Frank Hovis Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 London squatter first to be jailed under new lawA 21-year-old man squatting in a London property has become the first person to be jailed under a new law. Alex Haigh, who arrived from Plymouth two months ago, was arrested by police at a flat in Pimlico on 2 September. Haigh pleaded guilty to squatting in a residential property and was jailed for 12 weeks by Westminster Magistrates' Court. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said the new law is enabling "quick and decisive action to protect homeowners". Squatting was previously treated as a civil matter. The maximum penalty is now six months in jail, a £5,000 fine, or both. 'Quick action' Haigh and two other people, Anthony Ismond and Michelle Blake had been squatting at the housing association property in Cumberland Street. All three men were charged and later pleaded guilty to squatting. Ismond was fined £100 for squatting and recalled to prison on breach of licence while Blake will be sentenced at a later date. But some neighbours where the three were squatting told BBC London of their surprise at Haigh's sentence. Neighbour Nadia Lee said: "They were very quiet - I think just living in a room wanting a roof over their head. "I don't think they were doing any real harm. Obviously they (the owners) had a right to get them out but not put them in prison." A MoJ spokesperson said: "For too long squatters have been playing the justice system and have caused homeowners untold misery in eviction, repair and clean-up costs. "It is extremely encouraging that the new criminal offence of squatting in a residential building, which came into effect at the beginning of this month, is enabling the police and other agencies to take quick and decisive action to protect homeowners against squatting." I've (fortunately) never had to consider squatting and have had much sympathy with the owners who, in leaving their house for even a short period, can find squatters encamped with no quick way of getting them out. So good idea to shift this from a civil to a criminal matter so it can be dealt with quickly. But 12 weeks jail that is outrageous. If there has been no damage or other problems (and the neighbour's words would suggest not) then why lock up somebody for 12 weeks for what (given the landlord is a HA) is a relatively victimless crime. Compare with this case (just the first one I came to with a sentence attached on that website) where for terrifying a poor woman a man with "previous convictions for battery and drink-related matters" gets off with a restraining order. http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Man-harassed-chapel-goer/story-16995765-detail/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
200p Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 The change in law now adds value to property rights all over the country in one swift pen stroke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gardener Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) It is criminalisation of the homeless. That man now has a criminal record. He has now been excluded from a great many jobs. Next step. Make unemployment a crime. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Edit: speelling Edited September 28, 2012 by the gardener Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest unfunded_liability Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 It is criminalisation of the homeless. That man no had a criminal record. He has now been excluded from a great many jobs. Next step. Make unemployment a crime. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Would you feel any different if it was your property they were squatting in? Don't have a property? - ok, how about taking your car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Bruno Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 It is criminalisation of the homeless. That man no had a criminal record. He has now been excluded from a great many jobs. Next step. Make unemployment a crime. Be afraid. Be very afraid. This law is draconian, imo, and this application of it is cruel. Britain seems to be losing its civil liberties. Not good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 1348814287[/url]' post='909148868']It is criminalisation of the homeless. That man no had a criminal record. He has now been excluded from a great many jobs. Next step. Make unemployment a crime. Be afraid. Be very afraid. A derelict property is one thing, but this place was a HA flat between occupancies from what I can gather. Is it fair that squatters take preference over people that have waited on the housing list? Still think the sentence was a bit over zealous mind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 A derelict property is one thing, but this place was a HA flat between occupancies from what I can gather. Is it fair that squatters take preference over people that have waited on the housing list? Still think the sentence was a bit over zealous mind you. ^^^This +1 Also I've known two people get offers of Council housing (one bed flats) this week. One in Newcastle, the other in Calderdale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PricedOutNative Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 12 weeks, yet apart from a tiny minority, those MPs that had been fraudulently claiming expenses only had to pay them back… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro2706 Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I've (fortunately) never had to consider squatting and have had much sympathy with the owners who, in leaving their house for even a short period, can find squatters encamped with no quick way of getting them out. So good idea to shift this from a civil to a criminal matter so it can be dealt with quickly. But 12 weeks jail that is outrageous. If there has been no damage or other problems (and the neighbour's words would suggest not) then why lock up somebody for 12 weeks for what (given the landlord is a HA) is a relatively victimless crime. Compare with this case (just the first one I came to with a sentence attached on that website) where for terrifying a poor woman a man with "previous convictions for battery and drink-related matters" gets off with a restraining order. http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Man-harassed-chapel-goer/story-16995765-detail/story.html Well-don't illegally enter someone else's property without their permission or knowledge and start living their for free-then you won't get jailed.WTF gives anyone te right to just enter someone else's property-personally I would jail them for 2 years to send a message to the rest of the squatting community-oh...I've had personal experience of this and they are just scum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Well-don't illegally enter someone else's property without their permission or knowledge and start living their for free-then you won't get jailed.WTF gives anyone te right to just enter someone else's property-personally I would jail them for 2 years to send a message to the rest of the squatting community-oh...I've had personal experience of this and they are just scum. I never understood how to reconcile squatters' rights with the laws against trespass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 Well-don't illegally enter someone else's property without their permission or knowledge and start living their for free-then you won't get jailed.WTF gives anyone te right to just enter someone else's property-personally I would jail them for 2 years to send a message to the rest of the squatting community-oh...I've had personal experience of this and they are just scum. They have no right, it is long overdue that it is a criminal offence and that the police will come along and hoik them out and arrest them and return the property to its rightful owner. When people cause huge amounts of damage they should certainly be jailed; when they have been living quietly and doing no damage (or it surely would have been reported in the story) then 12 weeks is wildly excessive. We have all read many cases of assault and of burglary in the local press where there is no custodial sentence applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rented Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Now those squatting are evicted to a really expensive roof over their heads in prison. That clearly solves everything. Couldn't have anything as dangerous as somebody not paying any rent now could we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jail Them All Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 More enforcement rules. The authorities have been itching to get their first conviction in the bag, and you can guarantee there has been many eyes on this case. It would be interesting to hear what opportunity he was given to stop 'breaking the law' or whether they were just looking to make an example of somebody. Is the property back in use now? Scapegoat, and a warning to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 They have no right, it is long overdue that it is a criminal offence and that the police will come along and hoik them out and arrest them and return the property to its rightful owner. When people cause huge amounts of damage they should certainly be jailed; when they have been living quietly and doing no damage (or it surely would have been reported in the story) then 12 weeks is wildly excessive. We have all read many cases of assault and of burglary in the local press where there is no custodial sentence applied. Agreed. Trespass without damage ought to result in removal and perhaps a fine but certainly no criminal record. Trespass with damage ought to result in removal and criminal charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ska_mna Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Well-don't illegally enter someone else's property without their permission or knowledge and start living their for free-then you won't get jailed.WTF gives anyone te right to just enter someone else's property-personally I would jail them for 2 years to send a message to the rest of the squatting community-oh...I've had personal experience of this and they are just scum. ^ Just in case anyone wondered what right wing authoritarianism looked like. This law would be OK with me if the planning laws were deregulated for self-builders to compensate. Failing that, take a step back and look at this - the state won't let you build your own home, forcing you to pay whatever it takes to put a roof over your head. Can't afford it or refuse to play their game and get thrown in jail. If food was regulated by the government and you had no land to grow your own, should you either 1) resort to stealing it from a farmer when you can no longer afford to eat or 2) starve? Landowners FTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 ^ Just in case anyone wondered what right wing authoritarianism looked like. This law would be OK with me if the planning laws were deregulated for self-builders to compensate. Failing that, take a step back and look at this - the state won't let you build your own home, forcing you to pay whatever it takes to put a roof over your head. Can't afford it or refuse to play their game and get thrown in jail. If food was regulated by the government and you had no land to grow your own, should you either 1) resort to stealing it from a farmer when you can no longer afford to eat or 2) starve? Landowners FTW Exactly so, this is the problem. If you build a shelter for yourself the council will come bulldoze it. Only massively overpriced shelters and entering into the bankster game is allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 When this law was proposed and passed it was made very clear - it would only be used where people moved into houses that were already being lived in, for example where squatter moved in while someone was on holiday. And the first case that comes up... 3 people squatted in a vacant H/A property. So the first use of the law is explicitly outside the bounds that the law was intended for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I never understood how to reconcile squatters' rights with the laws against trespass. Squatters rights related to disused, vacant properties. It was always the case that if you broke into a house that was clearly in use, then you were breaking and entering. The new anti-squatting rules are only viable if you bring in heavy taxation (thousand per year) on vacant properties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSvetz Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Would you feel any different if it was your property they were squatting in? Don't have a property? - ok, how about taking your car? +1 This seems to be a case of 'it's never happened to me so squatting is not a problem. Lack of empathy for the victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) +1This seems to be a case of 'it's never happened to me so squatting is not a problem. Lack of empathy for the victim. You're all confusing squatting with the case the gov gave for banning squatting - the case of the woman who went shopping and came home to find some eastern euopeans had moved into her house and police wouldn't throw them out as they were claiming squatters rights.No-one has ever confirmed if that example they used ever existed. Certainly, if it did it would be because the police officer attended was either mentally retarded or mates with the eastern europeans. Squatting is about making use of disused, abandoned or vacant property. Here an thought experiment I like to use: Imagine if one person bought all the houses in the UK. A rich man from china, following a UK banking crash.He explains nicely to everyone that as he now owns the houses, they have to get out as he wantes to leave them empty. They are his houses after all, he can do what he likes with them. He throws them all out into the streets. When winter comes, 30m people freeze to death. Is THAT morally acceptable? You're saying no? What about if someone only bought half the houses.... so only 15m people freeze to death? Still not morraly acceptable I take it? What about if they bought 1m houses... to 1/2m people freeze to death? Still no? 250,000? 100,000? How low do I have to go? How low does the number of homeless people freezing to death on the streets need to get before you consider it morraly acceptable? The ultimate answer to this is zero. It is never morally acceptable for people to be forced to freeze to death while another person leaves a house empty because they feel like it. So if you want to ban homeless people from moving into vacant, disused proprties, then you also need to make it illegal to leave a property disused/vacant, otherwise you are condemning people to freeze to death. Of course, if you ban people from leaving properties disused/vacant, you wouldn't need to ban squatting in the first place... Edited September 28, 2012 by RufflesTheGuineaPig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ungeared Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 ^ Just in case anyone wondered what right wing authoritarianism looked like. This law would be OK with me if the planning laws were deregulated for self-builders to compensate. Failing that, take a step back and look at this - the state won't let you build your own home, forcing you to pay whatever it takes to put a roof over your head. Can't afford it or refuse to play their game and get thrown in jail. If food was regulated by the government and you had no land to grow your own, should you either 1) resort to stealing it from a farmer when you can no longer afford to eat or 2) starve? Landowners FTW You're obviously prepared to give your home to a squatter I take it? FWIW i'm not a right wing authoritarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) You're obviously prepared to give your home to a squatter I take it? FWIW i'm not a right wing authoritarian Squatting isn't about taking over peoples homes you reptile, it's about making use of vacant/disused property. Taking over someones home was never allowed under squatters rights. You'de have been arrested for breaking and entering. Edit to add: How many people do YOU think it's acceptable to freeze to death so a wealthy person can leave a property empty? Edited September 28, 2012 by RufflesTheGuineaPig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 ^ Just in case anyone wondered what right wing authoritarianism looked like. This law would be OK with me if the planning laws were deregulated for self-builders to compensate. Failing that, take a step back and look at this - the state won't let you build your own home, forcing you to pay whatever it takes to put a roof over your head. Can't afford it or refuse to play their game and get thrown in jail. If food was regulated by the government and you had no land to grow your own, should you either 1) resort to stealing it from a farmer when you can no longer afford to eat or 2) starve? Landowners FTW The Tories have always supported the land monopolists, as many of their ranks are/were made up of them. Squatters rights were an attempt to redress the imbalance, but they don't really tackle the route cause either. Removing squatters rights just makes the problem worse, as the monopolists have been given more power to exploit those without shelter. TBH, until more people start thinking from first principles, we will have this merry-go-round of laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Squatting isn't about taking over peoples homes you reptile, it's about making use of vacant/disused property. Taking over someones home was never allowed under squatters rights. You'de have been arrested for breaking and entering. Edit to add: How many people do YOU think it's acceptable to freeze to death so a wealthy person can leave a property empty? I would encourage squatters' rights if the process and burden of proof were a bit fairer. Competitive co-operatives would have the right to find abandoned, vacant and disused properties and petition the court for occupancy rights which have a path to ownership. Proof before occupation seems to be a bit more evenhanded than occupation before proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro2706 Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 ^ Just in case anyone wondered what right wing authoritarianism looked like. This law would be OK with me if the planning laws were deregulated for self-builders to compensate. Failing that, take a step back and look at this - the state won't let you build your own home, forcing you to pay whatever it takes to put a roof over your head. Can't afford it or refuse to play their game and get thrown in jail. If food was regulated by the government and you had no land to grow your own, should you either 1) resort to stealing it from a farmer when you can no longer afford to eat or 2) starve? Landowners FTW "Right wing authoritarianism"-its neither right wing nor authoritarianism.If you don't believe in personal or property rights then I can understand that you might disagree but in a system that enforces peoples rights to own then its simply a matter of theft.-or are you saying that squatters "rights"-(please define what rights are conferred on somebody just because they define themselves as a squatter)over ride property rights?What happens in the real world is that your house gets occupied overnight by a bunch of semi criminal lowlife who then play the system like a fully qualified housing lawyer-then,after the owner of the property has spent hundreds of pounds and a huge amount of time pursuing eviction uthrough the courts the squatters then trash the property and leave 10 mins before the eviction order can be implemented.Fabulous. I'm as sympathetic to homelessness as anyone but thats not the solution.Bit like saying if you're poor then you have "thieves" rights which enable you to steal food and goods from anyone fortunate enough to posess them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.