First, I see no evidence on an increased number of attempts to close down social centres think the comparision with the enclosure of common land is incorrect. Social Centres are not common land but reclaimed spaces that might represent temporary autonomous zones. Of course not all are even squatted, some are purchased but it's probably not those that you speak of as being closed in the name of development.

I feel you are exagerating the threat to social centres of closure and that they are no more threatened with eviction due to developement than any other squat. Asking how the battle to protect one centre is linked to others suggests a much larger number of social centres in this country than there actually are. Of course your definition of a social centre might be different from mine - perhaps including residential squats that have occasional public events rather than spaces dedicated to use as a social centre. However if you were to include such places, there are still an incrediably low number of social centres in the UK compared to Italy or Spain for example.
Awareness is low because activity is low. Rather than ask to what extent the story is being passed on to a wider audience, perhaps we should be asking if there is even a story to tell!

I'm not sure what affordable housing has to do with the challenges to social centres but I do hear that one of London's remaining social centres is threatend more from privitisation in the form of other squatters wanting to making it residential than from encroachment by property developers.

As someone who is involved in a social centre I find this argument pretentious. Social centres are no more common land than any other community centre is common land. Generally they are ran as poorly organised management committees with an undemocratic lack of a clear membership.

It's pretty obvious that if you go about squatting places then the authorities will try and shut you down. That's their terms, that's how a property system like capitalism works. Writing wanky hysterical bullshit about a perceived crackdown on social centres and linking it to the enclosure of common lands is so far off the wall it's unreal. Also the comment refering to TAZs is equally wanky. Yes most social centres are organised by people whose politics is as nonsense as those who invest some authority in 'TAZes' as an idea, but don't assume that every social centre is run by hippy lifestylists whose politics only go as far as referencing that nonce Hakim Bey - some are run by people with a genuine commitment to communism.

You generalise too much, i know of no social centres run by hippy lifestylists whose politics only go as far as referencing that nonce Hakim Bey.