Always funny to see people who routinely feel it is ok to ignore laws they do not agree with expecting to have the protection of the law when it suits them. Squatting was made illegal because people took the piss and ruined it for the rest of us who made choices about where we squatted, took care of the properties and worked with property owners (local councils, big corporations etc). Some however thought it was ok to walk into a house that was being renovated, steal fixtures and fittings, trash the place and then expect to have the protection of the law when they got a good kicking from security.

> fuck the police and fuck wanker troll comments while im at it
No - you piss off. I was here first, not you.

> It's not clear to me from the article but seems like the cops made a big mistake when > applying their brains to this new law.
> 1) The building that was squatted was not residential but is a shop.
> 2) They arrested people who were not resident there
> Is that right?

No, 1) that is incorrect. 2) Is for the justice courts to decide.


> This is probably the online equivalent of pissing in the wind, but I'll give it a go anyway.
Thank you.

> Um no, just highlighting the part of the law that contradicts what you said.
Yes. Your contribution seems viable.

> No one said tresspass wasn't a civil offence.
Correct. No one said this. Relevance?

> What you had originally taken issue with was that "the new law restricts people living in unoccupied buildings, but not visiting them" - a true statement.
Not really. Its a true statement, but i didn't take issue with it. I wrote more of particular case outlined in the article and unauthorised entry (trepass and burglary) rather than "the new law"

> As for s61 & 62 of the CJA. I see you have Google, but not the ability to read. They don't apply to:
Actually, I use Yahoo. Also, that is where you are COMPLETELY wrong. It should be obvious that I can read, otherwise I wouldn't be able to write these follow ups. This is really obvious and I'm really struggling to understand how you were unable to work this out for yourself. Very surprised it needs pointing out. If you can even grasp the concept that to be able to write replies and follow ups requires the ability to read then it clearly shows a fundamental flaw in your ability to do basic logical reasoning. I would say it is almost impossible that someone can write but is unable to read. The two thing tend to go hand in hand. Although i believe some people can read but are not very good at writing. But, I've never heard of a situation where it is the other way around.


> "buildings other than—
You are, of course, correct. But a fool looks whereas a wise man sees. You failed to see I was trolling with the intention of diverting people's time and energies that could have been applied to other tasks. This is a weakness in you ability to see the truth rather than just looking like an animal does.


>> I would disagree that breach of the peace was commited, however it's irrelevent as it is NOT an offence.
I stand corrected. Although it can turn into an offence if they persist and continue to breach the peace after being detained.


">> we'll see when the are arrested and get sent to court. If they are guilty - they have committed a criminal offence." - I guess that's the most sensible thing you've said so far,
Yes, ultimately it is for a court to decide. Not you, not I, not the police. We should keep our big noses out of it, because it isn't our job.

>> but the original point of the post was that the law is unjust NOT that people won't commit offences under it. Though I doubt this particular one will ever make it to court.
Yes, we should keep our noses out of it because it isn't our job. If you really want to get involved, then you should apply for a job in the decision making process... Probably a judge.