Brixton Clifton Mansions former squats - background, 2011 evictions and latest news

[ViolentPanda]

Emet, was there any talk at these meetings of forming some sort of cooperative to run the buildings?

Also, could you tell us why, in your opinion, did the council get a notice of eviction in court. Why did they not just ask you to leave, and why do you think there were so many police officers present on Tuesday?

Also, have you ever considered being a guradian with Camelot? Do the people who work for them have something you don't?

You realise that if the residents of Clifton Mansions had "left", they'd have lost any access to services such as emergency housing from Lambeth Council because they would have rendered themselves (in the eyes of the law "intentionally homeless"?
In terms of securing a possible roof over their own heads, waiting on eviction was merely pragmatic.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Capital probably.


I must admit though, this 'guardian' system seems pretty dubious to me - and the likes of private companies such as Camelot being involved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...9/housing-property-guardians-squatters-rights

So it's the reintroduction under another name of tied housing, with all the insecurity of tenure and minimal property standards that mass tied housing had.

 

[Laughing Toad]

For it to be a principle, there needs to be demonstrable mass applicability of your theory.

Yes. It applies universally.

 

[Laughing Toad]

Who owns local authority social housing?

Ultimately, the people of the borough. The people the housing is effectively held in trust for.

Royal Bank of Scotland is also publicly owned, but you can't just walk in and take what you want.

 

[Laughing Toad]

So it's the reintroduction under another name of tied housing, with all the insecurity of tenure and minimal property standards that mass tied housing had.

Nobody is being forced to work for them, but it looks like a good deal to me. I'm thinking of doing it myself.

 

[stethoscope]

If having no rights as a tenant is 'a good deal'.

 

[Laughing Toad]

If having no rights as a tenant is 'a good deal'.

Yeah. Seems fine to me, all things considered.

 

[Laughing Toad]

You realise that if the residents of Clifton Mansions had "left", they'd have lost any access to services such as emergency housing from Lambeth Council because they would have rendered themselves (in the eyes of the law "intentionally homeless"?
In terms of securing a possible roof over their own heads, waiting on eviction was merely pragmatic.

A letter asking you to leave is sufficient. See here.

 

[Aquamarine]

Royal Bank of Scotland is also publicly owned, but you can't just walk in and take what you want. R

That really is not a very good analogy.

I'm thinking of doing it myself.

Maybe not so principled after all. Are you in priority need? In keeping with the ethos and principle of social housing these properties could have been offered to a short-life housing cooperative instead of Camelot.

 

[Laughing Toad]

That really is not a very good analogy.

It's brilliant. I only wish I'd thought of it earlier.

Maybe not so principled after all. Are you in priority need? In keeping with the ethos and principle of social housing these properties could have been offered to a short-life housing cooperative instead of Camelot.

You can't ban people from living in houses just because some people are poor.

 

[Aquamarine]

It's brilliant. I only wish I'd thought of it earlier.

Only if you are happy with the currrent financial system.

You can't ban people from living in houses just because some people are poor.

So, you think social housing is also wrong.

 

[stethoscope]

Toad's a Taxpayers Alliance cunt iirc.

 

[Gramsci]

Yes, a co-op was mentioned. People weren't interested for a variety of reasons. We would have had to buy the building. The figures have gone from my memory, but the price seemed very high. No one would brook the guy I mentioned on page 3. Some weren't interested in the responsibility. There were a lot of foreigners, some quite young, who came here because London was booming and there was no work where they came from, but might go home if things improved. One or two were against paying rent on any conditions. Some had no good reason. Nothing came of it anyway.

The council were terrified of anything that looked like a formal agreement. Apparently, to the courts, it looks like a tenancy agreement and must be avoided. I would have gone if there had been an agreement. Even better if they had pointed me to an empty building to 'look after'.

They pretty near had a riot at St Agnes Place when that was decanted. Maybe that was the reason. I found most of the squatters there to be very neighbourly but not politically cohesive. I thought the police action looked like overkill. Most of us were gone by Sunday. I was, and didn't
go back for the 'party'.

I'm homeless and I don't have job - perhaps I'll apply! Hadn't thought of it before.

You have all my sympathy. Keeping a mansion block like that going in an area like Brixton is no easy task.

Some of my East European friends squat due to low wages. And its getting more and more difficult. I can understand why people like u squat. Its unfortunate u had to leave Brixton in this way. The whole thing must have been traumatic for you.

 

[Gramsci]

Capital probably.


I must admit though, this 'guardian' system seems pretty dubious to me - and the likes of private companies such as Camelot being involved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...9/housing-property-guardians-squatters-rights[/QUOTE

Im no expert but Camelot saying they have watertight legal system of "license" would seem to be arguable if someone took it to court. This is a new form of Rachmanism. To say that you are taking rent off someone then saying they have no rights as a tenant might not stand up in court.

Its that legal thing- if it walks like a duck ,quacks like a duck its a duck even if you call it a cow.

 

[Aquamarine]

this from Wikipedia - Camelot also provide squat eviction services and security guards. The company successfully lobbied the French government to introduce anti-squatting legislation.

 

[stethoscope]

this from Wikipedia - Camelot also provide squat eviction services and security guards. The company successfully lobbied the French government to introduce anti-squatting legislation.

It wouldn't surprise me if they've been leaning on this government too given the recent talk re. proposals to criminalise squatting. Nothing like legislation in order to help some more private companies get rich at the expense of those who haven't got.

 

[Emet]

You have all my sympathy. Keeping a mansion block like that going in an area like Brixton is no easy task.

Some of my East European friends squat due to low wages. And its getting more and more difficult. I can understand why people like u squat. Its unfortunate u had to leave Brixton in this way. The whole thing must have been traumatic for you.

Thanks for the sympathy.

We would still be there but for the crackheads. The loss of control of the gates was critical. If the squatters had been a shade braver and more politically savvy we could have kept them out.

 

[Emet]

It is strangely liberating to be away though. Not having to worry about some loony crackhead, with a knife, in your stairwell, is a relief. Just a month ago I was chased up the stairs by such a loon after disturbing him trying to break into my neighbour's flat.

 

[Gramsci]

this from Wikipedia - Camelot also provide squat eviction services and security guards. The company successfully lobbied the French government to introduce anti-squatting legislation.

From the same Wikipedia page found this Dutch documentary ( Camelot started out there):



As I thought a lot of the things Camelot do are arguable in Housing Law. They talk to a Professor of Housing Law about the lack of rights. If u go to last 5- 10 minutes of doc he is there and they summarise some of the points made in the doc.

As the Prof says the insecurity of the peoples situation means they are unlikely to go to court. They are at a disadvantage when faced with a company. As he said the wheels of justice take a lot of time.

The Professor of Housing also thought that public authorities should not use companies like Camelot. The Government and local authorities are supposed to protect the rights of tenants. By using companies like Camelot they are helping to erode tenants rights.

Also that this should be got rid of as there is already way to give temporary tenancies to people without the loss of rights and privacy that goes with Camelots way of doing things.

The doc shows that Camelot invade peoples privacy, use them as unpaid labour and collect a fee from them which they refuse to term rent. Which , in the programme , they work out is a lot more than management costs. So is in effect profit.

What I find scary about it is that this is the way things are going in a work as well- "flexible labour practises".

The doc is worth seeing for the way the Director of the Camelot defends himself. He is repulsive smarmy thug in a suit.

Its a good doc about an hour long and free to watch.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes. It applies universally.

So demonstrate that it does, don't just make the claim.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Royal Bank of Scotland is also publicly owned, but you can't just walk in and take what you want.

Don't be fatuous, there's no comparison of function, you dolt.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nobody is being forced to work for them...

More fatuity. No-one has claimed that anyone will be forced to work for them.

but it looks like a good deal to me. I'm thinking of doing it myself.

As long as you expect no sympathy if your lack of tenancy rights bites your arse.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A letter asking you to leave is sufficient. See here.

Tell me, how often do you deal with the Lambeth housing office?

To get priority, i.e. to even be considered for emergency housing, you need to be evicted. The stuff your page refers to is required just to get on the housing list as a homeless person, it promises nothing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's brilliant. I only wish I'd thought of it earlier.

If you believe that such a fatuous analogy is "brilliant", it's little wonder no-one can get past your self-assurance. You're too dense to realise what a twat you are.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Only if you are happy with the currrent financial system.

Not even then. There's no comparative relation between local authority social housing and who owns it (i.e. the local authority holds it for use by an ever-changing pool of entitled borough residents and achieves a great deal of use-value), and Royal Bank of Scotland and who owns it (i.e. the government has purchased a large controlling stake of stock in the company on which it can, through sensible practice, sell without a loss but achieves little use-value).

In short, LA is an idiot.

So, you think social housing is also wrong.

It (LA) strikes me as the sort of person who thinks that anything they personally disagree with is "wrong".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Toad's a Taxpayers Alliance cunt iirc.

Isn't that a group of dishonest, self-serving whiners who moan about anybody except their membership getting any state assistance? I seem to recall a few exposés about grubby hands grasping at various bits of corporate welfare.

 

[Laughing Toad]

I'm homeless and I don't have job - perhaps I'll apply! Hadn't thought of it before.

Brilliant! Good luck if you do apply.

 

[Laughing Toad]

So demonstrate that it does, don't just make the claim.

Employing capital in owning anything necessarily excludes the opportunity of employing that capital in something else.

Anything.

 

[Laughing Toad]

Don't be fatuous, there's no comparison of function, you dolt.

Just because something is publicly owned doesn't mean that there aren't rules governing the use of its assets. It applies equally to Council owned houses, and Royal Bank of Scotland cash.

 

[TruXta]

Employing capital in owning anything necessarily excludes the opportunity of employing that capital in something else.

Anything.

Now tell us why that is a bad thing.