Lithuanian Squatters

[fathomfive]

Marf said:

fathomfive said:

Is sad.

No potato?

Only cold.

[AndrewW-G]

porka_boy said:

As far as I am concerned this country will continue on its downward slope until we stop pandering to criminals and just for once look after the interests of decent law abiding citizens.

Wont happen, it's far easier to punish the victim (who will have admited to smacking the burglar etc) than it is to locate the crook and secure a conviction . . . . . . . . . removing targets from the Police may help get rid of this culture

[porka_boy]

Agreed, and once this does take place the Police will find that they have a lot more respect from the General Public.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Amazing. Ph demand the police ignore the law.

They had a tenancy agreement. They were duped out of cash. They had entered the property without causing damage. A third party had committed crime but the police have NO powers to removed people in these circumstances.

It's amazing how many demand their human rights and the police to work to the law yet want it ignored when it suits.

This is a civil matter.

Criminal damage -no evidence as locks had been changed

Burglary - nope as they had a tennanct agreement that they believed true.

Theft- it appears there may be an issue now after the event of that.

Squatting and this stuff is solidly in civil law. The police can't decide what laws are written or how they are enacted.

The officers who did anything would have been complained about and to much rejoicing from the DM would have been dealt with for criminal offences.

This story is all about who went to the paper first and as usual some can see there is more to it and others take the DM on face value. The same paper that would have complained and written an article bemoaning the police if they'd kicked the door in and arrested a family with small children.

[Pesty]

Marf said:

Uhura fighter said:

Love to see this happen in the US......

.........why?
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
.
?

Castle doctrine

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

[Mr_annie_vxr]

AndrewW-G said:

porka_boy said:

As far as I am concerned this country will continue on its downward slope until we stop pandering to criminals and just for once look after the interests of decent law abiding citizens.

Wont happen, it's far easier to punish the victim (who will have admited to smacking the burglar etc) than it is to locate the crook and secure a conviction . . . . . . . . . removing targets from the Police may help get rid of this culture

What culture is that? Abiding by the law?

In your example with no victim how could the homeowner be prosecuted?

I've been to lots of jobs where an MOP has used force on someone. Not arrested anyone yet. In the cases that get highlighted there has been such unreasonable force used that the police have been left no option.

As usual though best just believe the outraged papers articles. They contain nothing but facts and are not designed to get a reader infuriated or to buy the article.

Ive only fifteen years policing experience and never seen it or known it.

This rubbish that gets spouted is based on a few incidents. Often badly reported.

[Uhura fighter]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Amazing. Ph demand the police ignore the law.

Funny how you always see things from one view point....

I want the law changed so the police can act within the law or that home owners have the right to deal with a problem.

[Marf]

Pesty said:

Marf said:

Uhura fighter said:

Love to see this happen in the US......

.........why?
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
.
?

Castle doctrine

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

Ironic that it's derived originally from English common law.

Edited by Marf on Friday 24th September 13:51

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Uhura fighter said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Amazing. Ph demand the police ignore the law.

Funny how you always see things from one view point....

I want the law changed so the police can act within the law or that home owners have the right to deal with a problem.

So you accept that the police couldn't do anything here without acting outside the law.

I see things from the view point of facts. The facts in this case meant it was civil at the scene.

The facts meant that posters demanding the police kick doors in are asking them to ignore the law as it stands.

Your view is what?

They were correct it's civil?

Or they should have ignored the law?

No one asked for comment about whether the law is fair as it stands. I didn't say it was. I just said they were correct in their stance based on what they had.

[Oakey]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Amazing. Ph demand the police ignore the law.

They had a tenancy agreement. They were duped out of cash. They had entered the property without causing damage. A third party had committed crime but the police have NO powers to removed people in these circumstances.

It's amazing how many demand their human rights and the police to work to the law yet want it ignored when it suits.

This is a civil matter.

Criminal damage -no evidence as locks had been changed

Burglary - nope as they had a tennanct agreement that they believed true.

Theft- it appears there may be an issue now after the event of that.

Squatting and this stuff is solidly in civil law. The police can't decide what laws are written or how they are enacted.

The officers who did anything would have been complained about and to much rejoicing from the DM would have been dealt with for criminal offences.

This story is all about who went to the paper first and as usual some can see there is more to it and others take the DM on face value. The same paper that would have complained and written an article bemoaning the police if they'd kicked the door in and arrested a family with small children.

How can you have a tenancy agreement for a property that the 'letting agent' had no right to let in the first place?

If I scribble up a tenancy agreement for your house does that give me the right to squat there then?

[Uhura fighter]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Uhura fighter said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Amazing. Ph demand the police ignore the law.

Funny how you always see things from one view point....

I want the law changed so the police can act within the law or that home owners have the right to deal with a problem.

So you accept that the police couldn't do anything here without acting outside the law.



I see things from the view point of facts. The facts in this case meant it was civil at the scene.

The facts meant that posters demanding the police kick doors in are asking them to ignore the law as it stands.

Your view is what?

They were correct it's civil?

Or they should have ignored the law?

No one asked for comment about whether the law is fair as it stands. I didn't say it was. I just said they were correct in their stance based on what they had.

Article said:

The Metropolitan Police said it was seeking suspects who are believed to have posed as an estate agents to fraudulently sublet properties

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314526/Kn...

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Your view is what?

Uhura fighter said:

I want the law changed so the police can act within the law or that home owners have the right to deal with a problem.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

No one asked for comment about whether the law is fair as it stands. I didn't say it was. I just said they were correct in their stance based on what they had.

But you did say

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Amazing. Ph demand the police ignore the law.
It's amazing how many demand their human rights and the police to work to the law yet want it ignored when it suits. .

Some people in this thread are in support of the police and want them to have more powers to deal with this/travellers/trespass - other civil matters.

Edited by Uhura fighter on Friday 24th September 14:09

[TEKNOPUG]

Oakey said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Amazing. Ph demand the police ignore the law.

They had a tenancy agreement. They were duped out of cash. They had entered the property without causing damage. A third party had committed crime but the police have NO powers to removed people in these circumstances.

It's amazing how many demand their human rights and the police to work to the law yet want it ignored when it suits.

This is a civil matter.

Criminal damage -no evidence as locks had been changed

Burglary - nope as they had a tennanct agreement that they believed true.

Theft- it appears there may be an issue now after the event of that.

Squatting and this stuff is solidly in civil law. The police can't decide what laws are written or how they are enacted.

The officers who did anything would have been complained about and to much rejoicing from the DM would have been dealt with for criminal offences.

This story is all about who went to the paper first and as usual some can see there is more to it and others take the DM on face value. The same paper that would have complained and written an article bemoaning the police if they'd kicked the door in and arrested a family with small children.

How can you have a tenancy agreement for a property that the 'letting agent' had no right to let in the first place?

If I scribble up a tenancy agreement for your house does that give me the right to squat there then?

Apparently so. You can also include in the tenancy agreement the sole use of any vehicles found on the premises and state that the property was let totally unfurnished....

[porka_boy]

Oakey said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Amazing. Ph demand the police ignore the law.

They had a tenancy agreement. They were duped out of cash. They had entered the property without causing damage. A third party had committed crime but the police have NO powers to removed people in these circumstances.

It's amazing how many demand their human rights and the police to work to the law yet want it ignored when it suits.

This is a civil matter.

Criminal damage -no evidence as locks had been changed

Burglary - nope as they had a tennanct agreement that they believed true.

Theft- it appears there may be an issue now after the event of that.

Squatting and this stuff is solidly in civil law. The police can't decide what laws are written or how they are enacted.

The officers who did anything would have been complained about and to much rejoicing from the DM would have been dealt with for criminal offences.

This story is all about who went to the paper first and as usual some can see there is more to it and others take the DM on face value. The same paper that would have complained and written an article bemoaning the police if they'd kicked the door in and arrested a family with small children.

How can you have a tenancy agreement for a property that the 'letting agent' had no right to let in the first place?

If I scribble up a tenancy agreement for your house does that give me the right to squat there then?

Totally agree with you there, I might draw up a tenancy agreement for Buckingham Palace tonight - lets see how far I get.

I may be cynical when it comes to the Police but that is down to my own experiences. I having been in the unfortunate event of calling them twice for cars being written off by drunk / incompetent drivers when left parked on the road and countless times for staff cars being damaged when left in the Hospital car park. Both experiences were highly unsatisfactory, in fact it took the direct intervention of the local MP to get the Police to even visit site despite having been called for various incidents over ten times.

[oOTomOo]

I think I'd fight Lithuanian Squatters with fire... Lots of fire.

[s3fella]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Amazing. Ph demand the police ignore the law.

They had a tenancy agreement. They were duped out of cash. They had entered the property without causing damage. A third party had committed crime but the police have NO powers to removed people in these circumstances.

It's amazing how many demand their human rights and the police to work to the law yet want it ignored when it suits.

This is a civil matter.

Criminal damage -no evidence as locks had been changed

Burglary - nope as they had a tennanct agreement that they believed true.

Theft- it appears there may be an issue now after the event of that.

Squatting and this stuff is solidly in civil law. The police can't decide what laws are written or how they are enacted.

The officers who did anything would have been complained about and to much rejoicing from the DM would have been dealt with for criminal offences.

This story is all about who went to the paper first and as usual some can see there is more to it and others take the DM on face value. The same paper that would have complained and written an article bemoaning the police if they'd kicked the door in and arrested a family with small children.

The most worrying thing is that you actually seem to believe all this st?

[Rollin]

Doesn't the house owner have to sign the tenancy agreement for it to be legal?

[TEKNOPUG]

If someone had their car stolen and BiB caught me a few hours later driving it and I showed them a piece of paper claiming to be a receipt, would they simply say "Civil Matter" and leave it at that? No checks or follows up whatsoever??

[Tycho]

TEKNOPUG said:

If someone had their car stolen and BiB caught me a few hours later driving it and I showed them a piece of paper claiming to be a receipt, would they simply say "Civil Matter" and leave it at that? No checks or follows up whatsoever??

Exactly!!!

If the legal owner has been deprived of their property/belongings then surely this is theft?

[TuxRacer]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

They had a tenancy agreement.

How do you get a valid tenancy agreement without the home owner being involved?

[Pesty]

Oakey said:

If I scribble up a tenancy agreement for your house does that give me the right to squat there then?

just remember to fit new locks apparently this is a get out of gaol free card easy way for police to wash their hands of it and not bother investigating.