A convicted criminal has moved in with a married couple against their wishes after giving their address in court as his home.
Shane Sims, 19, has spent the last few days living with Brenda and Robert Cole after he was sentenced to a week’s curfew for breaching a supervision order.
But the couple claim the first they knew about it was when Sims, a friend of their daughter, moved in on Thursday - followed by security contractors who put a box in a bedroom to monitor his movements with an ankle tag.
That is Britain for you. They don’t have a constitution so the government thinks nothing of walking all over people. The labour party is especially dictatorial and full of radicals who don’t believe in the concept of private property. Arbitrary property confiscations are quite a problem over there.
Things could have been much worse they could have been squatted. The way squatters rights work is if you can get into a persons home when they are not home then you are allowed to call the police and they come around and declare the house a squat. What they do is they put a legal declaration next to the front door saying the house is now a sqaut and the only persosn who are allowed to enter the property are the squatters and their heirs. If the homeowner tries to enter their home they can be arrested for trespassing and if they try to eject the squatters they can be jailed for assault.
They are also lucky they didn’t rent to the thug because the renters rights are just as unfair.
No way in fuck I let that asshole stay in my house! I shoot him for trespassing and then plant a gun on him. Who you gonna believe me or the dead guy with an ankle tag. Better yet, I call that guy in TX who took out the robbers trying to steal in the neighborhood, he will do it know doubt.
I’m confused. What is the point of the thread? Is it that one should monitor his/her kids “friends”? The lady is complaining that “they’ve let a criminal come into” her house. How stupid do you have to get not to realize you have plenty of options? How about kicking him out and changing the locks?
It seems to me that the couple is mentally challenged (something they call “learning difficulties” in the article) and are scared to death of the guy. Sheesh! Grow a brain and some balls while you’re at it already.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m confused. What is the point of the thread? Is it that one should monitor his/her kids “friends”? The lady is complaining that “they’ve let a criminal come into” her house. How stupid do you have to get not to realize you have plenty of options? How about kicking him out and changing the locks?
It seems to me that the couple is mentally challenged (something they call “learning difficulties” in the article) and are scared to death of the guy. Sheesh! Grow a brain and some balls while you’re at it already.
This crap belongs in the Get A Life section.[/quote]
The point is tat in Britain property rights are extremely weak and the government can do things to property owners that are completely foreign to Americans to the point of being unfathomable.
For example if one rents a house from someone in Britain once they move in they can go to the government and complain “I am paying too much rent I want my rent lowered” and the government will order the landlord to lower the rent. They can also refuse to pay rent and they are entitled to live in the property as long as they and their heirs desire.
When the American founding fathers wrote the constitution they put in the provision that the government cannot come in and change the terms of a contract.
Another thing they disallowed is the forced housing of troops in private homes. Which was a response to the British ordering the colinialists to house troops in their homes. So you see Lixy the British government has a long history of ordering people to put up people in their homes who they don’t want there. Here in America the idea is totally foreign because there are constitutional safeguards like the fourth amendment and the right to privacy.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The point is tat in Britain property rights are extremely weak and the government can do things to property owners that are completely foreign to Americans to the point of being unfathomable. [/quote]
You mean to tell me that they teach you at school to expect the whole world to operate on the same property right standard as those of the USA? Didn’t they teach you that every country has a different history, different systems and different laws?
Nonsense! You could sue their asses off. Granted, if you own a dozen homes while the people you rented from are dirt poor, and if evicted would be living on the British street, the court might rule out in their favor. But that is the case all over the world and is just a consequence of the judge applying common sense.
Well, your precious constitution doesn’t apply outside your borders. Deal with it!
Yeah, right! Like US troops haven’t ever forced tipis or other privately owned habitations. And who do you think you’re kidding with “the right to privacy”? Last I checked, the US government was monitoring communications under the guise of the “war on terror”.
If you want to discuss housing laws in the UK and how you disagree with them, it’s fine by me. But the OP’s story is just a humorous tidbit (DailyMail no less!) of a couple which don’t have a clue about their legal recourse, and whose daughter is friends with thugs. If you insist on expressing your amazement at countries that do not operate by the same set of rules as yours, the least you can do is fetch a case where the victim isn’t retarded. But keep in mind that you may offend some of the T-crowd in Britain depending on the tone of your criticism.
Nonsense! You could sue their asses off. Granted, if you own a dozen homes while the people you rented from are dirt poor, and if evicted would be living on the British street, the court might rule out in their favor. But that is the case all over the world and is just a consequence of the judge applying common sense.
[/quote]
Which is quite often the opposite of economic sense because such a ruling leads to less housing for the poor.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The point is tat in Britain property rights are extremely weak and the government can do things to property owners that are completely foreign to Americans to the point of being unfathomable.
You mean to tell me that they teach you at school to expect the whole world to operate on the same property right standard as those of the USA? Didn’t they teach you that every country has a different history, different systems and different laws? .[/quote]
American law is based upon British common law. That is why American law does have provision for hostile property aquisition, it just isn’t so one sided in favor of squatters over here.
[quote]
For example if one rents a house from someone in Britain once they move in they can go to the government and complain “I am paying too much rent I want my rent lowered” and the government will order the landlord to lower the rent. They can also refuse to pay rent and they are entitled to live in the property as long as they and their heirs desire.
Nonsense! You could sue their asses off. Granted, if you own a dozen homes while the people you rented from are dirt poor, and if evicted would be living on the British street, the court might rule out in their favor. But that is the case all over the world and is just a consequence of the judge applying common sense. [/quote]
I agree it is nonsense but that is the system the wonderful labour party has put in place. Trying to sue would not be advisable, the laws are against landlords and the person being sued can claim for their legal expenses if they win the case.
If people are dirt poor and are going to be out on the street that is what welfare is for. If a landlord owns one or a dozen homes why would it be common sense to force them to become a charity and support someone else? How is the landlord to make their mortgage payments, or property tax payments? How is the landlord going to be able to afford to maintain the property? How is the landlord going to be able to support their own family when they are forced to support a deadbeat? Why would anyone want to rent property when they are faced with such an unjust legal system? You aren’t making any sense there Lixy. Why would it be common sense for the government to tax someone like that? It certainly wouldn’t be fair.
[quote]
When the American founding fathers wrote the constitution they put in the provision that the government cannot come in and change the terms of a contract.
Well, your precious constitution doesn’t apply outside your borders. Deal with it! [/quote]
There are plenty of people around the world who wished they had such protections from their government.
[quote]
Another thing they disallowed is the forced housing of troops in private homes. Which was a response to the British ordering the colinialists to house troops in their homes. So you see Lixy the British government has a long history of ordering people to put up people in their homes who they don’t want there. Here in America the idea is totally foreign because there are constitutional safeguards like the fourth amendment and the right to privacy.
Yeah, right! Like US troops haven’t ever forced tipis or other privately owned habitations. And who do you think you’re kidding with “the right to privacy”? Last I checked, the US government was monitoring communications under the guise of the “war on terror”. [/quote]
Name some incidents that are going on right now where Americans are being forced to house troops.
[quote]
If you want to discuss housing laws in the UK and how you disagree with them, it’s fine by me. But the OP’s story is just a humorous tidbit (DailyMail no less!) of a couple which don’t have a clue about their legal recourse, and whose daughter is friends with thugs. If you insist on expressing your amazement at countries that do not operate by the same set of rules as yours, the least you can do is fetch a case where the victim isn’t retarded. But keep in mind that you may offend some of the T-crowd in Britain depending on the tone of your criticism.[/quote]
No the story is not humourous. That couple does not have any recourse. If they take a stand against the government they are going to be sending a dangerous criminal with a history of violence to jail! This is in a country where there is no right to bear arms, where many real police have been replaced by powerless PCSO’s and the judiciary is overrun by liberals who don’t think murder is a serious crime.
If you don’t believe that the family had no choice you should read what some of what the Brits on this board have written about vendettas in Britain.
In Britain today thugs like that kid in this story are a power unto themsleves and decent law abiding people daren’t cross them. This is labour party policy.
I don’t think what I am writing would be offensive to most of the Brits on this board unless they are a labour party diehards. If that is the case all I have to say is the truth hurts.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
American law is based upon British common law. That is why American law does have provision for hostile property aquisition, it just isn’t so one sided in favor of squatters over here. [/quote]
So…? How’s that relevant to our discussion?
Do you mean to tell me that people being sued in the US cannot “claim for their legal expenses if they win the case”? Seriously.
I said the court might favor the underdog and there are certainly cases where such rulings are preferable for society. It is not an automatic rule, but it is what I have observed to be the prevailing system around the world.
I see. You’re paving the way for a US invasion of Britain.
Nice!
War tax resistance has been going on for years in the USA. The government is pressuring them at gunpoint to provide money for housing the troops.
If you think there are no other surveillance programs going on as we speak, you’re delusional.
Well, it cracked me up.
Sure they do. What’s stopping them from kick him out?
So…isn’t that where he belongs?
Just like everywhere else.
Grand conspiracy theory again? Do you listen to yourself? “The judiciary is overrun by liberals who don’t think murder is a serious crime”???
Sheesh.
Of course I don’t believe that. It’s their bloody house, and that thug has no business being there. They are simpletons who didn’t gauge the situation when the cops knocked on their door. They had every right to refuse his entry - using force if necessary - but they didn’t. Now that they realized their blunder, they’re milking the story by selling it to tabloids.
You mean to tell me that people who don’t stand up to bullies get abused by them? Stop the presses! Sifu just dropped a bombshell.
I know that Tony Blair is a thug, but to actually say he’s in league with petty thieves to poison the lives of “decent law abiding people” is something else.
I should probably point out at this point that two-party systems suck.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I said the court might favor the underdog and there are certainly cases where such rulings are preferable for society. It is not an automatic rule, but it is what I have observed to be the prevailing system around the world.
[/quote]
In what non-feudal situation would this be the case?
But wait… this is going somewhere.
So let’s get this right: it’s cool for the government to confiscate property from its lawful owners and give it to the helpless poor. But when “simpletons” (learning disabled folks) who aren’t capable of defending themselves have a criminal forcibly moved into their house, its their own fault? Bizarre.
And again…
I’m having a lot of trouble following your logic. Perhaps its because of the format…
I know that Tony Blair is a thug, but to actually say he’s in league with petty thieves to poison the lives of “decent law abiding people” is something else.
nephorm wrote:
I think it’s Gordon Brown, now. Just a heads-up.[/quote]
Wrong, it is David Tennant. Oh wait, that’s Doctor Who.
As a law student I’d be very interested in a cited example of such a case, and would appreciate it. As you likely know, Britain operates on a common law system, so most cases are very well documented.
Nikiforos I don’t have any actual case law stories that I can link you to. As a student of law you would probably be better able to find the pertinant information.
I was going off of my own families experiences renting realestate in the UK. I had a cousin who fixed up a house and rented it to an older lady and her dog. Right after she moved in she brought in her whole family which hadn’t been agreed upon.
Then she went to the residential property tribunal service and claimed she was being charged too much rent, they in turn went after my cousin and told him he was charging the lady too much rent and he had to lower it.
My cousin ended up losing his ass because he couldn’t make enough to cover his mortgage payment from the rent. So my cousin had to go into his own pocket every month to pay for this lady and her family to live in his house.
I think the offending bit of legislation that is responsible for this injustice is the rent act of 1977. The offending government office is the residential property tribunal service. I hope that helps you with you search.