Squatters occupy dreamhouse of family. Police call racism

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
With the building works nearly over, Julian and Samantha Mosedale and their three children were looking forward to moving back into the home of their dreams.
But their hopes have turned into a nightmare because a group of Romanians occupied the property over Christmas.
To add insult to injury, police told them that they were being 'racist' for questioning the squatters' right to live in Britain on benefits.

The unwanted guests have changed the locks at the three-bedroom terrace house and moved in their own furniture.
Mr Mosedale, an illustrator, and his wife, a catalogue manager, both 45, had moved out of the house in Tottenham, North London, in July 2007 for extensive structural and renovation work.
They rented another property and regularly visited the ?285,000 house to oversee progress.
But, after spending Christmas visiting relatives in Essex, they returned to the house on January 3 to find the squatters installed.
They now fear they could soon be homeless because they can only afford to foot the cost of rent and mortgage payments until March.
Mrs Mosedale, whose three sons are ten, eight, and five, said: 'We called the police as soon as we found out they were in there. An officer suggested I was racist when I asked if they were Romanians, and did they have a legal right to be in this country.

'We are hard-working citizens yet get treated like criminals when our home is stolen. This whole thing is making me feel constantly sick. All we want to do is get on with our lives.
'We feel let down by the law, by government, and by the police, in fact all the authorities that one would expect to protect society.

'The house had builders in it while the renovations were being done. It was only in the last couple of months that it was left completely empty.
'Our lawyers don't know how long it will take us to get them out and the stress is really getting to the whole family.

'The kids are upset at the idea that other children are playing with their toys in the garden.

'Our son Jake is old enough to understand what is going on and he is finding it difficult to sleep.
'All the children are incredibly unsettled.'

Yesterday, the couple obtained a county court order giving the squatters 24 hours - until 2.15pm today - to leave.
But Mr Mosedale fears they will not give in easily.
He said: 'When the papers were served on them they tore them up and threw them back at the guy who'd taken them round.'

He and his wife are also worried that a drawn-out battle would exhaust their savings. They had planned to move back into the house in March.
Mrs Mosedale said: 'We were in the process of creating our dream home and it has been ruined.
'At the moment there are at least four women, four children and one man living in our home, but neighbours said they have seen many more people going in and out.
'In the meantime we face the prospect of becoming homeless ourselves, since we had only budgeted to pay both rent and our mortgage until mid March.'
Two sisters, Mihaela and Luminitsa Vaduva, are staying in the house with their seven children.
Speaking broken English, Luminitsa said: 'I don't understand the problem. We have paid for this home. If they move us out, then my children will not have a home.
'We are from Romania, we have no money for another home.'
She showed a tenancy agreement but could not provide a contact number for the landlord or say when they had moved in.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-dream-home-gang-gipsies-moved-Christmas.html

Incidents like this make me appreciate the fact that the United States Constitution and the country itself was founded in the most part to protect private property.

Quotes from a thread where I found the article

miguelencanarias said:
I am having a huge case of deja vu with this article. We had the exact same incident here in Spain. A couple goes on vacation, when they return they find locks changed, people inside the house claiming they have paid a rent or something to that effect. Here comes the 'only in Europe' thing: a judge stops the eviction order, rules that the squatters can stay... if they pay one euro (that's right, 1,00 ?) as a deposit. The reason? the squatters 'have no means to find a proper shelter'.

No, I am not on crack or anything. This really happened.

EL PAIS is a serious source, not a tabloid.

IDF_TANKER said:
Same **** in Israel. If a squatter lived in a house more than 30 days or something like that, the police has no right to evict them, and the owner will have to evict the person through court,
a process which can take a year. My work buddy actually had a tenant who stopped paying at some point, it took him six month of begging and what's not to get the person out (eventually
his lawyer succeeded simply to convince the guy to move out, otherwise it would take him another year).
 
Maybe this isn't how it works, but if they can "take" a house from you...why can't you just "take" it back? If I lived within a couple hours of that, I'd offer to show up and stand guard around the house with the undoubted hundreds that would do the same. So the doors are locked? 300 people swarming in through windows would chase 'em out.
 
Do what they did on the Simpsons with the carnies. Challenge to toss a hullahoop over the chimney, when everyone is outside run in and lock the door.
 
Wow, that is nuts. I am also glad that a lot of laws and jurisprudence in the US have the purpose of protecting personal property.
 
What kind of crap is this? Can someone explain to the Canadian how squatters are able to move into someone's home and basically block the owners from moving in?
 
Except the Daily Heil hasn't updated the story - the bloke got a court order yesterday and the "squatters" were evicted the same afternoon. Seems like the two people in the house were victims of a con themselves and weren't squatting, but thought they had the right to be there.

Interestingly, a Google search shows that the original headline said "gang of gipsies" and not "Romanian Squatters". Some quick arse-covering going on there.
 
What's that, the Daily Fail have sensationalized a relatively mundane story by ignoring fact? The only relevant part of this story is:
Mrs Mosedale, whose three sons are ten, eight, and five, said: 'We called the police as soon as we found out they were in there. An officer suggested I was racist when I asked if they were Romanians, and did they have a legal right to be in this country.
Clearly Mrs Mosedale has made some comment along the lines of 'dirty ethnic foreigners coming over here illegally' and rather than let what could be considered a racist comment slide, the police officer has actually challenged her on it.

Having gained quite a bad reputation on racist issues in the 80s and 90s the UK police force are essentially now zero tolerance on the issue and will always ask people to clarify what could be considered racist remarks.
 
Well now I feel silly. Didn't realize the Daily Mail was behind the article but I wonder what's going to happen to the people who were conned.
 
One word: shotgun. If they don't qualify as home invaders, I don't know what does.
 
One word: shotgun. If they don't qualify as home invaders, I don't know what does.

Except the Daily Heil hasn't updated the story - the bloke got a court order yesterday and the "squatters" were evicted the same afternoon. Seems like the two people in the house were victims of a con themselves and weren't squatting, but thought they had the right to be there.
 
I dont get this shit.
Why the hell do you need a court order to throw someone out of your own house?
What kind of monumental idiots thought up such rules? Gypsies infiltrating parlament?
 
[...]Gypsies infiltrating parlament?
:rolleyes:
kurthest some days back said:
I've been called "racist" numerous times[...]
orly? <_< I wonder who?d call someone racist that comes up with theories about them evil foreign people undercutting legislature for the harm of the locals ... :hmm:

On the subject ... laws about housing/renting in most of Europe are rather complex. There has been a lot of efford made over the last century to give tenants some legal rights against their landlords to protect them from arbitrariness and secure that they don?t end up on the street from one day to another. Sadly this has resulted in quite some loopholes wich also protect scamsters and make it pretty hard to evict people even if they only claim to have a contract or are in breach of a contract. That?s what protected those people. Those laws are (IMHO) rather flawed and need revision all over the place.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:orly? <_< I wonder who?d call someone racist that comes up with theories about them evil foreign people undercutting legislature for the harm of the locals ... :hmm:
As far as I know, there is no race called gypsy.

Anyways, the whole idea of having laws regulating PRIVATE property must be some sort of leftwing plot.
My house, my rules.
 
Last edited:
Anyways, the whole idea of having laws regulating PRIVATE property must be some sort of leftwing plot.
My house, my rules.

OK Einstein, how do you prove it is your house?
 
Do what they did on the Simpsons with the carnies. Challenge to toss a hullahoop over the chimney, when everyone is outside run in and lock the door.

Best. Solution. Ever.

:D
 
OK Einstein, how do you prove it is your house?

An official register that includes info about the property itself (location, measurements and ownership).
As long as you can ID yourself and it matches the info in the register, you have proven you are the owner.
 
An official register that includes info about the property itself (location, measurements and ownership).
As long as you can ID yourself and it matches the info in the register, you have proven you are the owner.

What you forget is that in most parts of central europe and the british isles, most people in cities live in rented appartments, in germany more than 60% of the general population.
So giving the owner of the property the right to kick anyone out cause it's his property would cause chaos and force many people into homelessness, at least temporary.
The "squatters" in the original article had a lease for the appartment. That the person they signed the lease with was not the owner of the property or a representative of him, but a conman, is the reason they got evicted after a court order was issued. I think that's fair and shows the justice system is working. Took a few days, but if the Fail would not have been involved, no big deal.

Imagine someone would rent you a house, change his mind a few days after you moved in, called the police and claimed the contract would be void? Better to leave you in there and have a court find out who's right than kick you out, isn't it?

Real squatters and "rent nomads", that's another thing. Squatters, as a general rule, will be given 24 hour notice to leave on their own before being forcibly removed by a police riot squad in germany, which, while it might be harsh in some borderline cases, mostly works.
"Rent nomads", on the other hand, are becoming an increasing problem over here: These people move in, sign a lease, everthing, refuse to pay their rent and, under tenant protection laws, are almost impossible to be kicked out in less than six months. That's the only problem here that has to be adressed by legislature.

Disclaimer: As most things adressed here are acutally federal state legislature and not nationwide legislature, details may vary depending on the region.
 
Last edited:
An official register that includes info about the property itself (location, measurements and ownership).
As long as you can ID yourself and it matches the info in the register, you have proven you are the owner.

You mean like a register... which then proves you own it... which then enables you to get a court order... which then enables the police to evict the people in the house... which is just like what happened...?
 
Top