Text A relies on a hefty use of sibilance (“squatting itself is not the problem…”;…you‘d sit in some of the places squatters“) throughout the article to emphasise the irritated tone which Chas employs. Chas ends the article with a rhetorical question “By the way…impossible?” in order to involve the reader and leaves them to make up their own mind about the issue. However, there is no sign of any usage of abstract nouns or verbs nor does it properly involve the reader. Although Text A is effective in getting the message across, it has the aforementioned weaknesses.
Text B mentions a squatter victim as both “Elaine Ives-Cameron” and “Ms Ives-Cameron” in the article as it shows respect and formality, which reinforces Text B’s neutral viewpoint on squatters. Richard uses formal verbs (“campaigning”) and adverbs (“adequately”) as he knows what he is writing about, as his position is illustrated in the footnote of the article. He only mentions his opinion on squatters at the very end of the article, choosing instead to mostly write about the procedures which are followed to evict squatters and use Text C’s data against the anonymous writer. Text C’s writer wrote down some statistics (“There are…only 1 per cent in privately owned housing”), intending to use the data as a building block for their argument and to successfully persuade the reader that their view on squatters are “correct”. However, this did not seem to work correctly as both writers of Text A and B challenge the data in Text C. Chas uses the rhetorical question (“By the way…impossible?”) to challenge the writer of Text C; in addition, Richard uses Text C’s data to build on his argument (“The evidence…property is rare”).
Richard subtly demonstrates the law system as being a physical entity; it resembles a factory process at work (“open for abuse“, “extending the criminal law“, “overstretched police and court resources“). This becomes more and more effective and interesting as the writer talks about the law system being “open for abuse by landlords”. This paints a picture in the reader’s mind as it reinforces that law is not quite as straightforward as many people may think and is the sole reason why evicting squatters seems difficult. Furthermore, the metaphor also demonstrates the law process to be very delicate, in addition the nominalisation of the word “abuse” (it being a noun and not a verb) emphasises that point.
The writer of Text C uses a variety of techniques to get their point across.. Firstly, they use a contrasting temporal relationship in the first two paragraphs (the first paragraph illustrates what happened “before the war” and the second paragraph shows the here and now and what exactly happens “every year“). Secondly, the writer emulates Richard’s use of the third person as they also try to (unsuccessfully) remove any visible traces of bias. And thirdly, the writer uses a variety of sentence lengths to engage the reader’s interest.
Finally, all three articles show their views on the issue of squatting. Texts A and C do show signs of bias when the arguments are constructed. In Text A, there is evidence of the use of the first person, although only the personal pronoun “I” is used but the second person (“you” and “your”) and the third person (“it” and “itself”) are used more often in the article.
The use of the first and second person in Text A weaken the argument because there is no sign of disguising opinions as facts in the article. Conversely, the personal anecdotes which Chas writes down evokes a personal response from the reader and informs the reader about the true hardship which squatters face in everyday life.
However, Text C consists of several value judgments like “must” and “need” and this does weaken the argument like in Text A. Nevertheless, Text C is very effective in getting the message across by subtly engaging the reader and encourages them to make up their own mind, for example starting off by writing “IT IS easy to see how it happened”. From the first word to the end of the article, the writer hooks the reader by engaging them into the article.
The use of graphology in the three texts is rare. The main reason for this is that they are part of the Opinions section of The Independent and they were all found to be mainly in plain font with hardly any use of capitals, italics and bolding. The exceptions are that in Text C, “IT IS” which is capitalized for emphasis and to draw the reader into the article and the end of Texts A and B where the writers sign their names (“CHAS LOFT”, “RICHARD LLOYD”).
Other than that, all three texts are written in mainly plain font and therefore, the writers have to mainly rely on their lexical choices rather than graphological features to build on their arguments.
This shows that all three texts are effective in getting their message across about the issue of squatting. Text A is effective in using personal anecdotes and making the reader feel sorry for squatters rather than demonise them, but falls short when the first and second person are used. Text B is effective in making the article feel detached by using abstract verbs, nouns and the third person and does seem to build a solid argument with no fall backs. Text C is effective in engaging the reader and encouraging them to make up their own mind, but falls short when opinion words like “must” and “need” are present to the reader.
In conclusion, I believe that Text B is the most effective article out of the three texts because it reads formally and professionally and therefore, does not have its argument weakened unlike Texts A and C. Furthermore, the level of subtlety in Text B makes it very effective in getting the message across that squatters squat because they are homeless but “public policy should make squatting unnecessary”. It was the only article which did change my views on squatters (from negative to neutral) when reading it. Since it influenced my judgments on squatters to change, Text B is the most effective text out of the three to get the message across.
Texts:
While the law is an ass squatters are sitting pretty
Text C
IT IS easy to see how it happened. Before the war, poor families who were behind with the rent could be forcibly evicted at a moment's notice by a slum landlord, and left to wander the streets at night. Successive governments therefore laid down formal legal procedures that landlords must follow before they can evict; and they drafted other, compensating, provisions to protect householders from trespassers. Sadly, they did not succeed. Well-informed squatters are making an ass of the law.
Every year, tens of thousands of people break into empty council properties and move in their belongings. When the council realises what has happened, the door has a new lock - and a notice explains politely that squatters have moved in. Because it is hard to prove that they broke in, rather than entering after someone else did, they cannot be arrested. Instead, the council must issue a formal notice to quit. If the squatters ignore that, it must seek a court order; if that fails, the council must ask for a formal eviction order. Even then, it may be weeks before bailiffs are available to enforce it - by which time the squatters may have moved on.
In theory, simpler procedures apply when the owner of the property either has nowhere else to live, or is a local council that has a tenant wanting to move in. But even in these cases, squatters who can show that they were let in to the flat by a former occupier (something that is surprisingly common) are hard to move on.
Many professionals involved - whether lawyers, police, civil servants, judges or local government officers - agree that the situation is absurd. There are thought to be some 60,000 squatters across the country, a quarter of them in London; about 90 per cent of them live in council houses, with 9 per cent occupying shops or offices, and only 1 per cent in privately owned housing. In the Sixties and Seventies, when many councils were embarking on ambitious new building programmes, they could afford to take a relaxed view. Now they cannot; particularly in London, where every place occupied by squatters means another family condemned to the misery of bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
This autumn, the Home Office hopes to legislate to speed up the civil process of eviction, and to stiffen the penalty for ignoring a court order. Yet this alone cannot be enough. For fear that radical change to the law could bring back the cruelty by landlords that the original rules were intended to prevent, the Government has held back from declaring squatting itself criminal. Even if civil proceedings are greatly speeded up, illegal occupiers will still be undisturbed for weeks on end.
If the problem is to be properly tackled, squatters must be prevented from gaining entry in the first place - and removed speedily if they do. The police need to respond more quickly when they are alerted to the arrival of squatters, and to treat the problem with the seriousness it deserves. Councils need to keep their property better secured and maintained. It is no coincidence that it is usually the worst-managed councils that have the most squatters.
More legislation will not help squatters
Text B
Sir: Elaine Ives-Cameron's claim that 'thousands of home-owners are or have been' experiencing her problems in evicting squatters ('The parasites who took over my home', 21 June) and that her problems were due to insufficient criminal legislation is misleading.
The evidence suggests that squatting of privately-owned property is rare. The vast majority of squatted residential property is owned by local authorities and housing associations.
Under current criminal law, 'protected intending occupiers' and 'displaced residential occupiers' can call on police assistance in gaining vacant possession. Squatters who damage property can also be adequately dealt with by the criminal law. The civil court has unqualified discretion to hear a case against squatters at very short notice and to enforce possession immediately.
If Ms Ives-Cameron took 31/2 years to gain possession, she should be campaigning for fewer administrative delays in the civil procedure rather than stricter criminal proceedings which are, in Shelter's opinion, unnecessary and open to abuse by landlords wishing to illegally evict tenants. As the Association of Chief Police Officers has pointed out, extending the criminal law will simply place more pressure on overstretched police and court resources.
There is a need for recognition by government that most people squat because they are homeless. The goal of public policy should be to make squatting unnecessary, and make it unnecessary for owners of properties to leave them empty.
Yours faithfully,
RICHARD LLOYD
Head of Policy
Shelter
London, EC1
Pro Squatter (Independent): Desperation that drives the squatters
Text A
Sir: I note with dismay your decision to climb on the anti-squatter bandwagon ('While the law is an ass squatters are sitting pretty', 8 June).
It is quite simply not the case that 'every place occupied by squatters means another family condemned to the misery of bed- and-breakfast accommodation'. In my eight years as a squatter, I never lived in a place that was fit to rent (I wonder how 'pretty' you'd sit in some of the places squatters have to live) and there are still plenty of long-term empties on London's estates - closed off by expensive steel doors.
If squatters sometimes jump the queue, it is not through malice but desperation. Is the misery of the young single homeless, ineligible for even B & B and therefore forced to squat or sleep rough, so much more acceptable than the misery of families?
Squatting itself is not the problem but a symptom of the housing crisis; and the only solution to that crisis is the construction of affordable homes for rent. Undoubtedly such a solution would require taxes to be raised - perhaps that is why well- paid journalists with nice homes choose to demonise the homeless, rather than call for a policy which actually helps them.
By the way, where do you think 60,000 squatters should go if squatting is made impossible?
Yours faithfully,
CHAS LOFT
London, N16
8 June