A great victory for the new squatting law

Somerset

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Firstly because the reasons for doing so are likely to be very different.

Compassion for those less fortunate than yourself doesn't exactly radiate forth from your posts, but surely even so you can see a difference from someone stealing a car, and a homeless person climbing through an open window of an empty property when they have nowhere else to go.

You don't seem bothered that the Housing Association probably had a queue of people, desperate for that flat, in fact any flat, and that may have been 'on the list' for year's making do or overcrowded or in a flea-pit B&B, possibly vunerable themselves. But it's ok for them to be deprieved of a home so a young fit male can get himself sorted.

adouglasmhor

Haigh's father, Hugh, told the Evening Standard newspaper that his son, an apprentice bricklayer, had come to London in July seeking work. "They have made an example of him. To put him in that prison environment, I don't understand it. If he broke the law, he should be dealt with, but it is like putting someone who has not paid their taxes into Dartmoor prison."

He was either an aprentice bricklayer or he was seeking work, he can't be both.

ruggedtoast

Somerset wrote: »

You don't seem bothered that the Housing Association probably had a queue of people, desperate for that flat, in fact any flat, and that may have been 'on the list' for year's making do or overcrowded or in a flea-pit B&B, possibly vunerable themselves. But it's ok for them to be deprieved of a home so a young fit male can get himself sorted.

It's my imaginary flat and it certainly does not belong to the Housing Association.

In fact it belongs to a sinister non-dom shipping magnate (named Karlos McKraken) who hasn't been there for three years.

FTBFun

Just to point out something not mentioned in the Guardian (not surprising given their current agenda) that the housing association were in fact looking to put somewhere there to live:

L&Q said it began civil proceedings against the squatters in August after going to the property with a prospective new resident and discovering their presence.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-squatter-first-to-be-jailed-8181647.html

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

Just sounds unlikely and I would suspect there is some king of aggravation element involved. Doubt if the Guardian have reported the whole story, just the bits that suit their agenda.

there are always aggravating and mitigating factors in any crime, but he was only charged with and only sentenced for, squatting. (edit: an aggravating factor could be that they had failed to leave when given reasonable warning to do so - see post above - but that doesn't mean there were other offences committed).

if there were serious aggravating factors e.g. they had trashed the place, then i expect they would have also been charged with criminal damage or something like that. they were not, and none of the right wing press is reporting this flagging up other issues.

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

there are always aggravating and mitigating factors in any crime, but he was only charged with and only sentenced for, squatting. (edit: an aggravating factor could be that they had failed to leave when given reasonable warning to do so - see post above - but that doesn't mean there were other offences committed).

if there were serious aggravating factors e.g. they had trashed the place, then i expect they would have also been charged with criminal damage or something like that. they were not, and none of the right wing press is reporting this flagging up other issues.

So it may be refusing to leave when asked. Seems fair to me.

Think we need a few more simple black and white laws like that.

the_flying_pig

ILW wrote: »

I would suspect he did not get the prison sentence purely for the squatting offence.

i agree - the facts as presented don't seem to stack up.

the sentence just seems way too steep for the 'crime'.

ILW

It appears he was charged with another person and they both pleaded guilty. The other defendant got a £100 fine! There is more to this than the article suggests.

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

It appears he was charged with another person and they both pleaded guilty. The other defendant got a £100 fine! There is more to this than the article suggests.

the person who was fined £100 had been released from prison on licence and has therefore been returned to prison having committed another offence during his licence period. not much point in sentencing him to another prison term which would have been served concurrently and which would probably have expired before the sentence he is been recalled for ends, (NB/ the squatting offence still goes on his record and is still a criminal conviction regardless of the punishment).

chewmylegoff

the_flying_pig wrote: »

i agree - the facts as presented don't seem to stack up.

the sentence just seems way too steep for the 'crime'.

i don't think the sentence appears particularly harsh given that he could have been sentenced to up to 26 weeks and the offence is a digital one - either you were squatting or you weren't. it's pretty difficult to be squatting in a worse way than someone else who is also squatting. obviously you could also commit other offences whilst squatting, like criminal damage, but you would be charged and sentenced for that seperately.