Lithuanian Squatters

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Uhura fighter said:

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

I agree then. I think its ludicrous that the law sits this way with squatters.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

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?

It may make the matter civil not criminal. Thus the police have no powers to act.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Pesty said:

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.

Its not the fault of the police that the law is written that way.

I guess you come down on the ignore the law side for the police.

Haven't seen you posting in support of officers breaking the law on other threads though, which seems strange.

What is ludicrous is the law, however like some posters instead of focussing on the law and that it needs changing, you attack the people who are being handcuffed by it.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

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??

It would negate the ability to prosecute you should the value be fair, you have the v5 and the keys.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

s3fella 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.

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

I believe that the laws written so at to protect tennants / squatters?

Or that PH will overlook the law and the area at fault just so that the same old people can launch an attack on the police?

The same people that would have been calling it heavy handed if the DM had written an article about police turning up, smashing a door in, arresting a poor simple mum and dad and putting the kids to social services?

The law is the problem here not the officers actions. It was a CIVIL MATTER. If the police had acted they would have been committing offences, subject to complaint and discipline and to being sued.

[zcacogp]

s3fella 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.

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

He's a copper.

Interesting, eh?


Oli.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

zcacogp said:

s3fella 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.

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

He's a copper.

Interesting, eh?


Oli.

Your point being what exactly?

The comments of the posters on here berating the police for failing to break the law and deal with this prove my point that some of PH seem incapable of actually comprehending a situation further than what some badly written DM article tells them.

In this case it was a unfortunately a civil matter, what is morally right and legally right are not always the same thing.

I

[Oakey]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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?

It may make the matter civil not criminal. Thus the police have no powers to act.

the tenancy agreement would be fraudulant though. On top of that, how do you know these 'tenants' haven't broken in? Just because they have a tenancy agreement doesn't mean they didn't break entry.

If you returned home to find me sat on your sofa and I pulled out a 'tenancy agreement' you'd just shrug and say "damn, this is a civil matter, I guess I shall have to go and book in to a hotel for tonight" would you?

[poo at Paul's]

Oakey said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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?

It may make the matter civil not criminal. Thus the police have no powers to act.

the tenancy agreement would be fraudulant though. On top of that, how do you know these 'tenants' haven't broken in? Just because they have a tenancy agreement doesn't mean they didn't break entry.

If you returned home to find me sat on your sofa and I pulled out a 'tenancy agreement' you'd just shrug and say "damn, this is a civil matter, I guess I shall have to go and book in to a hotel for tonight" would you?

If we had a few more coppers who'd leave the lawyering to the people who went to law school and look at the obviousness of the situation, use some common fking sense, see the 8 knife wielding Lituanians and say, look, get the fk out you thieving turds, or we'll arrest you, this sort of st may not happen. For it to happen randomly is bad enough, but IF it has happened to two seperate neighbours, well whoever polices that street should be ashamed.
What a bks.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Oakey said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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?

It may make the matter civil not criminal. Thus the police have no powers to act.

the tenancy agreement would be fraudulant though. On top of that, how do you know these 'tenants' haven't broken in? Just because they have a tenancy agreement doesn't mean they didn't break entry.

If you returned home to find me sat on your sofa and I pulled out a 'tenancy agreement' you'd just shrug and say "damn, this is a civil matter, I guess I shall have to go and book in to a hotel for tonight" would you?

I wouldn't phone the police as I'd be aware it's a civil matter unless there is a kicked in front door. In this case no damage was there and the locks had been changed.

The tenants had paid a third party who committed the offences.

So what offence would you arrest the mother and father for there and then? At this time their just in the house. No signs of damage and a tennanct agreement.

I don't write the law. I've already stated I don't agree with it. Ive just pointed out the officers are correct on the information they had.

Im sorry you either don't understand or don't want to understand the situation as it stands. Im sorry you choose to attack those bound by the law rather than those that have written it. I'm sorry but I'm not getting arrested for assault, false imprisonment and losing my job and facing prison to kick inns front door and evict some people who have acted themselves legally when a non present third party has committed the criminal offences.

The law is weighted in favour of tenants and squatters. That's not my fault or the fault of the officers attending.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

poo at Paul's said:

Oakey said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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?

It may make the matter civil not criminal. Thus the police have no powers to act.

the tenancy agreement would be fraudulant though. On top of that, how do you know these 'tenants' haven't broken in? Just because they have a tenancy agreement doesn't mean they didn't break entry.

If you returned home to find me sat on your sofa and I pulled out a 'tenancy agreement' you'd just shrug and say "damn, this is a civil matter, I guess I shall have to go and book in to a hotel for tonight" would you?

If we had a few more coppers who'd leave the lawyering to the people who went to law school and look at the obviousness of the situation, use some common fking sense, see the 8 knife wielding Lituanians and say, look, get the fk out you thieving turds, or we'll arrest you, this sort of st may not happen. For it to happen randomly is bad enough, but IF it has happened to two seperate neighbours, well whoever polices that street should be ashamed.
What a bks.

These were not knife wielding anything. They were a family with kids.

As for police just doing the obvious. Doing 'lawyering' as you call it or as I call it having some basic legal understanding is needed to avoid acting unlawfully and leaving yourself open to criminal allegations. I have to be sure that inaction within the law as if I don't then the complaints procedure and courts will hammer me.

Unless your saying that as long as the police do the right thing they should be exempt from complaint and any criminal actions against them?

The law as I have stated numerous times is crap in this area.

Write to your MP. They can change it. I can't

[poo at Paul's]

So you've written to your MP already hey? As you have said, the law is so crap on the area...
What did your MP say?

[Pints]

Can we assume for a moment that this is a car we're dealing with, rather than a house?
If somebody steals my car, changes the locks and then sells it on (using a very convincing looking receipt and forged V5, etc.), would you then also consider it a civil matter?

I realise the two are different but FFS, this is a man's house we're dealing with here. When I used to rent, I made sure that I went through a reputable estate agent. These "tenants" deal with a couple dodgy Eastern European blokes, claim innocence and now the homeowners are now without a home with little recourse and the law apparently not on their side.

How on God's green earth can this be allowed?!

This law is an arse.

[bazking69]

FraserLFA said:

That is sick. I wouldn't be as calm as the residents seem to be. I'd be demanding actions from the police, if this is all true.

And i'd be taking matters into my own hands if they didn't.

[H18 ENF]

Galsia said:

Obviously there is more to this than the Daily Mail is letting on.

Really?? An article in The Faily Mail not given an unbiased and true account of a story??

Well bugger me... and then write an article about how I deserve to die...

[NoNeed]

I would take all the window out (with bricks if nesessary) and probably take the doors off too.

I don't think they would stay long.

[Halb]

bazking69 said:

FraserLFA said:

That is sick. I wouldn't be as calm as the residents seem to be. I'd be demanding actions from the police, if this is all true.

And i'd be taking matters into my own hands if they didn't.

YOu prolly unlikely to be a viable target. Old people, single women, young couples...anyone who looks like they wouldn't do much in the heat of the moment methinks.

[groak]

Halb said:

YOu prolly unlikely to be a viable target. Old people, single women, young couples...anyone who looks like they wouldn't do much in the heat of the moment methinks.

As many a bully of a letting agent/landlord has discovered to their serious cost, being in the above categories doesn't mean they don't have someone to turn to to help with bullies. And I don't mean the police. They're mostly just a bit confused about who they actually work for.

Edited by groak on Friday 24th September 22:35

[Amateurish]

Despite the headline of knife wielding foreigners, the actual criminals here (as later admitted in the article) are the fraudsters acting as letting agents. The unfortunate Lithuanians will no doubt be kicked out of the property and then lose their deposit / advance rent.

The property owners and the Lithuanians are all losers and victims of a crime. Typical Fail to incite the racist hatred.

[sjn2004]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Oakey said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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?

It may make the matter civil not criminal. Thus the police have no powers to act.

the tenancy agreement would be fraudulant though. On top of that, how do you know these 'tenants' haven't broken in? Just because they have a tenancy agreement doesn't mean they didn't break entry.

If you returned home to find me sat on your sofa and I pulled out a 'tenancy agreement' you'd just shrug and say "damn, this is a civil matter, I guess I shall have to go and book in to a hotel for tonight" would you?

I wouldn't phone the police as I'd be aware it's a civil matter unless there is a kicked in front door. In this case no damage was there and the locks had been changed.

The tenants had paid a third party who committed the offences.

So what offence would you arrest the mother and father for there and then? At this time their just in the house. No signs of damage and a tennanct agreement.

I don't write the law. I've already stated I don't agree with it. Ive just pointed out the officers are correct on the information they had.

Im sorry you either don't understand or don't want to understand the situation as it stands. Im sorry you choose to attack those bound by the law rather than those that have written it. I'm sorry but I'm not getting arrested for assault, false imprisonment and losing my job and facing prison to kick inns front door and evict some people who have acted themselves legally when a non present third party has committed the criminal offences.

The law is weighted in favour of tenants and squatters. That's not my fault or the fault of the officers attending.

What proof is there of a third party? Surely you could take all the occupants down to the station for questioning/ascertain ID then let them go 1 hr later without charge. Meanwhile the actual owner of the house can move back in and secure their property. Job done, no arrests, no hassle and best of all the householder gets a result.