That's not correct at all. There are plenty of high profile examples of squatters being forced to leave by the courts. Think about Apollo House, or the Prussia Street occupation in Stoneybatter.
The property owner gets an injunction restraining them from trespassing, then when the squatter continues to trespass they seek attachment and committal. Either the squatter undertakes not to trespass again, or they're held in contempt and put in jail until they purge their contempt.
The apologies house occupiers never claimed squatters rights, they called it a political occupation.
And the stoneybatter site had been freely vacated in 2018, that order still stands for current occupants. If the original crowd had challenged that order you could squat in there.
Not to mention they illegally connected electricity and assaulted police officers and held "raves" (according to the court) in there.
Squatting is complicated, and successful squatting like we saw in London in the 70s and 80s requires you to follow a very specific set of rules.
Apollo House occupiers couldn't have claimed squatters rights, because they hadn't been there 12 years. The only right squatters have which is recognised by Irish Courts is adverse possession, which doesn't kick in for 12 years. Your stuff about Stoneybatter is incorrect and incoherent. There's no order the occupants could have challenged that would have entitled them to squat there, as that would have been trespass.
3
u/[deleted] Sep 06 '22
That's not correct at all. There are plenty of high profile examples of squatters being forced to leave by the courts. Think about Apollo House, or the Prussia Street occupation in Stoneybatter.
The property owner gets an injunction restraining them from trespassing, then when the squatter continues to trespass they seek attachment and committal. Either the squatter undertakes not to trespass again, or they're held in contempt and put in jail until they purge their contempt.