News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by ChristianBundy on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @11:53AM (#14848688)
Of course, as it puts the public in a place where they're at risk of being harassed by the police without realizing that they're on private property.

The entire system of private property is terrible and I hope it will be abolished within my lifetime.

Re:Pseudo-public space in London by TheCoreh on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @12:27PM (#14849078)
> The entire system of private property is terrible and I hope it will be abolished within my lifetime.

Would you be okay with having random people just entering your house, sleeping in your bed, using your toothbrush and then taking your computer on the way out?

Obvious straw-man, but my point is: There's got to be _some portion_ of the system of private property that you agree with on some level. You might for instance disagree with the way private property is distributed, or how access to it is made difficult for some groups, or how we value it more than public property. You might be in favor of more taxation, or of “fairer” taxation (whatever that actually entails would be hard for everyone to agree with) or of revamped eminent domain laws, but I find it really hard to believe that you'd hope for the entire system of private property to be abolished within your lifetime.

Re:Pseudo-public space in London by bjl on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @03:40PM (#14851194)
There's a distinction between personal property and private property. My house, bed, toothbrush, and computer aren't private property, they're personal property.
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by gambiting on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @03:56PM (#14851324)
No, you're just being obtuse for the sake of making an argument.
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by TheCoelacanth on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @11:35PM (#14853508)
Not even remotely. Political thinkers have been making that distinction since the 19th century. Go back to the 18th century and people generally wouldn't even have used the term "property" to refer to things other than land.
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by bjl on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @04:01PM (#14851367)
No, I'm making a point that is well-accepted in political philosophy.
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by Boothroid on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @04:30PM (#14851581)
Let's be honest though, the law is flexible, and generally favours those able to buy the most expensive representation.
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by 7952 on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @06:44PM (#14852502)
Lots of types of access come with conditions. This is true of both publicly and privately owned land. Huge amount of public land are restricted (Salisbury Plain for example), and we have good access rights to some private land (most of Scotland). In a small country there needs to be some rules as everything is so close together. It is not as clear cut as you suggested.
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by DanBC on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @02:22PM (#14850458)
> as it puts the public in a place where they're at risk of being harassed by the police

It's private land, the police have no role. People are being harassed by private security companies.

Re:Pseudo-public space in London by brewdad on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @02:15AM (#14853984)
The police absolutely have a role. Are you suggesting that if you came home to find squatters living in your house that the police would simply shrug their shoulders and suggest you move elsewhere?
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by DanBC on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @04:51AM (#14854539)
You can't squat this land. You can trespass on it, and in England trespass is almost always a civil thing not a criminal thing.