3 ms·

"your typical squatter is simply a criminal scumbag" I know quite a few people who've lived in squats from time to time over the years, and they're generally l

by ris 13y ago

"your typical squatter is simply a criminal scumbag" I know quite a few people who've lived in squats from time to time over the years, and they're generally lovely people. So, you know, we can all have an opinion.

b43w5 13y ago
So do I...they (at least part of the squatting community in the 80s/90s) are a big contributor to what London is today and none of them criminal scumbags. They also run their own businesses and some bought their properties from the Council. In fact they're probably jackgavigan's boss hah ha! But I do take the point about the cost of evicting plus lost revenue. Use of empty properties could be a good solution for homelessness if well managed but the Govt. doesn't want to put resources towards that because it's easier to let charities deal with it.
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
I'm confused - these are the lovely people tearing holes in the wall in the article? Painting graffiti? Heck, living in someone else's building just because they want to and have a crowbar? At least two of those are crimes, so yes they are criminals. I'll let you have the scumbag one - maybe they are really nice vandals...
- dblacc 13y ago
  you assume that every squatter does graffiti and tears holes in walls, this obviously is NOT the truth by any means.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    Just the ones described in the article then.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  If the building is insecured-enough for squatters to take up residence, then it's insecured-enough for anybody else who wants to come and visit and do some damage. And if you had 5, 10, or 20 squatters... how long do you think it would take one jerk to ruin the place top to bottom. Squatters don't need to be all bad to destroy properties. Only a tiny percentage of them have to be destructive, and then building will look like a hellhole by the time the owner sees what's been done.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  > At least two of those are crimes, so yes they are criminals. You have made some logical errors here. The fact that there is a hole in the wall is not ascribed to squatters and could equally be attributed to general disrepair. I accept you might say: "there has been at least some crime, so there has been at least one criminal"... but you still don't know if that one criminal was a squatter or how many squatters there were who were not committing such crimes. In the end, this anecdotal/circumstantial evidence teaches us nothing.

by ris 13y ago

b43w5 13y ago

So do I...they (at least part of the squatting community in the 80s/90s) are a big contributor to what London is today and none of them criminal scumbags. They also run their own businesses and some bought their properties from the Council. In fact they're probably jackgavigan's boss hah ha! But I do take the point about the cost of evicting plus lost revenue. Use of empty properties could be a good solution for homelessness if well managed but the Govt. doesn't want to put resources towards that because it's easier to let charities deal with it.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

I'm confused - these are the lovely people tearing holes in the wall in the article? Painting graffiti? Heck, living in someone else's building just because they want to and have a crowbar? At least two of those are crimes, so yes they are criminals. I'll let you have the scumbag one - maybe they are really nice vandals...

dblacc 13y ago
you assume that every squatter does graffiti and tears holes in walls, this obviously is NOT the truth by any means.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Just the ones described in the article then.
Pxtl 13y ago
If the building is insecured-enough for squatters to take up residence, then it's insecured-enough for anybody else who wants to come and visit and do some damage. And if you had 5, 10, or 20 squatters... how long do you think it would take one jerk to ruin the place top to bottom. Squatters don't need to be all bad to destroy properties. Only a tiny percentage of them have to be destructive, and then building will look like a hellhole by the time the owner sees what's been done.
ronaldx 13y ago
> At least two of those are crimes, so yes they are criminals. You have made some logical errors here. The fact that there is a hole in the wall is not ascribed to squatters and could equally be attributed to general disrepair. I accept you might say: "there has been at least some crime, so there has been at least one criminal"... but you still don't know if that one criminal was a squatter or how many squatters there were who were not committing such crimes. In the end, this anecdotal/circumstantial evidence teaches us nothing.