This is a thread about stealing property, not toilet ettiquette.

thisislondon.co.uk


You have probably read about a gang of hippy artists that are breaking into mansions in Belgravia, Chelsea and Knightsbridge that are privatly owned and squatting there until they get evicted.

Scum or Heros?

So its O.K to squat shit holes owned by the tax payers, but not empty mansions owned by tax dodgers living in Gibraltar?


Do you think people would be talking about it if they went and squatted shitty little places? These places do get squatted, no one cares, but as soon as some rich cunts house gets squatted then everyone is up in arms, due in part I presume to peoples deluded upper middle class aspirations and the owners of the newspapers wanting to stir up emotion amongst Joe public (just in case their empty house in Chelsea is next on the squatters list). The whole concept of ownership I think is questionable. Besides, one house on that estate will have 2-3 bedrooms at most, whereas these squats can home loads of people in an ideal location with chances of getting services turned back on making the place more habitable and therefor increasing peoples chances of getting their life turned around. There are a lot of misguided preconceptions on who squatters are and why they squat. Perhaps if you hold such strong opinions you should go along to some squats and talk to the people there. What is the difference between MP's using our money to pay for ridiculous houses and the extremely rich leaving houses empty while other people live in bus shelters. Besides, the posher places are squatted because more often than not, the owner wont bother to evict them for quite a while.

I am undecided on the issue of squatting, but Danny I have to pull you up on your use of the Ferrier estate as an example of homes standing empty.

1. They are empty because they are about to be demolished.
2. They are being demolished for a good reason.
3. Have you every seen the Ferrier Estate or been to Kidbrooke?

There is a VERY good reason those flats are being demolished. They were unfit for human habitation. A breach of human rights.

It's ear marked to be demolished! Hence people are being moved out and relocated. Also have you ever been to the Ferrier Estate? It's an absolute shit hole!!! no one would want to live there. But hey with 1000 vacancies those Hippy bastards should go there instead, and rename it Squat Mansions.

Care to expand on this?

like when they turned Highbury into flats? Keep them all in one place ;o)

Why not, and with all those aspiring artists in one space it would become the new hub of arts and entertainment in London. Thus raising the socially and economic status of poor old Kidbrooke. ;0)

Fucking LOL! How long have they been 'about to be demolished', 6 yearsish? I totally agree they are in a shit state, it has a lot to do with the fact that so much been standing empty for so long. But they are a lot better than keeping people on a pointless waiting list, sleeping in doorways.

Yes I have been there, I used to work in the area, and I have a fair bit of family in the area, not that this has any bearing on the fact that this is a vital waste of housing/space for new 'affordable' housing. I have also slept in bus stations in the middle of winter and I know where I would rather stay.

If places like the Ferrier Estate are counted as 'homes standing empty' by those wanting to justify squatting, it calls into question the accuracy of all of the figures.

Either you are for 'human rights' or you are against them when it comes to places like the Ferrier. You can't have it both ways in order to bolster your argument.

Poor show.

Haha I can see it now, Freetown Ferrier, the new Freetown Christiania.

danny, I am a fan of your writing usually, but this is pish. We know from your previous posts that you are voluntarily 'homeless'. It is, by your own admission, a lifestyle choice. So don't feed us this self pitying bollocks.

I am totally against people being forced into these shit holes, which is why I would prefer them squat mansions in Mayfair.

I think it is a sorry state that these houses are there, I am not saying people should be forced to live in them, or that people should have to squat them. I am saying the council should be forced to do SOMETHING with them rather than leaving them to rot, therefor helping alleviate the need of people to squat in the first place.

I am housed now!

Tut tut, Truly poor show.

Hang-on when did homeless have spare money for internet cafe's or iphones? ;O)

Ok, this is fair enough but.... Lets say in theory Greenwich council say 'right, we have a year before we have the money to demolish and redevelop the estate' You are a councilor, who should they house there? Bearing in mind it looks like this…

farm1.static.flickr.com

Not a good look. I had a couple of friends who lived there. Getting rehoused was like winning the lottery for them. I hated going to see them, and often stayed over if it meant leaving late even though I only lived in Woolwich.

You have some good points, and it does seem pointless for many people to be homeless while there are empty homes all over the place,
BUT...
??
That doesnt make any sense,
We all know communisim doesnt work, if people don't earn things they don't appreciate them, and if people aren't given the opportunity to become very rich & reach their goals (ie. owning lots of properties, maybe only living in one at a time) everyone would lose the motivation to do anything, and soon everyone would be homeless!!

Don't blame the council blame the architects. Places like this should have never been built. Nobody should live somewhere like this. What a bloody disgrace.

looks like a great place for a party

People that squat are fucking scumbags [the end]

Or a place for a rave. Had some good times in places like that.