A great victory for the new squatting law

FTBFun

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

I'm of the opinion that as this is the first case of its kind, it's a deterrent sentence (but still within the grounds of the legislation).

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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).

As far as I can see, that was the third person arrested.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

ruggedtoast wrote: »

a homeless person climbing through an open window of an empty property when they have nowhere else to go.

Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?

N1AK

I think the punishment was excessive; even more so given the number of people committing assault and other far more serious crimes getting away with suspended sentences or community sentences.

Someone does 140 mph in traffic and refuses to stop for the police: Fine of a couple of hours wages and a 1 year driving ban. Guy sleeps in someone else's house without permission: 12 weeks in prison and gets a criminal record.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

.......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.

How on earth do you know that "fortune" entered into it?

I get increasingly irritated with the common assumption that 'poverty' or 'poorness' is automatically linked to 'luck', or lack of it. Equally, how often do we hear the expression ".... well you're lucky enough to own your own house and have £50K in the bank, you don't deserve......"

A person who chooses to move to London (or anywhere else for that matter) without a job, and without bothering to save money for basic accommodation is not "unfortunate". It is bordering upon stupidity. To compound the stupidity by even greater stupidity of committing a crime is not a natural way to garner sympathy.

There are enough genuinely unfortunate people around. I have no problem with my money (taxes or charity) being directed towards such people. But I (and presumably they) are none too happy to see half the money going to people who have 'brought poverty upon themselves'.

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

As far as I can see, that was the third person arrested.

per the press:

3 people charged and pleaded guilty

1) sentenced to 12 weeks
2) fined £100 and returned to prison as was only out on licence
3) yet to be sentenced

lippy1923

CLAPTON wrote: »

was his only offence squatting?
was he paying for electricity and gas and water?
was he a vulnerable person and if so in what way?
why wasn't his father helping him out?
was he actually working or living on benefits?
was the property beinbg looked after properly?

and in general squatters trash the places they live in

so without the full facts, it seems to be sending a very good message that breaking into some-one else's property is the wrong thing to do.

I have to agree with this.

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

How on earth do you know that "fortune" entered into it?

I get increasingly irritated with the common assumption that 'poverty' or 'poorness' is automatically linked to 'luck', or lack of it. Equally, how often do we hear the expression ".... well you're lucky enough to own your own house and have £50K in the bank, you don't deserve......"

A person who chooses to move to London (or anywhere else for that matter) without a job, and without bothering to save money for basic accommodation is not "unfortunate". It is bordering upon stupidity. To compound the stupidity by even greater stupidity of committing a crime is not a natural way to garner sympathy.

There are enough genuinely unfortunate people around. I have no problem with my money (taxes or charity) being directed towards such people. But I (and presumably they) are none too happy to see half the money going to people who have 'brought poverty upon themselves'.

Yes, he should have stayed in Plymouth where there were no jobs for him and signed on forever. He may as well have, now he's got previous.

In any case, regardless of your somewhat predictable right wing opinion that the poor are to blame for bringing their own poverty calamitously down on their own heads, and deserve every ounce of pain; it is a bit harsh, is it not, to send someone down for 3 months for doing something that wasn't even a criminal offence last year.

Bear in mind a lot of actual burglars are let off repeatedly with cautions and community sentences before they go anywhere near a prison.

chewmylegoff

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Bear in mind a lot of actual burglars are let off repeatedly with cautions and community sentences before they go anywhere near a prison.

a burglar breaks in and takes some stuff away with them. a squatter breaks in and steals the entire house...

ruggedtoast

chewmylegoff wrote: »

a burglar breaks in and takes some stuff away with them. a squatter breaks in and steals the entire house...

I'm not saying squatting is right or that I am in favour of it, I am saying that the last law was adequate, (though not adequately enforced), and the new law is draconian.