Hello Basa,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by basa
Eh ?? HOBBY ??  Squatting (which is what this is) isn't a bloody hobby .. it's illegal occupation.  |
I wasn't suggesting that squatting was a hobby - I think Xaccers, at least, will understand the point I was making.
Squatting is not "illegal" occupation. Squatting itself is a legal right which has been exercised over many years where there is a dispute over ownership or the registration entitlement to land, title or property.
In any regard, and as previously stated on numerous occasions, the family involved made no claim as to ownership or title of the land in question.
Under the Land Registration Act 2002 (Adverse posession of registered land - points 3.1 - 3.3) no one can be deemed to be a squatter / squatting or claim squatters rights if they do not lay claim to the intention to posess.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by basa
No one in their right mind in this situation would not attempt to argue that they owned or had any similar right to occupy the land .. they were trespassing ffs.
|
They may well have been guilty of trespass in the earlier scenario which led to the latest appeal, nevertheless my earlier points (above) still stand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by basa
The 'crime' was a given. The legal arguments were whether the illegal occupation could be justified by some other nebulous stretching of Human Rights legislation.  |
I'm sorry but you are wrong. No crime, by either party to this appeal, has been alleged or proved. The legal arguments were not about "illegal occupation" they were on the matter of whether the Council had failed in its statutory duties to the homeless family in question. This is not actually a criminal offence but falls remiss under "abuse of process" or "negligence".
EDIT.
Great - I see that now we're getting some serious debate on a serious issue, lets keep it up.