you're occupying is certainly commendable, but it doesn't detract from the fact that in my opinion you didn't really have any right to be there.

I still stand by what I said in my post - the people who took over the building in Clifton were not moral crusaders, they simply wanted a conference venue but felt (unlike everyone else) they shouldn't have to pay for it, so they took it.

Trespass may only be a civil offence but in my opinion it's still morally wrong. That's somebody's property.

Thatsnews said...

And what if Miriam does get onto the housing ladder and someone squats on her? Er... rathe,re squats in her house? What then? Tea and bickies all round? Or an hysterical call to the police?

wv loctop.

AngryDave said...

I would remove with as much force as possible anyone i found squatting in my home. Or better still pay some heavies to do it for me, while i get myself a very public alibi somewhere else.

badnewswade said...

It's not squatters who have ruined the economy mate. It's property speculating scum and the overinflated pyramid scheme financial industry that supported them.

Kindly direct your rage at something other than a pathetic scapegoat.

badnewswade said...

p.s. Squatters would not want to squat your home as the law provides for their swift removal in such a case.

Squatters only ever take over unlet, unoccupied properties, usually ones which are unlikely to be used any time soon (as this make it more likely they can stay).

Bristol Dave said...

Squatters would not want to squat your home as the law provides for their swift removal in such a case.

How? I didn't think the law differentiated between people's "homes" and empty buildings (and in fact, it's a moot point as the Clifton mansion was going to be turned into flats)

Chris Hutt said...

Squatters have whatever rights are enshrined in law. I suppose the concept originates in relation to the occupation of land rather than buildings as such. It's easier to understand how such rights might have arisen in that context.

Ownership of land is not like owning a material good like say a bicycle. Land that you own is not yours to do as you like with. Others may well have rights that impact on the land, including public rights of way for example.

As badnewswade says, what we see here is anger being directed at largely harmless scapegoats. We know where that sort of thing leads, don't we?

AngryDave said...

Oh the poor scapegoats?
They should get a job and pay rent, or gat a mortgage like the rest of us. Nobody is saying squatters have ruined the economy, we all know that it was the fuckwits in government who did that. The point is, why the fuck should they be allowed to take over a property that they have no right to, and did not pay for? If someone owns it and wants it empty that is up to them, it's their money and their property.
Whether they are willing to pay rent or not is irrelivant as they have no permission and no right to be there.

Anonymous said...

why the fuck should property be left empty to speculate whilst others have no roof over their head? one reason why people can't afford to get on the property ladder is because property is seen as a way to create money rather than to live in. Poor saps like you are a victim of this. If all empty property was squatted then owners would reduce thier rents or sell at sane and rational prices to avoid it being squatted

Miriam Greene said...

Did I ever say it was his reponsibility ? maybe you should check your quotes, Angry Dave, or learn to read not assume..
Property developers annoy me more for the constant destruction of beautiful old buildings to make way for pre-fabricated ugly new-builds that will last a fration of the time that a stone building, built the way we used to build them would have. its a wasteful use of resources.

but NB, in this case, Jason was trying to save this beautiful mansion which we temporarily occupied, so fair play to him for not being like the rest.

Oh, and maybe, dave, you should think about either getting some anger management counselling or, getting a life rather than sit around commenting on your own post.