Raven's Ait island squatters brag they will buy more time (From This Is Local London)

Group leader Peter Phoenix, 38, said he was optimistic that their hearing at Kingston County Court this Thursday, March 19, could be delayed to buy the group more time on the island. He said: “I've been homeless for 18 years and done court cases for 16 years. We're quite good at it and we've had quite a lot of adjournments. We made one court case last 13 months.”
WELL WHY NOT GET OFF YOUR BACKSIDES AND GET A PROPER JOB. HOW DARE YOU TAKE THIS OVER - DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CASE THAT ANY ONE WILL LISTEN TO WHILST YOU CONTINUALLY ILLEGALLY SQUAT IN SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. SHAME ON YOU. CUT YOUR HAIR, HAVE A BATH AND GET A JOB, YOU LAYABOUTS. THE SOONER YOU ARE OFF THIS BEAUTIFUL LITTLE ISLAND THE BETTER, GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM.

Why is it that every time you see someone who wants to live an alternative life style the cry goes up "get a job" ? Maybe not everyone wants to spend the majority of their life working for a pittance.
People will laugh when I say I do not see a great deal of difference between these guys and maybe a city stock broker but think about it. Both are just manipulating the system to get what they want and live how they want. Does a city stockbroker produce anything or do anything that is actually worthwhile ?
The article mentions the Hotel Antoinette have plans for the island. Does the owner of the hotel do any work ? Does he have a proper job or has he constructed a system which wrings millions out of the social security system ever year and allows him to live the way he wants ? I noticed in the other thread 'inside the squat' DB had labeled them all thieves and predicts a rise in burglary rates around Kingston, quite an ignorant comment I thought.

So many negative comments for those trying to improve the planet and the world we live in! Exactly which plant do these negative people come from and make assumptions based on no facts what so ever, regarding the people on the island, why not sell it to make more money like the council want fro thier coffers or should we let these chaps make the island for all to use as intended, its belongs to teh common people so who is the exploiter of our money?
PS: next time anyone make stupid comments on other people i.e theft, are they willing to stand up at a court hearing for wrongfull alligations! What scum bags you negative people are, get a life!!!

frex wrote:
So many negative comments for those trying to improve the planet and the world we live in! Exactly which plant do these negative people come from and make assumptions based on no facts what so ever, regarding the people on the island, why not sell it to make more money like the council want fro thier coffers or should we let these chaps make the island for all to use as intended, its belongs to teh common people so who is the exploiter of our money? PS: next time anyone make stupid comments on other people i.e theft, are they willing to stand up at a court hearing for wrongfull alligations! What scum bags you negative people are, get a life!!!

They're trying to improve the planet! You're 'aving a larf. Just a bunch of scroungers. The money wasted on these good-for-nothings could have been spent on schools or hospitals.

Nayhead wrote:
Why is it that every time you see someone who wants to live an alternative life style the cry goes up "get a job" ? Maybe not everyone wants to spend the majority of their life working for a pittance. People will laugh when I say I do not see a great deal of difference between these guys and maybe a city stock broker but think about it. Both are just manipulating the system to get what they want and live how they want. Does a city stockbroker produce anything or do anything that is actually worthwhile ? The article mentions the Hotel Antoinette have plans for the island. Does the owner of the hotel do any work ? Does he have a proper job or has he constructed a system which wrings millions out of the social security system ever year and allows him to live the way he wants ? I noticed in the other thread 'inside the squat' DB had labeled them all thieves and predicts a rise in burglary rates around Kingston, quite an ignorant comment I thought.

So as a hard working tax payer, I have to pay my taxes to support them, because they don't feel like working ? Why should I ? I don't want to work sometimes, but was brought up to pay my way, not sit on my ar*e thinking the world owes me a favour.
If they were that serious, why did they not approach an environmental agency and do it that way ? Their arrogance is quite breathtaking.

And Frex - what planet are you on ? They are breaking the law because they feel like it, so why should they be given preferential treatment because they call themselves 'environmentalists' ?

There is nothing wrong with living an alternative lifestyle, just do it properly - instead of using and taking something that does not belong to you.

Good luck to them! The building was empty, they've filled it, better than building on more green land. There are too many boarded up empty properties, look at the old Canon and Homebase offices/buildings in Wallington, both sat empty for (if memory serves) over a year. Meanwhile people live on the streets, is that progression? Thankfully squatters have rights it's just a shame more don't take advantage. People first not concrete.

Good luck to them! The building was empty, they've filled it, better than building on more green land. There are too many boarded up empty properties, look at the old Canon and Homebase offices/buildings in Wallington, both sat empty for (if memory serves) over a year. Meanwhile people live on the streets, is that progression? Thankfully squatters have rights it's just a shame more don't take advantage. People first not concrete.

Anony Mouse wrote:
Good luck to them! The building was empty, they've filled it, better than building on more green land. There are too many boarded up empty properties, look at the old Canon and Homebase offices/buildings in Wallington, both sat empty for (if memory serves) over a year. Meanwhile people live on the streets, is that progression? Thankfully squatters have rights it's just a shame more don't take advantage. People first not concrete.

I don't think there is any suggestion that they were going to build on green belt land if they hadn't squatted on the island. I'm guessing they're dole scroungers who decide not to work. They haven't got enough of there own money to fund their idle lifestyle, so they've decided to take whatever they want - and to hell with everyone else. Selfish, arrogant, silly little kids. It's time they grew up and joined the human race.

People need to draw their own conclusions on whether this is a good or bad thing, but I think a lot of the positive comments here are rather naive.

These guys have broken in and occupied these buildings under the pretense of being environmental warriors, but then say things like '“I've been homeless for 18 years and done court cases for 16 years. We're quite good at it and we've had quite a lot of adjournments. We made one court case last 13 months."

They are just out for a free ride, and they know how to play our decrepit legal system. Some will say good luck to them, some will take a different view. I shouldn't think that many people living in close proximity to the Ait will be too delighted about it, though.

Nayhead wrote:
Why is it that every time you see someone who wants to live an alternative life style the cry goes up "get a job" ? Maybe not everyone wants to spend the majority of their life working for a pittance.
People will laugh when I say I do not see a great deal of difference between these guys and maybe a city stock broker but think about it. Both are just manipulating the system to get what they want and live how they want. Does a city stockbroker produce anything or do anything that is actually worthwhile ?
The article mentions the Hotel Antoinette have plans for the island. Does the owner of the hotel do any work ? Does he have a proper job or has he constructed a system which wrings millions out of the social security system ever year and allows him to live the way he wants ? I noticed in the other thread 'inside the squat' DB had labeled them all thieves and predicts a rise in burglary rates around Kingston, quite an ignorant comment I thought.

I don't remember labelling them all thieves, but I do think that this is likely to cause rising burglary rates. This has happened in EVERY case I have ever encountered where squatters and gypsies have been involved, why would this be any different? Oh sorry, these guys are environmental caretakers, not squatters, so it will all be fine.

Where else do you think the money comes from? They get free 'rent' and all their bills paid, but they still have to pay for food and other living expenses.

After reading some of these comments I felt it necessary to make an account and ask some people the following things:

DB, you said, and I quote, 'I don't remember labelling them all thieves, but I do think that this is likely to cause rising burglary rates. This has happened in EVERY case I have ever encountered where squatters and gypsies have been involved, why would this be any different?'

For one squatters and gypies are two different groups of people. Squatting is normally related to political motives, the gypsies are normally born into that traditional. More importantly two, 'this is likely to cause rising burglary rates. This has happened in EVERY case I have ever encountered'
What cases? evidence please. Such a statement needs backing up.

Now, Tony, I quote, 'I'm guessing they're dole scroungers who decide not to work. They haven't got enough of there own money to fund their idle lifestyle, so they've decided to take whatever they want - and to hell with everyone else. Selfish, arrogant, silly little kids. It's time they grew up and joined the human race.'

You are guessing they are dole scroungers. Maybe you should ask before you presume. Selfish? They want to make this into a community centre, now to me, that sounds a lot less selfish than this land being let out to a wealthy entrepreneur to make profit for him/herself?

Finally to hope not, you said and I quote, 'There is nothing wrong with living an alternative lifestyle, just do it properly - instead of using and taking something that does not belong to you.'

Can you explain what a proper alternative lifestyle is?

bahboom wrote:
After reading some of these comments I felt it necessary to make an account and ask some people the following things: DB, you said, and I quote, 'I don't remember labelling them all thieves, but I do think that this is likely to cause rising burglary rates. This has happened in EVERY case I have ever encountered where squatters and gypsies have been involved, why would this be any different?' For one squatters and gypies are two different groups of people. Squatting is normally related to political motives, the gypsies are normally born into that traditional. More importantly two, 'this is likely to cause rising burglary rates. This has happened in EVERY case I have ever encountered' What cases? evidence please. Such a statement needs backing up. Now, Tony, I quote, 'I'm guessing they're dole scroungers who decide not to work. They haven't got enough of there own money to fund their idle lifestyle, so they've decided to take whatever they want - and to hell with everyone else. Selfish, arrogant, silly little kids. It's time they grew up and joined the human race.' You are guessing they are dole scroungers. Maybe you should ask before you presume. Selfish? They want to make this into a community centre, now to me, that sounds a lot less selfish than this land being let out to a wealthy entrepreneur to make profit for him/herself? Finally to hope not, you said and I quote, 'There is nothing wrong with living an alternative lifestyle, just do it properly - instead of using and taking something that does not belong to you.' Can you explain what a proper alternative lifestyle is?

OK - I'm asking - Are you dole scroungers? Or do you work 40 hours a week? Or do you have lots of money, so that you don't need to work?

bahboom - you are right, I should have backed that up with evidence. Unfortunately the only evidence I have is anecdotal, but it does cover a lot of individual cases.

Two of these were in the Kingston borough (The occupation of the Rising Sun a couple of years ago, and the Currys car park in Kingston Road a few years before that.) The other incidences were in more rural areas where gypsies caused misery for whole communities over long periods of time because the councils concerned did not have the power to move them on.

I accept that point about gypsies and squatters being distinct groups, but the claim that "squatting is related to political motives" is just naive.

Even 'Peter Phoenix' has admitted that the group are experts at delaying court cases, which in effect means that they are just using the Ait as a free home. Their environmental concerns are laudible, but wholly irrelevant to their occuption of the Island. It is purely a plan to make a proportion of the local community identify and sympathise with them.

By the look of some of the responses here, it has worked!

bahboom wrote:
After reading some of these comments I felt it necessary to make an account and ask some people the following things: DB, you said, and I quote, 'I don't remember labelling them all thieves, but I do think that this is likely to cause rising burglary rates. This has happened in EVERY case I have ever encountered where squatters and gypsies have been involved, why would this be any different?' For one squatters and gypies are two different groups of people. Squatting is normally related to political motives, the gypsies are normally born into that traditional. More importantly two, 'this is likely to cause rising burglary rates. This has happened in EVERY case I have ever encountered' What cases? evidence please. Such a statement needs backing up. Now, Tony, I quote, 'I'm guessing they're dole scroungers who decide not to work. They haven't got enough of there own money to fund their idle lifestyle, so they've decided to take whatever they want - and to hell with everyone else. Selfish, arrogant, silly little kids. It's time they grew up and joined the human race.' You are guessing they are dole scroungers. Maybe you should ask before you presume. Selfish? They want to make this into a community centre, now to me, that sounds a lot less selfish than this land being let out to a wealthy entrepreneur to make profit for him/herself? Finally to hope not, you said and I quote, 'There is nothing wrong with living an alternative lifestyle, just do it properly - instead of using and taking something that does not belong to you.' Can you explain what a proper alternative lifestyle is?

One that operates within the legal boundaries set down by society... or is that too obvious ?
Many people are environmentalists, whilst holding down a job, paying taxes and without breaking the law, so why should these people get a free ride off the back of someone else's property ? Are they going to keep it clean and tidy and clear any rubbish up after them, are they going to pay for any electricity or other facilities that they use - are they going to pay any rent ? I doubt it very much.

I agree.

Their view seems to be that they will be maintaining the property properly, but this is 100% irrelevant as it is not even theirs to maintain!

I would love to be able to give up work and move onto my own island in the Thames and spend my time showing people films about issues that interest me. Unfortunately for me this is only going to happen in one of two situations:

1. If I inherit several million pounds.

2. If I steal someone elses island and use taxpayers money to maintain it.

As neither of these are likely to occur in the near future, I will have to carrying on working to fund these squatters on Ravens Ait.

As I said in an earlier post, people should feel free to make up their own minds about this, but please don't embarrass yourselves by buying into this mindless propaganda that even the squatters themselves have now begun to debunk.

This is obviously a divided camp, a hearing at the Kingston Council Offices is due this Thursday to air any issues regarding Raven Ait Island. Whilst the current occupation of the island may seem unorthodox, it does raise issues as to what Kingston Council will wish to proceed with, will they sell it to a developer, call it Turk-ey Island and grab all the money to fund parking wardens or similar? The fact that a majority of Canbury Gardens had been sold to make way for residential developments only shows that the interest of the general public may not be primary concerns for the council. The Island belongs to the residents of Kingston and as such a democratic vote should be held as to what use it is best put, not what a developer is willing to pay!
Are those with unfounded assumptions of people in general more dangerous than someone squatting an unused property, many wars and deaths have been caused by such thinking, not everyone wishes to be dictated by society as to how thier life, abide by - yes but not dictated.
Hopefully a conclusion will be drawn that is in the interest of the resdients of Kingston Upon Thames. It would be a shame to lose the island like we did most of Canbury Gardens to the money makers.
Peace not War.

Best of luck to all of those at Ravens Ait. How refreshing to see that some people recognise that climate change is the central socio-political issue of our time and furthermore are actually prepared to do something about it through education and awareness.

From what I make of this debate it seems Tony and DB among others really disagree with the current system and laws. If you wish to live in a society which does not have a social security system or rights for the homeless then I suggest you campaign for a change in these things. The island, I believe, is unused common land so the squatters have not stolen it from anyone. Rather I feel Kingston council stole it from me when they decided to turn it over to the former company and not allow me access and I will feel the same if that is what they decide to do again.

Read the article in today’s paper and get the facts: These aren’t work shy squatters. Apparently they’re trained in health safety and security and are busy creating an eco-centre. Naïve? No – I’m just going by what I’ve read today written by people who’ve actually been there. Anyone who’s paying attention to the news will know how serous global climate change is. We need an eco-centre far more than yet another dull ‘entertainment venue’! I’m delighted to hear that the Council are in discussions and wish them the best of luck.

Tony - No I'm not on the dole, but neither do I work 40 hours (but when was this about me???)

DB - naming incidents where people have squatted doesn't really show crime increasing does it? That was your point before and the one I would like to see evidence for.

I hope not, 'One that operates within the legal boundaries set down by society... or is that too obvious ?' No to me thats not obvious because nothing in that statement is 'alternative' you failed also to answer my question.

this county is a total joke i am living hand to mouth AND WORK FULL TIME GET NO BENIFITS SPEND MY WEEKENDS BRINGING MY 2 BOYS TO FOOTBALL WHITCH I LOVE what do all us hard working single mums get NOT AN ISLAND OR ANY THING ELSE ONLY ABUSE

Frex, what part of Canbury Gardens has been sold? You say "a majority" but as far as I know nothing has been sold in the last 15 years. Or are you exaggerating for effect?

Steve,

If you remember there had been a protest to stop cutting down the trees in the park to make room for the appartment buildings? If you walk from kingston to the Boaters there is now a large residential develpment which used to be part of the park. Okay 'most' is a bit wild but a fair amount had been traded off, to what now is a souless area, walk past the buildings and you will see what I mean.

I didn't raise the topic of an 'alternative' lifestyle, another person did. My comment was if you wish to live life alternately, then why not within the confines of the law and without forcing yourselves onto other people's property ?

If you want an example, I work full time, I pay my taxes, I run my own allotment growing my own fruit and veg, I recycle, I do not drive, I walk or use public transport, I buy fairtrade products whenever I can, I donate to charity..do you get the point ? This is just an example, but it is my contribution to the environment and without breaking the law. It's not hard to do.

Frex you are wrong. The houses and apartments are on the site of the demolished power station. The protests were against the removal of some of the trees that were in the park. Nothing of the development was built on park land. Nothing was "traded off". It really doesn't help to exaggerate.

Nayhead wrote:
From what I make of this debate it seems Tony and DB among others really disagree with the current system and laws. If you wish to live in a society which does not have a social security system or rights for the homeless then I suggest you campaign for a change in these things. The island, I believe, is unused common land so the squatters have not stolen it from anyone. Rather I feel Kingston council stole it from me when they decided to turn it over to the former company and not allow me access and I will feel the same if that is what they decide to do again.

Of course I want a society that has a social security system. One to act as a safety net for people who have unintentionally fallen on hard times.

Kingston council did not steal it from you. They received money from a private company that goes towards providing services for the local community. That private company also provided jobs for local people and paid taxes so that the social security system can function. Hopefully a new company will take over the island soon, so that we can all benefit as we did previously.

When are you planning to buy the Island Tony?