Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UK government should seize the mansion, sell it, and send the proceeds to Ukraine.

Once the squatters get the bill for the ground rent (freeholds are very uncommon in London) they’ll be moving out.

Again, seize it, sell it and send the proceeds to Ukraine. The future non-Russian-oligarch owner deals with the bills.

Senators Bennet and Portman introduce bill to use seized Russian assets for Ukrainian relief
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/600187-bennet-portman-introduce-bill-to-use-seized-russian-assets-for-ukrainian/?fbclid=IwAR1VSowsAFaNfUUgJO3QVzLkbRrqF5DUUqxi2cTLcmQtjUk7vUsLCD6YRxM

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yet if a regular London citizen's house were broken into they'd probably have to wait days just to get a single police officer, who'd probably just take their statement, have them fill out a questionnaire, and leave.

This is a home invasion. No police force just fills out paperwork for a home invasion.

Was anyone even there? Squatters rights became a thing because people would hoard property they wouldn’t use. Kind of like what’s going on here.

You cannot seize someone's property just becauase they aren't using it. Just like you cannot confiscate someone's car they don't drive or jewelry they have and don't wear. It's called private property for a reason.

They’re called sanctions for a reason, too.

You said "squatters rights became a thing because people would hoard property they wouldn't use". You didn't say anything about sanctions, in fact, your response implies that it's just the way things are regardless who the owners are. It's what I was responding to. Property rights in general, not sanctions or special cases.

I wasn’t the one who said that.

Anonymous wrote:People seem to be confused about freezing vs seizing assets. It’s very easy for countries like the US and UK to freeze but extremely difficult to seize. They will get the mansions and yachts back, it’s a matter of when not if.

I want it to be different as well but the laws are set up to protect the rich.

The laws are set up to protect private property. The cost of property isn't relevant. Do you have issues with the concept of private property in general?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yet if a regular London citizen's house were broken into they'd probably have to wait days just to get a single police officer, who'd probably just take their statement, have them fill out a questionnaire, and leave.

This is a home invasion. No police force just fills out paperwork for a home invasion.

Was anyone even there? Squatters rights became a thing because people would hoard property they wouldn’t use. Kind of like what’s going on here.

You cannot seize someone's property just becauase they aren't using it. Just like you cannot confiscate someone's car they don't drive or jewelry they have and don't wear. It's called private property for a reason.

They’re called sanctions for a reason, too.

You said "squatters rights became a thing because people would hoard property they wouldn't use". You didn't say anything about sanctions, in fact, your response implies that it's just the way things are regardless who the owners are. It's what I was responding to. Property rights in general, not sanctions or special cases.

People seem to be confused about freezing vs seizing assets. It’s very easy for countries like the US and UK to freeze but extremely difficult to seize. They will get the mansions and yachts back, it’s a matter of when not if.

I want it to be different as well but the laws are set up to protect the rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yet if a regular London citizen's house were broken into they'd probably have to wait days just to get a single police officer, who'd probably just take their statement, have them fill out a questionnaire, and leave.

This is a home invasion. No police force just fills out paperwork for a home invasion.

Was anyone even there? Squatters rights became a thing because people would hoard property they wouldn’t use. Kind of like what’s going on here.

You cannot seize someone's property just becauase they aren't using it. Just like you cannot confiscate someone's car they don't drive or jewelry they have and don't wear. It's called private property for a reason.

You shouldn't go invading and destroying sovereign, independent nations that aren't yours either.

But Russia did, and here we are.

Personally, I think it's only right to seize every asset of the violators, sell them, and use the proceeds to a.) help the violated fight the violator and b.) give the violated the remainder to help rebuild. That would be the most fair and ethical thing to do.

Anonymous wrote:There was living space for 13 families in this one house!

Yes! It's better this way.

Excellent reference. Well done PP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yet if a regular London citizen's house were broken into they'd probably have to wait days just to get a single police officer, who'd probably just take their statement, have them fill out a questionnaire, and leave.

This is a home invasion. No police force just fills out paperwork for a home invasion.

Was anyone even there? Squatters rights became a thing because people would hoard property they wouldn’t use. Kind of like what’s going on here.

You cannot seize someone's property just becauase they aren't using it. Just like you cannot confiscate someone's car they don't drive or jewelry they have and don't wear. It's called private property for a reason.

They’re called sanctions for a reason, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yet if a regular London citizen's house were broken into they'd probably have to wait days just to get a single police officer, who'd probably just take their statement, have them fill out a questionnaire, and leave.

This is a home invasion. No police force just fills out paperwork for a home invasion.

Was anyone even there? Squatters rights became a thing because people would hoard property they wouldn’t use. Kind of like what’s going on here.

You cannot seize someone's property just becauase they aren't using it. Just like you cannot confiscate someone's car they don't drive or jewelry they have and don't wear. It's called private property for a reason.

Outlandish violations of property rights without legal process; rather Soviet.