On the Burton Street Eviction

At 11:45am, on Tuesday the 14th of march 2006 Ms Naomi Freud, the wife of the legal owner of 7 Burton street, approached that property and one its current residents – then outside, standing by the front door. Although, unfamiliar with engaging in social relations unmediated by institutions responsible for economic transactions or the conventions of her protective ideological jungle Ms Freud began an attempt to engage that resident as part of her pursuit towards a self-serving goal. That goal, as she was to soon inform the resident, was to evict the resident and any others currently living in the house. As a person that wished to ensure that the privileges afforded to her by God were maintained whilst at the same time wishing not to have her self-image as a ‘nice person’ sullied Ms Freud found this task not without its difficulties. Her approach was to fall into a pre-rehearsed performance that would maintain her desired self-image whilst fulfilling the violent task that she had set for herself.

Ms Freud’s script, as judged from observation, dictated that she would frame conversation around the congenial themes that were the history and architecture of the house in question whilst at opportune points putting in threats and demands that would satisfy her primary objective. She began the performance with the resident that was outside of the house, but her program was disrupted by an interruption caused by another person exiting the house. Unfortunately for her, Ms Freud’s unfamiliarity with unmediated social interaction meant that rather than seamlessly incorporating the new arrival into her performance, she became startled, lost her place and had to begin again.

Her second attempt at the performance was successfully completed. The dialogue she had constructed for her self contained the statements “I want you to leave within half an hour”, “I have called the police”, “my locksmith will arrive at twelve to change the locks”, which rather than being put together in a coherent sentence were haphazardly interspersed amongst extensive comments concerning the original door to the property and the original Victorian plasterwork. To all the comments about the interior of the house and its condition the residents added their own insights to correct Ms Freud’s out of date or ignorant perceptions. Additionally, in an attempt to gain some useful knowledge out of the banal conversation, the residents questioned Ms Freud about the state of the water supply, this line of inquiry proved unfruitful for the residents due to her ignorance over such facts. To the to the threats and demands surrounding eviction the residents replied with silence, a response that was more a consequence of the ridiculous manner in which they were given rather than anything else.

This communication break down should not be taken as significant, as it is to be expected in any situation where an individual governed by a highly constructed and rule based social world – where that individual derives a reason for being from those rules and dictates – is attempting social activity with people that have no understanding of those particular constructions and rules or any ability to understand why anybody would want to create a god like that.

But, despite the difficulties, the performance was completed and the residents understood the main points – in there material relevance. What then ensued was intermittent and unrequested encore performances of certain aspects of Mrs Freud’s script, which for the residents quickly became tiresome. This last point, however, should not be taken as meaning the residents were not tired of Ms Freud before hand, the situation was, more accurately, one of increasing ennui.

Hence the residents, the two then present, decided at this point to attempt to draw the annoying engagement to a close. They informed Ms Freud that they as well as three others were living in the house. That they had no other home and that prior to their moving in the property had been left empty. They reassured her that they would pose no violent threat to ‘her property’ or her person, as doing so would harm their home and was therefore not in their interests. Also, quite unnecessarily, they informed her that they would leave once directed to by a court order to that effect. To this information Ms Freud informed the residents that she had a piece of paper that meant that all the residents had to leave immediately and upon request by the residents she produced said piece of paper.

In order to maintain her self-image as a ‘nice person’, something that was quite important to Ms Freud, and not reveal herself as the self interested and immensely privileged individual that she was, which, after all, was something that was ordained by god, Ms Freud informed the residents that they could keep the piece of paper. Although it is unclear, why she was so concerned with appearing nice it could perhaps be suggested that she was a person who realised that her privileged access to resources and power as well as god rested on contradictory and hence tenuous ideologically based grounds, which included moral positions against violence and domination but were in reality only maintained through violence and domination. Such a realisation on her part, if it really existed, was not a realisation that resulted in the alteration of ill-conceived perceptions and beliefs but was rather manifested as a concern with not spoiling the appearance that she is ‘just’ – as her language describes it – and hence always trying to be a ‘nice person’.

This piece of paper that Ms Freud handed to the residents was a statutory declaration that stated that Naomi Freud (herself) declared:
I, Naomi Freud of 7 Beaumont Buildings, Oxford, do solemnly and sincerely declare the following:
1. My husband, David Freud, and I own 7 Burton Street, WC1, and are being denied access to occupy and complete the renovations of our Grade II listed home, so that we can live in 7 Burton Street again as our family residence.
2. We and our architects are being excluded from occupation by persons unknown to us who have broken and removed the locks to the front door.
3. I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.
After the residents had read Ms Freud’s piece of paper she again reiterated her point that she wanted the residents “out that day, within the hour” and that she had “called the police to ensure that this would occur.”

To Ms Freud’s now complete statement the residents informed her that they were living in the house and that her request was unreasonable and “potentially based on fantasy from fantasyland”. They informed her that they did not believe that she was going to reside in the house nor that anybody was going to do any work on the house. They then communicated to Ms Freud the facts that informed this belief. Firstly, there was the fact that she was unaware of the state of the building. Secondly, that she admitted nobody could live in the house – and certainly not her; thirdly, that in 16 years time there had been no residents in the house, and building works had not been engaged in for sometime; fourthly, that the last residents had been evicted by her with the claim that she had intended to live there – a lie which was revealed when the house remained vacant months after those residents had been removed; and lastly, that they were aware that she was under investigation regarding her previous lies. The residents also informed Ms Freud that they had nowhere else to go and so if eviction was to occur they would need at least some time to find somewhere else to go. After this position had been fully articulated, Ms Freud came to the realisation that without violent action gaining ground on the eviction was unlikely to occur.

Soon afterward the stand off was broken by the arrival of the Police officers from Holborn police station that Ms Freud had promised. Officer EK301 and EK576 arrived at the scene and spoke briefly with Ms Freud, who gave them an outline of the stand off. The residents then added to, and corrected where necessary, this outline and informed the Police that this was a civil dispute and of no interest to the police at this point in time. Unsure of the proper course of action to take the confused officers trusted their natural allegiance to followers of Ms Freud’s god (or other similarly derived gods) and informed the residents present that they should make sure all residents were near by – “just in case we evict you all”. Their confusion about acting manifested itself in comments to Ms Freud about the validity of her piece of paper and cautious suggestions that perhaps she would “need to go to court…or something”. Eventually, the officers concluded that their role was to “maintain peace” and that they would call for a sergeant to “handle the paper work and book related stuff” – presumably a reference to legal processes and their law. As a way of passing the time the officers fell into conversation with Ms Freud whilst the residents occasionally interjected with comments about the fraudulent nature of Ms Freud’s stated intentions as well as about her history with the house.

At one point Ms Freud informed the officers that she had been notified that her property was being occupied by ‘squatters’ by her “diligent neighbour”. At no point did she inform either the residents or the police officers that she was actually barred from entering the property – or that in the entire period of the squatters residency she had needed to access the house. Only that the presence of the squatters prevented her and her architects the potential of entry to the property – which according to less pathetic (“diligent”) neighbours was about once in every 15 years.

Further, it appears that Ms Freud had engaged in intimidation by proxy tactics through this “diligent neighbour”, before attempting this pseudo-legal method of eviction. This is clear from the activities of that one neighbour – which were out of step with the general attitude of the other neighbours – as well as a number of other pieces of evidence. As shall now be illustrated these elements converge toward a conclusion that is nothing less than a conspiracy of intimidation to maintain 7 Burton street as an empty waste of housing.

The actions of this neighbour referred to, living in number 8 Burton Street, included regularly coercing his pet animal – presumed to be a dog – to defecate on the doorstep of 7 Burton street, whilst the squatters were residing there. In addition to this regular assault the neighbour, after roughly a week of residence, called the police in an attempt to have the residence of 7 Burton street arrested for ‘burglary’ , he also informed the residents that the last people had been evicted by ‘geezers’ as an attempt at coercion.

Another element to wash with the activity of this deranged upholder of property rights and her agent was the testimony of ‘Pat’, the resident of Flat D of 6 Burton Street. He informed the squatters early on in their residency that the Freud’s were members of the ultra-rich and that he disliked them a lot because of their abandonment of 7 Burton street – specifically the security as well as aesthetic consequences that this meant for him. In additional to these personal feelings toward the Freuds ‘Pat’ imparted to the squatters the facts surrounding the last residents of 7 Burton street. He informed the squatters that the last people to reside in the building had been very pleasant students, whom he got along with immensely and whom had their residency terminated in a brutal eviction at the behest of a lying Ms Freud. Further, the last eviction, as Pat recalled, was done in an atmosphere of general street unrest directed towards the Freuds and those members of the Police force carrying out the commands of the Freuds. Despite protestations from residence and evidence to suggest the Freuds had no intention of using 7 Burton Street the Police took direction from the Freuds and evicted those residents. Further, Pat informed the squatters that he was in a difficult position in terms of helping them as the Freuds had made him a ‘key holder’ of 7 Burton Street. Before finalising his testimony and departing to number 6 Burton Street Pat passed on the crucial piece of information that “one of the silly people in 8 Burton street is in the pay of the Freuds”.

Now, with some analysis of the actions of the neighbour from number eight and from the facts provided by Pat thoughts converge on a singular diabolical conclusion – a vicious conspiracy of the ultra rich. Firstly, if the assumption that the neighbour, from number 9, was not deranged is made then we are left with the possibility that this individual had a personal grudge against the squatters or some other personally advantageous motive for his actions. But prior to any final conclusions we must first illuminate some pertinent aspects surrounding the character of this neighbour.

The character of this neighbour, whom was not known by name to the squatters, was one defined by years of having his faced mashed in under the boot of the rich and their god (the were presumably other gods participating in the mashing – but their presence is not certain). There are many such individuals in our world and there conditions are all vastly similar. Unable to overcome the god that promotes and sustains the ultra-rich and their ideas of property, such a person as the neighbour in question has become accustomed to submission, to them and their god. This submission is a submission of this person’s own ability to act independently for himself, as in accordance with the rules set by those set in higher places by the aforementioned gods, he can only act within the regulations set out for him. This submission in fact goes so far that in order for him to fulfil any desire, that desire must either be something that can be purchased on the marketplace in exchange for a number of hours of wage-slavery or be able to be fulfilled via petitioning of a registered authority serving the ultra-rich and their gods. And, if fulfilment of that desire is not met by those methods it must be repressed internally within the self and stored as an ulcer, heart condition or eternal grumpiness…

In light of this neighbour’s character the act of commanding his pet animal to defecate on the doorstep of the squatter’s residence was an act of immense magnitude and viciousness. If his character were ignored such activity would have been taken as childish acts of good-hearted frivolity. However, such a person – with a face so scarred by the boot of repression is incapable of childish frivolity. He had no capacity to act for his self; that which he had submitted his self to had to condoned all he did. Thinking optimistically there could be the suggestion that he was escaping domination by these gods and that his actions were an expression of new found freedom – that is dealing with some grudge independently and not through the mediated forms set up by and for a god. It could have been possible that this person had just killed those gods, or at least severely wounded them. But, as there was no possibility for an actual grievance between the residents of 7 Burton Street and their neighbour of number 8 this conclusion has to, unfortunately, be struck out. It is then left to conclude that his acts were authorised in some way by either a registered authority or a member of the ultra-rich themselves. The facts of the situation suggested that the latter is true.

Without specific enough directions by a registered authority or a member of the ultra-rich to fulfil, this “diligent neighbour” was left to his own devices to fulfil what was an abstract command for social attack. Hence, with a character such as his, having no capacity for creative thought (another symptom derived from the face mashed-in condition), little-own taking social action that was not mediated by controlling forces, it was these actions that he chose to take. Thus what we have was a pathetic attempt at social action that had the appearance of childish frivolity but in reality was an authorised assault made in accordance with the wishes of capital.

By taking all this into consideration, the strategy of Ms Freud prior to her direct involvement with the police was made apparent. She had had in her employ a resident of 8 Burton street, a person she could trust because of their complete submission to the rulings of her gods. This person was employed to ensure, that despite her non-use of the property, it remained empty so that her god could be maintained and to ensure that this privileged position of her (and her family) was not attacked or violated in any way. His central role for her was to act as informant on any attempted breach of her wishes or those of her god and that upon such a breach he was to take steps to remedy the actions of those violators. Thus prior to the events of the 14th of March Ms Freud had attempted, by proxy, to force the residents of number 7 out through intimidation by proxy. And thus it was because of her agent’s failure as an intimidator by proxy that Ms Freud came to the house with members of the Police to strike down upon those, with great vengeance and furious anger, who attempted to poison and destroy her god.

The junior offices, although claiming to be in need of the sergeants assistance with “book related things”, were perhaps really just not confident enough to undertake this violent eviction themselves. Hence no further progress towards this task was made until 12.45pm when the sergeant arrived on the scene. The interval between the junior officers’ expression of need for assistance and the arrival of EK431 and EK62 was neither short nor devoid of content. It involved conversations between the police, two of which were significant, the rest being mindless time filler consisting of an attempted presentation by one of the squatters aimed at making himself and the other residents more acceptable to Ms Freud and her agents from the state – an effort which from the outset was pointless.

The first conversation involved an attempt by Ms Freud to justify the eviction and portray her self as understanding of the motives of the squatters – an effort that failed miserably. The second conversations involved the police engaging in dialogue, referentially directed towards the squatters, about how bad squatters are, with the general aim of demoralising the squatters. It was only this first conversation that was note worthy, the conversation motivated by the concerns of Ms Freud’s ego.

This conversation was conducted in a manner of question and answer. Ms Freud would ask a question to the squatters, who would then reply. The questions that Ms Freud put forward were loosely pre-constructed and were presumably constructed whilst she was attempting to self-justify her impending act of eviction – therefore they were made as a response to her own concerns about being a ‘nice person’. To each of these questions the squatters would give minimal responses – having no desire to appear artificially congenial to any non-people (people who go around inventing gods and such) such as Ms Freud. She initiated conversation with the two residents encountered first, whom she asked; “Where abouts in Australia are you from?” A question that, like all of Ms Freud’s, was replied to in the shortest possible way but unlike the rest was not replied to with a negative. That was then followed by “Are you students in London?” Then “I do realise that students have difficulty in finding housing here and would much like to be of assistance to you. I have contacted people that can help you. A lady, Jo, at Camden council said that she could find temporary accommodation for students. Would you like her number? ” Then “Please take her number she will be able to help you. The number is…” . Despite the negative responses to every question she continued with her prearranged script, unable to adapt to the changing circumstances each negative reply created. At this point the unemployed Englishman and the two unemployed Mexicans living in the house joined the unemployable Australians in Ms Freud’s questiong, which then shifted to be more about immigration issues.

“Doesn’t British Immigration make you show that you have sufficient funds? How much money do you have? Are you going to get a job? Aren’t you supposed to be able to support yourself? It is so hard for us to get into Australia, (They don’t put up with this in Australia) why doesn’t the government fix our laws?” The short unilluminating responses to each question soon drove Ms Freud to announce defeat at the attempt at self-justification supported by the squatters and to shift to the second conversation with the police aimed at ‘shaming’ the squatters, whilst also supporting her self-justification efforts. This second conversation involved much rhetoric about preserving ‘their’ England from all the nasty immigrants that compromise their privileges, a position the police officers held as inherently good and were therefore able to engage in for a considerably amount of time.

At the arrival of officers EK453 and EK62, one of whom was the sergeant, Ms Freud and the two junior police officers conversation about nasty squatters and lazy immigrants incorporated a greeting and then brief explanation about how these immigrants were squatters who were living in “this lady’s house”, referring to Ms Freud, and that Ms Freud had a statutory declaration saying that she wanted them out. After taking this in the sergeant then asked the squatters if they were living in this lady’s house to which they gave the obvious response. Despite reality, the Sargent informed the squatters that this was not possible and asked the squatters “what gives you the right to live in this lady’s house?” This question was answered with a statement, now becoming tiresome through repetition, informing the officer that the door to the house was open, that nobody was living there currently, that nobody had lived there for 16 years and that all the squatters currently residing in “this lady’s house” were otherwise homeless. After stating this, and not even attempting to anger them by attacking their gods with a question like “why can’t we live here”, the squatters were surprised to find the police remain steadfastly in support of Ms Freud.

Inane conversation erupted again, this time between one of the squatters, the agents of capital and the property owner. This conversation was perpetuated by one of the squatters attempting to gain a period of 24 hours to move out and the sergeant’s efforts to try and get the squatters out immediately – without having to physically beat them unconscious. During this conversation, apart from the one engaged in conversation the, the squatters drifted in and out of the house as interest and boredom fluxed.

Interest was soon brought together when the police failed to be sufficiently distracted by this conversation from the banality of their lives and needed to exercise violent power to prevent their decline into suicidal depression. The conversation had reached a point where Ms Freud would be happy to give the squatters 24 hours to leave as long as she could have a look at the inside of the house – a point which we squatters did not want to concede to, due to a reasonable belief that the purpose of her entry into the house would be immediate eviction and not ‘a look’. In order to end this activity that all to resembled people solving problems themselves – despite the obvious power differential in favour of Ms Freud and the degree of compromise given by the one ‘negotiating’ squatter – the police decided to begin exercising violent control over the situation.

Officer EK62 announced to the squatters that he would arrest all of them for burglary, despite the lack of evidence, if the squatters did not allow Ms Freud into the house. He informed the squatters that the lack of evidence in applying a charge was “an issue to be dealt with at the station” and that whilst at the station Ms Freud, whose locksmith had just arrived, “could change the locks to prevent squatters re-entering”, even if it was only to collect their things. Our response to such a ridiculous attack was delayed by the time it took for us to translate the statement, which was made in a dialect produced by the pushing of words through a body mangled by stress, bad food, disease and the continual ultimate distress in failure that comes with in any infinite quest to be powerful and fulfil the desires of self made gods. But once the squatters had realised the totality of the demand there was little they could do but allow Ms Freud and the police entry to “look at the state of the property” – they did not find the option of loosing all their stuff attractive.

As she had not lived in the house for at least the last 15 years, potential not ever, Mrs Freud found the task of making any judgements about “the state of the property” difficult. She had no reference points that would allow her to make a judgement about whether any damage had occurred in the house, although she was aware that a new toilet had been installed some months ago. Thus her investigation of each room produced little but a bemused look from her. This course of events was something that she had been ill prepared for, hence once having a look throughout the house she was unable to find a way of insisting that people leave immediately whilst at the same time remaining a “nice person”. This is where the police and their desire to enjoy the feeling of greatness and virility that comes with vanquishing loathsome squatters and satisfying them that a proper respect for their gods had been restored intervened.

One officer, EK431, realised that this violation of the rules of his gods was potentially going to continue for another 24 hours. So he decide to action and let the residents know how powerful the gods were. He asked one of the squatters whether they were aware that stealing electricity was a crime. This as with all previous stupid questions was answered quickly and obviously, further the assumption was made that EK431 was accusing the squatters of stealing electricity and hence they informed him that the electricity had been registered with London energy, who could be called to confirm this if Mr EK431 so desired. Such confirmation was not desired by EK431 who then said that this was another one of those evidence things that could be worked out at Holborn police station. Further, just like the charge of burglary the charge of stealing electricity would provide an opportunity to change the locks – thus allowing Mrs Freud to reclaim the house as a vacant lot as well as reducing the squatters to people without access to anything but the clothes that they were wearing. Further, just as with the charge of burglary, stealing electricity was not to be pursued if the squatters immediately vacated the house. The squatters were presented with a choice, that fantastic abstract noun that the forces of these gods value so highly, but as with all their choices there was in reality only compliance. Or to be more accurate compliance enforced violently or through fear of the prospect of violence. The squatters chose to comply on the basis of ‘fear of the prospect of violence’ and in their egalitarian fashion the agents of capital gave them one hour to remove themselves before violent enforcement began.

Once the squatters had begun packing their things away and preparing for departure the police and Mrs Freud adjusted their attitude in accordance with the influx of pride that the success over the squatters had produced. This manifested itself in self-reassurancing comments on the righteousness of their actions and concerns about squatters being a blight on their society. The negative position of the police towards the squatters actions seemed at odds with the sense of value and purpose that their actions had given to these people whose lives would have otherwise merely been extraordinary wastes of space and time. In reality that sense of purpose that had given to them was only possible because of the mental constructions that they had allowed to completely dominate there minds and thereby limit their own lives to pathetic consumption, obedience and violent enforcement of the obedience and consumption of others. Thus, for them, the squatters could only be recognised as ‘others’ ascribed a negative value so that they could gain that positive feeling of purpose. This pride also manifested itself in ‘life lesson’ and moral teachings to be imparted to the squatters.

The one point that the police most wished to convince the squatters of was that they were lucky in the way that events had panned out – because the Police had helped the squatters. Each of the Police officers expressed an inexplicable belief that they were not ‘muscle’ in the service of Mrs Freud. This was clear in the comments of Officer EK431 during one of his ‘life lesson’ remarks. He informed the squatters that they were “lucky that Mrs Freud was a nice person” as if she were not such a ‘nice person’ she would have “called some goons to force you out”. To this comment, shocked as they were by the idocy of this remark, the squatters put to him “What are you talking about? You and your friends, are the ‘goons’”. Ek431 did not respond.

It is usual in circumstance involving law enforcement that when the ridiculous is pointed out to the enforcers they hide behind the mantra that they are just doing their job as if that is sufficient enough reply to any argument regarding the course of another’s actions. For the officers in this situation such a position was more difficult. In all police officers just as with these specimens the justification to act is based upon and maintained by constructed notions of law and/or rights based on various gods. In this situation where their actions were not supported by stringently codified laws the officers fell back on the more abstract rights alone as a justification for their actions. There were also some flimsy suggestions from the police that their actions were somehow based on executing codified laws – but the only argument that they could put forward was “I know how to do my job”. The abstractness and ridiculousness of ‘rights’ (a concept that takes years of practice before it can be successfully deployed as a delusional basis for action) made maintaining their fantastical gods difficult against the reality that they were simply the violent army of those wishing to maintain privileged positions. Thus is an explanation to the speechlessness of EK431.

There were no more altercations with the Police Officers, all communication between the Police and the squatters had ended from this point. The Police Officers were at this point happy that their gods had were being supported and the squatters felt that it was of no personal gain to attempt to engage with the automatons as they were programmed against them and were not capable of meaningful social relations outside of the authorisation of their gods. During the next twenty or so minutes Mrs Freud and the squatters did engage in contact. In her at this point newly rekindled desire to be a ‘nice person’ she offered the squatters plastic bin bags to put their belongs into. In response to her niceness the squatters engaged in conversation for the sake of testing the limits of her ignorance about the contents, layout and state of the house.

Excluding the small actions taken on the part of the squatters to delay the steps of Ms Freud and the Police this is the totality of the facts regarding the eviction of five persons from 7 Burton street. The following are facts omitted from the main body that may have some bearing on future events. It was over heard that Ms Freud was planning to have an alarm system installed, although the over hearing could have been intended so as to deter re-entry. The squatters moved onto 22 Russel Square, a squat that was more secure due to its ownership by a University and its population of students, although one which would only provide shelter temporarily. It is believed that Ms Freud is now secure in her home in Oxford with the knowledge that her property at 7 Burton Street lies empty and unused – just as she wants it. The squatters as well as others not totally crushed by various gods are currently awaiting any opportunity to fully claim an ability to realise themselves as human at the expense of all controls that hinder this.

It is believed that both Ms Freud and the Police officers involved are still moving about the country causing distress and crisis in the name of their gods. If you know the whereabouts of, or have seen the Ms Freud or the Police Officers involved you are urged to take matters into your own hands. A brick in the face of a Police Officer usually results in their being out of action for a number of weeks whilst large amounts of theft and property damage is likely to tie Ms Freud up in paper work and debt to keep her out of trouble for a while.


About barkingcoins
This author is just another fucking dickhead.

4 Responses to On the Burton Street Eviction

  1. Simon says:

    Are you actually trying to defend squatting? Do you have the least idea how distressing it is to people? Really should check up on who is ‘self interested’ in this little debate, maybe. I recognise the depth of Ms Freud’s crime of being well-off, it truly is heinous, but perhaps encouraging “large amounts of theft and property damage” doesn’t put you in the best of lights as a ‘nice person’ either.
    By the by, I have “an ability to realise myself as human” without feeling the need to live in other people’s houses. Try it. And, no, I don’t own a house – but I don’t feel that entitles me to cause intense distress to others. The sooner the laws about squatting change, the better.

  2. barkingcoins says:

    Are you actually trying to defend squatting? Do you have the least idea how distressing it is to people?

    no, i don’t own an abandond house so I can’t say that I have personal experience…

    although I imagine that I would get some pleasure out of having such a degree of control over others, surely mitigating any distressed caused by the presence of people in my abandond building. I guess I cling to the solidity that property ownership (the little I have) gives to me, so an undermining of that would be distressing but surely not so much as to out do (in a crude utilitarian sense) the pleasure from that assertion of that ownership. Further still, the sense of solidity that I gain from my ownership of things is derived precisely from the fact that it is power I have over others thus. Hypothetically speaking – if I did have an abandond building and there were no squatters whom I could exercise power over I would never gain anything from my abandond building, therefore I would have to conclude with a “thank-you squatters thanks to your desire for housing I can gain enjoyment from making you suffer…”

    I recognise the depth of Ms Freud’s crime of being well-off, it truly is heinous, but perhaps encouraging “large amounts of theft and property damage” doesn’t put you in the best of lights as a ‘nice person’ either.

    Nobody is actually ‘nice’, and I can’t think of anything that makes nice better than not nice. The point is that it is silly to pretend to be, nice. Silly because you end up torturing and isolating yourself.

    I have “an ability to realise myself as human” without feeling the need to live in other people’s houses.

    how do you know?

    The sooner the laws about squatting change, the better.

    how so?

  3. Lorna says:

    Dogs use piss to scent mark their turf, the rich use Police.

  4. Papa Chenks says:

    Its funny how one-sided this is, the fact that expensive fireplaces were stolen and are yet to be replaced because of the prices as mrs Freud cannot afford them, the house is lived in but has been done up since this altercation, the neighbour at number 8 did not work for mrs Freud. Your description is right you are a “fucking dickhead”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: