The first known arrests over new squatting law happened about an hour ago by squatters occupying a comercial property, who were using the upstairs residential area as an un-lived in social centre.
The police turned up this morning at around 11am to raid the property on London Road in Brighton, despite no crime being committed - as the new law restricts people living in unoccupied buildings, but not visiting them. Regardless, Sussex police have now arrested three people who attached themselves with glue, spending three hours to enter through barricades to remove them.
One of the visitors now on the roof of the squat said "On the roof init! Clowns got in but its gonna take them ages!" at 2pm, hours before three people were arrested inside the residential part of the building, despite not squatting the residential property.
The two roof top occupiers say they are up there to stay, as cops miserably fail to negotiate a deal with them. Support is currently gathering, but if you are free to pop down and say hello it'd be appreciated!
One of the visitors now on the roof of the squat said "On the roof init! Clowns got in but its gonna take them ages!" at 2pm, hours before three people were arrested inside the residential part of the building, despite not squatting the residential property.
The two roof top occupiers say they are up there to stay, as cops miserably fail to negotiate a deal with them. Support is currently gathering, but if you are free to pop down and say hello it'd be appreciated!
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
dumb
03.09.2012 20:39
Actually, that is incorrect. It is an offense to gain unauthorised entry to a building.
dummy watch
dumber
03.09.2012 21:00
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.
dummy watch watch
dummy
03.09.2012 21:36
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
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.
i see dumb people
solidarity
03.09.2012 22:51
kr@ker
update
03.09.2012 23:14
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...
fuck the police
epic police door smash fail
04.09.2012 00:13
snob
Clarity
04.09.2012 02:16
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?
AT
dumberer
04.09.2012 08:45
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 -
dummy watch watch watch
Homepage:
http://www.schnews.org.uk/stories/A-Fight-on-the-Tiles-/