Nick...I was referring to France...that in France profit is not king....I am well aware profit has the pole position in the UK. My comment underlined that though the UK MPs were shown to be a shady bunch at best...the fact is that the French politicians are paid more, claim more expenses without having to prove they spent any of the money...and there are enough of them who have been proven to be criminals.....to compare no less favourably that the British MPs. I wasnt upholding the UK...I was saying in terms of politicians, there wasnt a huge amount to choose between them...
Carol, not often I disagree with you, but profit as king?
Look at the top bankers (and I'm thinking of one who stepped down recently from the bank that was still making astronomical profits all through the current crisis), literally shafted every man and woman across the land because of a quest for profit.
The interest rate rigging probably cost even yourself thousands and you are defending that. Sorry I don' agree on this one.
Barbara...if we had moved to Shangrila I would agree with you. France has a reputation as the most communist country in Europe....the reason is that profit is not king and the government pretty much ensure, by fair means or foul that most people will not get the chance to 'make it rich' by hard graft. I believe strongly that this is one of the reasons for the laid back French....why bother when you are not going to get rich anyway. Now...if you look at the politicians here....we are not dealing with snow white angels. Do you know they earn approximately double what the UK MPs do? not only that they have an expense account which is around 150k euros a year...and they dont need to produce any receipts...they just all claim that amount. MPs here also each get an allowance to employ staff...check out how many do that...and you will find its always family that are employed. Thus...the MPs pay themselves handsomly....way more than almost any other profession in France....and in terms of breaking the law...well...lets say several have been caught out including ex presidents...and the family of previous presidents...so no, I dont think the politicians here are a reason to decamp from the UK.
Ah now Carol you can see why I left UK.
It was all going that way for a long time but it has escalated and come out closer into the open now. Nowhere else to hide and so many rogues...In banks, in politics...sadly Carol I saw it hospitals....and Drs surgeries...
To fall out of love with my dear old London probably broke my heart.....but too much was taken from me by misconduct by many offical sectures. It is behind me but the scars are still there.
Couldnt agree more regarding a certain person with a new place in the government...now what message does that send out? cheat and lie about your expenses and the government will come looking for you to reward you....only doesnt work for the ordinary people...who tend to get locked up for cheating and lying....says a lot about a country that the populace are ruled by criminals...
Nicely put Carol, rather a Victorian turn of phrase that had nothing do with people being criminals but the assumption that all criminals came from their class. As you say, does it include bankers, etc, and even somebody who was given a high government office yesterday who should have been 'inside' at this present time. There's classes and classes, as ever.
Interesting use of language...and Im not disagreeing with anyone...but when we use the term criminal underclass, I am assuming that refers to the everyday thieves, thugs and con-men. What do we call those thieves, thugs and conmen who practice fraud within banks and maybe end up stealing 60 million...or those companies that disappear thousands of peoples pensions....those Banks who have diddled a lot of us out of money mis- selling policies etc....are they an underclass....or a different class altogether. I ask because as a keen student of history, the underclass usually referred to those at the bottom of society....almost the untouchables rather than the 'gentleman thief'.
I do not think any criminologist I know would agree with your use of language. But then policemen have their own folklore about people don't they?
Thank you.
Very interesting indeed, the government seems to have stuck its big mitts into a hornets' nest.
The rights are based on use of unoccupied property that is open and usually derelict and has been proven to be unused for a certain time.
It isn't at all what many reactionary panickmongers are citing, as people breaking into nice, well maintained private homes, whose owners have all the rights of anyone protecting against trespass.
http://www.ehow.co.uk/facts_6722175_uk-squatters-rights-law.html
.
"Open and Notorious An adverse possessor must possess land openly for all the world to see, as a true owner would. Secretly occupying another's land does not give the occupant any legal rights. Clearing, fencing, cultivating, or improving the land demonstrates open and notorious possession, while actual residence on the land is the most open and notorious possession of all. The owner must have actual knowledge of the adverse use, or the claimant's possession must be so notorious that it is generally known by the public or the people in the neighborhood. The notoriety of the possession puts the owner on notice that the land will be lost unless he or she seeks to recover possession of it within a certain time".
and to illustrate the true nature of the motivation for people objecting to "legal" squatting, I suggest you read this http://www.right-of-way.co.uk/property-law/squatters-rights-uk, which shows that housing prices are so ridiculous in the UK that people who are struggling to pay mortgages are bound to be livid that someone should dare to have the right to inherit a property without any deaths of close relatives being involved!
Chris, depending on which country, but generally no. No standing as such, sometimes just tolerance when what they are doing is for the benefit of the building, community and social situation.
Do squatters get to own the property? What standing do they have to stay? Very unusual scheme.
Similar trajectory, but worked a bit younger cos I'm a boy and my old man was a builder. I have mainly lived from grants, worked all hours possible, often doubling up doing consultancy work but lots of that unpaid extra hours, charity trusteeships, teaching, supervising and tutoring students. If everybody got the same wage I'd do it all over again, but I have known big mouths who preach the doctrine of egalitarianism, earn 80k a year and do sod all for it. There is no level playing field because those who have cannot share and those who do not have are on their own.
Seen that one too Jo. A place in Sussex restored by volunteers so that it could become a youth hostel but nothing on paper. Job finished, YHA ready to put in furniture, staff and so on and up pops absentee owner and says "oh no, no", brings in an expensive solicitor who calculates compensation at £400 when well over £12,000 had gone into it and the owner sells it to somebody wanting to open an expensive restaurant with several guest rooms to let. Chalk and cheese and sh*tting on people. So, know what you mean.
hmmm...not sure I would have done that for a private landlord anyway, we all have insurance Jo, if we dont then we are foolish, but without a contract agreeing to the final use of the building? guess you guys were young....now you know better!
The problem, and there will always be a problem with everyone having equal shares, is that not everyone is willing to put in equal amounts; As is prescribed, I belonged to the communist party at 17, the Socialists at 23 and now I believe in a good social support for those unable to care or provide for themselves, but being aware that I worked more hours than any of my aquaintances or friends, have worked since I was 13 in fact...all day Saturday and after school, and at times during my life Ive put in up to 70 hours a week....my husband was in a two man GP practice and he worked a minimum of 60 hours a week and on call alternate nights and weekends. Really, would I be willing to take the same share as someone who worked in a sweet shop for 20 hours a week....no, absolutely not. This is part of the argument about life in France, people want to take time and smell the roses, have long lunchtimes, not hurry in doing anything, and basically work to live...thats fine...I dont have a problem with that, and if their income is low, thats there choice...wouldnt be mine.
In 1986, with 11 other unemployed people, I spent 3 years working voluntarily,full-time, that means, for free, with no wages other than benefits, on designing, training for and raising funds - 240 THOUSAND POUNDS, for the refurbishment of a totally derelict mill in Sandwell, which had been left open for years, vandalised and used as a haven for kids to get drunk and risk injury . This all in a run-down inner city part of north Birmingham.It was very hard work and we were really young, enthusiastic and excited by the positive reaction to our ideas. We were to run a recycling collection, an art scrapstore, a recording studio, a film project, a community centre, a fair-trade corner shop and our architect thought it such a fabulous scheme, he decided to be our lodger, othe top floor of the mill, to boost income whilst we started up the businesses.
We did all this work the proper, official way, the way the anti-squatters say projects should be managed, with support from councils, training institutions, the government and the local community, and we failed, because the owner, a JERSEY TAX EXILE, refused to sell the building to us at the last minute, after the grants were approved; he used the excuse that it was going into trust for his children and he wanted to keep it as an investment.
We learned from this experience that You definitely don't get what you deserve by working hard , in fact I'd say there's a big chance that the harder you work, the more likely you are to fail to notice how much some rich bod is ripping you off. It was a terrible waste of everything and the building is still unused 25 years later.
we should have squatted it!
;-D
Tony Benn is no more a socialist than I come from Mars. So far the world has seen so little socialism in any form beyond theory so in terms of its practitioners and preachers only a lot of wind has been wasted. The ideal of the common good and shared resource in equal parts is something I believe in but have never been able to practice for lack of others with any more than the rhetoric. I have seen communal socialism in Cuba and Viet Nam (not saying the whole nation before somebody jumps down my throat) that is as close as I imagine we shall ever see. But that does not mean I shall lose faith in the good of my fellow human beings.