Ashley Road Squatter Speaks Out

by Jog Tue Nov 04, 2008 07:20

No, not for all residents because you don't include me.

squatting a housing association building & delaying it's renovation is not some kind of moral crusade, however you wan't to dress up the argument, it is justifying the unjustifiable.

I notice that you only include your side of the story in the article, not the response from the HA.

Oh, & I don't have a degree or anything fancy, but still I work & pay my bills, so I'm not sure what your first point is supposed to mean, if anything ??

by Gift horse Tue Nov 04, 2008 08:42

"We all need to take a stand against the corporate takeover of our city and our lives."

No we need to take a stand against those selfish spongers who are stopping the Housing Association from doing the place up for families.

However you wish to re-write this to make yourselves out to be some sort of Robin Hood - you are not. Far far from it.

What you are doing is beneath contempt.

by another squatter Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:32

To the last poster, in my experience, squatters do not delay renovation. I've squatted four properties. The first, owned by the Council, was left a abandoned for around 6 months after they evicted us. They later renovated the property and sold it. The second, owned by PfP, was left empty for around a year after we were evicted. It was later occupied by the orginal owner, who had been leasing it from PfP. The third, a privately owned property, had been abandoned for 7 years (unless the owners had been living there and not moved the mail!). It has now been squatted for 2 years with no contact from the owners (who were, on a land registry search, found to live in a posh estate in cornwall). The last one, owned by Knightstone Housing Association, was squatted for around 5 months, evicted in march i believe, and still lies empty. no work is currently being done on the property.

by response Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:37

...like they have done up the houses on the other side of ashley rd, and sold them through c j hole? selling houses off doesn't shorten the city council 5000 people homeless register. neither does redeveloping previous residential areas into extending a shopping centre for the posh.

i can understand if the the commentors above are simply resentful coz thy have high mortgage/high rent to pay (but perhaps blame the government/capitalism?) - but suggesting that the squatters are keeping homeless people out of accomodation when there are loads of empty building being kept so by both private landlords and it seems public bodies - is clearly a load of old bollocks

by Real theft Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:36

if I left my bike unused, or a car unused and you came along and used it because I wasn't at that point in time, that would be theft.

Breking and entering someone elses house and squatting is no diferent - you are thieving.

What is more - those that want to rent and or buy find they cannot because people would rather live anywhere than where a squat is.

You are just moaning about the "system" but no doubt you know all about your "rights" but very little about morals and responcibility. Do what other people do - get a job and pay the rent you spongers.

To say you somehow represent all residents the real total bollocks - you don't - you are what you are and you know it.

by Neighbour Tue Nov 04, 2008 14:32

I am lucky enough to own a house. I pay a mortgage and work 9-5. I pay tax.

I live very near to the squat and fully support them. Without occupation it is very likely that the premises would have become a crack house. Intead I have friendly and polite neighbours who care about the environment and social justice.

I would rather they squatted than having to pay extra council tax for their housing benefit! Everyone is a winner.

by Birdie Tue Nov 04, 2008 14:49

She is a support worker Sam, looking after people with mental health needs. She sometimes works 70 hour weeks. She earns just above the minimum wage. She's 32 and she still lives with my mum and dad. She really really REALLY wants to have her own home, Sam, and she would prefer that space to be hers, rather than belonging to someone else.

She is a funny, clever, bright and creative woman who lives as frugally as possible to achieve this goal.

She wants to live where you live Sam, but she wants to go about it differently. Who are you to stop her?

And as the 45% share in these properties will be sold in this order of priority:

1. Applicants already living in the defined St Pauls Regeneration Area.
2. Applicants having family links within this area.
3. Applicants working in this area.

And then as applicants will be further prioritised thus:

1. Current Housing Need – (Bristol City Council Housing Register banding)*
2. Time resident in the St Pauls Regeneration Area.

Who are you to stop anyone else in the community that you seem to be identifying with from fulfilling their dreams?

You'd have my sympathy if this was a building being squatted to stop it being developed by a fat cat corporation who wanted to line their pockest selling souless boxes to overpaid execs.

But it isn't. Its my sister's chance of a home of her own.

So plase, shut up Sam. And move out.

by Mell O Tue Nov 04, 2008 15:13

This is a rich country.

So why do we have homeless people AND empty houses?

by Peg (Not a Squatter). Tue Nov 04, 2008 15:31

The consistent problem seems to be the persistence of people to perpetuate crass and highly ignorant stereotypes, such as some of the comments above. The original article has stated that far from being 'spongers' many of the people living in this building are employed. They are simply using and, perhaps most importantly for the community as a whole, maintaining a peviously unused and abandoned resource.

Sadly people often use squatters as a scapegoat for their own, unfairly high, financial outgoings. It would be more constructive for these complainers to support squatters, who have spent time and energy to restore and maintain rotting buidings, as what with the current global financial situation it is likely that squatters have skills and advice which in times to come we may all need.

by Boyd Tue Nov 04, 2008 15:50

When did this site become so reactionary?

No problems, I'm all for free expression, anti-censorship etc.etc. but judging from the comments put on the posts to do with squatting in the last week, over half the people that view this site see squatters as a menace to 'decent', 'tax paying' people and that organisations like Places for People are the real answer to our long-term housing problems.

Is this REALLY what the majority of people who view indymedia, a site set up to give a voice to those with radical ideas, really think? Because that's what it appears.

If you do not think that squatters are scroungers, if you do think that their occupation of an empty building is a good thing, then please write a comment of encouragement - i think they would be very glad to know they are supported.

If we can't get 30 or 40 people to write a comment on BRISTOL INDYMEDIA supporting squatters facing eviction, then i think its time i stopped visiting this site, as its obviously not what i thought it was.

I SUPPORT THE ASHLEY ROAD SQUATTERS!

by Bappi Tue Nov 04, 2008 15:58

Well said Boyd and Mell O

This site started going downhill slowly thanks to Zaskar, then started accelerating rapidly downwards when Clive Hammond showed up, got banned, and since then loads of new 'posters' miraculously appeared who are responsible for all the UN-RADICAL ideas and general trollery.

by Taxpaying worker (as if that matters) Tue Nov 04, 2008 16:57

"telling us that they want to be part of the comunity but do not want to pay for it."

Not the case at all. Many of the squatters work and pay taxes. In addition many of them are actually active in supporting the causes they believe in.

"Just take take take take take and of course theirs is the views that those that have worked hard and achieved something are suppossed to give give give give give. Their philosophy is all me me me me me!"

I work less hard than a lot of squatters that I know - I have a mortgage and a 9 -5.

"Well you may have noticed that your average working, rent/mortgage paying persons patience with you spongers is running out."

I have much more paticince with their living altenative to consumer society than I have for your reactionary drivel.

by Not a Squatter Tue Nov 04, 2008 17:31

Once again Real, if you took the time to engage with squatters you would realise that many, if not most, are indeed 'normal working people' and not 'spongers'.

Finding a way to maintain a derelict or near derelict building is useful to the local community. Also, due to the amount of physical labour that can be put into making squats liveable spaces calling squatters 'spongers' or 'scroungers' is quite inaccurate.

by Sharp Tue Nov 04, 2008 17:43

This building is due to be renovated by a housing association for ****'s sake!

When are you going to realise that helping yourself means just that! - not grabbing whatever house takes your fancy!

This is what most of Bristol is reading:-

Squatters 'delay' Bristol affordable housing
Monday, November 03, 2008, 07:43
34 readers have commented on this story.
Click here to read their views.
A housing association says squatters are holding up its plans to renovate a building in St Paul's to create affordable homes.
Places for People says it wants to help first-time buyers and families urgently in need of housing by refurbishing 87 Ashley Road, a four-storey Georgian townhouse that it owns.
But the building has been illegally occupied since April and is now home to a group of 20 squatters.
The squatters, a group of men and women who say they are taking good care of the building, are refusing to move, claiming Places for People has not made its intentions for the house clear.
One of the squatters, known only as Bart, said he would be willing to move out if he was sure Places for People was creating social housing and not private homes for the open market.
An eviction notice was served after Places for People won a county court battle over the squatters.
But when bailiffs called at the property to evict the occupiers, it emerged that they had not received seven days' notice of the eviction date and were legally entitled to stay temporarily.
Bart said the squatters could still be evicted from the house, formerly owned by Bristol Churches housing association, and they were trying to reach a settlement with Places for People.
Beth Hearn, spokeswoman for Places for People, said further legal action was being pursued. She said: "The house has been illegally occupied by squatters for the past two months – causing a delay in helping local people access affordable housing, and causing significant maintenance issues at an added cost to ourselves. The properties will provide affordable homes for a number of local people."
She continued: "At Places for People, we are committed to creating sustainable communities. We offer a complete range of housing tenures, as well as local facilities such as schools, nurseries, employment and transport links - all of the things that contribute to making communities prosperous, vibrant, popular and therefore sustainable in the future.
"Unfortunately, this situation is significantly delaying our attempts to provide affordable housing to St Paul's. We want to completely refurbish the property and rent out to young people at affordable rates.
She added: "The people squatting in the house wrongly think we want to develop the building and sell flats for high prices."
Bart, who has been squatting for several years, says the building, called Unity House, has been empty for three years.
He said: "We've not been told what Places for People are planning to do with the building.
"Nothing's been lodged with the council and some of their plans have been opposed by St Paul's Unlimited. They say they want to help first-time buyers but they're not going to be helping people on the homeless register. It would be different if the company were putting the building to good use."
Squatting itself is not a criminal offence. However, it is illegal to get into a property by breaking in or damaging windows and doors. In some cases, squatters can also be prosecuted for other offences. There is a risk this could happen to squatters if they do not leave when the landlord gets a court order, or if a person who normally lives in the property, or has a right to move in (such as a new tenant), asks them to leave.

Now just sit back and think it through - what is the average family going to think of squatters that stop a housing association prepare social housing for those that need it.

You are risking some people gettinf seriously pissed off

by nickleberry Tue Nov 04, 2008 17:44

@boyd writes: If we can't get 30 or 40 people to write a comment on BRISTOL INDYMEDIA supporting squatters facing eviction, then i think its time i stopped visiting this site, as its obviously not what i thought it was.

Add my name to the list: I SUPPORT THE SQUATTERS!

I've not been to this particular squat, but I've been to plenty of others which have been really positive. I wrote down my thoughts on this subject in a comment here:
http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/689144?condense_co...ments

Just to reiterate: if you're pissed off with the state of housing in this country, and with the way working people are treated, well, you have every right to be! But you're being hood-winked if you think think that a bunch of squatters are the problem. It's not the squatters, it's the top-end-of-town that are fucking you over. And by the way, I used to work for Places for People, so take it from me: they aint interested in providing housing for poor people, they're interested in profit.

by What? Tue Nov 04, 2008 20:19

All this talk about reactionary comment.

The most reactionary comments on here are those whinging about the imcvols not doing what you want!

If that can not be seen - then there is little hope.

by snortherns Tue Nov 04, 2008 21:14

I'm wondering if anyone can fill me in on the connection between North British Housing Association and Places for People. It is not made explicit on their website but they seem to share a Preston address.
Renting from NBHA a few years ago was a particularly traumatic experience for me and I came close to taking them to court for reneging on promises.
I'm not saying this cause I'm a friend of the squatters. I'm rather sitting on the fence on the issue as it happens. I just saying that in my experience large housing associations have absolutely no interest in the needs of their tenants seeing them as a nuisance that must be endured for the sake of the managers' large salaries. Perhaps things have changed? Hmm.

At least with council tenancies there is some accountability, not sure there is any with an HA.

by ex squatter Tue Nov 04, 2008 22:16

if my memory serves me correctly, BCHA (Bristol Churches housing Association) got swallowed up by NHA (Northern housing Association) which later got swallowed up by PFP (Places for People)
I see BIMedia has got a few reactionary 'squatters' in these days also.

by Boyd Tue Nov 04, 2008 23:19

As I said before, i'm not looking to restrict anyone's comments.

Its just that if there isn't 30 or 40 people who view this website who don't support the Ashley Rd squatters enough to write a 1 line comment, then this website is not what i thought it was.

Simple as that.

by aardvark Wed Nov 05, 2008 02:15

I support the squatters!

But I think you may find, boyd, that probably only a small minority of site users really follow these comments, especially when they become very long, there really aren't enough hours in the day.

But fair enough to those who do follow the comments, because they are a valuable part of the site, particularly for adding additional updates.

So, in that sense boyd, maybe the site isn't what you think it is, but only in the sense that i think the majority only have time to read the articles, while the comments are a more rareified world for those fewer numbers who follow them.

by ex BCHA employee Wed Nov 05, 2008 07:29

Following the discovery of some financial irregularies BCHA was taken over by Places for People.

The irregularies were caused by a changed in finanacial procedures that our auditors at the time failed to pass. If my memory serves me correctly it was about the value of buildings that had been reapired.

I think it is important to draw a distinction between the organisation, who stink, and the many hard workers at Tte Bristol Office who struggle on a daily basis to make a difference to the lives on thier tenants, this is dispite the overwhelming pressure form above to be merely rent collectiors with little or no reagrd to the individual needs of the tenants.

by Alice Wed Nov 05, 2008 09:22

I support the squatters too - even more wholeheartedly after reading the intelligent, thought-out and downright inspiring article at the beginning of this piece. Thank you.

Yes, the issues are complicated: I sympathise very much “Birdie” who's sister works in mental health work and needs a secure place to live. But why are you mainly angry at the squatters? As the article points out, the bosses of PfP have had a huge annual income +250K, enough to buy a house not only for your sister but one of her colleagues as well. Not only this, but when she does move in to a part-owned or rented property, some of her rent will be squandered on bonuses. Doesn't this make you angry too? Shouldn't that be stopped?

In saying I 'support the squatters', I don't mean I prefer them to have a secure roof over someone else. I support them because what they are arguing for is that ALL of us should have a fairer deal when it comes to housing. And to start making that happen we need to shake things up, we need to have a debate, and sometimes we need to take action.

Some of us take the course of putting our heads down, trying to get by, and hoping that one day, the system will work for us. Maybe we'll own our own homes (despite extortionate prices), maybe we'll be landlords one day ("everyone needs something to retire on"), maybe we'll be able to relax, have a job that is meaningful, something we enjoy, not stuck at the same old thing cos we just have to make rent...

So that's one choice of action. Another choice of action is to work together to change the system.

But when it comes to squatting, often it's not idealistic optimism which guides people to move into somewhere and make it their home without permission: it's usually desperation, because if our society is based on a housing ladder, someone ends up at the bottom. Most squatters are just people who are homeless making sure they survive, and don't draw attention to themselves - which makes it all easier for the rest of society to ignore the problems.

So all power to these squatters, who are being open and who are willing to fight the status quo - not just cos they're "helping themselves" but because they're helping all of us. These issues have got to be addressed.

P.S. Re other points:
To “RealTheft”: If you had a bike and you didn't use it, that would be a waste. If you knew that someone needed a bike, and that their very survival depended on it, but you still kept your bike, what would that say about you? If someone borrowed your bike cos you were blatantly not using it, and you then got all uppity about it, saying "give me back my bike because I need this other needy person to give me money for it - shame on you, depriving the needy person!"… If you did all this, you'd be a manipulative parasitic thieving bastard. I'd rather be called a straight-up thief any day.

To “Sharp” So more people read the evening post which printed the Housing Association's press release? What are we to do with that information? Give up cos the people with the big wages have got better PR?

It's great that the housing association has got laudable aims, but it's not operating ethically with all these fat wages. We need change, not charity...

by GG Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:33

Alice says - I'd rather be called a straight-up thief any day. -

Little wonder that no one has any suppot for u in the real world.

Ok yo may get a pat on the back from the other people arround you - but that is all.

U try convincing the rest of society that they should work to buy the things they and there family need but that you feel that they are manipulative thieving barstards if they don't let you lot use it

by co-operator Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:32

Interesting how this topic illustrates the gulf between the closed minds of the 'Capitalism conditioned' worker / taxpayer / consumer and the 'cooperative community' ' alternative / sustainable / recycling open minded compassionate types.

This at a time when life on earth is under threat and capitalism is showing its true colours even to those previously uncritical of the greedy globally destructive principles inherent in the Capitalist economic system.

Give the alternatively minded a chance i say, maybe squatters should even receive public moneys in order to show the values and worth of their ideas and community mindedness.

by mork and mindy Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:09

"Its just that if there isn't 30 or 40 people who view this website who don't support the Ashley Rd squatters enough to write a 1 line comment, then this website is not what i thought it was."

This reminds of online petitons, everyone trying to win their wars (or peace) online. Petitioning for shed loads of comments on comments is much like turning comments into online petitons.

I don't read comments usually, or sign online petitons, because all these virtual wars strike me as a waste of time and energy. I read the main articles, but stay out of these comments, because if i read them all everyday i wouldn't have a life for much else! Do those who do, do?

I support the squatters, so there you go, but can people please stop expecting everyone else to spend their life reading these comments, and waging some kind of ownership/worthiness war over BIM in the process, and on the basis of comments, which are anyway a very secondary, if at times (when the mutual flamwar admiration society give it a rest anyway) useful.

by dubliners Wed Nov 05, 2008 13:16

mork and mindy wrote : "I read the main articles, but stay out of these comments, because if i read them all everyday i wouldn't have a life for much else! Do those who do, do?"

Then i'm sure you can spare a thought for the poor BIM volunteers who have to read all these comments and ownership/worthiness war,s as you astutely put it, to keep the site on track. People should having a bit consideration for the vols when flaming the site, and while the 1 hour delay is brokem (as it seems to be!) how about people being a bit more grown up themselves, and excercising some personal self-restraint regarding the 1 hour delay (intended i believe to stop people abusing BIM with flamewars!).

And yes, I do support the squatters! but seriously, if people start making a habit of expecting 30-40 people to comment on every thread, in somekind of bizarre war of ownership, then i'm the one whose going to get sick of visiting, because it's a bloody waste of time to expect everyone to get dragged into these comment wars all the time, which i agree that most people probably avoid either like the plague, or for lack of time!

I would read these comments more if the 1 hour delay is put back in place, because on loads of threads, people have shown that they can't be trusted not to flame like children without it!

by Sponge bob Wed Nov 05, 2008 13:32

Fat chance co-op - if your idea of community spirit is to take something that isn't yours and deny that house to be used for those that need it.

It seems to me that what some call "community" is in fact just sponging.

As for some not reading the comments on here! - I am not suprized you don't want to - far to uncomfortable to have your notion of "rights" to take whaetever you feel like taking being questioned.

by Ether Wed Nov 05, 2008 13:39

I support the squatters right to have a place to live in, especially when the alternative is privately rented flats - the only difference would be the already rich get a bit richer with improved bonuses, I think the local community can cope just fine without that.
A group of people doing things differently and working co-operatively seems like a much better use of the land imo.

Someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure the amount of unused buildings in the uk is greater than the amount required to house the homeless, surely thats the real problem?

property is theft!

ps
yes i pay my rent, work for a respectable software company, pay my taxes, and help my landlady carry out her garbage etc.

by ALF Wed Nov 05, 2008 13:52

If any squatter mistreats animals in Bristol like they did in Brighton there will need to be a few questions answered

Squatters stuff puppies in suitcases - The Argus
10:09pm Friday 13th June 2008

By Roz Tappenden »

Squatters stuffed a litter of puppies in suitcases as they were being dragged out of a doctor's surgery.

Police raided the surgery in Brighton at 12.30pm today and arrested the four people inside on suspicion of burglary and criminal damage.

But as the squatters were being taken from the building in Upper Rock Gardens they stuffed their nine puppies into a pair of suitcases and handed them to a friend who zipped up the bags and carried them away.

Tonight the RSPCA said it would investigate whether the animals were mistreated once it had been contacted by police.

The surgery, owned by Dr Linda Allenby, was closed recently while a new practice was being opened nearby but the site is still used as a store for patient records and medical instruments.

The four suspects are in custody being questioned by police.

by Boyd Wed Nov 05, 2008 13:58

I don't think that asking for a public show of support is the same as signing a petition - a petition is asking for something from someone, a show of support is just that - a show of support.

Of course, the best way to show support is to directly defend the squatters when they are attacked by bailiffs and others, but they are also being indirectly attacked on this site, and so I say they also need defending here.

A good half of the comments so far have been negative, so the casual observer would assume that the indymedia community is split as to whether the squatters are right to squat the Ashley Rd site.

Is it really? An alternative news site born out of the Battle of Seattle, hosting radical events, a good proportion of its readers explicitly anarchist or 'hard left' in their politics, a calender packed with radical self-organised events - and this site seems to be split 50/50 on whether its right to squat an empty building?

If you don't read the comments - not my concern. Plenty do, and its them that I'm talking to. I'm not demanding anything, I'm not giving ultimatums or any other self-important bullshit, I'm just saying that if 30 or 40 of the HUNDREDS of radical thinkers who DO read the comments every day, can't show their support then this site isn't what i thought it was - i.e. a radical online community in it's own right.

by flamed out! Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:15

"I'm just saying that if 30 or 40 of the HUNDREDS of radical thinkers who DO read the comments every day"

I doubt if hundreds of people read the comments everyday, isn't enough time in the day! A tiny minority maybe who have too much time on their hands do. Which is maybe 30-40 people tops judging by the recurrent names! And even then they have to painfully read through all these flamewars to even find your request!

Anyway, I've been a child now too, and been unable to exercise some self-restraint, and wait an hour in the absence of a one hour delay, so before I get sucked into the flamewar playground that comments are, can i also request the imcvols hurry up and fix the 1 hour delay, then these flamewars may reduce enough for there to be enough hours in the day to read the slower, more grown up, pace of comments, which would enable those without enough hours in the day to keep up with the adult threads, not infantile flamewars.

(Which I've just demonstrated I'm not above being childishly sucked into too.)

See you when the 1 hour delay is fixed, till then I'll stick to the articles!

by Sy Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:30

'If we can't get 30 or 40 people to write a comment on BRISTOL INDYMEDIA supporting squatters facing eviction, then i think its time i stopped visiting this site, as its obviously not what i thought it was.'

Boyd I can fully understand your frustration with some of the reactionary comments found here which would usually be more likely associated with the Daily Mail than Indymedia...

However, one thing it could be taken to suggest it that independent, non-corporate, democratic and transparent user generated media is now something which appeals far more widely than to a small group of alternative globalisation/anti-capitalist activists. That Indymedia has only been around a handful of years and has managed to achieve this is surely a good thing?

Googling Bristol has Indymedia come up 9th (for me a moment ago) - a couple of places ahead of the Evening Pest's This is Bristol site, despite the fact that whereas thisisbristol is advertised on billboards across the city, requiring an advertising budget of tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds while Indymedia is not really advertised (discounting the film nights and Hardcopy).

That we are seeing an increasing number of people using the site who would not traditionally have associated themselves with activism should be seen as a success of the service rather than a failure. It certainly means that people are being exposed to opinions not found in the Evening Post/Daily Mail - looking through the newswire we have issues such as squatting, campaigning against the arms trade, campaigning against war (and specifically the war on terror), buy nothing day, and discussions which reflexively engage with ways in which people use this service to advertise events at short notice...

Encouraging dialogue and discussion with groups beyond the activist ghetto should be seen as a good thing rather than a reason to stop using this service. It means that the ideas which Indymedia was founded upon can become something of society at large rather than just a small subsection of activists.

Admittedly this has also meant that recently there has been a real sense of hostility on BIM, and many of the values of community and solidarity on which Indymedia is based have taken a knock as a consequence - but I think we need to work through this by stressing positive perspectives rather than withdrawing from the service altogether.

...and yes I support the actions of people who use buildings which are not being used... as has been pointed out on this thread by numerous people if all the empty buildings in the UK were turned over to people who needed homes there wouldn't be a single homeless person in the country. If you want a scapegoat for housing problems try rich landlords who own numerous properties and often leave them empty for years at a time knowing that in the long run they can make a profit from the increase in land value.

by imcvol Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:34

We have techies on this - and we hope to have things fixed soon...

Until then we can do much apart from apologise and ask people to refrain from getting involved in flame wars.

by Stalin. Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:46

Ref - the Z comment.
Actually no one gets banned from this site, they just get weary.
FYI - I know for a fact Z supports the general aims of the squatters, and of this site.
What concerns me is the polarization and stereotyping of people and positions in a complicated situation.

by Boyd Wed Nov 05, 2008 16:44

wise words Sy and flamed out, i do know what you're saying.

Its good that a wider range of people read the site, and anyone who knows me knows that I'm a salty old populist at heart!

However, I'm still not swayed from that feeling that more people need to do more to show their support for people / causes / actions that are attacked on this site, to express their opinions to the new supporters of the site. Even if it's just 1 line I know it makes a difference to see support for your 'thing' mixed in with all the cynicism and vitriol.

Anyway, enough from me!

by Wrong'un Wed Nov 05, 2008 16:52

You paint a very rosey picture of what has happened to BIM these past few months Sy.
In actual fact what has happened is that the pro-capitalists - denialists have driven many good people off of this site thru their abuse and insensitivity and intolerable rudeness..
As a result the awareness levels previously expressed here have been lowered considerably.
This is how capitalism suppresses any opposition.
BIM and its potentials have been lost, the Daily mail, Telegraph and Express readers have won this space.

by ex - squatter Wed Nov 05, 2008 19:39

People who hate squatters fall into 2 camps at least, those who have swallowed the capitalist bait, hook line and sinker, and resent that some us are not so dumb and seek to create an alternative society.
Then we have the other camp who realise that things are not quite as they seem, and that their lives thanks to capitalism are empty and meaningless, and that the planet is in deep man-made trouble, but who are scared of change.
Instead of always looking down at the poorest homeless people in our society and blaming us for everything, they should for a personal change look upwards at those in positions of power and authority who could not organise a party in a brewery but who take billions of £ and $ out of our collective pocket and then thru the capitalist media tell everybody that its the poor homeless which are the spongers.
OUR PLANET is being exploited to destruction by the greedy unthinking F***wits and yer average punter is having the wool pulled over their eyes while the broadcast media fills their minds with crap from the corporate machine.
Greedy ignorant morons ARE THE ONLY SPONGERS,
And they are killing our planet for profit, squatters are not the problem, on the contrary.
Three cheers for the squatters.

by Dona Qixota Wed Nov 05, 2008 22:25

Sadly, it's human nature to look for scapegoats, we've been doing it for thousands of years. But don't blame squatters for people being homeless. People are homeless because housing has become a commodity and because too many people have become obsessed about their house being "worth more" every month. Houses should be about having somewhere to live not about speculation.

As for this idea about stealing - it's incorrect. Stealing is "taking with intent to permanently deprive", which isn't what most decent squatters do.

If you want anyone to blame, then blame Housing Associations. In the street I live in HAs have sat back and left houses empty for over 6 months at a time, on several occasions. Housing Associations are completely bent and not fit for purpose.

by Emma Wed Nov 05, 2008 23:39

This was a good article and presented some interesting news.

I'd like to respond to the ideas around the comments, if I may...

First, it only takes one person on an anonymous system to make it look like there is a mass of people agreeing/disagreeing. Comments here give no indication of numbers.

Second, there are clearly one, possibly two, people who are of the right-wing ethos in general and who feel some compulsion to come to this site and argue. Great, I say - first it forces us to define ourselves more, to state our case in stronger terms and to iron out our arguments. Also it means that this site gets a further boost to google indexes with each article and comment added. The right-winger/s who come here are dammed either way - if they ignore us it looks like there are no voices of dissent, if they reply they improve the google rankings.

Third, this is also a sign of the site's success - for an idea of people doing their own media - this is what it looks like I feel! Messy, argumentative and fun to read.

Fourth, those who write the articles are defining the discussion. You might not like a point made about squatting but we are having the debate - a debate we could not have in the normal media.

PS. I too support the squatters.

by Tory Monarchist Thu Nov 06, 2008 08:15

As a true reactionary, I wish to point out that squatting is one the ancient liberties of England, the practise of which dates back centuries, and, is enshrined in our common legal system.

I too support the squatters.

by Stupid me. Thu Nov 06, 2008 16:10

After reading Emma's last comment on this thread, I find myself feeling pretty fukkkking stupid!

I always thought Bristol Indymedia was all about communication and radical initiatives and activism, for unity towards beneficial and sustainable change, ie the world we are trying to create, now I learn its more about improving the Google rankings!

Have we lost the plot or what?

by squat the lot Fri Nov 07, 2008 00:30

I think it is totally immoral to be encouraging people on low incomes to buy houses in this economic climate. In fact, this economic climate was created by governments pushing home ownership onto people who can't afford it, and also excluding ordinary people from social housing. Social housing is more affordable (rents are normally half private rents) and better quality (decent home standard).

Places for people should be ashamed of themselves for being involved in this scandal which only serves to further enrich an elite of bankers and developers.

Over the next few years we are going to see thousands of people in Bristol loose their houses because the banks want to squeeze more out of them by increasing their mortgages and meanwhile ordinary young people in Bristol can't rent at an affordable price because there's no social housing left and private landlords charge a high rent to pay their mortgages.

Shame on you Places for People. Don't evict Bristol's youth - house them!!

by Dona Qixota Fri Nov 07, 2008 09:47

"BIM and its potentials have been lost"

I don't agree with this. But clearly quite a lot of people of the Left are unhappy at the moment on here.

Socialists should examine themselves and their own ideological framework for their failure, rather than always blaming other people. As John Serpico pointed out "The Left are a shambles and are viewed nowadays I suspect as dinosaurs."
http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/article/689090?&conden...40597

This should not be surprising. The Left is again the Establishment, and the ideas of the Left are making as bad a mess now as they always have and always will. The revolutionary firebrands of the Sixties: "Lord" Michael Levy, Jack Straw, "Lord" Peter Mandelson, Peter Hain ... they're all running the show now ... and just look at how awful it is!

It's painfully obvious that the Left just seem to love huddling up in nice little Guardian-reading cliques - the left-wing ghetto of the mind - or is it actually that the Left are terrified of meeting normal folks; working people, people who might read tabloids, people whose ideas are not trendy middle class left-wing?

Stuck in a bubble, out of touch with what most people are really thinking.

Then you get a shock to find that lots of people resent squatters. Wise up, for godsake.

by Dona Qixota Fri Nov 07, 2008 09:47

"BIM and its potentials have been lost"

I don't agree with this. But clearly quite a lot of people of the Left are unhappy at the moment on here.

Socialists should examine themselves and their own ideological framework for their failure, rather than always blaming other people. As John Serpico pointed out "The Left are a shambles and are viewed nowadays I suspect as dinosaurs."
http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/article/689090?&conden...40597

This should not be surprising. The Left is again the Establishment, and the ideas of the Left are making as bad a mess now as they always have and always will. The revolutionary firebrands of the Sixties: "Lord" Michael Levy, Jack Straw, "Lord" Peter Mandelson, Peter Hain ... they're all running the show now ... and just look at how awful it is!

It's painfully obvious that the Left just seem to love huddling up in nice little Guardian-reading cliques - the left-wing ghetto of the mind - or is it actually that the Left are terrified of meeting normal folks; working people, people who might read tabloids, people whose ideas are not trendy middle class left-wing?

Stuck in a bubble, out of touch with what most people are really thinking.

Then you get a shock to find that lots of people resent squatters. Wise up, for godsake.

by Troll feeder Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:08

I don't really know what my mates or even my partner really thinks!
"Out of touch with what most people are really thinking"
Thats the kind of statement I would expect to read in the right-wing media!
Over 6 billion people on the planet and the troll thinks it knows what the majority are thinking?
WOW.
Maybe the majority of people on the planet want a fairer cleaner greener sustainably peacefull future.
Or maybe they all want to put on an £800 suit, get into a 4 X 4 and go to the races and win loadsa wonga!
I have no idea how any person can claim to know what another individual is thinking.
Extreme arrogance and ignorance to assume you know what any one individual really thinks. .

by Jog Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:15

If you look at the original article it was the squatter was claiming to speak for ALL residents... when that very obviously not the case.

I don't claim to speak for anyone for myself, & no, I don't have a 4x4, I don't go to the races, or have loads of wonga.....

I will however admit to the crime of not slavishly agreeing with everything I read, whether it is BIMC, the Mail or the Guardian etc etc......

by St Paul,s Resident Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:52

What is wrong with giving people choice? Some people want to rent, some people want to buy and some people want to do a bit of both. As long as people are aware of the pros and cons of each of these options I don't see what the problem is.

I would be really interested in what way Places for People are "encouraging people on low incomes to buy houses in this economic climate".

Answers on a postcard please.

by Emma Fri Nov 07, 2008 13:44

I did not say (and I hope not imply) that the point of sites such as this is google rankings. I said it is an effect (or is it affect?) of the debates. However I am interested in more people discovering radical/progressive ideas and so those who don't use the site searching for information are that little more likely to discover here because of the volume of debate and I think that is a good thing.

by Stupid me Fri Nov 07, 2008 14:05

Apologies Emma, I didn't think of that, I kinda assumed that most people in Briz Know of BIMs existance, thanks for that.

by Dona Qixota Fri Nov 07, 2008 17:17

"I don't really know what my mates or even my partner really thinks!"

Dear "Troll feeder", I am sorry to hear about your difficulties in communicating with your family and friends.

My experience is that when you work with people, when you go down the pub with people, when you live with people, when you share a bed and bodily fluids with people, then you generally get to find out quite a lot about what they think. More than you might like, sometimes.

It is certainly in the strong interest of the State, the ruling powers, the plutocrats, the commissariat, the neo-liberals, and the "free" marketeers who want people to work hard as wage slaves for their stupid system (no housing yourself, no self-suffiiciency, commodify everything) to divide and rule us, to ensure that we are too frightened to be honest, to communicate, to isolate us all one from another, so that we do not know what others think or feel about anything.

The best thing we can do to defend ourselves against this is to get out there and listen to people who are UNlike ourselves, to find out what they think and feel.

Try it sometime.

by Squat the lot Fri Nov 07, 2008 20:44

Private home ownership is an ineffective form of tenure that reduces peoples mobility, is expensive and risky.

Most people don't buy out of choice. They buy out of desperation and fear. They are desperate because private renting gives you no security and is expensive. And they are afraid of being left behind on the property ladder.

Social housing gets you a house that costs £250 a month, is maintained free of charge, and you have the right to live there for the rest of you life. Home ownership gets you a mortgage double or treble that and you have to pay for repairs. Oh - and if you loose your job you loose the house.

And you don't get a choice because the demand for social housing is greater than the supply so they have to ration it to the most needy.

Social landlords should be trying to provide people with more social housing not trying to push the ideology of private home ownership. Young people in Bristol need to be housed not evicted.

http://www.placesforpeople.co.uk/sales/

by Jog Sat Nov 08, 2008 04:16

"Most people don't buy out of choice. They buy out of desperation and fear."

... says you, but based on what research ?? This isn't me, isn't my friends who have mortgages, isn't anyone I know.....

Just because you want something to be the case, to fit your personal prejudices of how life should be, don't make it so.

If you want to change the world you have to be realistic about where most people are now, however tough that is.

by Mell O Sat Nov 08, 2008 06:09

http://www.emptyhomes.com/usefulinformation/stats/stati....html

The Empty Homes agency say there are one million homes standing empty.

by Vent Sat Nov 08, 2008 18:18

The benefits of buying your own home is that once you have paid for it you can live in it rent free. An important part of of most peoples retirement plans.

I can not see any reason why buying your own house is "risky" - renting is just as bad if you cannot pay the rent. - you loose yur home. If you rent and the landlord changes where does that leave you?

Only diference is that if it all goes well as it does in the vast majority of cases then you end up owning your own place so you can live in it rent free and pass it onto your kids.

Social housing should be available for those that need it - it should certainly not be a lifestyle choice. And that is where housing associations come in. They help people get a foot on the ladder. Sadly it seems that some still want to repeat the sillyness that is "All property is theft". When the reality is that if you use something that is not yours without permission, that is theft.

If you own your own place or are buying it - it gives you a sense of achievement. Not a lot of achievers are squatters then?

by Homeboy Sun Nov 09, 2008 18:33

Firstly a fact, squatting isn’t theft – it’s a civil offence not a criminal offence. You are not stealing/removing anybody’s personal property or belongings, you are merely occupying a structure that would otherwise be empty. The property in question here has been left empty on & off for years. The big question, in this time of increasing housing need, is why are empty properties left empty?

I would suggest the answer is political, in that those in power engineer a situation in the housing sector where the only options or choices are private ownership or renting. Social housing, namely housing held in trust for the public and managed on their behalf for them to live in, has been curtailed – both by selling it off (Thatchers ‘right to buy’) and by ensuring funding is not made available to create sufficient social housing to meet demand.

The end result is that only the most vulnerable sections of society are able to access social housing, and then only after a long wait, often spent in miserable and unsuitable temporary housing – a situation one might argue is intended to force them into private renting in despair at ever getting something decent. Choice of housing does not come into it for the vast majority of us, we either rent privately and line the pockets of a profiteer for as long as we rent, or buy and spend 15, 20, 25 or more years lining the pockets of another profiteer, namely the banks/building societys and insurance companies, before we actually ‘own’ the damn place. Buying or renting privately is not a free choice, it is coercion by powerful forces outside of your influence.

Now whether you like it or not, a lot of people do not want to have to buy or rent privately. They would prefer to live in publicly owned social housing and maintain it as a resource for future generations. After all we pay huge amounts in taxes & NI to the government, so why not expect that money be used to create a public resource of housing for those who prefer to live in it as opposed to buying? It’s a much safer way of providing for your kids & future generations than taking the risk of buying, as many mortagees are now finding out.

As for the alleged sense of achievement that comes from buying, I’d suggest its more a sense of relief once you finally do own a property outright - after all those years of worry that you cant afford the mortgage; the years of fearing unemployment; the years of paying xtra for insurance policies to cover eventualities such as unemployment, serious illness or major repair; the years of slogging away keeping your head down for fear of jeopardising your home; the years of fear you’ll be caught in a housing crash and negative equity, or of massively rising interest charges; the years of subservience to your boss and the state. Having a mortgage is like having a prison sentence!

It may be an achievement to survive the process, but its not a pleasant one. There are many other achievements that are both more pleasureable and useful, and don’t rely on your ability to pay vast amounts of money to others for many years.

by Vent Sun Nov 09, 2008 21:25

Homeboy tries hard with the words but fails.

He says :-

"It may be an achievement to survive the process, but its not a pleasant one. There are many other achievements that are both more pleasureable and useful, and don’t rely on your ability to pay vast amounts of money to others for many years."

Nothing pleased me more that to start paying off a loan for something that would be mine rather than paying rent to a landlord so he could get rich. I worked hard and had a good job so I was never going to be eligible for "social housing". So my first house cost me £33,000 in 1979 - I paid my mortgage off last year and yes I did pay a total of c. £110,000 over the 25 yrs - but in the later years the mortgage payments were FAR less than the rent I would have paid.

Even with house prices falling - my home - which I now own outright after 25 years of mortgage is worth more than £250,000. So you tell me after your doing the math - what is wrong with that? - Answer - Nothing - unless you are of the opinion that the world owes you a living.

Now you of a left wing bias may not like that!

But believe me! there are many people like me! - And indeed my children and my peer groups children want nothing more than the same opportunity.

Whereas what you come accross as - is people who want want want want - without the moral fibre to accept that hard graft is needed to achieve.

by Troll patrol Sun Nov 09, 2008 22:42

And I wonder exactly what you did?
Who and what you exploited?
What you consumed?
What you polluted?
What damage you did to our planet in the process of obtaining the money to buy your home?
I wonder who really paid?
And who will pay in the future for your selfish lifestyle choices?

by Chobe Mon Nov 10, 2008 08:43

You're a saint!

Once again we have a sensible post and then "Troll Wacther" throws in an abusive post that is off topic and assumes that everyone else is wrong and only he/she/them are correct.

Most people who buy houses have a job care for the environment as much as anybody - supreme arrogance on your part to think that only you occupy that moral high ground.

As for who really pays?

Well how do you get your money to live?

Grows on trees does it?

by She Mon Nov 10, 2008 09:20

What abuse CHobe ??????

CHobe wrote "Troll watcher throws in an abusive post" ................................ ??????

I read that post three times, a very interesting comment actually, very pertinant I thought it was, but what exactly did CHobe find abusive about it ????????????

Seven lines of text, each line with a question mark at the end of every line ...................... that is NOT abuse CHobe, it is asking questions ...................... every one of which CHobe would not answer, I wonder why?

Perhaps CHobe is feeling a little defensive?????

What abuse CHobe .............. do spell it out please ???????

by Chobe Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:06

The only people being defensive of here are those “dismayed” by the negative response of many to the bully boy tactics and queue jumping antics of the squatters.

Hence a post from Troll dodger or whatever that asks:-

And I wonder exactly what you did?
Who and what you exploited?
What you consumed?
What you polluted?
What damage you did to our planet in the process of obtaining the money to buy your home?
I wonder who really paid?
And who will pay in the future for your selfish lifestyle choices?

And the irony is and that clearly “She” is oblivious to is that just by buying your own home the inference is that buyers “exploit”, “consume”, “pollute” and “damage the planet”, but those that break in and take over a house meant for families in need somehow live in that house and do none of these things – assuming of course that these things are indeed done by people living in houses?

A fact I would dispute as it is more likely to be a figment in the imagination of a very desperate indeed fringe who are gobsmacked that the people of Bristol do not think they are some kind of urban Robin Hood, but a band of queue jumpers and shysters that are actually preventing social housing.

So let me tell you what I think the squatters did and I will compare it to what most of Bristol residents do

And I wonder exactly what you did?
I worked hard and paid my mortgage, my taxes, and my NIC, brought up a family and looked after my house, whereas squatters just take.

Who and what you exploited?
I have exploited no one – whereas squatters exploit those that want the home they occupy.

What you consumed?
No more that I needed to keep my family fed. Whereas squatters consume a building and deprive others from using it.

What you polluted?
By doing what? .... breathing out CO2 at the same rate as a squatter or anyone else for that matter? If you say that just by earning a living to pay for a home for my family then I am somehow a worse polluter than a squatter then I challenge you or anyone to prove that nonsensical emotional rubbish!

What damage you did to our planet in the process of obtaining the money to buy your home?
None – but squatters leave a lot of damage behind when they are finally evicted from a house that has to be paid for and materials used and energy expended to make the place safe and habitable for deserving tenants or owners. The clean up operations after any squat is a nightmare and huge amounts of energy used.

I wonder who really paid?
The people and families that should be living in the house are those that are the true victims paying more than the squatters.

And who will pay in the future for your selfish lifestyle choices?
Owning your own home is not a selfish lifestyle choice – but stealing a home from a deserving family is more selfish than anything else I know.

The post above is off topic in a desperate attempt to gain some credibility that the squatters do what they do for some higher reason than just dossing down for free. Yes squatters ARE like NHS queue jumpers - the analogy given on another article is an excellent one.

With the credit crunch causing problems for many people - you should be aware that patience is likely to wear thin.

by She Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:00

Yes CHobe, you did strike a chord.
You accused a person who simply asked a few questions of being abusive, unjustly.
You may not be sensitive or aware enough to realise it, but some of us are.
You may think it acceptable to lie and spin, but do not expect to get away with it here.
You assume too much and too often.

by Chobe Mon Nov 10, 2008 13:23

As the post was not just asking questions - it assumed that house buyers “exploit”, “consume”, “pollute” and “damage the planet”, and clearly inferred that others somehow pay for that privilege. If that were true why are the squatters so keen on pinching a house then? Do they think that by pinching it somehow the heating lighting cooking carried out within that house is pollution free just because they do not pay the bills??????

I notice that unlike myself who tried to answer the questions posed and as far as I can see - totally stumped you with that tactic (it's an old trick, telling the truth, but it usually works) - you are of the school of thought that simply applies the reality of what you do to those who justifiably criticise your actions. Hence you’re saying I am using spin and lies when it is clear that the spin and the tangents you seek to confuse with are plain to see and fool no one.

You accuse me of spin and lies - something that is really rather funny seeing as how the squatters and there small band of supporters are ever more desperate to spin what they are doing into some kind of Robin Hood lie.

It is not working and never will. Not until you and the squatters and their small band of supporters accept that denying a family of a home and the chance to own a stake in that home is so selfish that most people view the squatters with absolute and total contempt. No amount of spin, lies and spurrious facts on how "green" squatting is, on your or their part will alter that fact.

by Jog Mon Nov 10, 2008 13:31

Sorry 'She', but most of the lies & spin seem to be coming from those who support the squatters, in claiming that all or most 'residents' support their actions, that somehow by squatting a housing association property they have some kind of moral high ground.

Also there are the suggestions that those of us who dare to disgree with these actions are either rampant capitalists, angry with having to pay rent or mortgage, or just simply trolls (to name but a few of the comments...)

Sorry, but these are some squatters occupying a housing association building, potentially at the expense of those people they theoretically support.

It's not radical, it's not cutting edge, it's not clever & it's not popular. It's also hardly a shining example of an alternative view of society that will act as a beacon for bristolians.

To those who are trying very valiantly to justify these actions, there is an expression that fits the situation...

... when you're in a hole... stop digging....

by Squatter Mon Nov 10, 2008 13:57

All the squatters I know are in employment, a couple of them work in the NHS, one is a newly qualified teacher, one a social-worker, one a counsellor, another is a student reading environmental sciences, one works for Re-cycle. and two in organic food-shops, they all are aware that even their relatively benign 'employments' have some kind of negative impact on others and the environment, in some shape or form, one way or another, it is a matter of awareness levels I suppose, I know of no 'job' which does not negatively affect somebody else somewhere, and I know of no job which does not damage the planet somehow.
We are in our particular squatted 'home' all relatively aware of social / political / environmental / economic 'issues' - we have great hours long discussions over shared meals regularly, and living together as we do, we do not consume anything like the amount of gas and electricity or fuel that we would if we lived in individual bedsits or flats.
We recycle or compost 100% of that which comes into 'our' squat, we have turned a garden which had been neglected for years into a vegetable garden which provides us with organic veg nearly all year round.
I would say to whoever it is that claims s/he does 'no harm' nor exploits no-one or the environment in their jobs or lives to do some kind of objective sustainability audit on their work-lifestyles, s/he is likely to be surprised at the results of such an examination of their personal effects on our shared planet.

by Tory Monarchist Mon Nov 10, 2008 14:06

By Jove, well spotted She.

CH ...... OBE?

And to think I never realised that one could be awarded the Order of the British Empire for multiple identity posting on Indymedia. Do you suppose that we can all get gongs now? The days of 'excellence for all' have truly arrived.

by fuuny bunny Mon Nov 10, 2008 14:50

funny that one monarchist!
do you suppose he awarded it to hisself or is he just anuvver establishment lackey?
what what what?

by Chobe Mon Nov 10, 2008 15:18

CH OBE?? - you have lost me.

Chobe is a game reserve in Africa that I have visited and I have a Chobe Safari Lodge mug with tea in it! Make of that what you will!

Not sure what you are on about.

by ooooops Mon Nov 10, 2008 15:22

Did you walk to get there?
Did you do Africa any good?

by Chobe Mon Nov 10, 2008 16:35

Is this sort of childish off topic sillyness what BIM thinks is debate on a serious subject?

Did you walk to get there?
Did you do Africa any good?

I flew and I had a nice holiday thank you very much. I can afford to do that now that I have paid off my mortgage!

I doubt that I would if I was still paying rent.

Ah but you don't pay rent do you - so where do you go on holiday when you are not taking over and therefore denying other people a home?

All this sillyness on your part just emphasises to all the woeful and pitiful state of your case.

by Whagwaan Mon Nov 10, 2008 16:47

Isn't there an hour's delay between the time a comment is posted and the time it is visible on the site? Since this is the case, then how come the comment and response below were posted only 4 minutes apart?
So, either
1. the comment delay facility is broken (it wasn't).
2. an imcvol posted the response without admitting that they're an imcvol (would this be fair conduct?)
3. comment and response are from the same person. (you'll see quite a few of these comments in a series where a differently named commenter appears to know what is in a comment that could not yet have appeared when they posted. See also comment 66 at 14.50 which is a response to a comment at 14.06)
Looks a bit dodgy to me.
Good thing this isn't the BBC or there'd be demands for an inquiry!

67. What? by Chobe Mon Nov 10, 2008 15:18
CH OBE?? - you have lost me.
Chobe is a game reserve in Africa that I have visited and I have a Chobe Safari Lodge mug with tea in it! Make of that what you will!
Not sure what you are on about.

68. Chobe Africa? by ooooops Mon Nov 10, 200815:22
Did you walk to get there?
Did you do Africa any good?

by hahahahaha Mon Nov 10, 2008 17:01

Nah Hammond, you are the only suspicious one here mate.
Watch the timing!
Is anybody ever gonna tell him cuz he is never gonna work it out for himself.

by Uncle Sam Mon Nov 10, 2008 17:19

In the US we call em faux-bos, & take em as seriously as you do... :-)

by Homeboy Mon Nov 10, 2008 18:15

Chobe writes above: “The post above is off topic in a desperate attempt to gain some credibility that the squatters do what they do for some higher reason than just dossing down for free. Yes squatters ARE like NHS queue jumpers - the analogy given on another article is an excellent one.” (Chobe is referring to this thread http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/689198 where Natasha has stated: “I liken you lot to those with money who jump the NHS queue for treatment.”)

Now I’ve already responded to this once but will do so again. Essentially what they are saying then is that squatters are using their wealth to access housing, just like the rich paying to use NHS facilities, ahead of those in the waiting queue. Bit of a stupid analogy isn’t it really, because its exactly the same as saying that housebuyers are jumping the waiting queue for housing by using their ability to pay! Which I presume is not what she means?

Chobe ends with this remarkable comment: “With the credit crunch causing problems for many people - you should be aware that patience is likely to wear thin.” What so are we blaming the people who’ve squatted one of Bristol’s 7000 empties for the current worldwide financial crisis, of which the credit crunch is just one cause? Or is it that she foresees so many will soon be homeless due to repossession, that they’re gonna be pissed off that the Ashley Rd squatters have got an empty before them? Or is it that she’s finally clocked that the people of Bristol are indeed furious at the way they’ve been hoodwinked by the banks and politicians, and is giving them a warning? Do tell us Chobe…

So lets remember shall we that you don’t solve a homeless crisis by evicting people and making them homeless. You don’t solve a shortage of social housing crisis by keeping 7000 properties empty, for whatever financial or political reason they may give us. You don’t solve a lack of choice in housing by coercing people into buying when they manifestly cant afford to. And you wont solve the credit crunch crisis by giving upto ₤500 billion of our money to the banks who caused it in the first place.

Look at the bigger picture people – homebuyers, private renters, social housing tenants & those in the queue, the squatter-homeless – we’re all victims of the housing con. And the cycle of birth-work-borrow to buy-die just isn’t good enough for some of us.

by Whagwaan Mon Nov 10, 2008 18:47

Dear Hahahahahaha,

If you think that I am Clive Hammond in any way, shape, or form, you are mistaken. I suggest that your behaviour this afternoon is indicative of someone who has failed to take their medication.

It is all too clear from the record of this afternoon's activities that you are seriously losing the plot. Seek help as soon as you are able.

You can delete, but you cannot hide.

All the best, Whagwaan

by B J Richie - Bristol Housing Action Movement Mon Nov 10, 2008 19:10

One of the aspects that has not been emphasised in all this is the sheer incompetence and malignity of Places for People's Housing Strategy in the Ashley Road area. More than five years ago many of the properties in ashley road were owned by the then Bristol Church's Housing association and occupied by tenants. The properties were allowed to become run down, remain empty and be used not by squatters but by drug gangs and their clientele. Repairs were at an absolute minimum and tenants complaints about irregular users - not squatters- went unheeded. Places for People continued this strategy after they took over and pressed on with decanting tenants out of the now unsuitable accomodation. Several years later these properties have re-emerged as private flats. People who cannot afford a mortgage have been deliberately squeezed out of the area - where are they meant to go?

Unsurprisingly some people who live in St Paul's and Montpelier have decided that Places for People are not to be trusted and decided to manage one of their properties for themselves. They have not stolen the property - it remains in use at 87 Ashley Road.

by Firsoff's Ghost Mon Nov 10, 2008 20:24

Well put, BHAM spokesperson.

Short-life tenancies can also be a useful option as well. Whatever happened to Self-Help, the short-life housing association on Grosvenor Road?

by Whagwaan Mon Nov 10, 2008 20:44

http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/689193?&condense_c...40944

comment delay by imcvol Mon Nov 10, 2008 17:29
There is a method for posting comments and by-passing the 1 hour delay that some users have figured out. The tech people are looking at this and the next upgrade of the site technology should fix it.

So. It took Hahahahaha three-quarters of an hour to find someone capable of making up an excuse for him huh?

Sorry, I don’t buy this. Occam’s razor. It also does not logically fit the situation which it claims to explain.

There is a potential 4th explanation for the phenomena here. That is, Indymedia could be being hacked by a semi-literate person with mental health issues and a tragic Clive Hammond obsession.

But option 2, that an imcvol posted the response without admitting that they're an imcvol (would this be fair conduct?), appears most likely.

Indymedia, one of your vols needs help.

by Chobe Mon Nov 10, 2008 21:04

Homeboy asks what I mean by some of my words. I mean what I say, exactly that, no more and no less. But to lay it out in simple language I feel that there is a change to how tolerant people are. When money is free and easy, most people will let others do what they want. But when money is short and you have to work harder for every penny, then those that sponge and abuse are not tolerated as easily.

This report came in via a news medium. A bit extreme maybe but I predict we will see less tolerance to those that would take from others. And squatters do take from others.

"A shopkeeper "lost it" and stabbed a mugger to death during a violent struggle over the store's takings, a witness has told an inquest.
Mr Singh, 34, was targeted as he got into his car when leaving his Lifestyle Express store in Birleywood Road, on February 17.
Kilroe smashed the window of the shopkeeper's silver Ford Focus and demanded the shop's takings, worth £2,000.
A struggle then took place in which Mr Singh pinned Kilroe to the floor and punched him repeatedly in the face, the inquest at Preston Magistrates' Court heard.
Neighbour Deborah Barker said that she thought Mr Singh had "lost it" during the incident.
She said: "I was telling Tony to get off him because he was going to hurt him and Tony was screaming 'The f****** b****** has tried to rob me. He said he had stabbed him or something.
"They were covered in blood, and he was going hysterical."
Her husband James Barker, who also witnessed the struggle, said the two men were "punching 50/50, both giving as good as they got".
But Mr Singh told the inquest he was mauled "like a dog" by Kilroe who bit his face, punched him and headbutted him.
:: Police arrested Mr Singh but later recommended he not be prosecuted. The Crown Prosecution Service agreed and said it was satisfied he had acted in self defence"

Signs of someone who is pissed at people ripping him off? Certainly. Would he have done it a year ago pre "Credit Crunch or just handed the robber the £2000? Who knows? Has this any relevance here? Again who knows? But I would put a £ to a penny that far from people saying "yes I think those dear little squatters are jolly nice people and who cares if they are not paying their dues, they could teach me a thing or two about how to get by without paying the bills", they are more likely to feel a bit pissed. Hopefully not in the same way as Mr Singh. But time will tell. The signs are there already. People are pissed with the Banks and rightly so in my view. But if you think that being pissed with a financial institution somehow gives squatters another set of "rights" then you are very much mistaken.

As for what Natasha says elsewhere, I agree with most of what she says and have no difficulty in understanding.

Her analogy (I am male by the way) re the NHS queue jumpers has merit. The issue is not HOW people jump queues but the fact that a minority think it acceptable to do so. The methodology is money with the NHS or occupation of a house that is not yours, she actually says about jumping into an operating theatre when it is not in use which is a clear and very powerful metaphor. But I suspect some "tuned out" a bit there as per normal when confronted with a well written critique. The methods are different re NHS queue jumping and squatting, but the effect on people is the same and so the analogy holds.

by Troll Aid. Mon Nov 10, 2008 22:09

But why did you not think beyond the number 4?

Why do you assume that there are only 4 options?

Think bigger, count higher, just one higher, not 4 options, try 5.

You and any other BIMedia user is just one mouse click away from getting around the one hour thingy.

One mouse click = option number 5.

All of your 4 options are wrong.

Option number 5 is right.

One mouse click is all.

When you have worked out which mouse-click, you might care to apologise to those you have slandered.

by huh? Mon Nov 10, 2008 22:47

No apology to those you have slandered then?

by Vent Mon Nov 10, 2008 22:47

I see it as Sad - the computer nerd and their keyboard. What a combination.

But it does emphasise and underline a common thread in all of this and that is that some are happy to stick with the rules - in his case to damp down the personal "flame wars". And of course the paranoia expressed here is that CLIVE HAMMOND IS COMING!!!! - I fail to see any evidence elswhere of even the slightest worry about other posters but some are clearly concerned and so give away the fact that Clive for all his faults really got under their skin. And it shows. I suspect he is pleased if he is still here.

So the nerdy ones take a bit of time and effort to break a system - just like the squatters take a bit of time and effort to break into a house and claim it. Whilst others just post as was intended. Apparently you need "Smarts" to do it - is that short for smarties? Based on the juvenile content of your post I would say there is a good chance and if so please visit this site and leave the discussion to others more able to stay on topic.

http://www.smarties.co.uk/home/

Because however posting within the hour is achieved, it does you little credit. And as for the content of what you actually post, I have to ask the question, why bother to bend the rules and then waste the opportunity with such total drivel?

by homeboy Mon Nov 10, 2008 23:00

You haven’t dealt with the challenge to the analogy Chobe – are housebuyers jumping the queue of those waiting for housing, by using their increased ability to buy?

When you’ve dealt with that consider this. An operating theatre or other functioning health facility is ready to use and available for those on NHS lists. 87 Ashley Rd is not ready to use for social housing, it will require 6 to 12 months works and hundreds of thousands of pounds before it is available to let to vulnerable people (if that’s its true destination). There is no queue for it as no nominations will have been sought from the council list yet. One of the reasons it requires so much work is because it has been left empty for so long by the HA (or RSL as they are called now). Instead of the expense of legal action followed by works, and the creation of another 20+ homeless people, why don’t the authorities spend their money bringing back into use one of the other 7000 empty properties in Bristol? And at the same time allow the squatter-homeless to remain in occupancy of Ashley Rd, ask them to form a housing co-op, and maintain the property whilst they occupy it? The analogy does not hold, it is absurd.

Your attempt to introduce a violent mugging into the issue and by association equate it with squatting is frankly absurd, and insulting. You keep stating squatters don’t pay their bills, but like the rest of us they have to pay for the utilities (theft of those is a criminal offence, unlike squatting). Although given the extent to which we are ripped off by the profiteers who run the formally public owned utility companies, then I’m sure many of us would love to know a way of decreasing their profit margins. Or are you happy with the way your gas/leccy/water company rips you off? With your tenacity I'm sure that together we could do something about it...

The biggest spongers & abusers are the multinational corporations that avoid paying taxes and overcharge us to ramp up their profits, or haven’t you been paying attention to the world outside? Do you feel happy that the bank that lent you a mortgage made you pay it back many times over, or do you feel just a bit ripped off? Just think how many holidays you could have had if you lived in a publicly owned property paying an affordable rent, instead of paying a mortgage that at times in the last 25 years has attracted interest rates of upto 15% per year…

by Nerd Mon Nov 10, 2008 23:01

Caring smart Nerds built this website.

by Chobe Tue Nov 11, 2008 06:14

But the analogy is not mine but I do support it. It stands. It makes sense. It equates squatters with NHS queue jumpers and despite the whining from some, the analogy stands as I say. You obviously do not like that but I suggest you accept it and move on. No amount of wriggling will un-write what has been said.

You say "are housebuyers jumping the queue of those waiting for housing, by using their increased ability to buy?

How silly! - You must be forgetting that the Housing associations buy the houses for families that need homes and they then help them purchase their homes via various part purchase schemes. So do HA's jump the queue? Hardly!!! They have to purchase the same as anyone else.

No the analogy stands as it is so good - that is why it upsets you so much. Squatters queue jump deserving families by denying HA's the ability to renovate and then allocate the house the squatters take over.

As someone said earlier “When you are in a hole, stop digging".

As for interest rates of 15%, you fall into a trap there, not one of my making, I am not clever enough to set that up, but interest rates of 15% were with us for a couple of months when we had a bozo of a PM by the name of Major who on one day crashed us out of what was the old ERM. Strange days indeed but then we had nearly 20% inflation as well. And house prices during that period rose by a similar amount. So whilst it was different to the situation today it all panned out OK in the end.

We have very different issues facing us now, house prices falling which is good as it will help the first time buyers and there are plenty of them waiting and wanting to buy. And we also have falling interest rates. Some predict that interest rates could fall to as low as 1% or 2% within a year. Now if I had a mortgage I would very much like it to be a fixed rate or tracker set around those rates!

But the hole you fall into is that house prices do go up and down but the trend is up overall. If you pay rent then you pay to someone else, whereas with my situation as an example, my house is worth so much more than my mortgage that even with the interest I paid and the decreased value of the house itself, I am still far far better off. Plus the fact that rents go up in line with demand and house prices whereas if you take out a mortgage and do not increase it, apart from interest rate changes the amount you pay stays pretty much the same. Certainly after ten years we were paying far less than what rents were.

Personally I doubt your motives re house buying. Because I suspect the reason why you dislike it is because those who buy into (literally) the home ownership concept have no time for those that believe "property is theft". Squatters to them are spongers and so those that buy their own homes on the whole are great advocates of house purchase and help there children to buy. Whereas you, Homeboy, seem to want angry people, scared of house purchase, so that there is a number of people disenfranchised and divorced from buying their own place. Would you rather people be controlled by a vast Central Government behemoth dictating rents and where you live? Do you dislike the HA's because their MO is to enable people to enjoy ownership via part buy/part rent schemes?

I would be interested to know why you are so anti home ownership.

I will make a prediction, people will want to buy more than ever when house prices stabilise lower than they were and interest rates similarly stabilise at a low rate. And with more effective regulation of the Banks who have acted in the most appalling way, we should see a better and healthier home purchase concept than ever.

And that is very good news indeed.

by Victorian headmistress Tue Nov 11, 2008 06:21

You are wrong to think that anyone using BIM is or was ever 'obsessed' with clive hammond.

If anything, he was obsessed with BIM.

He was banned from BIM for his constant abuse towards others.

And for his trolling of course.

He still holds the record for having more of his posts removed than anyone else in the history of BIM.

by Vent Tue Nov 11, 2008 07:35

Not all posters agree with Victorian Headmistress

"Clives a Star !
by No actually Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:10
I dont agree; I have been around on here for the last three years and have found Clive Hammonds debating robust but fair. in most cases he has cornered every one of those who took him on and he has been called far more names than he has called himself.

It is entirely understandable that the BIM controllers are going to apply bias in the name of the perceived majority here; it is after all an anti-capitalist slant that has led to the very existence of Indymedia. Why should anyone be surprised that clive gets banned for speaking his mind?

At some point you have to agree to disagree; but that is not likely to happen in this environment.

The issue here is one of intolerance. BIM is percieved by the broad left to be in their ownership; their turf; they dont like it when someone who does not subscribe turns up and questions their beliefs as comprehensively as Clive has done."
.......................

In fact the above post underlines exactly how far "under the skin" of the true Trolls this guy Hammond actually got.

Paranoia and obsession is certainly evident. The post above from Vic. Head. is proof of that. (As if proof were needed).

by imcvol Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:20

Nobody has hacked the site to post comments - there is a simple non-technical method some users have figured out for reading comments posted before the hour delay and this bug has been around for some time and should be fixed in the next update of our software.

by sc2987 Mon Dec 29, 2008 19:27 sc2987 at gmail dot com

I am a tenant of Places for People, and live on Ashley Rd. I work/volunteer full-time (for the princely sum of £6k pa) and don't claim benefits, although I don't see why this makes my opinion any more valid than someone who doesn't work.

I fully support squatting empty buildings - when the property in question is finally converted into flats (which may take many years; it's already been empty for three I think, and I believe they intend to use it as a site office for now anyway), there will probably not be as many people living in it as there were squatters anyway.

So it was providing more homes when squatted than when converted - why do NHS workers deserve a house (if they live with their parents at least they *have* a home) more than otherwise-homeless squatters?

There are many thousands of empty homes - many owned by 'social' landlords, which as said, often don't care for their tenants (PFP's director got almost £300k last year) and don't look after their properties (our flat is damp and other repairs have been performed badly numerous times, wasting money).

Why shouldn't people live in these empty places, usually improving them and stopping them falling down? More private owners should be forced to sell their empty homes to the council for housing.

In fact personally, I don't believe that anyone should own more than one house - nobody should make profit out of a basic need such as housing.

Nobody should own land either, you should only have rights over what you are currently using for your and your local community's benefit. So anyone could go into the country and build themselves a house and live in it and grow their own food. But instead, people who stole the land by use of force hundreds of years ago have passed it down to their descendants or sold it to other rich/powerful people, depriving the majority of the population of their natural rights to live where and how they please.

Yes, I'm an anarchist - it's a dirty word to many, but it doesn't mean you want to burn down buildings and loot shops, just that you shouldn't be selfish with the natural resources available to all, and that you should be aware that there is a limit to them, unlike capitalists, who seem to think they are limitless, or a system of endless growth would not work...

I think people should be aware that most people in the world could be defined as squatters, technically, because of who legally owns the land they live on. But that legal ownership does not give them a moral right to it.