>> ...as the new law restricts people living in unoccupied buildings, but not visiting them

Actually, that is incorrect. It is an offense to gain unauthorised entry to a building.

>> Actually, that is incorrect. It is an offense to gain unauthorised entry to a building.

No, it isn't. At least not in English law.

Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 creates the offence of 'squatting in a residential building' nothing else has changed. It only applies if...

(a)the person is in a residential building as a trespasser having entered it as a trespasser,

(b)the person knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser, and

(c)the person is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.

Note the AND means all three must be met before an offence is committed. Trespass (i.e. "unauthorised entry to a building") is a civil matter.

Oh really? I see you've been reading the dummy's version of the law that doesn't go beyond the basics.

BTW. Trespass is still an offence - a civil offence.

However, you have completely neglected to mention that in England and Wales certain forms of trespassing, those that involve squatters, hunt saboteurs, raves etc are covered by criminal law. Check out the offences under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Sections 61 and 62 of trespassing on land
 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/61


Also, there is a clear breach of the peace here too, so thats also a criminal offence.

we'll see when the are arrested and get sent to court. If they are guilty - they have committed a criminal offence.

SOLIDARITY FROM AMSTERDOOM ... ban is on SO SQUAT BARRICADE AND RESIST GOOD LUCK TO THE COMRADES ON THE ROOF FUK THE LAW SQUAT THE WORLD AMSTERDOOM KRAKERS

fuck the police and fuck wanker troll comments while im at it

fair play to the arrestees, total solidarity from northampton!

apparently the rooftop occupiers got away...

be interested to see if this actually ends up in court...

 https://network23.org/snob/2012/09/03/all-hands-on-deck/

 http://twitter.com/snobaha

pure comedy gold
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHAX93BH_k0&feature=youtu.be

It's not clear to me from the article but seems like the cops made a big mistake when applying their brains to this new law.

1) The building that was squatted was not residential but is a shop.
2) They arrested people who were not resident there

Is that right?

@'i see dumb people'

This is probably the online equivalent of pissing in the wind, but I'll give it a go anyway.

Um no, just highlighting the part of the law that contradicts what you said.

No one said tresspass wasn't a civil offence. What you had originally taken issue with was that "the new law restricts people living in unoccupied buildings, but not visiting them" - a true statement.

As for s61 & 62 of the CJA. I see you have Google, but not the ability to read. They don't apply to:

"buildings other than—
(i)agricultural buildings within the meaning of, in England and Wales, paragraphs 3 to 8 of Schedule 5 to the M3Local Government Finance Act 1988 or, in Scotland, section 7(2) of the M4Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, or
(ii)scheduled monuments within the meaning of the M5Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979;"

So kinda irrelevant to most urban squatting. Incidentally I guess (ii) is to stop people claiming stonehenge is a building.

I would disagree that breach of the peace was commited, however it's irrelevent as it is NOT an offence.

"we'll see when the are arrested and get sent to court. If they are guilty - they have committed a criminal offence." - I guess that's the most sensible thing you've said so far, but the original point of the post was that the law is unjust NOT that people won't commit offences under it. Though I doubt this particular one will ever make it to court.

----------------------------

In response to 'AT'
1) It was mixed use, flat and basement evicted, shop not.
2) The 'residents' including those arrested in the loft maintain that they were no longer "living" in the residential parts of the building - cops didn't buy this, which was allways going to be a problem with this law and mixed use buildings.

----------------------------

Here's SchNEWS's acount of the day btw -  http://www.schnews.org.uk/stories/A-Fight-on-the-Tiles-/