Metro promotes social cleansing

Squatter | 16.02.2011 14:59 | Free Spaces | Repression

The Metro has published a letter from one of its readers calling squatters 'rats', 'scum' and 'subhumans' and suggests allowing property owners to electrify their property to keep squatters out. We know where the irresponsible promotion of this kind of language leads - to social cleansing, crackdowns and probably the Tories criminalising squatting.

Here is the full disgusting text:

Regarding the news that squatters have moved into Guy Ritchie's home, the law needs to change so these freeloaders can be thrown out on the street.

It's about time property owners are allowed to electrify their property and, if the scum get hurt, then so be it. Why is it that the law-abiding - in this case, the owners - have to go through the stress, heartache and financial burden of removing these rats?

The do-gooders who wrote in a few weeks ago in support of squatting should be ashamed of themselves. If they feel so strongly for the plight of this scum, perhaps they ought to offer them a place to stay.

There is no legality, decency or thought in the actions of these subhumans. Once they are finally out of the property, they will undoubtedly have left filth and destruction of unfathomable comprehension. Things must change, it's simply not right.

B. Gibson, Essex

Squatter

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

solidarity

16.02.2011 17:29

Mr Gibsons politics can be guessed at by his use of the term "Subhumans". We need to make the case that "law abiding" is not the same thing as "responsible" and that these are often opposites. The current legal system maintains the unequal distribution of wealth; when workers go on strike to get a fairer settlement we come into conflict with the bosses law. The class struggle is between those of us who make it andthem who take it. Squatting is a direct challenge to the minority who control society and an ancient right. In the middle ages it was only the wealthy who had more positive rights such as written deeds to property. Rather than the genocide of the homeless advocated by Gibson, we should take equal rights in all things; that is the world that these squatters, and anyone else who is responsible, are fighting for.

worker

must be a troll, surely

16.02.2011 18:44

lol, that letter was so over the top it must be a troll. "...filth and destruction of unfathomable comprehension.." - come on, that is hilarious, someone must have made it up. Maybe the paper did it themselves to promote sales.

squatter

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Id agree with the letter

16.02.2011 19:20

> Squatting is a direct challenge to the minority who control society and an ancient right. In the middle ages it was only the wealthy who had more positive rights such as written deeds to property. Rather than the genocide of the homeless advocated by Gibson, we should take equal rights in all things; that is the world that these squatters, and anyone else who is responsible, are fighting for.

But it isn't, isn't it?!
Most people own property, so you can hardly call them "the minority who control society".

If someone squatted my house, then where the fuck am i going to stay?
I worked my ass off to pay the mortgage, the funishings and the bills.
Then you expect someone who to just be able to walk in, padlock the door and squat it, leaving me on the street with no access to my home?

You are an idiot. That will never work, because it is grossly unfair.

If someone works and gets a bunch of cash, and they want to spend it on a property, then they should be able to do what they want to that property including leaving it empty - because it is theirs.

Otherwise people could argue that they have a right to use your mp3 player when you arnt using it. How would you like that? An ex-criminal using your mp3 player for as long as he likes.