News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on In London 'Guardians' live in empty office buildings. Parent comment

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 ]