'Occupy' Squatters Trash 3 million Bristol mansion.

[hornetrider]

For fk's sake. Not content with mullering College Green, looks like they've scoured Rightmove and moved into Bristol's most eligible pad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howabou...

Bring back the gallows.

[Frankeh]

They're obviously scum, but a house like that really should be lived in. I don't like people who just speculatively hold on to property, but I hate squatters worse.

One can't operate without the other, though.

[Laurel Green]

Utter scum - should have their toenails clipped at the knees.

[jdw1234]

It seems like it is for sale.

What are you supposed to do with a house like that on the market? I expect it takes longer than a flat in central London to sell, so it is bound to be empty for a while (especially in this market).

[Frankeh]

Maybe he's valued it too high and that's why it's not selling?

Anyway, I don't know if I'd turn off the gas if I was the estate agent.. The people in the house might resort to more destructive forms of heating! I really think the law on squatting needs a total reform from the ground up. It made sense years ago but not now.

[SystemParanoia]

burn it down, claim the insurance... hopefully nail a few squatters in the bargain

[DamienB]

Where does it say they've trashed it?

[SystemParanoia]

chlorine gas is easy to make in quantity isnt it?

[Oakey]

It's bullst. "squatting is legal so long as entry isn't forced". Because of course, the front door was no doubt wide open. Does anyone honestly believe these muppets haven't broken in?

[Oakey]

SystemParanoia said:

chlorine gas is easy to make in quantity isnt it?

Bleach and ammonia.

[Miguel Alvarez]

Frankeh said:

I really think the law on squatting needs a total reform from the ground up. It made sense years ago but not now.

Not trying to be a troll or rile you so this is a genuine question. In what way did it make sense years ago?

[Defcon5]

Frankeh said:

I really think the law on squatting needs a total reform from the ground up. It made sense years ago but not now.

How did it make sense years ago? I cant understand why there is a law to protect this scum.

[SystemParanoia]

Miguel Alvarez said:

Not trying to be a troll or rile you so this is a genuine question. In what way did it make sense years ago?

after ww2, lots of peoples homes were destroyed, and ones that were still standing, likey had dead owners.. so you moved in with your family.

but back then, if the owners showed up.. you left, no questions.

[Miguel Alvarez]

SystemParanoia said:

after ww2, lots of peoples homes were destroyed, and ones that were still standing, likey had dead owners.. so you moved in with your family.

but back then, if the owners showed up.. you left, no questions.

Fair enough. So like most things these days its not really the law itself that's the issue but the morallity of the people abusing the law.

[Frankeh]

Miguel Alvarez said:

SystemParanoia said:

after ww2, lots of peoples homes were destroyed, and ones that were still standing, likey had dead owners.. so you moved in with your family.

but back then, if the owners showed up.. you left, no questions.

Fair enough. So like most things these days its not really the law itself that's the issue but the morallity of the people abusing the law.

'These days' can be defined as the past 40 odd years, btw. That's apparently when the slightly more anarchist view of squatting took hold.
Only reason it seems like it's worse now is because the papers report on it more as it gets people riled up.

[SystemParanoia]

Frankeh said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

SystemParanoia said:

after ww2, lots of peoples homes were destroyed, and ones that were still standing, likey had dead owners.. so you moved in with your family.

but back then, if the owners showed up.. you left, no questions.

Fair enough. So like most things these days its not really the law itself that's the issue but the morallity of the people abusing the law.

'These days' can be defined as the past 40 odd years, btw. That's apparently when the slightly more anarchist view of squatting took hold.
Only reason it seems like it's worse now is because the papers report on it more as it gets people riled up.

also the squatters are trying to get lucky.

as if they can stay there for 10 years un-challenged, they then get to obtain legal ownership of the property/land ( that what i think anyway, i'm most likely wrong )

[Miguel Alvarez]

Frankeh said:

'These days' can be defined as the past 40 odd years, btw. That's apparently when the slightly more anarchist view of squatting took hold.
Only reason it seems like it's worse now is because the papers report on it more as it gets people riled up.

It's an obvious piss boiler so makes good news. No doubt about that.

[mrmr96]

It's hard to believe that there is a law which prevents forcible removal of squatters.

[Pothole]

SystemParanoia said:

Frankeh said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

SystemParanoia said:

after ww2, lots of peoples homes were destroyed, and ones that were still standing, likey had dead owners.. so you moved in with your family.

but back then, if the owners showed up.. you left, no questions.

Fair enough. So like most things these days its not really the law itself that's the issue but the morallity of the people abusing the law.

'These days' can be defined as the past 40 odd years, btw. That's apparently when the slightly more anarchist view of squatting took hold.
Only reason it seems like it's worse now is because the papers report on it more as it gets people riled up.

also the squatters are trying to get lucky.

as if they can stay there for 10 years un-challenged, they then get to obtain legal ownership of the property/land ( that what i think anyway, i'm most likely wrong )

it WAS 12. That's changed now AFAIK

[Frankeh]

mrmr96 said:

It's hard to believe that there is a law which prevents forcible removal of squatters.

I think it's also meant to protect from tyrannical landlords. Think Hoogstraten.