In fact from what I've heard, America and Australia care far more about the Queen than we do.
Nope, just a whole bunch of old veterans seem to care about the flag they carried in WWI and WWII, soon as they die out we'll become a republic.
In response to whether the squatters get off scot-free or not, I think the point Mkilbride is posing is, what the hell can you do against people who (apparently) don't have any money. I mean, surely the guy will get his house back, whether it takes 2 weeks or 2 months, it'd be utterly ridiculous for the guy not to get his own property back, but the contents of the house, the general cleanliness and state of the house, what condition are they going to be in? These squatters are surely going to be unable to pay for proper cleaning, nor would you imagine they'd bother cleaning it themselves before they were evicted and since it's a civil case, there's no way for the man in question to get a cheque cut from the government either. If he's lucky, insurance will pay him a decent amount, but I'm not sure if "act of squatter" is covered in his policy, or anyone's policy for that matter...
And on their side, the worst these squatters will get is jail time, which is only if the matter is escalated to a criminal offence instead of a civil one, but if they are able to argue that squatting is legal and they occupied the property legitimately under those laws, what kind of punishment will they receive? Certainly not to pay for damages and missing property (how do you even prove that any property has been missing) since they're (once again "apparently") too poor. They claim bankruptcy and boom, they're off the hook to occupy another residence.
All in all, a really raw deal for the home owner.
