La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 so if no one should be allowed to own property, who's going to maintain or build anything?? You would get a good idea if you read into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I'm just waiting for LDV to come along and tell us how the burglar is a victim of society and should be given tea, sympathy and compensation. And that burglary isn't actually a crime because property ownership is, by definition, theft. Don't be silly, this is a crime. Property ownership should be done away with, but there is a difference between personal property and one's possessions. Both are victim's of the society we live in. Why do people steal in the first place? You're going to have to explain that difference I'm afraid. Necessities such as food, clothing, light, heating, electricity, transport, culinary and crockery are a few things people consider essential to their ability to live in society, yet you exclude property and a roof over your head? I think what you've actually revealed here is your own bitterness towards your own circumstances. You're able to buy food, clothing, light, heating, electricity, transport, culinary and crockery but you can't afford a house at the current market rates and see no eventuality where your own personal employment prospects will allow you to do own your own house. This isn't about some anti capitalist utopia or anarchistic society philosphy, it's basically sour grapes because you're never going to own one of your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bawden Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I'm just waiting for LDV to come along and tell us how the burglar is a victim of society and should be given tea, sympathy and compensation. And that burglary isn't actually a crime because property ownership is, by definition, theft. Don't be silly, this is a crime. Property ownership should be done away with, but there is a difference between personal property and one's possessions. Both are victim's of the society we live in. Why do people steal in the first place? You're going to have to explain that difference I'm afraid. Necessities such as food, clothing, light, heating, electricity, transport, culinary and crockery are a few things people consider essential to their ability to live in society, yet you exclude property and a roof over your head? I think what you've actually revealed here is your own bitterness towards your own circumstances. You're able to buy food, clothing, light, heating, electricity, transport, culinary and crockery but you can't afford a house at the current market rates and see no eventuality where your own personal employment prospects will allow you to do own your own house. This isn't about some anti capitalist utopia or anarchistic society philosphy, it's basically sour grapes because you're never going to own one of your own. I completely agree with ANS....LDV you are talking out of yer arse...so you'd be quite happy living in a communist state like North Korea then, if nobody owns anything then how does an individual progress, what would be the point?....if you have children and this is your ethos in life then I pity them! I know a guy who doesn't own his own home and he is and always has been extremely envious of those who do, he also thinks property ownership should be abolished.....and yet he blows his money on drink and drugs, going away to stag parties, holidays and smokes, could've easily bought his own place...does this sound familiar to you LDV? I do however know that there are an awful lot of smug bastards who own one home and have children who actually think that huge increases in property value is a tremendous thing, Toby's, the lot of 'em!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Roo Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 No sympathy for burglars and wouldn't have been injured if he wasn't there in the first place. There you go....KARMA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 This isn't about some anti capitalist utopia or anarchistic society philosphy, it's basically sour grapes because you're never going to own one of your own. I hated being overcharged by capitalist landlords so I lived in 'poverty' for 8 years to get on the property ladder. I say poverty, what I really mean is, I couldn't afford luxury. I did not want to own my own home, it was the only option available. I understand what LDV is talking about (we seem to sing from the same hymn sheet) & I'm ever optimistic of a swell of humanitarianism, it's not about sour grapes Ans, its about compassion for others (which is not very capitalist, is it?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 No, I think you misunderstand my (and his) stance. I do appreciate that housing is overpriced and out of reach for a lot of people and that shouldn't be the case really. People on minimum wage should be able to afford to buy their own houses, albeit at the low end of the market. Nobody should be forced to live in poverty for a number of years to get on the ladder. Cutting back on expenses and doing without luxuries doesn't even qualify as poverty in inverted commas. That's just exaggeration. LDV believes that property ownership should be abolished and we should all have an entitlement to a free house without having to pay anything for it. Quite who funds these house builds, maintains them and improves them is a small omission from his ridiculous proposal. The market is fucked. The prices are too high. There does, however, have to be a market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I'm just waiting for LDV to come along and tell us how the burglar is a victim of society and should be given tea, sympathy and compensation. And that burglary isn't actually a crime because property ownership is, by definition, theft. Actually, thinking about what Gladys was saying, how do we know whether was there to steal or not? That is exactly my point. Dragging on my memory from years ago, burglary is breaking and entering into premises with intent to commit theft, grievous bodily harm or rape. Either way, if he has been charged with burglary it must be assumed that he is thought to have had some evil intent in mind when he entered the property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 That is exactly my point. Dragging on my memory from years ago, burglary is breaking and entering into premises with intent to commit theft, grievous bodily harm or rape. In America, not Britain and the IOM. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 That is exactly my point. Dragging on my memory from years ago, burglary is breaking and entering into premises with intent to commit theft, grievous bodily harm or rape. In America, not Britain and the IOM. S In the IOM it is called aggravated burglary, which is what this was. Breaking and entering for reasons other than theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 defined in 1737 act as: That the felonious breaking and entering into the Dwelling House of another by Night, with intent to commit a Felony, any Person or Persons being then inhabiting in such House, is and shall be held to be Felony and Burglary, and punishable by Death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 That is exactly my point. Dragging on my memory from years ago, burglary is breaking and entering into premises with intent to commit theft, grievous bodily harm or rape. In America, not Britain and the IOM. S 'Fraid it is. In the US, burglary is breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. Just read Frances' post, just shows how the US and British legal systems diverged almost organically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Just checked, the definition is in the English Theft Act 1968. The Manx offence may be different, but my point was that a charge of burglary does not limit the offence to theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Just checked, the definition is in the English Theft Act 1968. The Manx offence may be different, but my point was that a charge of burglary does not limit the offence to theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Just checked, the definition is in the English Theft Act 1968. The Manx offence may be different, but my point was that a charge of burglary does not limit the offence to theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 1737 Act was repealed in 1872 and then again 1872 was repealed in 1981. We have the Theft Act and IOM and English law on burglary is virtually identical to all extents and purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.