Skip to content or view screen version

Call-Out To Defend Social Centre Squat In Birmingham Against Asda

BIRMINGHAM ACTIVISTS | 15.07.2011 21:49 | Free Spaces | Social Struggles | Birmingham

Autonomous activists based in Birmingham are currently facing an injunction and eventual eviction for a local squat that was being prepared for a community centre.

Only having just moved into it eartoday, the landlord and police are already threatening the squatters and activists with an injunction for eviction, so that the building can be demolished and the land taken over to build a local ASDA supermarket store.

Autonomous activists based in Birmingham are currently facing an injunction and eventual eviction for a local squat that was being prepared for a community centre.

Only having just moved into it early today, the landlord and police are already threatening the squatters and activists with an injunction for eviction, so that the building can be demolished and the land taken over to build a local ASDA supermarket store.

The number of people defending the current squat are extremely low, and need all the back-up they can get! The activists intend to create strong fortifications over this weekend in time for next Monday, which is when court applications are said to begin.

They would welcome all kinds of help- whether you can bring food, tools, good background knowledge of squatting and evictions or solidarity in any shape or form, it would be more than appreciated!

Autonomous community spaces are important, defend them!

If interested, get down to 10 Ivy Road, Stirchley, B30 2NX (near the High Street)

Give them a ring if you want to pop down and help out- 07988056867

Many thanks!

BIRMINGHAM ACTIVISTS

Comments

Hide 4 hidden comments or hide all comments

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

community spaces are important, defend them!

16.07.2011 01:35

Yeah, but if you're squatting on private property - then that's stealing.

Hawk

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Private property is theft!

16.07.2011 04:21

What Proudhon said

Anon

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Squatting isn't theft

16.07.2011 06:00

Hawk is mistaken: squatting on private property isn't a form of theft. It's actually a form of trespass. Trespass is a civil tort; it's not a crime in this country to be on private property without permission. Also, theft means taking something with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of that thing. Occupying a building isn't the same as "taking" it - the building's still there, after all, in the same place. Squatting an empty property is just *using* a property that wasn't being used, and it's an excellent thing to do.

Visor

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

now hold on a minute...

16.07.2011 07:40

Someone obviously owns the building - Ie. they paid for it with their money - in the same way you probably own a bicycle paid for with your own money.

To deny the owner of the use of that property would be like someone using your bike without permission. It is wrong.

If it was right, then everyone would just use everyone elses belongings.
You would be arguing that you were able to take peoples clothes off their washing line and use them because they weren't being used!

Its utter bollox. If the owner wants to do something with his building (the bricks/mortor) that he paid for then legally he is entitled to do that and you are not entitled to deprive him of that privilege in this country.

the law

Hide 4 hidden comments or hide all comments