GAY Oh look, another AIDS thread

To casmo:
There's no national rent control law in the US. Why would you expect England to? It's a city/state issue.
 
Last edited:
Khareesi said:
Somewhat.

If the owner wants the place back then can have it back legally unless it passes something like 27 years, in which case their property is handed over to the squatters (never happens obviously). I disagree with people spculating and buying up land that could be used when there is a huge housing shortage and increasing waiting lists for appropriate housing for people. I see no problem in people finding a place where they can be relatively safe and warm in comparison to the streets, when it's sitting right in front of their face. I don't agree with damaging property or anything accepted as completely immoral, although some here would like to pretend I do.
Click to expand...
12 years of adverse possession. That is primarily what I was thinking about. It was easier before the land registry act. The little idea that the residents can have the owner removed by the police (in some cases) is also interesting.

In the US adverse possession claims aren't unheard of but they usually involve an element of improvement to the real property where for the owner to regain clear title would have to pay for the improvements that were erected in good faith.

It's a fallacy to think of questions of ownership in terms of social issues. Your government could clear that up easily by limiting commercial ownership of residential zoned areas. We also have rent control in most large cities. I can't believe London doesn't.
 
ZRH said:
12 years of adverse possession. That is primarily what I was thinking about. It was easier before the land registry act. The little idea that the residents can have the owner removed by the police (in some cases) is also interesting.

In the US adverse possession claims aren't unheard of but they usually involve an element of improvement to the real property where for the owner to regain clear title would have to pay for the improvements that were erected in good faith.

It's a fallacy to think of questions of ownership in terms of social issues. Your government could clear that up easily by limiting commercial ownership of residential zoned areas.
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say have the owner removed by police. That would seem to some people like you can call the police and have them removed then move in. It means that you have rights until they are legally taken away by the owner. Having the police 'remove the owner' would not even happen, because once the police are inside a squat they'll just haul you all out and once the building is empty you have no squatters rights. That's why you never let the police into a squat.
 
shamwow said:
To casmo:
There's no national rent control law in the US. Why would you expect England to? It's a city/state issue.
Click to expand...

The U.S. and England are nothing alike. The U.S. is basically 50 semi-sovereign nations that do what they want with a few parameters. England is far more socialist. Thus I would expect them to have rent controls.

And ZRH is right. I don't mean a national English policy. Municipal policies? Seems right up their alley.
 
Sarcasmo said:
The Olympic rent issue is a travesty. I was reading about it yesterday. "You can live here, but you have to move out this summer so we can rape some foreigners for a while. Then you can move back in. Or you can choose to stay and pay 6000% rent! Either way someone's gonna get rammed up the ass!"

I can't believe England doesn't have rent controls. Seems like something they would want.
Click to expand...

Simply screws the uks chances of winning any future olympic bids.
 
Plus London has about 100 billion people in the greater metro area. If anyone needs rent control is those limey bastards.
 
As with most of Europe UK really contains one large city and a few smaller ones. Not like the US because of land we have multiple large cities.
 
Khareesi said:
I think it's a bit disingenuous to say have the owner removed by police. That would seem to some people like you can call the police and have them removed then move in. It means that you have rights until they are legally taken away by the owner. Having the police 'remove the owner' would not even happen, because once the police are inside a squat they'll just haul you all out and once the building is empty you have no squatters rights. That's why you never let the police into a squat.
Click to expand...
Mmm what about

(6)Anyone who enters or is on or in occupation of any premises by virtue of—
(a)any title derived from a trespasser; or
(b)any licence or consent given by a trespasser or by a person deriving title from a trespasser,
shall himself be treated as a trespasser for the purposes of this Part of this Act (without prejudice to whether or not he would be a trespasser apart from this provision); and references in this Part of this Act to a person’s entering or being on or occupying any premises as a trespasser shall be construed accordingly.
Click to expand...

Im reading that as anyone who tries to enter an occupied building regardless or whether they are the owner is trespassing (unless they have an order from a judge). You have to be evicted judicially in other words. It don't work that way in most places here.
 
ZRH said:
Mmm what about



Im reading that as anyone who tries to enter an occupied building regardless or whether they are the owner is trespassing (unless they have an order from a judge). You have to be evicted judicially in other words. It don't work that way in most places here.
Click to expand...

Well I'm really not overly interested in talking through legal semantics with you considering I know the law myself and don't need to explain it to you. However a source for what law you're citing would be useful.
 
:lol: Squatter rights. Squatters shouldn't have "rights" over property. They don't own it, they have judistiction over it, they have no voting power over it, they don't pay taxes on it. Squatter rights :lol:
 
dbzeag said:
:lol: Squatter rights. Squatters shouldn't have "rights" over property. They don't own it, they have judistiction over it, they have no voting power over it, they don't pay taxes on it. Squatter rights :lol:
Click to expand...

People with AIDS have no rights.

Hows that?


Maybe too harsh but seriously. People have a right to housing. Unless of course you think a real society would prefer people on the streets freezing to death. If so I have no real wish to continue talking to you.
 
Khareesi said:
People with AIDS have no rights.

Hows that?


Maybe too harsh but seriously. People have a right to housing. Unless of course you think a real society would prefer people on the streets freezing to death. If so I have no real wish to continue talking to you.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am curious, at least in the US, is housing a fundamental right that is to be protected by the government so say the constitution? honestly I don't know. anyone?

In the UK, is that a documented official right of the people to have housing and thereby protected by laws that clear squatting and other such facilities?
 
dbzeag said:
Actually, I am curious, at least in the US, is housing a fundamental right that is to be protected by the government so say the constitution? honestly I don't know. anyone?

In the UK, is that a documented official right of the people to have housing and thereby protected by laws that clear squatting and other such facilities?
Click to expand...

Jesus christ you mustve failed civics.

The constitution is NOT A GRANT OF RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back