x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Written by rosalind renshaw

A Bristol agency has had its windows smashed in by a group of anarchists.

In a post by Act for Freedom, the demonstrators said their vandalism was an expression of rage against all estate agents.

They picked on Maggs & Allen because of their part in trying to evict squatters who have occupied a pair of buildings since April 2010.

It is understood that the buildings’ owners are registered on the Isle of Man and that Maggs & Allen started possession proceedings last November.

The buildings were at the heart of the Bristol riots that rocked the city this April.

Maggs & Allen is a highly reputable firm, with NAEA, RICS, NAVA and Ombudsman memberships.

The post said: “We did this in response to Maggs & Allen's part in the threatened eviction of the Freeshop and the Emporium, two squatted spaces on Stokes Croft. Our solidarity goes out to all people being threatened with eviction, from those in squats to those who can't afford their rent.

“To those who seek to criminalise squatting – a law designed only to protect property, which will make it harder for anyone, squatters or not, to house themselves: let this be an indication that we will resist.

“Our actions last night were an expression of our rage against all estate agents and all others who profit from people's need for shelter.

“For those who profit from inflating rent prices and benefit from rising instability and the increasing lack of control in our lives, we have nothing but rocks and anger.

“We refuse to wait for your bailiffs and intend to take the fight to those who attack us. Our struggle for freedom is one of our own choosing.”

The Act for Freedom campaign against Maggs & Allen comes at a time when campaigners are trying to making squatting an illegal act.

Comments

  • icon

    Mike Wilson. I'm glad you didn't walk away. Sign of character - and one which I sincerely hope wardy follows!!

    Second things first, mate. Your statement "It's wrong, immoral, illegal, stupid, moronic and counter-productive" started out well. You have to admit that it was like pulling teeth getting you to post it - and the 'counter-productive' bit at the end is, I believe, testament to the fact that in many ways you agree with the protests - but not the actions. That being said, the acknowledgement that the actions were wrong is what is important here.

    Now then - to your scenario. Good one - well done in coming up with that one to put me on the spot - but boy! can I give you a relevant answer!

    Okay. Number 1 son's car was pronounced terminally ill just before Christmas. I had been toying with the idea of changing mine for some time - but was in no hurry. When something came along, I'd apply myself then. Mine was paid for; in good order - so why rush in?

    ANYWAY, we had previously discussed the possibility of him buying mine. price was a bit more than he wanted to pay - but as he and his good lady are thinking of starting a family, the car would be ideal and he knew the history, so it made sense.

    THEN - I was offered a great motor at a great price. Went online to see how much mine was 'worth'. Would get 'X' for it selling it privately; 'Y' from the garage. I sold it to Number 1 son for midway between the two. He saved hundreds against an identical car. Then I gave Number 2 son the balance - meaning that I got the 'bottom book', and they both got equal benefit of the deal.

    How would this work in the housing market? Simple. IF and WHEN I come to sell, then I will be doing one of three things. I will be upsizing (doubtful); downsizing; or sideways-moving. IF either of my sons wished to buy my property I would operate exactly the same principle. Say we were downsizing by fifty grand. Then I would give the son who wishes to buy the property £25k off the realistic appraisal price; and the other son I would give an equal amount on completion.

    What you forget, Mike, is that like many other parents, the wealth in my property will go to them eventually anyway. I hazard a guess that the same will apply to you and yours.

    And as a caring parent (like yourself...), I will do anything I physically can for my boys.

    • 28 July 2011 00:04 AM
  • icon

    Having worked in Bristol years gone by I know that there is a strong "Magic Mushroom Followers" of squatters and hard core "New Age Travellers". Taking a hard line on crime, those that live off the state should loose their benefits if they commit crime. Then maybe the free handouts, do as like attitude may change for the better.

    • 26 July 2011 14:04 PM
  • icon

    @PeeBee

    I said I'd shut up but I must respond to this ... 'I paid the owner of my property over double what he paid for it a decade earlier.'

    Now think of it personally. You buy a house when your son is 20 for £200k. 10 years later you decide to sell. He's now 30 and he'd like to buy it. 'How much do you want for it Dad?'

    '400k son'

    'What?! Why do you want me to pay double what you paid?

    'Because, if you don't, the banks will lend someone else the money and they will pay me double.'

    And that, in a nutshell, is it. The fact that your son will buy someone else's house and someone else's son will buy your's just depersonalises it. It doesn't make it 'right'.

    And my final word on people putting in estate agents' windows.

    It's wrong, immoral, illegal, stupid, moronic and counter-productive. Look how it has brought out the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' comments here. And, as someone pointed it, it may well frighten and intimidate the staff - which is terrible.

    And what I hope (again) is my final word on here - I've succeeded in boring myself. Time to get back to work.

    • 26 July 2011 13:18 PM
  • icon

    To get back OT and less personal look at the facts. What was done was a criminal act. Therefore they should be punished because that is the law of the land.

    As an aside you can argue justification but it does not change the facts - criminal act requires punishment.

    • 26 July 2011 12:33 PM
  • icon

    Qamar, you, along with millions of other people are completely deluded with the change you think protesting will bring about.

    You say the people want their power back?? In the whole of human history, "the people" have never had the power and they never will.

    It is inevitable in any society, civilisation etc that the elite rule the people, whether you are in a dictatorship or democracy, there is little difference.

    Sure, you can make a stand and maybe get "noticed" but what good does it do? Absolutely nothing. The best you can do is wake up, realise nothing is going to change and make best of the current situation.

    It will not be long before your views could be classed as terrorism. Watch what you say on the internet.

    • 26 July 2011 12:01 PM
  • icon

    Get a job you lazy long haired lay abouts!!

    • 26 July 2011 11:33 AM
  • icon

    Mike Wilson: "Comparing someone smashing a shop window with someone making off to France with half a million quid borrowed by other people - well I know which I think is the greater wrong." Oh, come on, Mike - you make this sound like some dodgy solicitor who b*ggers off into the sunset with the contents of his clients' account. You are talking about someone SELLING A HOME to someone else - for what that person is prepared to pay for it!!

    What about those who have owned gold since it was tuppence an ounce? Should THEY be criminalised in the way you suggest homeowners be viewed when they come to sell at MARKET VALUE?

    You have said before that you enjoy a six-figure salary. Do you NEED that amount - or are you just adding to the financial burden of the country and the wage misery of others? After all, in order for you to enjoy your income, three or four others need to earn peanuts so that the national average be where it is...

    You and me have had a pretty bumpy ride on this site. Sometimes we agree; other times we are poles apart. Today, we are as far apart as ever we have been, I am afraid.

    One thing I CAN do is to recount previous posts that you have made which I have strongly disagreed with. Several months ago you went all 'Wolfie Smith' on us and started banging on about it wouldn't be long before the generation below us revolted - and that it would be messy. Now, you offer 'reasons' why acts such as this take place. You say you don't condone the act. As a responsible adult and father you should be demanding that those who are responsible be tracked down like ANY OTHER criminal and brought to justice - otherwise what message are you giving out to the next generation?

    You state "We are talking about a whole generation - yes, millions of them, our children, who have been and are being systematically robbed by the generation before them." I repeat, Mike - NO ROBBERY here. I paid the owner of my property over double what he paid for it a decade earlier. That's what hapens - and no doubt you did exaxctly the same... maybe even worse.

    Like you, I have two in that generation. They work hard, they enjoy their lives. THEY ABIDE BY THE LAW. Yes, they'd love to be able to buy a house - but they ain't gonna start committing anti-establishment or terrorist acts just because they live in rented properties. I brought them up different to that - and so did you with yours.

    Don't offer excuses for the loons, goons and idiots. They need punishing.

    • 26 July 2011 10:48 AM
  • icon

    @WoodenTop

    'This is supposed to be a forum for Estate Agents not for people to air there personal non-estate agency or anti estate agent views.'

    My views are not anti estate agent or estate agency - I've met some really good agents in my time and, let's face it, if people didn't want to use your services they wouldn't.

    But, not for the first time, I take your (and others') point. I will try to depart and leave you in peace.

    • 26 July 2011 10:34 AM
  • icon

    @Chris

    You wrote: 'My parents have just paid off their home. They have just retired also and been paying off their mortgage their whole lives. Sure they started off with a £16k mortgage, which at the time was the earth for a house, but they saved hard for a few years to get a deposit together and as the years went by, salaries increased and servicing the loan got easier. This is still possible today.'

    Imagine this. A couple buy a 2 up - 2 down terraced cottage in Granary Lane, Budleigh Salterton in 1986. They pay 20k for it with a deposit of 2.5k and a mortgage of 18.5k. The husband earns 8k - a moderate wage for the time. The couple have a child straight away. 25 years later they decide to sell the house. Their child is about to get married so they decide to sell the house to their child at whatever market value is. They call an estate agent in and he tells them that cottages in their street now change hands for 300k. Their child says 'I've managed to save up 10k - 4 times the deposit you had when you bought the house 25 years ago - but I now need a mortgage of £290k. I earn 22k - a moderate wage.'

    'Mum, Dad - why do you want me to take on such a massive mortgage to buy your house off you?'

    • 26 July 2011 10:30 AM
  • icon

    This post is typical of why EAT is going down the drain.

    This is supposed to be a forum for Estate Agents not for people to air there personal non-estate agency or anti estate agent views.

    It is about time you got to grips ROS for if I was one of your advertisers I would be very unhappy to have read these posts. I know of a number of agents who have now switched off reading EAT. You have let the rot set in and need to take a hard look what EAT stands for or was meant to!

    • 26 July 2011 10:24 AM
  • icon

    @Chris

    You wrote:
    'Mike you are very bitter about this and you make the assumption that anyone that owns property/ part owns property must be doing or have done something wrong, because they have and you/ others have-not!!! '

    Weird how some people interpret what other people write. You have decided that I am 'bitter'. What a strange adjective. I'm actually not 'bitter' at all. I'm a very upbeat, positive person and I'm way too old to waste my energy being 'bitter'.

    And, as a matter of fact, I do own a property worth the provervial half a million. So, I'm not 'bitter' because I'm not a property owner. I'm just a normal bloke who doesn't like what I have seen happening to the world over the last 30 years or so. You might think everything in the garden is rosy - you're entitled to your opinion - I don't like the way the banks have massively increased consumer indebtedness and I particularly take exception to the fact that a generation (mine) became obsessed with property prices and the idea that property is a one way route to 'wealth'. When, for the 100th time, their 'wealth' is someone else's debt.

    So, let's not throw emotional adjectives like 'bitter' into the mix. Surely someone can comment on the world at large without being characterized in that way. All that sort of characterization does is attempt to diminish the argument. "Don't take any notice of what he has to say - he's BITTER". Well, sorry, but I am not.

    And you wrote:
    'For those people that have invested their savings into property and become landlords ...."

    Oh per ...leeee..eeaase! Invested their savings!

    "Buy property with NO MONEY DOWN"

    "I used a credit card as the deposit for my first property and now I own 10 properties and am on my way to becoming a pwopedee millionaire!"

    And so it went on. All most of the johny come lately BTL 'entrepreneurs' did is leverage the equity in their existing property ... and then, when the market moved up, re-mortgaged and used the increased equity as the deposit for the next one etc. etc. It's how people built the 'property portfolios' the whole industry was mad keen that everyone should have. Let's not pretend people SAVED. (Novel idea though!)

    And you wrote:
    '....squatters need locking up for trespassing'. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that trespass is a civil matter. It is not a criminal offence and the remedy is to sue for damages. I believe some people have squatted and decorated. Maybe they should get paid for decoration.

    Your attempt to distort this by saying I wouldn't like it if my house were to be burgled etc. is surely grasping at straws. The situations are chalk and cheese.

    And, as for squatters, I already have two thanks. One day they'll leave home - if they can ever afford a place of their own because, one thing is certain, I don't want them paying someone else's mortgage for them.

    • 26 July 2011 10:12 AM
  • icon

    @Ric

    I say again: "... So I didn't think it was necessary to point out I do not condone damage to property."

    • 26 July 2011 09:55 AM
  • icon

    Mike you saying/typing a one liner on your glad no one got hurt does not in my mind make me think you thought they were wrong in anyway...

    People DID get hurt, the poor staff at the agency, perhaps someones wife or child who may now fear going to work due to the clear lack of "anything" these people show, wondering what might they do next! The business owner, who does give something to the local economy (and wider) he gives jobs and now has to pay for the damage (yes his insurance may help) but his premium now goes up...he too was possibly very hurt by this, So your one liner does not show anything other than some praise almost for them at least not causing physical harm.....(mental harm is possibly much worse!)

    You do not have to have been touched physically to have been hurt, so to be frank "lock em up" is what they deserve.

    Perhaps Mike you should let a couple of squatters stay with you, in a spare room or a garage or just share your home so you can really help their cause.

    Prices, taxes have nothing to do with what these people are....look at FTB Dan, a HPC'er who gives it out (his opinion), BUT has shown huge amount of grace to not advocate in anyway the actions of these fools.

    • 26 July 2011 09:37 AM
  • icon

    Chris - how do landlords charge extra for a vacant property???

    I certainly don't recall making posts calling for more government intervention in the housing market (point these out to me if I'm wrong though). I will go on record as saying I've called for the government to do less (end SMI for a start) so house prices can correct.

    • 26 July 2011 08:53 AM
  • icon

    @ Paul J. Are you referring to me when you say block QH?

    • 26 July 2011 06:50 AM
  • icon

    @Rant
    We've had the conversation about taxes going up already, months ago. You wouldn't like the government putting up taxes on things you like to spend your money on or on things you own, so why wish it on other people, unless of course it suits you!

    As has already been pointed out, raising taxes on landlords pushes up rents and the tenant gets to pay more or the tax payer in the form of extra benefit payments through the DSS.

    Should every car have road tax even if it is off the road in pieces? No, so why should an empty house incur extra taxes. Your only answer to everything is more taxes and more state involment. We already live in the most over regulated country on the planet because of people like you. We need lower taxes to incentivise growth, not more taxes to further kill our economy.

    Give it a rest and keep saving for your deposit, the government is not going to make house prices come down so that you can get on the ladder cheaply. They have done a pretty good job of propping it up so far, so get with the program.

    • 26 July 2011 01:40 AM
  • icon

    @ Mike,
    "Comparing someone smashing a shop window with someone making off to France with half a million quid borrowed by other people - well I know which I think is the greater wrong."

    Mike you are very bitter about this and you make the assumption that anyone that owns property/ part owns property must be doing or have done something wrong, because they have and you/ others have-not!!!

    This is worse than communism because at least a communist believes that no one should own property, you are just bitter because you want to own property and can't. Pure jealousy and it is a poor personal quality, not something to be proud of.

    My parents have just paid off their home. They have just retired also and been paying off their mortgage their whole lives. Sure they started off with a £16k mortgage, which at the time was the earth for a house, but they saved hard for a few years to get a deposit together and as the years went by, salaries increased and servicing the loan got easier. This is still possible today. A first time buyer needs around a £10k deposit to buy a £100k house/ flat, which on an average salary of £20k could be possible in 3-years. We moan because the banks lent money too easily and now that they are doing this, people moan because it's hard to get on the ladder. That was the point wasn't it. At least the slowing of the number of buyers and kept house prices from rising as quickly.

    For those people that have invested their savings into property and become landlords, it is not a one way bet and many have had their fingers burnt. Like investing in the stock market, you can win or lose.

    I am sure you are about to tell me that if the BTL landlords hadn't bought all those properties, there would be more homes available and prices would be cheaper, right? Well you would be only very slightly right, maybe a few percent cheaper, but not much more! I have been selling property for nearly 18-years now and in my experience there were only around 1 or 2 buy-to-let investors in every 10 first time buyers, so if the investors didn't buy these properties, someone else would have, pushing prices up anyway.

    Easy loans and a culture that says "Better to buy than rent" has created the demand for property and this has driven prices up. This is also unlikely to change as is makes better sense to buy your own home than rent, because the loan is fixed for the duration and will eventually be cleared, yet rent is forever and it will go up with inflation. Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle on this and can't be put back inside, so unlike the pre-1980's where most people were happy to rent, this will never happen again now that the value of home ownership has been realised.

    As for the scum that feel that they live in a free Britain and occupy someone's home just because this person has had to move abroad to find work or is a probate following someone's death and the family are coming to terms with their loss before deciding what to do with the property, these squatters need locking up for trespassing.

    Condoning it some might, but when these same people break into your house while your out or help themselves to your car, you'll soon change your tune and get straight onto the police.

    As for what to do with genuine long term empty sub-standard property. The council's already search out these properties, track down the owners and obtain permission to get the properties habitable and put council tenants in them, plus pay the owner a basic rental income, so things are being done.

    • 26 July 2011 01:36 AM
  • icon

    @Ric
    ' .... unless I am missing something you seem to fail to mention that you think what these criminals did was wrong in anyway shape or form. '

    My first comment was that I was glad no person got hurt. I don't buy into this 'lock them up and throw away the key' nonsense because someone has broken a shop window. Likewise if someone squats in an empty property. So I didn't think it was necessary to point out I do not condone damage to property.

    However, nor do I condone taking a generation and loading them up with debt so the generation before can retire on their unearned equity.

    Comparing someone smashing a shop window with someone making off to France with half a million quid borrowed by other people - well I know which I think is the greater wrong.

    • 25 July 2011 23:55 PM
  • icon

    If I was on the jury of that trouble shooter I would find him guilty of animal cruelty and innocent of everything else.



    I really dislike squatters.



    I like dogs.

    • 25 July 2011 17:31 PM
  • icon

    Had a bloke who had squatters and he went in with a bulldozer and started to demolish it. Planning had been granted but the squatters could not get out quick enough. He just told them that he was employed to bulldoze it and that was what he was going to do.

    Never heard a sniff from them. Result!

    Another owner sent in a trouble shooter who went in and asked politely for them to leave and they set the dog on him. He grabbed the dog and held it out the window and let it go - he was 2 floors up at the time. When they said they would not go he held one of them out the window and they dared him to do the same which he promptly did. They left very quietly at that point. Much quicker than going to court but not really the right thing to do.

    • 25 July 2011 16:23 PM
  • icon

    @Mike

    "Where did you get that idea?"

    I am assuming your counter question to me is a serious one? so I have re-read your first two posts prior to my question and unless I am missing something you seem to fail to mention that you think what these criminals did was wrong in anyway shape or form.

    I appreciate your views on debt.....but my point is these people are criminals and for any one of them wanting to give a good character reference of why any landlord/lady should allow them to live at their property they have done a great job of showing themselves for what they are "criminals" and not worthy of being listened to.

    • 25 July 2011 15:17 PM
  • icon

    @Andy
    'Wouldn't it be simpler for LLs to reduce rent on vacant properties so people can actually afford to rent them and run a business?'

    Apparently not! 3 shops in a local row of 6 are empty. Non high street location, poor parking (half a dozen spaces in front of the shops). One of them was advertised with a local agent - 18k rent - 5k rates.

    Built, bought and paid for probably 60 years ago - why are the landlords so hell bent on keeping them empty.

    I absolutely agree with whoever expressed the sentiment of increasing the tax the longer the property stands empty. That would get them let out which, actually, benefits everybody.

    • 25 July 2011 14:25 PM
  • icon

    @Ric

    'Mike are you saying this is okay then?'

    Where did you get that idea? I don't condone that sort of behaviour. But, perhaps unlike others here, I do try to understand it.

    In my opinion the most successful protestor in history was Gandhi and he absolutely advocated non violent forms of protest.

    I don't buy into the idea that it's okay for some people to monopolise the ownership of property. This 'I own 6 buy to let properties (no, a bank lent me the money to buy 6 buy to let properties and other people (that it would not lend the money to (usually younger than me and with no collateral)), rent them from me and pay my mortgage) mentality annoys me. As I have made the point before - lots of people have been encouraging people to build a 'portfolio' of 50 properties. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to twig that, taken to its logical conclusion, only 1 person in 50 could ever own property. In a country where the supply of new build property is regulated by law - this is WRONG.

    As I understand it, if a property is empty and people occupy it without breaking in - they can claim 'squatter's rights'. With a million empty houses in this country helping to keep rents high - surely it makes sense on every level to force the use of this resource. If rents were lower people would have more money to spend on other things - creating demand and jobs in the process. Which will create tax and public services - which will create jobs etc. etc. - i.e. the money velocity in the economy increases and it's win-win.

    If someone has more property than they need, they shouldn't be surprised if people without property are, at the very least, a bit resentful.

    The point I was trying to make was that as far as I can see the younger generation are waking up. I've seen a young man wheeled out a few times recently on programs such as Newsnight - he is the author of a book on the intergenerational transfer of wealth and the poor deal young people are getting these days.

    • 25 July 2011 14:19 PM
  • icon

    "Wouldn't it be simpler for LLs to reduce rent on vacant properties so people can actually afford to rent them and run a business?"



    If the government and EU did not impose so many rules and regulations about renting and leases most probably would.

    • 25 July 2011 13:35 PM
  • icon

    @increase tax for Vacant property

    Wouldn't it be simpler for LLs to reduce rent on vacant properties so people can actually afford to rent them and run a business?

    • 25 July 2011 12:57 PM
  • icon

    Empty buildings - wrong.

    Squatters - wrong.

    Broken windows - wrong.

    Two or three wrongs don't make a right, but taking all of the hype out of it it boils down to:

    Illegal occupation by squatters, owner & agent use correct method to take property back, squatters take revenge and blame everybody else.

    Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

    • 25 July 2011 12:41 PM
  • icon

    This is turning into a Land Value Tax discussion. Mark Wadsworth's going to be here very soon... (for more background, visit his informative blog:
    http://markwadsworth.blogspot.com/ )

    This seems to be an article stemming from illegally occupied commercial premises. However, I do believe that vacant residential property is an urgent problem that could be addressed simply. Six months is an acceptable period of time for a property to be empty in my opinion, re finding new tenants, getting it sold, updating and renovation etc.

    After that period, the council tax on it should be increased by 50% and after a year if it is still vacant then doubled. The funds raised can be used to buy out NIMBY groups and increase building nearby. It's not a watertight plan, but I'll put it out here for (polite) discussion.

    • 25 July 2011 12:17 PM
  • icon

    Sorry "lower home ownership costs"

    • 25 July 2011 12:03 PM
  • icon

    Rant, I agree empty property is a shame as there could be a better use for them.

    BUT Pay extra tax......Give over!!!! These owners are already paying a tax one way or the other.

    PERHAPS the Government could run an incentive scheme rather than a penalty system to seduce these owners into renting out the property?

    If you charge them more tax do you not think Mr second home owner will simply ask for much more rent!!!!! I thought you might of figured that one, being all for lower homeowners ship costs.

    • 25 July 2011 12:00 PM
  • icon

    Rant, see your point, but you can not dictate what an owner of any property does with it. Whether it be vacant or occupied, it's their call entirely. We have enough red tape as it is!

    • 25 July 2011 12:00 PM
  • icon

    "Set fire to the building with squatters in it I say"


    That also is completely wrong.

    The building owners don't want their building set on fire, plus it could do damage to other nearby buildings.

    Some sort of gas or releasing vicious man eating dogs into the building would be more appropriate.

    • 25 July 2011 11:32 AM
  • icon

    Wouldn't it be more constructive to make owners of vacant property (commerical or residential) pay extra taxes, so that these properties are put to better use or sold on to those who could make more use of them?

    • 25 July 2011 11:30 AM
  • icon

    Set fire to the building with squatters in it I say

    • 25 July 2011 11:22 AM
  • icon

    "They picked on Maggs & Allen because of their part in trying to evict squatters who have occupied a pair of buildings since April 2010."

    Aaaahhhh, I see. Thats WHY they did it. In that case, what a justification.

    Don't link this with over-pricing etc. Squatters have always been in full force, even when prices were at their lows in the 90s.

    The only topic here is that we have some absolute nut jobs in this country and lack the common sense and support to deal with them effectively. In fact any laws are in their favour.

    Squatters 'rights' - what a joke. Whomever mentioned about us being the laughing stock of Europe, is completely spot on.

    • 25 July 2011 10:43 AM
  • icon

    Firstly, I echo comments from others who say they do not condone this sort of action. Neither do I.

    The correct channel, so we are told, is through politics. But who should the priced-out generation vote for? To a lot of adults aged 35 and under, much of this country's current ills can be put down to the house price madness of the last decade. And yet it goes on and on. The present lot in power seems as disinterested in the plight of this generation than the lot that were in before them.

    And yes, I'll be the first to admit, that I'd much rather have other (non-violent) alternatives to making my voice heard than an EA industry website!

    • 25 July 2011 09:54 AM
  • icon

    "QS" should read "QH"

    • 25 July 2011 09:51 AM
  • icon

    Ros,
    Please could you check out QS's credentials. If he is an estate agent I would like to contact him. More importantly, if any Bristol estate agents reading this would like to contact me with their concerns please do so via the NAEA at Arbon House (for security in this case as I usually give out my e-mail address). As the newly appointed Regional Exec for the West Country, which includes Bristol, I would like to understand the full history behind this and whether other agents in the city are concerned that something similar might happen to them.

    • 25 July 2011 09:50 AM
  • icon

    Ros

    Can you block QH?

    Seems he is on the side of general wrong doing. I dont want to read this sort of crap.

    This is an estate agent forum not a place to air corrupt views.

    • 25 July 2011 09:34 AM
  • icon

    FTB Dan, SPOT ON!!!!!

    • 25 July 2011 09:31 AM
  • icon

    @mike wilson
    So if i were a frustrated citizen/s who decided to violently express my dissatisfaction with the way that my government had acted or was behaving towards a sector of society that would be acceptable, would it.

    Take a look at Norway.

    You are entitled to your views, you are entitled to express (most of) them publicly in the UK. I am stepping out of this conversation at this point.

    • 25 July 2011 09:31 AM
  • icon

    Yes the system is corrupt. Yes for years baby boomers have voted themselves benefits at the expense of their children and grandchildren. Yes the fiat money system is just a ponzi scheme.

    But that in NO WAY WHATSOEVER excuses a bunch of left wing thugs smashing windows of someone’s business. These people deserve to be thrown in jail, and if I had my way a lot worse. Somebody has worked very hard to build that business and just because you have no intention of making your own way in life does not excuse trying to destroy what someone else has.

    • 25 July 2011 09:26 AM
  • icon

    Mike are you saying this is okay then? I may be getting your posts wrong (forgive me if I am) but I am reading due to your views on the market you feel these squatters have little other option and what else are they meant to do?

    • 25 July 2011 09:24 AM
  • icon

    @Chris Wood

    'Oddly enough though, the villagers who have lived with a form of anarchy and violent disagreement with the state by a small minority for years ...'

    What you have perhaps not realised is that this may well be the thin end of the wedge. Because we are not talking about a small minority. We are talking about a whole generation - yes, millions of them, our children, who have been and are being systematically robbed by the generation before them.

    Yes - 'robbed'. What else can you call the massive transfer of borrowed money up property chains so the retiring baby boomer can depart to France or Spain with several hundred thousand pounds of other people's debt in their bank accounts.

    • 25 July 2011 09:11 AM
  • icon

    Violence will not solve anything as a golden rule "so we are taught" but to what extent is a man to tolerate?

    The government are a desperate tyrant with a loaded gun.

    Do not blame those smashing the windows we can only blame the scum that created this act of violence. I would even go as far to say that this is nothing to what is about to happen in this country judging by the way that things are going, i.e. corrupt councils, corrupt courts, corrupt solicitors, is there anyone left?

    It is only a matter of time before the whole damn effect of government suppression of its people and corrupt leaders suppressing them will manifest its full grotesqueness in the streets of England and if you look closely you will see it happening already.

    We want justice, we want remedy, we want our power back, and we as a people should not have to shovel through the shit that they "the government" manufacture in order to get to the diamonds of our freedom!!

    • 25 July 2011 09:07 AM
  • icon

    Violence will not solve anything as a golden rule "so we are taught" but to what extent is a man to tolerate?

    The government are a desperate tyrant with a loaded gun.

    Do not blame those smashing the windows we can only blame the scum that created this act of violence. I would even go as far to say that this is nothing to what is about to happen in this country judging by the way that things are going, i.e. corrupt councils, corrupt courts, corrupt solicitors, is there anyone left?

    It is only a matter of time before the whole damn effect of government suppression of its people and corrupt leaders suppressing them will manifest its full grotesqueness in the streets of England and if you look closely you will see it happening already.

    We want justice, we want remedy, we want our power back, and we as a people should not have to shovel through the shit that they "the government" manufacture in order to get to the diamonds of our freedom!!

    • 25 July 2011 09:07 AM
  • icon

    So these people may, or may not have a debt and may, or may not have anywhere to live. Boo hoo. If they want anarchy and to protest violently, there are some lovely parts of Afghanistan at this time of year.

    Oddly enough though, the villagers who have lived with a form of anarchy and violent disagreement with the state by a small minority for years, are delighted that my mates are fighting and dying to enable law and order.

    • 25 July 2011 08:58 AM
  • icon

    Squatters in the whole are quite simply are people that do not want to pay their way in lives and they wish for others to do it for them.
    This stupid law that allows people to break into someones proeprty and stay their is just an outrage and it's making us the laughing stock of europe, hence why many squatters originate from outside of the UK.

    • 25 July 2011 08:57 AM
  • icon

    Bloody tramps and free loaders

    Why don't they go to work like the rest of us and earn a living.

    • 25 July 2011 08:45 AM
  • icon

    Mike

    Can't you sleep ???? Are you addicted to EAT or something.

    Anyone who does something like this lot have should be jailed - yes there is frustration, but violence of all kinds is not on.

    • 25 July 2011 08:45 AM
  • icon

    Well, thank heavens their anger didn't involve hurting people - unlike the mad man in Norway.

    There is a lot of complacency about. Young people are going to get progressively angrier as they finally twig the extent to which they are being mugged.

    Start out life in debt with 40kd debt around your neck having got a degree that will in no way get you a decent job - pay rent for years to some johny come lately 'you pay the rent to pay my mortgage' BTL landlord, pay hight taxes to fund our pensions and healthcare and, if you want to have children and need the stability that you will only get by not living under a shorthold tenancy agreement, have both parents working around the clock to service a massive mortgage so older people can retire with 'your' debt as 'their' equity.

    Wake up call perhaps?

    • 25 July 2011 07:06 AM
Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit