Squatting set to become a criminal offence

[Nick]

Homeless people should be helped but not by giving them a free pass to commit crime.

And where did I say I wanted to do that?

Or did you just dive right on in there with a remark which you felt reflected an all encompassing response to your stereotype of my opinion?

[Nick]

Middleclass, moi?

Sorry mate, would being from Syston perhaps make you aspiring middle class?

I'm here all week.

[Guest MattP]

We live in a capitalist society that protects property - protects property over human life. I'm not suggesting squatting is great for one moment and in very few cases it can be justified or tolerated, however sending those with the least life opportunities to prison who's alternatives for shelter are bleak and limited surely can't be the right answer?

Ownership of property and innocent people's right to live peacefully in it*.

[Webbo]

Sorry mate, would being from Syston perhaps make you aspiring middle class?

I'm here all week.

I only live here because that's where the wife's from. 20 years and they still make me wipe my feet when I cross the border.

[Nick]

Ownership of property and innocent people's right to live peacefully in it*.

No, I make reference to the laws of the country protecting property over human life and injury.

What would you get a greater sentence for if tonight you:

i) killed your partner in a moment of madness by pushing him/her down the stairs

ii) On your way home from work went into Barclays bank with a shotgun, fired a few shots in the air and walked out with 250K and later arrested at your home and taken into Police custody.

or perhaps

i) After a night on the town, you get into a brawl/fight/scuffle outside a take-away - you punch somebody who ends up in hospital for a couple of nights but later makes a full recovery. You are arrested for abh.

ii) After a night on the town a fight breaks out outside the takeaway and the owner goes out to stop it and protect his window from being smashed..... Drunk and in the queue awaiting a kebab you see an opportunity to go behind the counter and take a few quid. There is an element of trespass so you actually are arrested for burglary.

My point is that the above two scenario's illustrate how UK law is better equipped to protect the interests of property ownership than it is violence against its citizens. I would strongly argue that you would get receive greater punishment for the crimes against property than you would an offence causing serious harm against a person.

Protecting property in terms of sending squatters to prison is surely not the answer - I guess that was what I was trying to illustrate in terms of UK law.

That was my point.

[MooseBreath]

That's a hell of a lot of reading for a Friday afternoon, nick. Personally, I'm not going to bother.

[Nick]

That's a hell of a lot of reading for a Friday afternoon, nick. Personally, I'm not going to bother.

[Guest MattP]

No, I make reference to the laws of the country protecting property over human life and injury.

What would you get a greater sentence for if tonight you:

i) killed your partner in a moment of madness by pushing him/her down the stairs

ii) On your way home from work went into Barclays bank with a shotgun, fired a few shots in the air and walked out with 250K and later arrested at your home and taken into Police custody.

or perhaps

i) After a night on the town, you get into a brawl/fight/scuffle outside a take-away - you punch somebody who ends up in hospital for a couple of nights but later makes a full recovery. You are arrested for abh.

ii) After a night on the town a fight breaks out outside the takeaway and the owner goes out to stop it and protect his window from being smashed..... Drunk and in the queue awaiting a kebab you see an opportunity to go behind the counter and take a few quid. There is an element of trespass so you actually are arrested for burglary.

My point is that the above two scenario's illustrate how UK law is better equipped to protect the interests of property ownership than it is violence against its citizens. I would strongly argue that you would get receive greater punishment for the crimes against property than you would an offence causing serious harm against a person.

Protecting property in terms of sending squatters to prison is surely not the answer - I guess that was what I was trying to illustrate in terms of UK law.

That was my point.

To be honest my only thoughts after reading that were.

I've never heard of anyone dying after being pushed down the stairs.

Anyone who uses a gun to obtain anything that isn't theirs should go to jail for a long time.

I've avoided scuffles outside take aways ever since my friend went to prison for manslaughter after twatting someone who got far too mouthy and had the misfortune to smash his head on the floor and die.

What a scumbag again you have to be to rob somebody.

I honstly really don't see the point you are trying to make or how any of this relates to squatters illegally occupying other peoples property.

[Nick]

To be honest my only thoughts after reading that were.

I've never heard of anyone dying after being pushed down the stairs.

Anyone who uses a gun to obtain anything that isn't theirs should go to jail for a long time.

I've avoided scuffles outside take aways ever since my friend went to prison for manslaughter after twatting someone who got far too mouthy and had the misfortune to smash his head on the floor and die.

What a scumbag again you have to be to rob somebody.

I honstly really don't see the point you are trying to make or how any of this relates to squatters illegally occupying other peoples property.

It was a point about how UK Law by design protects the interests of the wealthy, capitalism and property and sees it warranting higher punishment than serious harm committed against it's citizens.

Funnily enough it wasn't a point about you and your school of life experience - I was hoping to make a point from a more wide angled view on sentencing and punishment from a critical standpoint - not have the examples brought back for you to make a point about your life experience!

[Guest MattP]

Wondered how long I'd get before an amusing picture/video was thrust upon me.

You are probably right about how law protects the interests of capitalism and property and sees it warranting higher punishment than serious harm committed against it's citizens. Is that a bad thing?

I still don't see how it's relevant to this thread though, it isn't about corporations, bankers, wall street etc, it's about making sure people can have their own property not taken over by people who have absolutely no right to be in there. It's not an argument that needs complicating to the extent of capitalism in the world.

[Webbo]

No, I make reference to the laws of the country protecting property over human life and injury.

What would you get a greater sentence for if tonight you:

i) killed your partner in a moment of madness by pushing him/her down the stairs

ii) On your way home from work went into Barclays bank with a shotgun, fired a few shots in the air and walked out with 250K and later arrested at your home and taken into Police custody.

Surely scenario (ii) requires a level of premeditation whereas scenario (i) is in your words "a moment of madness". Also surely the sentencing for arm robbery is the same whether you manage to steal £250k or can only manage £500?

[Dan]

The fact this wasn't a crime already scares me alone.

[leicsmac]

Wondered how long I'd get before an amusing picture/video was thrust upon me.

You are probably right about how law protects the interests of capitalism and property and sees it warranting higher punishment than serious harm committed against it's citizens. Is that a bad thing?

I still don't see how it's relevant to this thread though, it isn't about corporations, bankers, wall street etc, it's about making sure people can have their own property not taken over by people who have absolutely no right to be in there. It's not an argument that needs complicating to the extent of capitalism in the world.

Surely human life and health should be valued above any kind of material possession in all circumstances? Money and possessions are no bloody use to a dead/crippled man, after all are they? Surely the law should reflect that?

Of course peoples natural greed and avarice will make sure this is never the case.

But yes, this is veering off topic. As with most issues of this type, surely situations like this should be dealt with on a case-by-case, situation-by-situation basis rather than a blanket solution?

[Nick]

Surely human life and health should be valued above any kind of material possession in all circumstances? Money and possessions are no bloody use to a dead/crippled man, after all are they? Surely the law should reflect that?

Yeah, which is what I was hoping people may grasp - I was simply attempting to draw a parallel example of how property is protected over citizens - I simply think there are different ways of dealing with homeless people than criminalising them and incarcerating them.

[Guest MattP]

Surely human life and health should be valued above any kind of material possession in all circumstances? Money and possessions are no bloody use to a dead/crippled man, after all are they? Surely the law should reflect that?

Of course peoples natural greed and avarice will make sure this is never the case.

But yes, this is veering off topic. As with most issues of this type, surely situations like this should be dealt with on a case-by-case, situation-by-situation basis rather than a blanket solution?

In most situations of course, not in all though. I agree it's case for case basis though.

If I catch a burglar in the house and I feel my family is in 0.01% danger he's getting blown to kingdom come before he has a chance to even try anything and I'm sure the vast majority of people would do the same.

[Nick]

In most situations of course, not in all though. I agree it's case for case basis though.

If I catch a burglar in the house and I feel my family is in 0.01% danger he's getting blown to kingdom come before he has a chance to even try anything and I'm sure the vast majority of people would do the same.

It's still about you.

[Guest MattP]

It's still about you.

Of course.

[Webbo]

Surely scenario (ii) requires a level of premeditation whereas scenario (i) is in your words "a moment of madness". Also surely the sentencing for arm robbery is the same whether you manage to steal £250k or can only manage £500?

Also, doesn't premeditated murder carry a higher sentence than burglary or embezzlement?

[21st Century Fox]

In most situations of course, not in all though. I agree it's case for case basis though.

If I catch a burglar in the house and I feel my family is in 0.01% danger he's getting blown to kingdom come before he has a chance to even try anything and I'm sure the vast majority of people would do the same.

[leicsmac]

In most situations of course, not in all though. I agree it's case for case basis though.

If I catch a burglar in the house and I feel my family is in 0.01% danger he's getting blown to kingdom come before he has a chance to even try anything and I'm sure the vast majority of people would do the same.

Out of curiosity, care to give an example?

[Nick]

- I don't think that's what he meant but it did make me laugh!

[sphericalfox]

- I don't think that's what he meant but it did make me laugh!

Only if the burglar looked like this:

If only this burglar didn't rob everyone of with the promise of 'it's for your own good'.