• atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The occupation of a person’s non-residential property without their permission is not a crime in England

    slowblink.gif

    edit: TIL! Thanks for reminding me that if something seems far out, chances are that my understanding just hasn’t caught up.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Probably it’s civil law/tort law, not criminal law. Like, someone can’t go to jail for it, but can be sued over it.

      Crimes are only violations of criminal law.

      googles

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_in_English_law

      Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

      Sounds like that might be the case.

      Trespass in English (and Welsh) law is mostly a civil tort rather than a criminal offence. The circumstances in which it is a criminal offence are usually trespass on educational premises, railway property, protected sites, etc.[failed verification]

      Not the case here in the States:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_land

      United States

      In most states, a criminal trespass to land is defined by statute and constitutes a misdemeanor. In some states, it may be a felony under certain circumstances (e.g., trespassing on a research facility or school property). Remedies between private parties for trespass may include an injunction or money damages.

    • thallamabond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      These are old laws, and maybe good ones depending on perspective. My understanding is that property should be used if abandoned.

  • saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    He has an abandoned restaurant in Brisbane, Australia too—at least last time I was there not too long ago.

    I went a few years back when it opened and it was a let down. Seemed to be run by someone that had no idea how to make a menu and run a restaurant. Solid 6/10. Just “some place”.

    • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Maybe he needs to start a show called “Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares of Ramsey Kitchens” and fix all the restaurants he has started that have been mismanaged.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Squatters have taken over a pub in London leased by Gordon Ramsay that is up for sale with a guide price of £13m.

    A group of at least six people locked themselves inside the Grade II-listed York and Albany hotel and gastropub, next to Regent’s Park, boarding up the windows and putting up a “legal warning” defending their takeover, the Sun reported.

    In photographs taken before the windows were further boarded up, a person could be seen sleeping on a sofa in the bar, surrounded by litter.

    On Saturday morning, two masked people wearing black tracksuits and carrying backpacks and carrier bags exited the property, running away from reporters before they could be approached for comment.

    Ramsay called the police on Wednesday but was unable to have the people removed, it is understood.

    The Kitchen Nightmares host unsuccessfully attempted to free himself from the lease in a legal battle at the high court in 2015.


    The original article contains 513 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    According to government guidance, squatters can apply to become the registered owners of a property if they have occupied it continuously for 10 years, acted as owners for the whole of that time and had not previously been given permission to live there by the owner.

    Interesting loophole. Can you prove the squatters were not given verbal permission by the owner?

    Also, the fact that a group of people can help themselves to a property that is vacant for good reason and have legal protection is kinda bullshit.

    • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’d say its a lot less bullshit than having empty spaces while people are homeless.

        • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          You’re right of course, but the general point stands. Why can they squat in there if its used at all and not just collecting dust?

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Largely because squatters usually trash and destroy any property they squat in, or at best leave it full of litter.

            Very few actually take any care of the property whatsoever.

            • twistypencil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Citation needed. As someone who has lived in pretty well kept squats in the Netherlands, I wonder wtf bubble you are in

    • sandman@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Also, the fact that a group of people can help themselves to a property that is vacant for good reason and have legal protection is kinda bullshit.

      If you have someone living on your property for 10 years without you knowing, that’s your fault. Clearly their presence isn’t that big of a deal.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        They have legal protection well before ten years though, this website outlines it.

        https://www.complete-ltd.com/landlord-library-squatters-rights/

        If the squatter has been in the property for more than 28 days or is in a commercial property, the landlord will need to file a claim for possession in court. This is a more complex process and can take several months to complete.

        It sounds like an absolute nightmare if you’re renovating or between tenancies with a commercial property.

        • sandman@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          That honestly aligns more with what I’ve heard in the past.

          I thought the US had a similar set up, but I may be wrong.

          I’m curious what the rationale is given for these laws. Is it just a remnant of squatter’s rights, when people could just up and stay in truly abandoned locations until they practically owned it?

  • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Hopefully this starts to shed some light on the travesty that is ‘squatters rights’. Squatters shouldn’t have rights.

      • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Where the hell are you getting that from? I didn’t say anything about immigrants.
        This has nothing to do with race or nationality or citizenship. I am saying if you have no rights to a building, as in you don’t own the building and you don’t have a lease there, then barging in and locking the door behind you should not automatically grant you any sort of special treatment. You are an illegal intruder, and the police should go in and arrest you. I think that should apply in situations like this and it should apply in situations even if the owner of the building hasn’t been around in a month.

    • twistypencil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, a bunch of people should be disenfranchised arbitrarily by someone on the internet! Let’s go! Oh yeah who cares about people anyway!

      • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Where the hell are you getting any of that from what I said? I am saying that if you don’t own a building, and otherwise have no rights to that building, just because you barge in and lock the door doesn’t mean you should own the building or have any rights to that building whatsoever. The police should go in and arrest you.