leicsmac Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 Politics of envy, they have never changed. Perhaps some of these people think that what a person owns or how much money they have isn't an actual measure of the person. Society as a whole however seems to view that differently. As for the issue itself...agree with the principle of making squatting illegal. Also agree that there should be far more punitive restrictions on owning multiple homes and leaving them empty.
THEFATBASTARD Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 Somebody should tell some of our shite players we can't unload..
Leicester_Loyal Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 Oh good, homeless folk lose even more, while the wealthy sit around with half a dozen empty houses.
sphericalfox Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 But my hammy's are tight as fook! Those bastards don't give two shits about the shape of my arse!
MooseBreath Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 But my hammy's are tight as fook! Those bastards don't give two shits about the shape of my arse! Least you won't be walking around like you've been bummed for two days every week from now on
sphericalfox Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 Least you won't be walking around like you've been bummed for two days every week from now on Hilarious. Another bumming jibe. Working your way around the FT posters with this shite and not the response you desire eh? Time to change your tune methinks.
Webbo Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 Perhaps some of these people think that what a person owns or how much money they have isn't an actual measure of the person. Society as a whole however seems to view that differently. But judging somebody harshly because they do have money is fair?
leicsmac Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 But judging somebody harshly because they do have money is fair? Apologies Webbo, but that's not what I said. I said some people don't judge others on their bank balance or what they own either positively or negatively. That's opposed to the view held by a large area of society that the more you own, the more your arse should be kissed. Yeah, people bitching about other people having more money is (most of the time) jealousy and is annoying, but sycophancy towards those same individuals annoys me equally as much.
MooseBreath Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 Hilarious. Another bumming jibe. Working your way around the FT posters with this shite and not the response you desire eh? Time to change your tune methinks. Actually it wasn't a bumming jibe. Not sure how it makes sense if it is? What I meant was, now that you can't squat, you won't have to deal with aching legs which add a certain spiciness to the canter. Maybe it doesn't happen to you, but whenever I do squats I can hardly walk for two days afterwards.
Webbo Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 Yeah, people bitching about other people having more money is (most of the time) jealousy and is annoying, but sycophancy towards those same individuals annoys me equally as much. I don't know anyone who thinks people with more money are better.
leicsmac Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 I don't know anyone who thinks people with more money are better. Don't think it's thinking they're "better" per se, but from what I've seen most people tend to act pretty differently around people with more money...especially in the service industry. And I think most of the time the word 'sycophancy' covers the attitude pretty well. Edit: Apologies to the OP for veering this offtopic. As I said before, I do agree with the premise of making squatting illegal.
Zingari Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 tbh I've never understood how squatting could ever have been legal in the first place !
davieG Posted 31 August 2012 Author Posted 31 August 2012 If the Taiwanese get their way we'll all be squatting. A Taiwanese minister has caused widespread debate on hygiene by suggesting that men should sit down while urinating instead of standing up. Stephen Shen, Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) minister, said that sitting on the toilet like women do creates a cleaner environment. This has generated a lot of online debate, says the BBC's Cindy Sui. Officials are to ask local governments this week to put up notices in public places advising men to sit. While many women in social media websites favour the suggestion, a lot of men say it would be hard to stop doing what they are used to, our correspondent in Taipei adds. But EPA officials insist that it can be done. "We want to learn from Japan and Sweden," said Yuan Shaw-jing, EPA director general of environmental santitation and toxic substance maintenance. "In Japan, we heard 30% of the men sit," he added. Inspectors regularly grade Taiwan's estimated 100,000 public toilets, with most of receiving high marks. But EPA officials say there is room for improvement, as some toilets are still smelly because of urine spatter. While the agency said that it cannot force men to change their habits, it will ask local governments this week to put notices in public toilets with the suggestion. As for Mr Shen, the EPA confirmed that he himself practices what he suggests - at home and while using public toilets.
Rincewind Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 Wasn't there a thread a while back about some Swedish women complaining.
acooling08 Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 It's funny how things have changed; was once that the poor were spat upon, now it's the rich that are slated at every oppurtunity. On this subject, I think you should have to use a property that you own for at least 6 months in a year, otherwise it will be re-sold and a fee below the retail price given in compensation.
leicsmac Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 It's funny how things have changed; was once that the poor were spat upon, now it's the rich that are slated at every oppurtunity. On this subject, I think you should have to use a property that you own for at least 6 months in a year, otherwise it will be re-sold and a fee below the retail price given in compensation. This is a decent idea, but unfortunately I don't think it would ever be approved.
Webbo Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 I had a customer last week who bought a house 4 years ago but couldn't move in until they'd sold the house they were living in. Should they have that house took off them?
MooseBreath Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 How many decent houses which could be rented out are actually left empty? My guess would be not many, and certainly not enough to have much of an effect on homelessness. Punishing people for leaving houses empty is a ludicrous idea, it is simply attacking 'the rich' for the sake of it. It will do nothing to help anyone.
Bryn Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 tbh I've never understood how squatting could ever have been legal in the first place ! Well it's not legal, as such, it just wasn't a criminal matter, it was a civil one, you had to apply to a magistrate to have the squatters removed which took months, unless you could demonstrate that it was breaking and entering, which is a criminal matter. This means you couldn't call the police and get them removed, they wouldn't get involved. Forcibly removing the squatter in defence of your property would be assault, which is of course is a criminal matter, so the police would weigh in on the side of the squatters. This idea that you can force people who have paid legitimately for their property to do what you want them to do with it is laughable, and another great example of how far this country has gone towards the attitude that the rich owe the poor everything and should be punished for accruing wealth. What's wrong with a nice moderate view somewhere in the middle?
Zingari Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 Well it's not legal, as such, it just wasn't a criminal matter, it was a civil one, you had to apply to a magistrate to have the squatters removed which took months, unless you could demonstrate that it was breaking and entering, which is a criminal matter. This means you couldn't call the police and get them removed, they wouldn't get involved. Forcibly removing the squatter in defence of your property would be assault, which is of course is a criminal matter, so the police would weigh in on the side of the squatters. This idea that you can force people who have paid legitimately for their property to do what you want them to do with it is laughable, and another great example of how far this country has gone towards the attitude that the rich owe the poor everything and should be punished for accruing wealth. What's wrong with a nice moderate view somewhere in the middle? Thanks for clarifying that , but i still don't see how taking over someone's house could ever have been treated differently to taking someone's car or bicycle etc . regardless of whether they are actually in use or not .or whether they are left unsecured
Bryn Posted 31 August 2012 Posted 31 August 2012 Thanks for clarifying that , but i still don't see how taking over someone's house could ever have been treated differently to taking someone's car or bicycle etc . regardless of whether they are actually in use or not .or whether they are left unsecured It's partly to protect legitimate tenants as well, I think. In the sense that it protects the tenant from being forcibly removed by a pissed off landlord; the landlord would always have to have the tenant removed fairly in a court of law. But yeah I agree.
davieG Posted 1 September 2012 Author Posted 1 September 2012 Merc Leicester has the highest number of vacant properties in the East Midlands, with some 4,678 homes standing empty. The city topped the list of a poll completed by GMB union, which surveyed all the empty properties in the East Midlands. The union has called for tougher penalties to be brought in for owners of empty properties who leave them vacant.Leicester has 3.7 per cent of all its housing stock vacant. GMB regional secretary Andy Worth said: "There are not enough penalties against leaving a property vacant. "Politicians and the public authorities need to look again at the level of tax levied on properties that are empty. The system needs to be tilted in such a way that property owners face penalties if they do not take all reasonable steps to ensure that dwellings are occupied. "All properties are subject to planning permission and it should be a condition of the permission that the owners take all reasonable steps to ensure the properties are occupied when there is a proven need in the area for more housing." The number of empty homes in Rutland was 555, with 177 in the Harborough district, 368 in Hinckley and Bosworth, 930 in Oadby and Wigston, 580 in Melton, 773 in Charnwood and 978 in Blaby.
Daggers Posted 2 September 2012 Posted 2 September 2012 Qu'est-ce que la propriété? Recherche sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement.
Jackirius Posted 4 September 2012 Posted 4 September 2012 How anyone can defend squatting is laughable.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.