Yes, two drunks illegally built a "dwelling" under a park, peed in bottles (which he emptied where?), ducked the police, stole construction materials, I guess I am just failing to see how this can be justified? Is it because he didn't want to spend money to room with someone (I'm assuming he would rather spend it in the bar).
He could have chosen a location where he wouldn't have been bothered, off in the woods, he could have used his travel card to get back and forth, but he didn't. He could have even done this somewhere he could have eventually won squatters rights for his dwelling. But he didn't.
So again, I was disappointed to read that is was just a story of a (somewhat) vagrant, "scaff monkey".
> Yes, two drunks illegally built a "dwelling" under a park, peed in bottles (which he emptied where?), ducked the police, stole construction materials, I guess I am just failing to see how this can be justified? Is it because he didn't want to spend money to room with someone (I'm assuming he would rather spend it in the bar).
Nothing in the article suggests they were drunks. The article suggests he spent time waiting in a pub for the heath to empty out and at one point mentions "his usual beer", not that he was a drunk. Nothing else in the description suggests any substance abuse problem. Given you describe the pub he used to wait in as "the bar" perhaps you're not from the UK and unfamiliar with UK pub culture, but it is not at all unusual for people to use a pub as their social meeting space and not go there to get drunk, or even drink much, if at all.
Nothing in the article suggests he stole construction materials. He was not charged with any thefts either. The other person worked as a labourer at a building site, so maybe he did, but then again they might also just have known where to get the supplies; you'll note at least one mention of spending money on some of the supplies. But again you're jumping to conclusions. It's possible they stole it, but the article does not provide evidence for that.
Nothing suggests he had sufficient income to make not rooming with someone in a proper flat a choice - this one is a particularly insidious "accusation" seeing as he 1) roomed with someone in his shelter, 2) invited others in when he came across someone that looked like they were in a bad place, so he clearly was not adverse to sharing.
You're inferring a whole lot of things that suggests you're intent to judge him from the outset. You might want to think about why you're so quick to jump to conclusions.
As to "how this can be justified", I'd ask another question: How can a society as rich as the UK justify underfunding social services so much that people like this are unable to afford housing or get social housing? Someone who does work, but is facing health issues limiting what he's been able to do. It's disgusting.
Personally to me, his situation would have justified some petty theft and the by accounts very limited vandalism given the care he appears to have taken to make his dwelling largely invisible, and his lack of access to housing.
You'll note this was also not what he was charged with or convicted for. He was convicted over circumstantial evidence he might have handled an improvised firearm. Now, if he did make that, and it was somehow intended for defense, then I would not have any sympathy for that, but the evidence does not appear particularly strong.
> He could have chosen a location where he wouldn't have been bothered, off in the woods, he could have used his travel card to get back and forth
And, where, pray tell, do you imagine would fit this description in London without doubling or tripling his monthly costs to get too and from the locations where he was able to find work? If you're about to suggest outside London, consider that the article sets out plenty of reason why so many homeless people stay in London: Access to other services. Access to work. Ability to fit in among the crowd.
> He could have even done this somewhere he could have eventually won squatters rights for his dwelling. But he didn't.
Did you miss the part where squats have become increasingly competitive and it became increasingly dicier for him? Did you miss the part where he had been squatting for years, but had to give it up when the law was tightened up significantly in 2011, and it became harder for him to keep up and secure his position in the dwindling number of squats?
In any case after squatters rights in the UK were gutted it is exceedingly rare for people to win rights to property this way, as it takes 10-12 years of continuous occupation and the means to prevent you from getting to that point are many.
> So again, I was disappointed to read that is was just a story of a (somewhat) vagrant, "scaff monkey".
I'm disappointed to see someone so lacking in empathy to dismiss a story like this the way you have in this comment.
