It is important to point out at the hearing that the rightful owners of the premises are only an immigrant family who put their savings into it as an investment, and so obviously their interests should be totally disregarded in favour of the minority of people who are desperate for a cheap facility that they see as an alternative to Tescos and the other supermarkets foolishly favoured by the vast majority of citizens. It would be little short of fascist to dispossess these worthies from their new premises.

Can I specify that the agreement we are trying to reach with the landlord (whatever nationality he is) is to use the space *while it is empty*? We know that the next person renting it won't get in before the end of June, and so the space will be empty until the end of June. At the moment we only ask the landlord to let us stay until the end of June, i.e. to use the space while it is empty. Do you really think that it is a bad thing for him?

First, since we are creating a social centre, we are not thrashing the place. We are actually maintaining his building, what he would have to do anyway and would have to spend time or pay for that. And we pay our bills, so we are actually maintaining his empty building for free while creating a useful, needed, popular and very interesting social and cultural space on Cowley Road (which has nothing to do with TESCO as has already been pointed out, except that it is in front of it).

Second, by reaching agreement with us the landlord will save money since he won't have to pay for court and eviction procedures etc. Third, if he decides to evict us, the building will be empty for a while, and the probablities that it will be squatted again are quite high (as it is a nice building), and not necessarily by people who want to maitain the building to create a lively social centre...

Who could be against that to be honest? Who would seriously prefer seing an empty building than a useful resource, free, open, where they can get involved, when it's moreover in the interests of *everyone*, including the landlord?

ciao :-)

Until there is a new tenant in 220 Cowley Road, the occupation by OCSET is actually to the benefit of everyone, including the landlord. Without the OCSET squat, an empty property in such a public place would certainly attract squatters who would not respect the building in the same way as the OCSET collective, witness a heavy-looking group who passed the other day saying, "You'll be out of here soon, and then we'll be in." Also the fabric of buildings degenerates rapidly when they remain unoccupied, whereas during the occupation of OCSET it is being improved.
I will not enter the bizarre troll-like argument of Sesime in favour of the Tesco supermarket. I will only say that Tesco heiress Dame Shirley Porter, who was recently fined £12 million for her corrupt practices as leader of Westminster Council, must find it comforting in these dark days that there is someone here at least that thinks that her retail outlet is socially useful.