A major test of Section 144 occurred today in a Brighton Magistrate’s Court – with the criminalisation of squatting dealt a serious blow.

Three people faced the charges of squatting in a residential property under Section 144 of LASPO, and obstruction of a police officer. They were arrested on 3rd September 2012, just two days after Section 144’s passage into law, in a high-profile eviction by police. All three were found to have no case to answer for obstruction of a police officer, whilst two were found to have no case to answer for the squatting charge. The case continues tomorrow morning for the final defendant.

The prosecution had to prove that the three defendants lived in the property, and that it was a ‘residential property’. The new law’s definition of both these points, as SQUASH have shown elsewhere, is incredibly vague and broad. In this instance the property was divided into upstairs flats and downstairs shop, with the defendants arguing that the upstairs was used as a social centre and the downstairs the space in which some people actually ‘lived’.

The prosecution’s evidence, living up to the defence lawyer’s description of it as ‘woefully inadequate’, failed to prove that two of the three defendants even ‘lived’ in the property at all, let alone its status as ‘residential’.

Toby, one of the defendants, said:

“it’s proved to be ridiculous – it’s not even that we were found ‘not guilty’, but that there was absolutely no case to answer. The advice to squatters from this is don’t plead guilty. Presence in a building is not enough, they have to prove with documentary evidence that you actually live there.”

The Brighton trial highlights once again that Section 144 is ill-thought through legislation, rushed undemocratically through parliament in the midst of a reactionary media storm, workable on the pretext that people do not know their rights or have access to good legal defences.

The ‘right’ of police to evict with force, so often presumed by them to be inalienable, was not this time retrospectively sanctioned. With no crime having been committed, the police intervened with force in a situation which falls under civil and not criminal jurisdiction. This is a very serious problem with Section 144 that SQUASH have pointed out many times before.

Section 144 empowers the police to deploy force in intervening in very complicated housing situations. In cases such as this one in Brighton, it results in evictions which make people immediately homeless – as well as facing criminal charges – because the return of a property to its privatised, empty state is prioritised above all else.

This Brighton case presents a fundamentally important precedent for others facing criminal prosecution under Section 144: highlighting that the vague definition of ‘living in’ and ‘residential’ not only makes gross miscarriages of justice likely but also creates space for us to fight this pernicious law.

More information on the Brighton case, which continues tomorrow, can be found here:

https://twitter.com/housingwar

http://rooftopresistance.squat.net/

Now we’re urging you to do the same. Whether you insert them into Evening Standards or just hand them out at stations, anything you can do to spread the truth about squatting will help.

Download the Squash leaflet here.

An Early Day Motion has been tabled calling for a repeal of the new anti-squatting law. Please write a letter to your MP or use our template below urging them to sign it. If you don’t know who your MP is you can use TheyWorkForYou website to find out.

Dear “Your MP Here”,

As your constituent I am writing urging you to sign an Early Day Motion recently tabled that recognises the damage being caused by the new squatting law (Section 144, LASPO) which was brought in on September 1st 2012.

The link to the Early Day Motion is here: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/1238 which has support from 40 top lawyers who all signed a letter published in The Guardian which can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/25/squatting-law-should-be-repealed

Recent research carried out has shown that as feared, homeless and vulnerable people are being disproportionately affected. Some have gone to jail and even worse it looks like someone may have died outside an empty bungalow as a direct result of the new legislation.

On top of this – zero people have been caught in someone else’s home – as was predicted by hundreds of legal experts prior to criminalisation including The Law Society. This directly contravenes the whole reason the law was pursued in the first place.

The law has removed a necessary last resort for many – considering the current housing crisis and huge rise in homelessness. Furthermore, it is encouraging property speculators and foreign investors to keep properties empty – of which there are now over 1 million in the UK.

With a new wave of welfare reforms to come in on April 1st the option of housing yourself in an empty property must remain a possibility for the most vulnerable in our society.

For a full analysis please read the latest SQUASH campaign report here: http://www.squashcampaign.org/repeal-law/the-case-against-section-144-2/

Yours Sincerely,

The letter reads:

It is just over six months since the offence of squatting in a residential building came into force. At the time the offence was proposed, government sources claimed it was necessary as the law “does not support police acting when there are squatters in someone’s home” and that “there are no powers to throw them out”. The signatories to this letter include many of the 160 lawyers who wrote to the Guardian (26 September 2011) pointing out that, as a matter of law, those statements were wrong, as such powers did exist and had done so since the enactment of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Squatters Action for Secure Homes (Squash) has now published an analysis of how the law has been used in the past six months. Among its findings are that none of the 33 known arrests so far (leading to 10 convictions and three prison sentences) involve the squatters having displaced people from their homes. The properties concerned were all empty. This seems to lead to two conclusions. 1) The concern expressed by the lawyers was correct; the offence was not necessary to protect home occupiers, it is not being used for that purpose. 2) Instead, the effect of it has been to facilitate keeping properties empty, despite the current housing crisis, rather than meeting the purpose for which it was claimed to be necessary.

Squash is calling for the repeal of squatting provisions. We would associate ourselves with that request

Andrew Arden QC Arden Chambers Giles Peaker Solicitor
Anthony Gold Chair, Housing Law Practitioners Association
David Watkinson Barrister (retired – door tenant of Garden Court Chambers)
Nik Antoniades Solicitor, Shelter
Amy Clements Solicitor, Southwark Law Centre
Deirdre Forster Solicitor, Powell Forster
Kay Foxall Solicitor, Southwark Law Centre
Matthew Goldborough Solicitor, Cleveland & Co
Kathy Karavas Solicitor, South West London Law Centre
Mike McIlvaney Solicitor, Community Law Partnership
Greg Powell Powell Forster
Sara Stephens Solicitor, Anthony Gold
Bernard Lo Barrister, Field Court Chambers
David Carter Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers
Emily Orme Barrister, Arden Chambers
Abigail Bache, Dr Timothy Baldwin, John Beckley, Liz Davies, Helen Ford, Owen Greenhall, Sean Horstead, Catrin Lewis, Stephen Marsh, Keir Monteith, Terry Munyard, Michael Paget, David Renton Marc Willers Barristers at Garden Court Chambers
Dr Stephen Battersby Environmantal health & housing consultant, Chair, Pr-Housing Alliance
Professor David Cowan University of Bristol and Arden Chambers
Joanna Kennedy Chief Executive, Zaccheus 2000 Trust
David Thomas Solicitor, Anthony Gold
Mike O’Dwyer Solicitor, Philcox Gray
Tony Martin Solicitor South West Law London Law Centres
Christopher Dawkins Housing adviser, CCP Cheltenham 1st Stop
David Foster Solicitor, Foster& Foster
Eva Chrysostomou Solicitor, Southwark Law Centre
Kristin Heimark Barrister, Holborn Chambers

Evening Standard Front Page Campaign to Criminalise Squatting

Here we go again. Yet another foul, bordering-on-racist article in the Evening Standard, who quite clearly hate all squatters and it seems all Eastern Europeans – especially Romanians.

Friday’s article on new figures released via an FOI request submitted to the Metropolitan Police (our first request was turned down when we were writing our report) claims that 45% of all squatters arrested in London, since the introduction of new legislation which criminalised squatting in residential properties last September, are from Romania.

It is unsurprising that migrants who will not have English as a first language are being adversely affected by the new law. SQUASH have said all along this legislation punishes the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society – everyone who has gone to jail so far were all previously homeless.

Martin Bentham, the Evening Standard journalist who wrote the article claims “The Met figures will fuel the debate about the impact of the scrapping next year of migration controls which limit the right of Romanians and Bulgarians to work in Britain.”

By focusing on the national origin and migrant status of the people arrested, the Evening Standard are seeking to provoke a xenophobic reaction and to delegitimise squatting as often a better option for people experiencing homelessness

The truth is that there is no evidence to suggest the UK squatting population, estimated to be 20,000 – 50,000, is largely a Romanian population. And for the record, squatters aren’t bad people lurking in the shadows waiting to steal your house when you go out to the shop to buy a pint of milk. There was already existing legislation to prevent squatters from moving into someone’s lived in home, or a house someone intended to move into. This has been stated clearly on numerous occasions by MP’s, Lords and The Law Society. The Evening Standard choose to ignore this every time.

It is also worth noting, as mentioned in an Early Day Motion tabled on Friday calling for a repeal of the new law, that to our knowledge zero people arrested so far have been caught in someone else’s home – the whole basis on which the likes of the Evening Standard campaigned for the law in the first place. They have all been in empty properties, of which there are now over 1 million in the UK.

Fresh calls in the article for an extension of the scope of the law to cover commercial properties are nonsensical, and don’t take into account the housing and homelessness crisis we are currently facing.

Last month, Daniel Gauntlett died outside of an empty bungalow after media reports suggested the police stopped him from squatting it because of the new law. This story was not reported in the mainstream press but yet this latest rubbish from the Evening Standard even made it on the BBC London News. The mainstream media reporting on squatting need to get a grip. And some perspective.

Elsie esq, under a CC License

People are being made unnecessarily homeless and very vulnerable people are suffering as a consequence. This legislation was based upon prejudice and has only made matters worse. This new evidence demonstrates so clearly the need to repeal this misguided law.’ John McDonnell MP.

In August 2011, the British Ministry of Justice launched a consultation, optimistically entitled Options for Dealing with Squatting. After ignoring the 96 per cent of respondentswho were against criminalization – including the Law Society, homelessness charities Crisis and Shelter, and even the Metropolitan Police Service – the government pressed ahead. In September 2012, the act of seeking shelter in abandoned residential properties in England or Wales – squatting – was ‘dealt with’. Under Section 144 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), anyone found putting a roof over their head in this way would be punished by up to six months in prison or a £5,000 ($7,427) fine.

Six months later, Squatters’ Action for Secure Homes (SQUASH) has released a report into the effects of that law. Our findings suggest that homeless and vulnerable people have been disproportionately affected. In the midst of a housing crisis, at a time when homelessness is rising, the law has further narrowed options for many, and is indeed sending otherwise innocent people to prison.

The right-wing press – papers made by property owners for property owners – laid the ground for this legislative attack by carpet-bombing public opinion with endless articles about unwashed Eastern Europeans displacing upstanding Hampstead homeowners. Members of Parliament made proud speeches about protecting homeowners, deliberately conflating homes and empty houses (and never mentioning the donations they receive from property developers). ‘We want to send a clear message to would-be squatters that it is simply not acceptable to occupy someone else’s home’, proclaimed Justice Minister Crispin Blunt.

At the time, property lawyers and housing experts pointed out that ministers and the media alike were deliberately misleading the public to push through their property protection law. And now SQUASH’s research has further exposed that dishonesty: not a single, solitary squatter arrested under the new law was found to be displacing a homeowner.

During the rush to criminalization, John McDonnell MP asked a pertinent question in a parliamentary debate: ‘Will it cause more problems than it seeks to cure?’ Section 144 couldn’t help but cause more harm than it prevented because, in reality, squatting caused almost no harm in the first place. Within weeks, the first ‘scumbag squatter’ was banged up: 21-year-old brick-layer Alex Haigh, who had no prior criminal convictions, was struggling to find work in the capital and had sought shelter in an empty Pimlico property. It had been abandoned for more than a year by its owners.

Ironically those, like Haigh, who are now behind bars, may have escaped an even worse fate: in February 2013, Daniel Gauntlett, who was homeless, died outside an empty bungalow in Kent, which media reports suggest he had previously been prevented from entering by the police. Section 144 was pushed through as farce: it is being manifested as tragedy.

But rather than rolling back the legislation, recently promoted Conservative MP Mike Weatherley has proposed an early day motion that calls for the law to be extended to commercial properties. Ominously, it already has 24 signatories.

At the very least, SQUASH calls on the government to carry out a full, independent impact assessment before further criminalization is considered. If parliament wants to protect all of the people it represents – not just those that own empty property – it should repeal this law; it has already caused too much harm.

Find out more and take action at the SQUASH campaign website.

Read this article on the New Internationalist site.

The Friern Barnet Library Activists have moved on to a new project in Enfield Borough in an attempt to fight austerity, homelessness and unjust squatting laws.

The community activists who were previously caretakers of the Friern Barnet Library, are now residing at the Arnos Family Resource Centre (ARC). They won their court case against Enfield Council on the 11th of March 2013 at the Barnet County Court.

Many of the activists arrived at court to defend the case being brought forward by Enfield Council for possession of the property. They were accompanied by several members of the Friern Barnet community who also sent over 20 letters of support.

The judge threw out the case because Enfield’s barrister missed the court hearing. The judge also commented there were procedural errors with Enfield Council’s paperwork.

This means that the activists are to remain in the space, giving them the opportunity to provide community workshops, and more time to negotiate a deal with the council preventing more taxpayer’s money being squandered. Pete phoenix, a veteran community organiser and part of the FB Library campaign/Occupy movement, said:

“We have constantly offered to negotiate with Enfield Council as we did with Barnet Council. We hope that money can be saved on costly court cases and that more arrangements for temporary use can be made, between property owners of some of the 1.4 million empty buildings in the UK and groups who need homes and community space. The new law on squatting has already led to people freezing to death this winter. We want solutions to the housing crisis. Homes for all, not jails!”

The community activists are using the former family resource centre to provide activities such as skill-sharing and workshops with a focus on health, art and education. It has been opened to the community to provide a place for different community groups to come and use.

The activists are hoping to form a mutual agreement with the council to keep the building accessible for the use of the community.

We would like to respond to your piece “Anti-squatting MP to report web claim”[1].

Firstly, we find it more than a little callous that the Right Honourable Mike Weatherley has yet to make a statement or pass comment on the tragic death of a man that was so clearly linked to legislation he is proud to have helped create.

We would also like to take him up on several points he made to the Argus.

He states;

“A typical squatter is middle-class, web-savvy, legally minded, university-educated and, most importantly, society-hating.”

We would like to ask what empirical data is this based on, exactly? Which surveys, which polls? Cite your references, please do, or you might end up looking like an uninformed bigot. Instead, look at research that actually has been undertaken and you will find that as many as 40% of single homeless people have resorted to squatting at some point[2], which would contradict your claim that homeless people are not squatters.

In what must have been a Freudian slip you say that squatters want a world in which “an Englishman’s castle is no longer his home” (sic). Once again you peddle the same disinformation that preceded the new legislation on squatting. Squatters do not squat other  people’s homes – if they did it would almost certainly be a mistake and the rightful occupant was adequately covered by criminal law preceding s144 LASPO. Squatters occupy empty buildings when they have few or no alternatives – they do not displace people from their homes.

Finally, a correction. The majority of forms of trespass are not illegal, and have not been illegal for hundreds of years. Trespass is unlawful and it remains a civil matter, partly due to working class struggles and groups like the Ramblers. Your attitude to private property is that of the land owners that belong in the “Medieval wasteland” you invoke, along with your Cabinet’s front bench. Similarly, there is no such criminal offence as “breaking and entering” – we believe that the relevant offence would be burglary under section 9 of the Theft Act 1968. It is disconcerting, to say the least, that a minister with such a charlatan attitude to criminal law has taken so great an interest in creating criminal law.

We, and much of the public, were deeply saddened to hear of the the circumstances  surrounding Daniel Gauntlett’s death, a sadness Mike Weatherley MP seems unable or unwilling to share. If the typical squatter were society hating, as he states, they may well be justified in hating a society that has allowed a homeless man to freeze to death on the steps of an empty home.

SQUASH will continue to campaign against the bigotry and myths perpetuated by Weatherley and the mainstream media about squatting. We will use reasoned argument, validated research and facts to counter the stream of cynical manipulation and unfounded claims that come from politicians and media sources alike.

Sincerely,

Squatters Action for Secure Homes

VIDEO HERE

This clip from the Pathe News archives show that seemingly little has changed in over fifty years. In 1946 as today, squatting is still a practical means which many use to solve their housing difficulties, and in the process highlight the chronic lack of affordable housing.

There was no mention by politicians or mainstream media of the sort of historic  squatting actions shown in this clip. That thousands of people resorted to squatting after the second world war due to housing shortages isn’t something that politicians like MP Mike Weatherley want you to know. Instead he’d rather you believe that squatters are typically ‘middle-class, web-savvy, legally minded, university-educated and, most importantly, society-hating’. Colin Ward’s fantastic book ‘The Hidden History of Housing’ provides an excellent overview of the facts that were left out of the debate surrounding squatting’s criminalisation.

The fact is that there is no such thing as Weatherley’s ‘typical squatter’ straw man. The reality is far more complex, as people squat for a huge variety of reasons. The current housing crisis in the UK coupled with austerity measures such as the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ and cuts to housing benefit mean that an even greater range of people are likely to experience difficulty housing themselves in the near future.

MF

Date: 4th March 2013 Venue: Committee Room 19, House of Commons

The event marked the launch of SQUASH’s 6-month report and impact analysis of section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO). It provided an opportunity to discuss what the MP’s, Lords, lawyers and academics could do to help, and highlight Mike Weatherley’s Early Day Motion (EDM) which looks to extend criminalisation to commercial premises.

Chaired: SQUASH [John McDonnell could not chair as he was speaking in Parliament against the Justice and Security Bill (aka the Secret Courts Bill) which was happening in the Commons that evening.]

Hannah Wilcox (SQUASH)

The new report “The Case Against section 144” seeks to highlight, respond to, and scrutinise the use of the new law, s144 LASPO, especially in relation to homelessness. Preparing the report has highlighted the lack of information on the use of the new law and the collection of data in any systematic way. SQUASH filed a large number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests but most police forces considered it as a non-notifiable offence. The report has been divided into four key sections:

1] Undemocratic:This section examines and critiques the legislative process, showing that there was a clear democratic deficit in the way that the new law was legislated. The consultation process was just a tick-box exercise and the respondents who advised against criminalisation, or advised caution, were simply ignored. There was no committee stage for more in-depth investigation and the House of Lords debates were held late tat night. In the end, the highly ambiguous s144 was passed. 2] Unjust: reiterates the link between homelessness and squatting, which has been obfuscated by the media. The most recent case of Daniel Gauntlett, who was forced to sleep outside an empty building and later died of hypothermia from exposure to the elements, is a prime example of how the new law is impacting the homeless. The report has additional case studies of the realities of the homeless seeking shelter in empty properties by necessity and being criminalised in the process. 3] Unnecessary: One of the key messages of the campaign against criminalisation, which has been spoken about so many times, but largely ignored; the DRO and PIO legislation adequately covered displaced occupiers before the new law came in. Instead of protecting home-owners, the new law has been used to summarily evict squats or licensees and able to force people to leave under the threat of arrest, thus causing displacement. It has resulted in a highly un-transparent process in which the police can act without third party complainant, with the change from a civil to criminal process, and it being a non-notifiable offence. S144 has given the police the right to force entry, undermining tenancy law and opening it up to abuse for landlords to threaten vulnerable tenants. 4] Unaffordable: implementing the new law has already cost between £107k – £114k in direct eviction and prosecution costs, and with the five-year costs look to reach £30million when move-on accommodation and the rehabilitation of rough sleepers is taken into account.

Alex Kennedy (Crisis)

The government hasn’t been looking at the impacts of the new law on homelessness and there is a large gap in data collection on this important issue. Crisis works with single homeless people, and their research has found that a large proportion of homeless people have at some point squatted in cycles between different forms of homelessness. When they pulled together their existing information, they found that 6% of homeless people were squatting on any given night. The debate in Parliament when the new law was proposed kept talking past the issue of homelessness and the associated problem, such as the high levels of mental health issues that affect the homeless. The three people known cases of those who were handed custodial sentences had no other housing option at all, contrary to the popular media portrayal of “life-style” squatting; the facts have shown that in fact the myths created by politicians and the media were myths after all.

The talk of extending the law to commercial properties is extremely concerning, especially without more information about types of people being affected. SQUASH/SLN/ASS should be collecting any evidence of people displaced by the police without being given other housing options, since the government said, when passing the new law, that if people were made homeless, they would be given assistance. Any evidence that it is not happening would send a strong message.

Sophie Priestley (Tuckers Solicitors)

Tuckers have anecdotal evidence of how the law is affecting people from cases of prosecution and enquiries from those who have been threatened with it/ homelessness. The way the law has been implemented has evidenced that the law was not about protecting home-owners, which was a myth. There have been major issues with the nature of the legislation, since the act can be defined very widely and there is a difficulty in that buildings such as residential care homes and hospitals might fall under the auspices of “residential”. The only way to check the interpretation is to go through the courts, and since those who have just been displaced are unlikely to want to go through whole process to test the law, it is very hard to get any clarity on the law. Questions like whether residential property which is “not fit to be lived in” is covered under the act which can only be tested in courts, and taking the risk to prove it, since magistrates don’t want to make difficult decisions and are unlikely to award in favour of squatters. Definitions such as the “intention to live/stay” and “trespasser” are still open areas of law; for example people occupying a hospital in relation to a closure and “intending to stay a night” may or may not fall under the law; the issue is manifest.

Tuckers take on a number of cases of civil law against the police; since s144 has made squatting a policing issue and the threshold for arrest is very low, issues of “unlawful arrest” become hard to prove. If a tenant/licensee/squatter is reported by property owner, that is sufficient for arrest and since the “eviction” has already taken place, it is very difficult to rectifying afterwards. The police are expected to judge complicated and confusing home issues (eg verbal agreements with the owner) without sufficient training, and are unlikely to look too closely at these things. While there are sentencing guidelines, the disparity in sentencing (some custodial sentences, some fines) has left no clear judgements or decisions to clarify the situation; most cases go to magistrates court, which are not reknowned for clear judgements. Lots of people going to court unrepresented which is an additional sign of vulnerability. The concept of expanding without testing current law is absolutely “mad”.

Bob Baker (Simon Community)

Used to be a squatter in the mid-1980′s and has had difficulties finding secure housing throughout his life; experienced all kinds of housing (private, short-life co-ops, commune). Squatting is a housing solution when there are no other available options. The Simon Community is a radical charity run by homeless people for homeless people which rejects government funding because of the need to be independent. Offer kindness for people, campaign on their behalf and deal with the hard end of homelessness (eg those with complex needs, those who have reject other help or been rejected by other homeless units).

The Simon Community actively campaigned against section 144, sending four letters of protest published in the Guardian; the Simon Community is looking forward to help with the next phase. The new law has had an impact on the homeless, and the law is one protecting people keeping property empty against those needing shelter. There has been an increase in the occupation of derelict buildings, which are not fit for human habitation, much like the situation in Britain after WWII when many people had to live in bombed-out buildings. The government is pushing spectacular economic mismanagement, with austerity, a growing housing crisis and a lack of affordable housing, so that people are living in increasingly insecure situations and part of a massive dislocation of working people out of London, out of their social networks.

The use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation for emergency housing provision by local councils has increased up 800%; however these are only priority cases (eg mothers with children) and figures of dislocation do not include the number of single people or couples. Squatting is a direct response to homelessness not a lifestyle choice; it is a morally correct course of action in response to the 710k empty properties in England and Wales. There is a need for a building programme based on social housing. Action on this issue should include people signing the repeal s144 petition, stopping the government expanding the law, campaigning expanding to those who have not traditionally been supportive of squatting and the adoption of the European law: ”Everyone has the right to housing”.

Questions & Comments:

David Watkinson (housing barrister): Why were 2/3 of those arrested released without charge and did not convicted? Why were the charges dropped? It seems a high proportion of arrests to the number of convictions. SQUASH and ASS could only surmise that people were being arrested as a means of eviction, or to displace the occupiers so they did not have a building to return to. Sophie reasserted that the threshold for arrest was set very low, and therefore suing for unlawful arrest is not easy to pursue afterwards and possibly the police believed that most people wouldn’t followed up on it. The information suggests that a great number are being arrested when they shouldn’t be. The guidance set out by the Metropolitan Police on s144 was actually quite good, setting out a step by step set of questions for police to themselves to see if any action was required and judge whether action was proportionate or even necessary. Judging by the statistics, the guidance was not being carried out in terms of arrests.

Alex: With the rise in property guardianship, would the commercial premises being protected be considered residential since they have been “adapted for living”? Sophie replied that the Act could be applied very widely and a long list of building classes that were traditionally considered “commercial” are covered under the act, such as hotels, young offenders institutions, hospitals. It seems that it is not relevant who owns the property, or what purpose it was intended for, but rather it seems it to be more important whether it can be lived in or not; even so, would non-livable/non-habitable space fall under the act? What is “adapting”; could it just be putting in a shower, a bed, etc? Need cases to go to the High Courts to see how the law will be applied, which could take a long time; this is not a fair position for people in uncertain circumstances to find themselves in. Bob Baker showed the group a sign on a derelict pub, written by the landlord, which claimed that the building was considered “residential” and therefore a criminal offense to squat it; is simply claiming that the building is residential enough to be arrested?

John McDonnall [back from the debate on the Justice and Security Act (“Secret Courts” Bill)]: Where do we go from here? John is interested in generating some sort of legislative interest, and will be organising a meeting for interested MPs and Lords, to bring them together to discuss possible parliamentary process. SQUASH should use the report to expose what’s happening, and what legislative change is needed. Since this is the mid-term of the current government, there will be more assaults coming, but at the same time opposition parties will be looking at their manifestos for the next election. He advised to fend off reaction for the time being and consult with lawyers for advice on creating room to manoeuvre. Need regular guidance going out to those being affected and giving high profile to individual cases, using every mechanism to broadcast the information. Should not pull back from direct action, which helps to gain a focus on the issue and helps to get issues lobbied at parliamentary level. Need other organisations, not constrained by being dependent on funding, to take up the issue and create a focus through direct action (eg Greenpeace’s erecting a fracking tower in Parliament square, which got media attention on the issue).

Some ideas for stopping the new law: The Report has been sent out to 200 journalists; what else could be done with it? Thrust of the argument should be that it is the criminal offence element of the legislation which is objectionable.

Baroness Sally Hamwee suggested that the report a should be sent to Women’s Hour, and that some squatting representatives go on the show, since the show has lots of listeners who are not usually supportive of squatting but might resonate with mothers whose children are finding it difficult to find housing.

Lush mentioned their support for an upcoming campaign in support of squatting; this would be happening inside and outside some of their shops.

Jeremy Corbyn mentioned his EDM around the private rented sector and crucial rent controls, drawn up in consultation with his constituents; suggests squatting groups should do the same.

To read or download the report, visit SQUASH’s “The Case Against section 144” Page