best of luck wet paint - hope you sirvive long enough to put the shits up the posh tory bastards who run that part of the world

(A)

where is worchester ?????????@

Section 6, Criminal Law Act, 1977 makes it an offence for anyone (whether the owner or anyone else) to "use violence to secure entry" to any premises as long as there is a person on the premises who is opposed to their entry. "Violence" is defined as including violence against property as well as against people.

"Premises" means "any building" as well as other structures. Whether a tent is included is dubious and has never been tested. Might depend what kind of tent. But what you're in is definitely a buildings, so no worries there. The definition of a "building" ALSO INCLUDES "a vehicle or vessel designed or adapted for use as a residence", so a hippy bus is a building. (The definitions are in section 12).

The powers they are talking about don't override section 6 and can only be used if no "premises" are involved -i.e. on completely open land.

What will the cops do? Stand and watch while criminal offences are committed? Threatening or attempting "violence to secure entry" is an offence under section 6 just as much as actually doing it.

BTW, the bailiffs involved here are not the same sort of animal as the court bailiffs who come to evict your after a court order has been made. They are not employed by the state, like court bailiffs. They are private bailiffs (officially called "certificated" bailiffs). Just hired thugs, in other words. State-employed court bailiffs need a judge to press their buttons. This lot just need wads of cash.

ALL THE BEST -HOPE YOU'VE SEEN THEM OFF BY NOW!

it's correctly spelt in the original post, even a part postcode, plus an IMC region at top. Try reading! And if you want to find out where it is, try looking on a map website which'll take you less time than writing that comment (& my reply)!!

fuckwit

At around 11am this morning, two people were spotted outside our building photographing what we assume to be the points of entry and looking quite suprised that we are still in the building. A short while later they disappeared and a little after midday a car pulls up. In between parking and making it to our front door, the bailiff had to waste time interacting with a traffic warden due to his shit parking!

We had a largeish group of us in there and a group of maybe 6 people outside photographing and making their presence felt. The bailiff was told what was what and soon left, after speaking to the people at work in the building next door to us.

Thanks again to all involved, including the ASS and the Bristol Housing Act - and all of you who gave you solidarity and support to us.

We are getting ready to open our doors to the public soon.. we still need to get a few things ready first. If anybody wants to drop by and get involved, the number is 07965 710 354 - we don't get to check the emails too much, but all are welcome to come and create, help set it up, offer any pointers, or even just coming up for a communal meal and a chat.

And Worcester is in the West Midlands :)

Thanks again to everyone, you're all amazing.

Good work, everybody!

Not so well done the Worcester cops. I hear they're saying "We know it's a civil matter so we won't be helping them." NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Certainly, your right to possession of the building is a civil dispute and none of the cops' business. But what these people are threatening to do is a CRIME, the threat itself is a CRIME and any attempt, even if seen off, would be a CRIME. Arguably, the letter sent to your place is already an offence contrary to section 6, Criminal Law Act, 1977 if it "threatens violence", which includes "violence against property". Has a copy of the letter been given to the cops for them to err...investigate?

If the bank down the road was being robbed, would they say "Oh yeah, we know, but we're not helping them do it, honest."

I suggest calling the cops if these bailiff types appear again. Show the cops this:

CRIMINAL LAW ACT, 1977
(as amended)
Part II
Offences Relating to Entering and Remaining on Property


6. Violence for securing entry

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person who, without lawful authority, uses or threatens violence for the purpose of securing entry into any premises for himself or for any other person is guilty of an offence, provided that—

(a)there is someone present on those premises at the time who is opposed to the entry which the violence is intended to secure; and

(b)the person using or threatening the violence knows that that is the case.

(1A)Subsection (1) above does not apply to a person who is a displaced residential occupier or a protected intending occupier of the premises in question or who is acting on behalf of such an occupier; and if the accused adduces sufficient evidence that he was, or was acting on behalf of, such an occupier he shall be presumed to be, or to be acting on behalf of, such an occupier unless the contrary is proved by the prosecution.

(2)Subject to subsection (1A) above, the fact that a person has any interest in or right to possession or occupation of any premises shall not for the purposes of subsection (1) above constitute lawful authority for the use or threat of violence by him or anyone else for the purpose of securing his entry into those premises.

(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(repealed)

(4)It is immaterial for the purposes of this section—

(a)whether the violence in question is directed against the person or against property; and

(b)whether the entry which the violence is intended to secure is for the purpose of acquiring possession of the premises in question or for any other purpose.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding [F4level 5 on the standard scale] or to both.

(6)A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, guilty of an offence under this section.

(7)Section 12 below contains provisions which apply for determining when any person is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a displaced residential occupier of any premises or of any access to any premises and section 12A below contains provisions which apply for determining when any person is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a protected intending occupier of any premises or of any access to any premises.


I hear the owner's solicitors are saying section 6 doesn't apply to commercial premises. This is, of course, bollocks. Here's the definition of what section 6 DOES apply to:

12. Supplementary provisions

(1)In this Part of this Act—

(a)“premises” means any building, any part of a building under separate occupation, any land ancillary to a building, the site comprising any building or buildings together with any land ancillary thereto, and (for the purposes only of sections 10 and 11 above) any other place; and

(b)“access” means, in relation to any premises, any part of any site or building within which those premises are situated which constitutes an ordinary means of access to those premises (whether or not that is its sole or primary use).


In real life, the most the cops are likely to do is give these creeps a "..and we don't want to see you round here again" type lecture. But that'll do, won't it?