'Squatting' now illegal?

That has to be good news, despite the howls of protest from the pro-squatting groups on the left. The government has finally framed a law making the occupation of someone else's property illegal. It's taken far too long to secure this change in attitude. The blatant approach of many squater groups - such as the one based in East London which maintains an internet site with lists of 'desirable' properties available for squatters to 'take possession,' and which includes extremely valuable and important properties in the most expensive parts of London.

The argument that, simply because someone owns a second home, they are a legitimate target is fallacious. I've never owned more than one property, but even my humble little semi or terrace could be on the 'Squatters Directory' if my work took me away from it for more than a week. There is no justification for taking possession of someone's home (first or second) simply because 'I like it, it's standing empty, and I can get in without causing damage.' Rubbish, squatting has become a highly organised industry and it is time it was stamped on.

The excuse that most squatters are 'vulnerable' and 'homeless' isn't always the case and no longer holds true. Yes, there may be some, but they are not the majority any longer. Many are extremely well educated and have access to legal aid, legal teams on tap and know exactly how to string out the legal process - clumsy, expensive and time-consuming - to their advantage. And while the lawyers string things along, the squatters strip the house of valuable fittings, deface the walls and render the place uninhabitable so that when it is repossessed, it is no longer fit for habitation without a massive and expensive renovation.

No, it is long past time to treat squatting for what it is. Blatant theft. The law must not and cannot condone it.

A change of heart?

Someone drew to my attention an interview with Dr Dawkins in which he apparently backed off from calling himself an Atheist and adopted the term Agnostic. In fact this isn't a "new" revelation, it is simply a restatement of the position he has set out in his book. What it does do though, is raise the point that he does believe - because he can't 'prove' the contrary - that there 'might,' after all, be a 'Creator God.' He certainly twisted and turned on this point in a debate between himself and the Archbishop of Canterbury back in February.

The Archbishop took the sting out of the doctor's attack on belief by pointing out that the Church of England does not and never has officially taught that the first chapter of Genesis is anything other than an allegorical 'story.' As His Grace said, the writers of Genesis did not have a 21st Century education in Physics. Had they been so educated they might have written the story differently. He then went on to agree with Dr Dawkins that the Big Bang was an extremely elegant theory - having everything created out of 'nothing,' and somewhat stole the thunder by adding, "which is what Genesis says."

Dr Dawkins represents a militant form of atheism, one which seeks to undermine and destroy faith, yet, every time I have seen them faced with a real theologian or someone who is articulate enough to respond to their very basic understanding of religion, they end up looking slightly foolish. I found the Archbishop's handling of Dr. Dawkins and his arguments and attempted slurs both enlightening and deeply Christian. Not once did the Archbishop attack his antagonist, much of the time he was saying, "I agree" or "there is nothing in what you say that challenges faith." Even in the final exchange, when Dr. Dawkins declared that the Pope had a different stance on whether Genesis was 'fact' or allegory, His Grace responded with a smile, "I shall ask him when I next have the opportunity."

I cannot help wondering though, what it is or was that has driven men like Dr Dawkins and Philip Pullman to take such an extreme and rather rabid stance against any form of religion, but particularly Christianity. It must have been something very traumatic indeed ...

I do feel that Dr. Dawkins accepting the label of Agnostic is an important one. An agnostic is one who accepts the possibility that there may well be, as Josephus reminded us, a "Supreme Architect" behind the apparent chaos of creation and the universe. It is a first step toward actually exploring that more fully to acknowledge that.

Two days - New House ...

In under two hours this morning the builders added the upper storey of the house they started assembling yesterday. By evening, the roof was going on. The interior plastering, wiring connections and plumbing work will begin on Monday. The owner expects to be in at the end of October, the main delay is the installation of a very sophisticated 'heat pump' for the heating system. This draws heat from the air and the ground and uses it to warm the interior of the house. Vorschprung durch technik wieder ...

Talking to the owner and the team assembling the 'kit' I have learned that the firm that makes them and assembles the reult on site is based in Austria but deliver and work all over Europe. The 'kit' is to 'owner's specification' so each one can be produced as an individual layout and event the footprint can be adjusted to your requirements. They can supply a basic plan, which a buyer can modify and adjust to taste, and then, once the contract is signed, they build it in their factory. During that period - usually six to eight weeks - the groundwork is completed, the foundation prepared and then the assembly schedule prepared. 

Watching this exercise has been fascinating. The first semi-trailer arrives on site early and the team get to work. Just before that truck is unloaded, the second appears and that is just finishing its delivery when the next arrives. The piece being fastened in place in the last picture above is number 410. There are a total, I'm told, of 530 pieces to this house ...

Looking at the way everything interlocks, is secured in place and the whole is connected to the ground, these are going to be good solid homes for years to come.

Oh, and our local IKEA sells its own 'kit' house with a similar arrangement for the assembly thereof. Construction is certainly moving on from where it was in the old days.

Ready, steady - build ...

A couple of weeks ago I reported that the builders had started ground works for three new houses being built in our village. The first involved a massive excavation and the laying of some concrete, then nothing seemed to happen for a few days. Then, suddenly, there was a fully assembled cellar in the hole. Today some large semi-trailer trucks arrived with a crane.

Now there's the whole lower storey of the house there. The last two photos show the chimney being lowered into position through the prepared 'slot' in the floor slabs to link up with the boiler in the cellar. The upper picture is the lower section, the lower is the top part of the chimney which will be joined on as soon as the supporting roof structure is in place.

The walls are prefabricated, even the electrical conduits, wiring and fittings alreaddy installed. The builders simply assemble the whole thing as each piece is lowered into place. Windows and doors are all fitted already.

The second storey is a timber framed construction and the key elements of this are also prefabricated. Once these are in place - presumably tomorrow - the lining, insulation and the outer covering will go on. I am informed that these houses are essentially 'kits' which an owner can select from a catalogue, order and have assembled on the site of his choice.

House building has certainly moved on since I were a lad!

Greed isn't Good - a Medieval View on Capitalism

In medieval times it seems capitalism flourished on the principle of fair dealing, hard bargaining and allowing the "market" to determine the value of any goods or services. Naked greed was not something the merchant classes encouraged or accepted. Medieval traders built trading empires, extended credit and charged interest on it, but frowned on blatantly selfish economic behaviour. Anyone who was blatantly greedy and deliberately drove prices up to increase profits soon found himself shunned and despised by his fellow businessmen. 

The interesting thing is that these men were also intensely conscious of community needs, and there are many examples of foundations they established for the benefit of the communities they lived and worked amongst. The City of London still funds most of its activities from money invested in Foundations and Trusts established for the benefit of the populace by men like Sir Richard Whittington (yes, Dick Whittington was a real person). Put simply, blatant greed was simply unacceptable among the Mercant classes of this period, so why has it changed?

It does seem to have crept in with the Reformation. Over the last 500 years there has been a gradual drift toward amassing and holding as much wealth as possible. Gradually the ethos of 'taking care of the poor of the parish' has been pushed away from the individual and onto 'the parish' at first and now 'the state.' That sense of being part of the community and sharing one's good fortune with a community, has apparently gone. Now the faceless 'state' must provide, the merchant's only concern is how to make sure he contributes as little as possible toward it.

Adam Smith certainly did not advocate unbridled greed. His treatise on wealth and wealth creation highlights the fact that wealth and prosperity need to be shared fairly, not simply accumulated for the benefit of a few. A fair price should be coupled with a fair wage for a fair days work. That last bit does, of course, impose the need for the 'worker' to deliver what they have contracted to do - a fair days work. And they do have a right to expect a fair wage for it, but you soon realise that a worker who failed to deliver in medieval times soon found himself out of work, house and community. Just as greed was frowned on, so to was idleness and shoddy work.

The Medieval Guilds acted to regulate many of these matters, and, according to one blog I read regularly on medieval matters, sometimes even condoned the murder of excessively greedy individuals whose actions threatened the welfare of the wider community. The full article I read on this can be found at Medievalists.net under the title Greed wasn't good in the Middle Ages.

Perhaps a return to some of the ethics they practiced would do much to cure some of the ills that beset our economics today. However, I suspect that we workers need to get our focus adjusted as well. It is our demands for a greater share of the "merchant's rewards" that propels prices ever upward.

Rights versus Justice ...

I am left in two minds after the Norwegian murderer Breivik was sentenced to 21 years in prison for the cold-blooded murder of 77 people, 69 of them teenagers or early 20s. OK, he disagreed with the politics they represented, but that does not confer a 'right' to kill them. So why do I have doubts over the 'justice' of his sentence?

In 21 years this man will be 'released under licence.' Yes, he will be in his late 50s and he will find it difficult to get a job or to lead a 'normal' life. But he has denied all life to his victims, and now we have the spectacle of him being assigned a specially 'adapted' cell - orginally three, now knocked into one 'apartment' larger than many young people can afford to rent - and it is equipped with every luxury, even his own private gym. The argument advanced by the lady governor of the prison is that "he is a human being, he has civil rights, and the state has a duty to take care of his health, welfare and mental state."

Once again, it seems, the "rights" of a criminal are trumping the "right' of the victims and the bereaved to see justice done. Simply depriving him of his liberty is not sufficient punishment. He does not regret his actions, he's proud of them. He 'apologised' for not killing more, and now, at huge expense, he can be sure he will not have to face the realities of the victims or their families. He will be protected from his fellow prisoners who might be tempted to teach him some manners. Even in old age he will not face the difficulties faced by ordinary pensioners, whose pensions will now, no doubt, be held in check to help pay for this murderers comfort, care and protection.

I do not believe justice has been done here. It has certainly not been seen to be done. Is it any wonder so many victims of crimes all across the western democracies feel they cannot rely on justice? I think the concern for the "rights' of criminals, and that is all Breivik is, has gone far too far. Justice MUST be seen to be done and in this case, I note with interest, many of the victims families feel aggrieved and let down by the treatment this monster looks forward to.

Something a bit different for Friday

I've been playing around with Mausi's camera, a rather more 'tecky' one than I usually use. There is certainly a lot to experiment with. I thought I'd try some close-up stuff since there is a lot happening on the small scale in our garden.

So here are some results -

I'm willing to bet Josephus can name the genus of the plants and the insects in them ...