for obscuring peoples' faces at a tame event like that. Just what is your reasoning?

we live in the most surveilled country in the world and you ask stupid questions about protecting identity.

Do you work for a FIT squad. Its well known that the state surveills indymedia constantly

Yes anonymous we all know to our shame that we're more spyed on than anywhere else. It's those cameras on the street taking pictures that we never get to see that are the real problem. To see anyones' faces unnecessarily blanked like this just makes for such a daft dismal report and it makes everyone look like hardened crims. Are you too thick or wrapped up in extreme paranoia to see that there's nothing remotely dodgy about cooking up some food? And obscuring someone's eyes with brussels sprouts still leaves them totally recognisable anyway.

So tell me please, are you actually proposing that every single photo on IMC should portray us all like sinister faceless shop window dummies? If not then what percentage? Under what circumstances? And do you think they should all be blanked retrospectively? Are you volunteering to do the vandalism - sorry blanking. I'm really fascinated to try and understand your reasoning - if you have any.

why do people set up squats anyway someone explain the sense or reason behind it.the end result is always the same....."eviction".what do you as squaters say in response to people who labell you as freaks and freeloaders.
CDO

Looking good guys - keep it up.

In response to the comment about why squat ? I give you possibly my favourite squatters quote:

"Social centres are abandoned buildings - warehouses, factories, military forts, schools - that have been occupied by squatters and transformed into cultural and political hubs, explicitly free from both the market, and from state control... Though it may be hard to tell at first, the social centres aren't ghettos, they are windows — not only into another way to live, disengaged from the state, but also into a new politics of engagement. And yes, it's something maybe beautiful." (Klein, 2001).

if yours(klein) idea of something beautiful is breaking into an old boarded up pub once home to winos,smackheads,working girls and other lowlife down and outs arrange a few chairs in a circle eat mung bean and brown rice(yuk) you clearly have a very narrow perspective on the definition of beauty ever cycled out into derbyshire's peak park or the yorkshire dales there you will find beauty and its hassle free unlike the squat society.
squat society is just another restrictive clique where recreational activists,anarchists,greenies,veggies and vegans, can huddle together and tell eachother how much they agree with eachother big deal really alternative eh ! hardly groundbreaking is it hardly going to change the world is it setting up another temporary drop out centre that will only end up in your eviction sooner rather than later.
lets be frank about it only a very small percentage of you people will still be sqauting or indeed remain activists as you turn 30 or 40 the lure of safe smug middle class lifestyles will take the majority of you away from your current lifestyle choice which is all sqauting/activism is to you.
tramwayman....("all aboard")

tramwayman .. you seem really angry .. what would you suggest people do instead...?

making use of the unused and unloved and having fun in a positive certainly allows the dispossed to feel empowered. We need to feel strong and connected to each other if we are to build strong alternatives.

Why don't you come and visit ? Or are you frightened that people might be enjoying themselves without you to tell them what to think.

--
40 something squatter

maybe tramwayman is worried about getting mugged and robbed by crazy drughead squaters ha ha not likely they look like a gentle crowd, i reckon he is wrong about all sqauting sometimes its done out of need ie the homeless but i tend to see his point about what is happening at the tramway being an act of middle class politico posing.as for fun at the tramway its looks about as much fun as being stuck in a lift with ian paisley for 24 hours to be honest.

When the state raids environment and animal rights activists and treats them as terrorists:

Sheffield M1 Protestors Arrested
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2007/04/368219.html

SHAC Takes The Flak: Flimsy pretext for arrests of animal rights activists
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/369667.html

It's no wonder that people don't want their faces on posts like this.

What lifestyle would tramwayman like to propose, a SUV driving, exessive consumption one based on imperial genocide, economic slavery and ecological destruction?

squat wrote
"What lifestyle would tramwayman like to propose, a SUV driving, exessive consumption one based on imperial genocide, economic slavery and ecological destruction?"

tramwayman says
"yes all that and bondage,stamp collecting plus bernard manning repeats from the 1970's on telly

tramwayman "all aboard tickets please no freeloaders or squaters"

Its not a binary choice between 'squatting' and everything else. Squatting is a legitimate response to high living costs and the waste capitalism produces. Its easier for landlords to leave a place empty, let it rot then collect the insurance than to develop it - and if they do develop it, in the UK it will most likely become housing out of the price range of ordinary incomes.

Squatted buildings are also a good place to start putting across community based politics, as the kind of people who want to organise this (anarchists, socialists, community activists) are generally skint. A permanent building would cost a fortune now. When buildings were cheaper, in the UK most anarchist and socialist groups actually DID have offices. You can still find clues to their whereabouts all over the place. And thats without counting the labour exchanges and working-mens' clubs (now routinely left empty and rotting like this pub).

In recent years, as the old labour movement has declined, in europe and increasingly in the UK, radical groups have reclaimed empty buildings to organise community, class and environmental struggles. Often long enough to either buy or win a permanent base. These places are called Social Centres and aim to combine a local community centre with a political space. Anarchists would see those two things going hand in hand anyway.

Thats said, there is no inherent ideology or politics to squatting, at least there really shouldn't be. What has been described above is a Social Centre, NOT a squat. It can be squatted, but its better if its owned legally. Not because thats anymore legitimate, but having a long - term project builds areas of strength and earns respect in the region. Short lived places can be brilliant, but can be a drain on energy and resources if they are forgotten in a year or two. Incidentally in the UK, unless there has been a Interim Posession Order (IPO), a squat takes 2 months to legally evict; 2 months is the shortest life span. Thats short.

Just a squatted building in general is not political. The fact it has been left empty by a wasteful system is political sure. But squatting or being a squatter is not; its either done out of neccessity whilst you find a secure home, or its done as part of a subculture. Self describing as a squatter is a bit weird in a way; it immiediately says you have no family and no particular ties to one area - as those are things that squatting (generally) can't provide for. There is nothing wrong with being a squatter, and the author has been and intends to be in the future - but there is nothing particularly right about it either. There's a scene in some places, and squatters will often go round each others places, share stuff and socialise together - there are some shared cultural norms sometimes too, like music. This is apolitical. There is a golfing scene in some places, golfers will golf together and socilaise with each other in golfing bars - there are some shared cultural norms, like clothing. This is apolitical.

The politicisation of squatting in the UK actually comes from everything AROUND it as a phenomenom, not what was inside it. Mass squatting happens at times of economic downturn. Big surges like the de-mobbed families who squatted after the War, and the movement in the late seventies. So what is political is the market failing to provide decent homes for the working class (especially the young with no family, which most squatters are - surprise surprise). We have inherited a bit of confusion about the term 'squat' from these periods, and also from the anarcho-punk movement, a lot of people say 'squat' when the mean 'Social Centre' or a building which is open to the public and has a political purpose.

Finally, having mentioned anarcho-punk, there are some people who are just plain wrong. One of these is somebody who believes you can just opt out of society and all its problems (a lifestyle squatter). This person would argue that squatting, shoplifting perhaps, bin raiding and spending almost no money absolved themself from capitalism. Fraid not. Capitalism is a social relationship; you can cheat on it all you like, but only a revolution gets you a divorce. Living off of the waste of capitalism in empty buildings and supermarket bins is still living off of capitalism. Somebody still got paid to produce that stuff, even if it wasn't you. Slogans like 'squat the world' are useless bollocks. We want to communally own it.

The other totally wrong position is people who hate squatting, say it puts 'normal' people off, and if they are right wing, say that squatters are robbing 'honest hardworking people with jobs'. For starters, most squatters have jobs; the lifestyle squatter is a tiny proportion of squatters. Secondly, nobody is losing money, not even the bosses (unfortunately). Its already been discarded. If they want it back, the silly tossers should never have scrapped it. As for putting people off when the squat is a political project, again that is making some assumptions about who squatters are - which we have lifestylers and more importantly JUNKIES to thank for. Nothing stops you from squatting a centre and being perfectly approachable. I know, cos i've done it - with short hair, a clean shirt, and a smile. Often people have assumed we own the building cos we treated it, and ourselves, with respect. The trick is to tell the lifestylers and junkies not to bother to turn up - or be so removed from their scenes they don't even know you are there.

Its not about different opnions though; the real enemy is the ruling class. They own everything, and force us to work off a debt we were born with to get some of it back. A tiny proportion of us are allowed to "get rich" by shafting those around us, but most of us will "die tryin".

Solidarity to everyone who is struggling, and anybody who has turned an empty building into a centre for that fightback.

Sorry luv, that quote is about Social Centres not squats.

I'm not sure this sheffield place is a Social Centre anyway, it seems more like a place for people who know each other to knock about in, but i won't jump to conclusions. Actually, i am jumping to conclusions: because why is it called a 'squat cafe'? Whats the relevance of it being a squat.


...or indeed a cafe. Sheffield has some boss trad sandwich shops and cafes which cost next to nothing.

Glad people enjoyed themselves and that, I had a nice time on the weekend too. Perhaps i could show you some pictures of that? Oh wait, i'm thinking of myspace lol.

Its perfectly reasonable to obscure the faces, these people didn't give their permission for their mush to be publicised.

At demo's, events, actions - all these places could get you shit off your boss or people who know you. I've seen it happen. I've also seen fascist tossers like Redw/atch pull pics straight off this very sight. I don't want people to know i'm inviolved in radical or progressive projects without my knowing it.

If you don't have permission, i'd rather you did actually.

All the best,

whats happend to the squat

just like all public squats do after a while.