In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by jackgavigan on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:12AM (#7068934)

>..squatting laws are to make sure property is being used and not hoarded.

That is simply not true but thank you for providing an example of the hot air about homelessness that I referred to.

Squatters rely on section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which creates an offence of using or threatening unauthorised violence for the purpose of securing entry into any premises, while there is known to be a person inside opposing entry. As I said, this was originally implemented to prevent slum landlords from using violence to drive out tenants who benefited from statutory rent controls.

No UK government has ever passed any law that legalises or permits squatting.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by tfgg on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:27AM (#7068992)

That doesn't mean it doesn't set up a good incentive, similar to the use of disused land going back to the Peasants Revolt and Diggers and concepts like adverse possession. While Parliament might not have explicitly legalised it, it also hasn't closed the loophole, perhaps in recognition of its social use and history.

I'm not sure what you mean about "hot air about homelessness"? Do you think squatters have nice warm homes that they could actually go back to if they weren't being such frightful brutes?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by 3pt14159 on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:50AM (#7069326)

If you want to dissuade underusage of owned land, then advocate for higher land taxes, not for squatters. As squatting becomes more socially acceptable it gets harder to evict squatters and people become forced to hire standing guards at every commercial underused building. This is not how to cure homelessness.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by mseebach on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:49AM (#7069323)

> While Parliament might not have explicitly legalised it, it also hasn't closed the loophole, perhaps in recognition of its social use and history.

Remember this legal philosophy gem next time you read about a corporation using a tax loophole.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by tfgg on Thursday January 16, 2014 @10:22AM (#7069820)

Exactly, my main thought when companies are being bullied for their lawful behaviour is if parliament wanted to stop corporations using a specific tax loophole, it could pass a law against it. Why hasn't it? Not that it's always easy to divine its intent.

This is not to mention that tax law is a lot more complex and likely to result in subtle loopholes than this specific, evidently well-known one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by blueskin_ on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:37AM (#7069012)

>While Parliament might not have explicitly legalised it, it also hasn't closed the loophole

Actually, it did in 2012.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by jackgavigan on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:00AM (#7069092)

Only for residential properties, unfortunately.

Still, it's a start and there are indications that the government is taking the problem seriously. Last year, MPs were asked to provide evidence of the scale and impact of squatting in commercial premises in their constituencies, which provided an opportunity for constituents to highlight the problems caused by squatters.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by SideburnsOfDoom on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:50AM (#7069054)

FWIW, I think this is the law being referred to as "closing in 2012 the loophole that allows squatting"

"Offence of Squatting in a Residential Building" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by mseebach on Thursday January 16, 2014 @06:16AM (#7068930)

If squatters could be consistently relied on to leave when the building was going to be used, nobody would have a problem with them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by runarberg on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:07AM (#7069137)

Again, squatting is not the issue, but human decency. If the owner would give her/his consent, it would be really hard for a squatter (given that she/he has human decency) to oppose eviction, given a good reason for why she/he has to leave.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by mseebach on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:40AM (#7069284)

But when consent wasn't given in the first place, the duty to leave when given a good reason vanishes?

It's some pretty curious moral arithmetic you've got going on there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by runarberg on Thursday January 16, 2014 @09:14AM (#7069449)

I don't know. Threre are numerous examples of a consent being given after squatters move in. In most cases the owner has nothing to loose, so a consent makes perfect sense if you want to keep good comunication with those who are using your property.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by mseebach on Thursday January 16, 2014 @09:37AM (#7069578)

And there are numerous examples of squatters who don't leave when given a good reason. Squatters who have the consent of the landlord aren't really squatters in any meaningful sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by misnome on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:36AM (#7069010)

And relied on not to trash the place.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by meddlepal on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:02AM (#7069099)

A government shouldn't be in the business of telling people or corporations how to use their property.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by Pxtl on Thursday January 16, 2014 @09:30AM (#7069545)

There is a fixed amount of land available in a city, and a city is responsible for servicing it. If you've a property that's gobbling up some of the city's carefully-managed land and creating an eyesore that's a detriment to your neighbors, then it's perfectly reasonable for the city to take action.

You are a part of civilization. Accept it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by icebraining on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:22AM (#7069206)

Sure, as long as the government isn't in the business of protecting it either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by blueskin_ on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:43AM (#7069294)

That is part of what a government's reason for existence is. That's what taxes are for. To protect people with livelihoods and property from those who would deprive them of such. That's what makes us live in a first world society and not the world of Mad Max.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by ubernostrum on Thursday January 16, 2014 @10:32AM (#7069886)

The modern patterns of land ownership in Britain are due, basically, to a Mad Max world of taking what you want and having "rights" only to what you can defend by force against all comers.

Perhaps a compromise in which property is protected but the protection comes in exchange for some limitations on how you can use it... isn't actually the end of the world?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings by icebraining on Thursday January 16, 2014 @09:51AM (#7069638)

That is part of what a government's reason for existence is.

I don't disagree, though I'm not so sure that the only possible alternative is Mad Max.

That said, historically, setting rules for how property should be used is as much a part of the State's existence as protecting its owners.

[ Parent | on HN ]