“Immigrant1: You make some good and valid points, although I personally doubt whether most landowners are philanthropist minded enough to allow their building to used by others. That is why there are so many empty properties in UK city centres. In the case of the Dolphin, I believe the squatters did request the owner's permission to continue operating the community centre on the premises, but were refused.

Yes, I also agree that certain kinds of squats would be detrimental to the neighbourhood – especially if they were indiscriminately used by drug or alcohol abusers – but not if they were properly operated. However, I think you'll agree that leaving buildings empty is not exactly going to raise the profile of a city or enhance its economic prospects – take a look at a place like Detroit and see how empty buildings lead to a downward spiral of the city centre.

Perhaps property owners could be nudged into offering their empty properties to be used as community or art centres by levying heavy taxes on buildings that remain empty for over a specified period.

Anyway, I appreciate your argument, and agree to a certain point.

Hacker_Jack: I see your point, but public property also belongs to someone (the community) and so in this respect is not really different from a private space owned by a board of directors - basically they are both owned by a person or people other the protestors (try putting your TV and sofa in Castle Square and see what happens... HAHA). In fact, protests at private property, such as hotels, resorts and private mines, are extremely common, especially when the landlord appears to be flaunting environment concerns. Anyway, I appreciate your response. It gave me some food for thought.”

“by TaipeiSteveWednesday, February 15 2012, 10:40AM
"Hacker-Jack: Protests are rarely if ever held on one's own property. They are either held on private or public land or in public or private property, but not on space belonging to the protesters themselves – remember the miner's strike or Occupy in London?
-------------

They are predominantly held on public property, which is where they should be held.

Protesting by occupying private land without permission is NEVER legitimate.”

“fair play ..to them why let a dis used building sit there empty wen there are homeless people out there freezing their buts off ...their intentions were not malicious just a room ova their heads they even set up a cafe for other homeless and starving people to visit for free , making use of 1 vacant building instead of loitering in doorways and starving 2 death i think the old hotel is rather a good idea obviously not squatting but maybe some funding or organisation could with some help from council and use the hotel to take homeless people off the streets ..less deaths , better and clleaner looking swansea , these people aint all wasters , winos and druggies but thats what they will be if they are forced to live on a pavement in high street”

“TaipeiSteve - I think the reason the building has been empty for so long is because there is a recession and it's probably almost impossible to find someone to take over and make use of the building.

But if people feel so strongly about empty buildings, then why not do what responsible people do and approach the owner and ask if it can be used for charitable needs until a new use is found for it. Many building owners are fine with that.

What is wrong here is that the Cwtch people have squatted it. The new owner/leaseholder/tenant only took over on 1st Jan, so you can hardly blame him for the building being empty for so long. He is already advertising for a new tenant, so I'm not sure what else you expect him to do.

Do you think the answer to empty buildings during a recession is for them all to be squatted? Just have a think about what that would do to the city centre. It would drive even more business away and would end up like a 3rd world town. It's almost there now.

There are always going to be buildings that are empty between tenants. That's life. The answer isn't to squat them.”

“Hacker-Jack: Protests are rarely if ever held on one's own property. They are either held on private or public land or in public or private property, but not on space belonging to the protesters themselves – remember the miner's strike or Occupy in London?

However, I appreciate that some people might not consider squatting as a form of protest. Personally, I feel that taking over a property can be considered a form of protest when there is an agenda and the occupation is not just about finding a place to bed down.

Anyway, that is just my personal opinion. I appreciate you posting yours.”

“Squatting is not protesting.

You want to protest, fine, do that but you have no right to do anything on someone else's private property.”

“I agree with Mmmelezzz (hope I got all the Ms and Zs...HAHA). There is not one side to a story, and it is important for the cohesion and harmony of societies to recognize that and to look at situations from various angles. Finally, we might not agree with other's opinions, but at least we have some understanding and respect for their right to hold those views.

Personally, I see the right to protest (which includes squatting) as a symbol of the freedoms that have evolved in the UK over centuries. If we deny these acts are we not destroying the very essence of the culture that we aim to preserve?

Likewise, I see venomous attacks on the hippy/alternative lifestyle as an assault on our hard won freedoms. Is not diversity of lifestyles something that as a nation we should celebrate and promote? How many countries enjoy such freedoms? Likewise, I think many of the posters would be surprised to know that the majority of the people who live on so-called hippy communes are extremely hard working. Organic farming, in particular, is a very labour intensive endeavour. Furthermore, I wonder why some people are so averse to this lifestyle. Do they believe it to be less beneficial to society than, say, producing junk food in a factory or churning it out in a US-style fast food restaurant?

I truly appreciate that not everyone agrees with the right to take over another person's property. That is fine. From another point, however, some people feel that a landlord who cares nothing about Swansea is willing to let an area economically deteriorate just because he wants to gain the highest profit for himself. Of course, legally, that is his prerogative, but ethically is it really an attitude that we want to support? Personally, if I owned a building in the centre of Swansea, I would feel deeply embarrassed to leave it empty. To me, it would symbolize a total lack of respect and caring for the community where it is located. However, perhaps that is just my personal sense of integrity. Others may have a different view, and I respect that.

Anyway, the thrust of my argument is that as a society we need to mull over and discuss matters that affect us and our future and, to this, I believe that we need to look at all sides of a debate and discuss them in civilized and intelligent way.

By the way, Hadoken1977, I appreciated your response to my earlier questions. Thank you.”

“@hadoken1977 If that last comment was aimed at me then I do believe you are mistaken. I am not one of the people who has been in the Dolphin all this time. The last time I visited was for a friend's wedding 11 years ago.

When I say I am pleased that such an event has caused discussion then it is because I am genuinely pleased. There is potential in these empty buildings being opened up and given up for use in the community. A similar scheme is in operation in Newport http://tinyurl.com/6rs2uzd

Like I've said before, and I'll say it again, what is it with all the false assumptions and hate you have towards people? Have you thought about trying to see both sides of the story and investigating a few facts first?”

“"I'm pleased that such an event has caused so much discussion about the empty properties in Swansea City Centre."

It has not done that at all (and you're not pleased, you're doing that thing where you want to pretend its all worked out great when you've been turfed out within the best part of a week!), you keep trying to con people into believing what you want.
If you go over the threads most people have been calling you names.

you have of course put this down to people being angry, another shattering insight into your little parties deluded actions. Its that deluded mindset that no doubt allowed you to justify climbing through a window and pretending like it was all above board.

Like I said, people here GET you have fundamental issues on morality, and you then base your conclusions from the REACTIONS your bad actions create.

Its pretty easy to appear hateful towards people like you, becuase your actions are that of another useless cult of people in this country exploiting things for the sake of it.

If you want to impress people, do what you're doing under genuine circumstances, but all you want to do is rub people up the wrong way because its the only way people like you could ever get attention.

Well done of the failed take over project. Leaking sewage into neaby shops and getting eviceted by a judge and costing someone 1000's in legal fee's.

CLAP CLAP CLAP.”

“@TaipeiSteve, I agree that this event seems to have caused disproportionate amounts of anger from people here. Sadly it's the same people all the time that are filled with hate. I feel really sorry for them that they feel the need to rant about things and people that they know nothing about.

I'm pleased that such an event has caused so much discussion about the empty properties in Swansea City Centre. Hopefully the council will take note and allow the ones they have control of to be put to some good use.”