Like a great many people I've always had a view upon the act of 'squatting.'
In the spirit of modernisation here I've applied the word 'always' very much in line with popular usage, that is incorrectly! Of course I haven't always had an opinion on squatting; there was a time, many years past, when I didn't even know, or probably care, what squatting was. At that time I would have been a child, a young child, more than likely a child still shackled with a great deal of egocentrically-clouded thought. An approaching meal, a favourite possession, what would I be getting for Christmas; those issues would have been of far greater concern. As I raced from one moment to the next, with an energy that has long since deserted me, undoubtedly causing my own fair share of thoughtless damage to the family home, I wouldn't have given so much as a passing thought to those less fortunate than myself.
Probably, my first 'thoughts' upon the subject of squatters and squatting would have been 'helpfully' squidged in amongst all of that overriding self-interest by an early evening news report or 'care' of 'our' daily newspaper, more than likely accidentally chanced upon. At which time, I'm guessing that I may have been of junior school age.
All of those years ago, in a seemingly more innocent time, I resided within a stable family home, in a comfortable outer London suburb. The chances of encountering a squatter or even a suitably squattable building would have been less than minimal. The daily 'news'paper that would, of a morning, have flopped 'invitingly' upon our doormat would have been The Daily Mail, although I seem also to also recall the Daily Express intermittently featuring, thus any first view, upon the act of squatting, would very much have been one siding towards reactionary.
So, since the age of approximately eight or nine, I've always had a view upon the act of squatting.
This statement is more accurate, but is still left open to misinterpretation or misrepresentation; thus is, in effect, only rather less inaccurate. You see, it would be fairer to write that, since any first thoughts upon the act of someone occupying a 'left-vaccant' property, without the consent of the 'legal owner', I have always maintained an opinion. It would be even more informative to clarify that the opinions of that long-ago child and those of the older and far slower pensioner that he eventually became are currently ranged upon almost entirely different sides of the political fence. The variable opinion was always there, but it has had decades in which to morph through periods of serious self-doubt, a great deal of back-tracking and rehashing, and much heavy revision, so much so that in the mind of an ever-interested pensioner the opinion is far less clear now than ever it was in the mind of that long-ago disinterested child.
To further clarify, the opinion that I currently hold, I like to think, is neither blindly pro nor anti but merely informed by events. As a home-owner, who regards his one small home as something of a sanctuary from so much of the largely dispassionate world, I absolutely recognise the benefits of safeguarding some properties from the unwelcome attentions of squatters. I recognise the anger and even violence that one might feel towards those who may have turned one's life upside-down. Although not personally given to acts of violence I can still truly imagine sharing such a desire should someone choose to squat in my home.
And, on the surface, that's much the line of thought that 'our' government would like to present to the wider population, as it prepares to soon make the act of squatting illegal. But, is this 'argument' really as black and white as 'our' (mis)representatives would have us believe? Surely, there is also another side to this issue. Nick Ferrari certainly 'thinks' not. I had the misfortune to stumble upon some of his thoughts on the subject only this Sunday, on BBC 1 (Sunday Morning Live, 2nd Sept 2012).
At the programme's outset Nick, the 'shock jock', Nick the 'combative journalist', sat fidgeting, somewhat like a rather truculent schoolboy, awaiting the opportunity to 'share' his 'wisdoms' with the world. His facial expressions appeared to range from disinterested to affronted anger, towards anyone who might dare to think differently to himself. Presumably, we might, oh so briefly, have been forgiven for hoping that Nick's opinions would transpire to be those of the informed adult and not those of the ego-what-will-I-be-getting-for Christmas-centric child. He looked like an adult, at the very least an overfed and somewhat angry child trapped in an adult's body.
So what, in a country quite literally heaving under the weight of nearly a quarter of a million 'intentionally-left-empty'-homes, were Nick's 'informed' views? Was he quick and eager to jump at the opportunity to condemn a society that seeks to covertly protect billionaires, who seek to buy up thousands of empty properties, purely for tax purposes, a society where huge numbers of these homes are boarded-up and left unoccupied to rot for years on end? He's an adult, we might have reasoned, he's had the time and the experience to develop informed opinions, hasn't he?
Allow me, please, to here deviate, briefly, a tad from the chronology of the broadcast. This, I really need to do, in order to accurately prepare the canvass awaiting Nick's broad-stroke analysis of the situation.
Thus, the second issue to be debated upon the programme was to be the pros and 'cons' of Britain's continued aid to the Third World.' Nick, never shy in coming forward, had also already pre-prepared a short piece, clarifying his 'opinions' upon this subject. You'll probably already have gathered that he was/is rabidly anti such benevolence- no real surprises there- yet, it is more/entirely the evidence he cites, in this short film, that leaves his arguments so much more akin to those of the aforementioned egocentric child than those of the informed adult. At this point, Nick, in an apparently hermetically-sealed bubble of ignorance, suddenly feigns concern for all of those, unable-to-afford-to-heat-their-own-homes-pensioners, all of those Brits who can't afford to buy food and rent a 'home.' Nick would rather, in a far from ideal world, witness a steepling rise in the number of deaths from malaria, than allow money to be diverted from 'solving' these problems closer to home.
"But, many of these unfortunates would be the same people, over whom you were eager to argue the right of billionaires to guarantee the sanctity of their empty townships!" one might have wished, at this point, to scream at the TV, "The very same people!"
Nick, with an apparent balletic prowess that belies his frame, also recognises that the UK's waste-bin-packed front garden culture has proven to be the blight of millions of homes, spinning suddenly through one-hundred-and-eighty political degrees, to 'champion' the ordinary citizen again. In reality, we can only deduce from this evidence, that at least one of Nick's homes is an inner city terrace, with minimal front garden space. Any other conclusion would require Nick to have developed the far more demanding skill of empathy. All evidence to date would suggest that this is highly unlikely to be the case.
So, back to the main theme, that of squatting. Nick- and just why he was deemed more worthy of air-time than any reactionary tabloid reader plucked randomly off the street, here remains a complete mystery- without apparent embarrassment or conscience, gave the subject both barrels. He contested that there was absolutely no argument whereby the rights of a homeless or 'criminally' underpaid individual, or parent with young child, was to be deemed more important than the rights of a billionaire to own and leave vacant hundreds of boarded-up properties, purely for the purposes of tax gains. He saw no division between the use of one such property to avoid freezing to death of a winter's night and theft, curiously whilst failing to recognise the abuse of massive property ownership as an act of far greater theft on the part of the billionaire. As far as 'our' Nick was concerned such properties could be boarded up for not just four or five years but forty-five years. And, from such eloquently spoken thoughts, we might also gather that Nick has never, even for the briefest of moments, slipped from the lap of luxury and that he remains thus, very much, a beneficiary of the inner machinations of that much abused tool, networking.
I would contend that Nick 'also' has always had a view upon the act of squatting.' Far more consistent than my own views, probably cemented into place at an early age, Nick's views appear entirely indicative of those of the egocentric child, rather than those of the informed adult.
Finally, of note during Sunday's broadcast, the, unsupported, global figure of 'one in seven people currently being a squatter' was mentioned. I would imagine that this is, if anything, an extremely conservative estimate. And, if those like Nick Ferrari continue to misrepresent the issue upon the national stage, this figure is going to continue to head very much in the wrong direction.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment