Last November, a group of people occupied the empty Conservative Club on Church Street, Lenton, in the hope of turning the abandoned space into ‘The Bigger Society Social Club’, where workshops, films and discussions would take place in support of movements for radical social change. The choice of location was a blatant critique of the current governing party and their ‘Big Society’, which promises a transfer of ‘power’ back to the community and a bottom-up solution to the nation’s economically self-inflicted problems.

The building was renovated in preparation for a series of events run by volunteers, taking place over a week, predominantly in response to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke’s attempt to criminalise squatting. However, at 4 pm on 28th of November the door of the building was kicked in and the occupiers were allegedly violently and illegally removed.

In spite of this the occupants, in their determination, moved the protest to the Sumac Centre in Forest Fields. What the ‘Bigger Society’ has attempted to illustrate is that the steps necessary for real social change involve the ability to claim back autonomous or free space in the city and to use this space to perform protest and establish a truly egalitarian ‘bigger society’. The government’s attempts to pass clause 136 of the Legal Aid and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which further criminalises squatting, will not only serve to further marginalise those members of society most in need, but will also remove the right to use space as an essential instrument of protest.

The issue of squatting is undoubtedly contentious. To some the word may conjure up images of dystopian crack dens filled with undesirable human remnants and a general repulsiveness towards the culprits themselves at displacing an innocent family, their 2.4 children and their golden Labrador – or at least that’s how squatters have been (mis)represented in the press. Alarmist accounts have successfully helped to cement a negative attitude towards squatters therefore making plans to criminalise the act of squatting a popular policy in the public eye. The sad fact is that squatting is a necessity for many of these people and in reality, most incidences of squatting are victimless.

Buildings which have been abandoned for years are occupied and in some instances the squatters, in an attempt to make these buildings more habitable, repair and revitalise abandoned spaces. Moreover, the 1977 Criminal Law Act sufficiently protects displaced residential occupiers by making it a criminal offence to squat in someone’s home. The new law intends to make it an offence to squat in vacant residential buildings without tenants. If it became illegal to occupy these spaces, squatters would end up on the streets and the problem of homelessness would become strikingly more visible; either that or they will end up in our already teeming prisons.

Crisis UK has recently indicated that more than 40% of homeless people have resorted to squatting at some point whilst Squatters Action for Secure Homes (Squash) has revealed that homelessness increased nationally by 15% last year and rough sleeping in London is up by 8%. The shortage of social housing combined with ruthless cuts is leading the UK into a deepening housing crisis and those who are most in need of assistance are continually being forced to bear the brunt of governmental and economic failings. Further criminalisation would only serve to exacerbate the current housing crisis and thus the motivations for such legislation seem unnecessary and cruel. The apparent ‘victims’ of squatting sit on their portfolio of empty properties in the hope that continued speculation around the extent of the problem will work to their advantage, whilst the truly vulnerable continue to struggle with a multitude of problems inconceivable to the ignorant privileged and unreported by the scaremongering press.

The legislation would not only serve to further victimise the homeless, but could also potentially limit the right to use occupation as a legitimate form of protest. ‘The Bigger Society Social Club’ and the ‘Occupy Nottingham’ movement (which has coincidentally, at the time of writing, just been served with an eviction notice) have illustrated the vital importance of our ability to use space in the city as a means of protest, in the hope that reclaiming such space could lead to a more equal and just society. The criminalisation of squatting would repeal this right, and with it we would sacrifice the right to change our cities and thus also sacrifice the ability to change our lives.

Megan Lathwood

Previous post

Laughing All The Way To The Bank

Next post

The Lion Man of Dharamsala

5 Comments

  1. Dave J
    May 9, 2012 at 21:51 — Reply

    It’s one thing to say that there should be social housing, it’s quite another to say that people should be entitled just to take over private property if they feel like they can get away with it. The excuse that ‘Oh but look we’ve made it look a bit nicer while we’ve been here’ is not convincing in the slightest.

    The ‘real’ sad fact is that for all the ‘alarmists’ who don’t like the idea of somebody taking what isn’t theirs, there are always plenty of apologists ready to take to the internet to claim that squatting is ‘victimless’, when ‘victimless’ usually just means ‘Oh it affects people with money, and who gives a toss about them?’.

    Property is important, perhaps even moreso than democracy – government is established principally for the purpose of protecting people from having their possessions taken away from them illicitly. If the violation of this vital principal of society became acceptable, our lives would be changed, yes. But not in a good way.

  2. Dave J
    May 9, 2012 at 21:52 — Reply

    Principle*, ugh.

  3. Joe
    May 9, 2012 at 23:28 — Reply

    Property > democracy? Worrying. Governments tax, they take your property away and theres little to nothing you can do to change it, is this wrong?

  4. Dave J
    May 10, 2012 at 13:51 — Reply

    I need to clarify a little bit. I think that ‘liberty’ is more important than democracy, yes. Democracy is just a tool that we use to approach that objective: it’s not the objective in itself. And liberty of property is in many ways just as important as liberty of the human being, because if you have no protection from anything you possess being arbitrarily taken away from you, having personal liberty doesn’t really count for all that much.
    As part of a society you accept that you have to compromise both in order to secure the vast majority of those things. You pay tax and obey the law, these compromise your property and personal liberty, respectively, but in the knowledge that nobody ‘but’ the state will be able to extract tax or enforce the law – an infinitely preferable alternative to anarchy.

  5. Anna
    September 23, 2012 at 18:35 — Reply

    I think all of this is caught up in the same idea: caring about the most vulnerable in society. Take a look at this petition against Big Society cuts in Nottingham’s voluntary sector.
    http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/nottingham-city-council-rethink-their-drastic-cuts-to-the-voluntary-sector-in-nottingham-2#
    Nottingham has a vibrant community spirit, without the Big Society, let’s let people know about it!

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.