Say hello to David, the new Nicholas Van Wotshisface

[Herr Tubthumper]

What the hell right do they have to be in someone else's property, occupied or not?

They should have been given about ten minutes to get out. after that they deserve what's coming to them.

Scum.

What right did Brighton fans have to kick up a fuss when Archer decided to sell the football ground which he legally owned?

 

[NMH]

What right did Brighton fans have to kick up a fuss when Archer decided to sell the football ground which he legally owned?

Doesn't a landlord have a responsibility towards tenants, to allow them to find alternative accomodation?

 

[fatbadger]

society today allows too much

No, laws spiral - society allows less and less as time goes on. For every additional freedom (eg abortion, homosexuality), the state adds a thousand new prohibitions.

Even during Thatcher's allegedly minimal-state inspired governments, there were an average of 7000 pages of new legislation a year, nearly all banning something previously allowed. God only knows how much the last ten years of new conservatism have added.

 

[Buzzer]

What right did Brighton fans have to kick up a fuss when Archer decided to sell the football ground which he legally owned?

The analogy is a poor one We were very much stakeholders in the future of the club. We were also the cash the club needed to survive. We had been there from the start.

These squatters are opportunists with no such interest.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I can't believe the amount of people who think this sort of behaviour, from a gang of armed thugs, is acceptable. And to say that the opposite is part of our politicaly correct mamby pamby society is a f***ing joke.
I'm sure the 16th Century 'Diggers' and the servicemens families forced to squat after the second world war would feel comforted by your kind words.

As a matter of interest, how many people on NSC have family members who were squatters in the late 1940s? Or are even aware how widespread squatting was at that time?

It was the only way my uncle and aunt could find housing to bring up their young family.

 

[Buzzer]

As a matter of interest, how many people on NSC have family members who were squatters in the late 1940s? Or are even aware how widespread squatting was at that time?

It was the only way my uncle and aunt could find housing to bring up their young family.

I'm on the fence on this one as I happen to know one of the squatters involved (not personally. friend of a friend). These squatters DID break in to the house and they are professional squatters if there is such a thing. There are at least a few that could afford to rent but squatting is a lifestyle choice rather than necessity. That sounds clumsy. I mean that it's a kind of political statement that they are making too. Does that make sense?

I agree that some families did have to squat after the war. Fortunately, mine didn't. I don't really classify the squatters in the article in the same breathe. I can see where the squatters are coming from though. Expensive developments pushing out low income families from the markets an almost unregulated letting industry where tenants have sod all rights in reality.

As an aside - a taxi driver was telling me about the temporary housing that was put up in Cheapside after the war. Anybody know about this?