Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
John McNulty, Turnip & Milker LLP
what are the new proposals bringing in?
however in these times of limited empire, it means they'll all be going to the Falkland Islands to clear land mines.
Which will all do precisely jack shit.
The right to protect yourself against burglars - you already do.
"British Bill of Rights" - will still be exploited within an inch of its life. Still won't prevent criminals being deported to places where they could be killed.
So they can stop people from doing things like sit in protests. Just more cloak and dagger legislation to keep the dissenting voices down
Also, there’s gonna be loads more homeless people soon cos we’re potless
He wears a dustman's hat
He wears cor blimey trousers
And he lives in a council flat
He looks a proper narner
In his great big hob nailed boots
He's got such a job to pull em up
That he calls them daisy roots
down and be recognised by the rubbish media and the consumers of it?
to be able to make sure that the enormous increase in people chucked out of houses/flats whether rented or owned, will not result in those homeless people moving back in or iinto anyu empty properties, even if there is no one that will be moving into them soon.
So it looks like the gov wants to allow a percentage of the population to sink totally, perhaps they will then sweep up the streets and dispose of them......it is extreme, but i guess that as long as the people are divided like this then those that arnt in danger of being swept up will not protest too much........does this sort of thing give a future indication of how the authorities are going to handle the coming collapse? sacrifice a large proportion of the population to allow the rest to survive?
but in the absense of understanding as to why they want to change the law one must search around for possible motivations for them wanting to change things
from having people squat an unoccupied property regardless of 'home' status.
Given the amount of 'investment' there's been in the buy-to-let market and the amount of new builds which are languishing on the market, some pressure will have been felt to protect these investments, properties which could be 'legally' squatted under current legislation.
The same can be said for the commercial properties which are lying unused at present due to business rates being too high, lack of demand, etc, etc. These are tangible investments which could be devalued if they're squatted. Removing this single point (from "a home cannot be squatted, but an unused building can be" to "no property can be squatted") would provide a greater degree of legislative protection for landlords and property owners.
Basically, the government will be trying to patch up current legislation to appease the newly created landlord class.
cos this aint gonna help them actually sell/rent when there is not the people to buy/rent.
So I would find that the gov would be being INCREDIBLY niave and narrow sighted to just introduce it for this reason, because the gov will know themselves that an enormous lot more people are going to be homeless
let me see their joined up thinking? ....oh of course they dont tailor what they do for my sensibilities do they? they do it for people that read the mail and the sun
Solution to homelessness = make it illegal to be homeless and/or to live in an empty building
those who might still have something will otherwise have to pass by the 'destitute everyday' it would be very dangerous.
I have heard that in the US they kind of coral the homeless in LA and the tourists so that tourists will not wonder into an area with loads of zomb......homeless