Meh, theres a drug for that as well

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/09/payday-loans-shaft-the-poor?CMP=twt_guHere's a bit more 'we'll regulate you less than anywhere else in Europe so that you can screw people as much as possible'.[/url

Read recently that a surprisingly high proprtion of payday loan takers are professionals such as solicitors and doctors, which was surprising.

Not particularly surprised to be honest, when you are talking of "professionals" who traditionally have never questioned where their good salaries came from and never questioned why their outgoings were so high (private education for children is a tad expensive these days isn't it), then stir in a drop in income, yes, even among those "professionals" of just a few percentage points and you are suddenly looking at serious shortfalls every month.

I've had a 62% drop in income since 2008 but we cope because our outgoings are at an acceptable level, I doubt very much whether my GP could stand such decimation to his income.

The problem is that it is closely associated with other forms of criminal behaviour; squatters may have been coached that just five minutes before they turned up someone else conveniently forced the back door open, but the reality is just a loophole to commit breaking and entering, probably followed by other crimes. What other crimes would people be happy to hide behind risible conceits like that?

And unless squatters leave absolutely everything untouched the reality is criminal damage, theft and vandalism, with things of value frequently removed and sold, parts of properties damaged or covered in graffiti etc. There are also many reasons why properties are left vacant, it could be that someone has died and the estate is being disposed of, it could be the owner is in hospital or some other form of care, it could be the owner is on holiday, or they work away part of the time, maybe they are trying to rent it out, or sell it, or planning to refurbish it but don’t yet have the money? That they are not there to protect their property should not mean someone else can in reality break in and seize its use from them, and then force them into expensive legal battles to regain their property. The law of tort did not protect the victim from the reality of the situation and that’s ultimately why it was changed.