Squatting -- the real story
Setting the stage: the new squatting wave begins, 1969-72
When I was nine or ten years old I used to go 'exploring' with friends
around the allotments in Stoke-on-Trent. A never-ending vista of huts
and sheds of all shapes and sizes littered the area. It was the early
sixties equivalent of an adventure playground. One day we went into one
of the larger huts and were amazed to discover that this ramshackle building
was somebody's home. What had appeared from the outside to be nothing
more than an oversized store shed turned out to be a tiny house. Technically
the occupants were squatters since they had no legal right or licence
of abode. Although they probably paid the few shillings weekly rent charged
for the allotment, they certainly had no right to construct a house on
the plot. But lost amidst that warren of greenhouses, huts and sheds,
I doubt if they were troubled until the site was cleared for a new housing
estate.
There have always been many such squatters; people who probably do not
think of themselves as squatters and who are certainly not part of any
movement, but squatters all the same. I recently came across one such
person by accident at the end of an unmade road near Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire,
in a large uncultivated field that backs onto a small wood. In the shade
of the trees there is the shell of a three-ton truck. The chassis and
engine cab are missing and all that remains is the metal bodywork. To
the undiscerning eye it looks much like any other abandoned vehicle but
for several years it has been the home of an Italian immigrant who works
at a local nursery.
Many people are still forced into desperate and inadequate solutions to
their housing problems. One family in Lancashire recently made their home
in a metal hopper in a factory yard. They installed four bunk beds, a
makeshift toilet and a cooker and, unbeknown to the factory owners and
workers, lived there until one day candles set fire to the hopper's canvas
cover.
In 1972, a man who had lived with his wife in a car parked outside a transport
cafe for nine months appealed to others in a similar situation to contact
him with a view to organising a lobby of Parliament. Over 730 people living
in cars, vans and abandoned caravans responded to his request, and there
must have been many more in the same position who did not. Bus shelters,
shopping arcades, doorways, lift-shafts and bridges, among many other
inhospitable places, have provided thousands of grateful homeless with
shelter and protection from the elements.
In addition, there has always been a large but unknown number of people
for whom there is an element of choice in their adoption of an unsettled
mobile lifestyle, as opposed to society's efforts to tie them to one place.
'Tramps' have slept in derelict houses for many centuries and gypsies
are often forced to squat on empty land whenever they stop moving. There
are many individual case histories in the following pages. But it has
been the successes and failures of squatting as a movement that have determined
the present conditions in which squatting is a real possibility for tens
of thousands of people. If there is a bias in this section towards the
actions of organised squatters, it is only because their stories are of
greater significance for squatters as a whole.
The widespread postwar squatting movement (Chapter 9) was effectively
crushed in 1946. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, though squatting was
thought not to occur, a few people did squat but in complete isolation
from any organised movement. Then, by publicising their activities and
consciously encouraging others to imitate them, a group of squatters in
late 1968 paved the way for squatting to grow from the quiet act of desperate
individuals to the widespread activity which it is today.
The roots
In the late fifties and early sixties, extra-Parliamentary political activity
was centred on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Committee
of 100. The latter openly advocated direct action to further its fight
against nuclear arms and this marked the revival of the use of direct
action in non-industrial settings. At the same time, numerous sociologists
published research confirming the continued existence of inequality and
deprivation. A new generation of angry young middle-class men and women
were appalled by the fact that the poor were still with us, and the adequately
housed majority were shocked to learn that homelessness and inadequate
housing still afflicted millions of people. Awareness grew with the publication
of reports like the Mimer-Holland survey on London's housing in 1965,
TV shows like 'Cathy Come Home' (first broadcast in 1966) and the formation
of Shelter, a national charity campaigning on housing.
The Committee of 100, and the experience which people acquired during
their involvement with it, offered new ideas on how to fight this injustice.
It was becoming apparent that direct action was a means by which concessions
could be wrung out of a complacent establishment. In a longer-term perspective,
some people thought it might provide a way to build a movement challenging
the actual structure of society. In many respects the direct action of
the Committee of 100 against nuclear armaments was purely symbolic, challenging
the state at the point where it could least afford to yield. In contrast
the activists of the late sixties began to make more realistic demands
and moved into areas which affected people's everyday lives.
The main impetus for the 1968-69 squatting campaign came from a loosely-knit
group of radicals, many of whom had been involved with the Committee of
100 and the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign. Some of them had been active
in a long struggle at King Hill Hostel, West Mailing, in 1966. The hostel,
run by Kent County Council for homeless families, operated on antiquated
rules, the worst of which was that only mothers and children could stay
there with husbands only being allowed to see their families at approved
visiting times. A group of husbands moved into the hostel and refused
to leave. A protracted battle followed, ending in humiliation and defeat
for the Council. The hostel rules were changed and the lesson was clear
for all to see: direct action obtained changes which years of pressure
through normal democratic channels had failed to achieve.
Activists also came together in other housing campaigns during 1967 and
1968 and this enabled a core of militants to accumulate a valuable fund
of contacts and experience before embarking upon squatting. The idea of
squatting was first raised by the homeless and badly housed families involved
in these campaigns. Squatting was a natural extension of direct action
into the fight for decent housing and conditions were ripe for it to succeed.
Homelessness was increasing again, as was the stock of empty houses. Public
sympathy, on which the success of squatting depends, was firmly on the
side of the homeless. And there was an organised group of people willing
to set things in motion.
Rebirth of a squatting movement
The London Squatters Campaign was set up by a meeting of 15 people at
the house of Ron Bailey on 18 November 1968. Although no written aims
were set down, Bailey later claimed there were unwritten ones. One was
simply 'the rehousing of families from hostels or slums by means of squatting'.
But it was also hoped that 'squatting on a mass scale' could be sparked
off, that this would start 'an all-out attack on the housing authorities
with ordinary people taking action for themselves' and that the campaign
would have 'a radicalising effect on existing movements in the housing
field'.2
In spite of their laudably ambitious hopes, few of the activists would
have found it credible had a visitor from the future told them that their
example would be followed by tens of thousands of people seizing houses
which did not belong to them. Their first target was 'The Hollies' a partially
empty block of luxury flats in Wanstead High Street, East London. Some
of the flats had been empty ever since they were built four years previously
and this was seen as symbolic of the injustice which allowed private property
owners to keep houses empty whilst thousands were homeless. The occupation
for a few hours of these flats on 1 December 1968 was symbolic too, in
a different way. It suggested a logical step forward: homeless people
could introduce an element of control into their lives by taking over
empty houses which the established institutions of society could not or
would not use. A week after this brief occupation, a separate group of
activists showed how easy it could be to make empty houses habitable.
For one day they took over a house in Notting Hill, West London, which
had been empty for 18 months and cleaned and decorated it, clearly demonstrating
its suitability for use by the homeless.
Two weeks later, just before Christmas, the London Squatters Campaign
occupied All Saints Vicarage, Leyton, a building which the church had
kept empty for over three years. Homeless people were encouraged to be
involved in the action. A few from a Camden Council hostel managed to
enter before police cordoned off the house. The squatters then asked the
church to make the house available to the homeless, but this was rejected,
almost 1,968 years to the day since another homeless family is reputed
to have been forced to sleep in a barn. The squatters made this point
forcefully, stayed for a day and left. The same weekend, the Notting Hill
group occupied a block of luxury flats, Arundel Court, and again left
voluntarily after a few hours. All the occupations so far had been symbolic
gestures, their primary aim being to attract publicity. However, the coverage
they received was beginning to fade and in the new year, the second, more
decisive, phase of the campaign began.
On 18 January 1969, Maggie O'Shannon and her two children moved into No
7 Camelford Road Notting Hill, with the aid of the Notting Hill activists.
The Inner London Education Authority (ILEA), which owned the house, reacted
predictably: 'This kind of forced entry into private property is tantamount
to an attempt to jump the housing queue' said a spokesperson. The fact
that the house was condemned and empty with no plans to fill it seemed
to have escaped the ILEA's notice. But after six weeks of adverse publicity
a rent book was grudgingly pushed through the letterbox, making Maggie
O'Shannon the first person since the 1940s to obtain permanent housing
through squatting. Her story was told on TV and in almost every newspaper
in the country, with the result that the lesson was not lost on other
homeless families - Maggie O'Shannon had got a place to live by squatting.
Squatting began to spread. Three families moved into houses in Winnersh,
near Reading. In Yorkshire, a family squatted a privately-owned house
which had been empty for six years and, within a month, was given a legal
tenancy. Squatting groups were set up in Leeds, where an office block
was occupied, Edinburgh, Birkenhead, Brighton and Manchester as well as
in several parts of London.
Redbridge thuggery
The most important struggle though was in Red bridge, East London, an
area close to the homes of several of the London Squatters Campaign members.
Redbridge Council was planning a major central area redevelopment scheme
for Ilford. The scheme had not been officially approved and would not
be started for several years and yet the Council was deliberately leaving
a large number of sound houses empty to rot. Attempts to persuade it to
use these houses for short-term lets had failed and some houses were planned
to be left empty for ten years. On 8 February four houses were occupied,
families installed and barricades erected.
The Council initially attempted to crush squat ting through the courts.
First it tried to serve in junctions ordering the squatters to cease trespass
mg but these were evaded. It then unsuccessfully argued that the squatters
were guilty of 'forcible detainer' an offence created in 1429 to prevent
anyone using violence to retain possession and asked a magistrate to have
them prosecuted. Red-bridge Council then succeeded in obtaining possession
orders for the squatted houses but was thwarted when the squatters swopped
houses so that people named on the possession orders were no longer resident
in the houses to which they applied. (A ruling in 1975 (p161) was to make
'squat swopping' ineffective but it remained a useful tactic for many
years). Annoyed by the prospect of more occupations, the Council embarked
upon blunter tactics. In one fortnight at the end of February, it gutted
29 houses to deter squatters from moving in at a cost to the ratepayers
of £2,520.
But by now squatting in the area was beginning to take root as more and
more people approached the London Squatters Campaign wanting to squat.
During the first weeks of April, several families and single parents moved
in. Redbridge Council's determination to crush the embryonic squatting
movement was meeting with little success. But towards the end of April
it was ready to try again. In March, squatters in a Greater London Council
(GLC) house, had been threatened with eviction by a group of officially-sanctioned
thugs who used violence without bothering to obtain court orders. Olive
Mercer, who was squatting In the house with her husband and son, was struck
in the stomach with an iron bar. She was pregnant and the blow caused
her to bleed and consequently to lose her baby. The thuggery only ceased
when a doctor insisted that her daughter, who was in bed with scarlet
fever, was too ill to be moved.
Redbridge Council was sufficiently 'impressed' to hire the same thugs
to deal with its own 'squatter problem'. The men, some of whom sported
National Front badges, were supplied by a firm of private bailiffs run
by Barry Quartermain who the Sunday Times described as a man who 'tears
a London telephone directory into halves and then into quarters as he
lectures you about the toughness of his henchmen'.3 He was later to serve
a three-year jail sentence for offences committed in pursuit of his 'business'.
On 21 April people squatting in three Redbridge houses were evicted by
these bailiffs without any court orders authorising such evictions. They
were accompanied by a posse of police, Council officials and welfare workers,
all of whom ignored the violent methods of the bailiffs. One squatter
was beaten up and had his jaw broken. The Fleming family was forced to
dress in front of the bailiffs and had their furniture smashed and thrown
out of the windows. Another squatter, Ben Beresford, in an affidavit,
described his family's eviction from one of the houses:
'While my wife was trying to get some baby's clothes, I was told to "stop
wasting fucking time". I was grabbed hold of violently by one of
the bailiffs and my arm was forced in a lock behind my back. I was pushed
and frogmarched down the stairs into the waiting van, and was locked in
- . . There I was forced to stay until the end of the eviction'.4
Once the families had been kicked out, workmen were sent in to wreck the
houses, smashing holes in roofs and ripping out staircases to prevent
re-occupation. There were, however, many other empty Council houses in
the area and by mid-June squatters were once more in occupation of several
of them. Redbridge Council tried to use Quartermain's men again but this
time the squatters were prepared. On 23 June, bailiffs were sent to No.23
Audrey Road and No.6 Woodland Road. They met with much more resistance
than they had bargained for, and the eviction attempts were rebuffed.
The national media were alerted, so that when the bailiffs returned at
dawn two days later, their thuggery was reported in the press and shown
on TV all over the country. Redbridge Council earned the worst press that
a council has ever received in dealings with squatters. Not only was it
shown to be pursuing a wasteful and inhumane policy of unnecessarily destroying
habitable houses, but it was also illegally using extreme violence against
the homeless.
The media coverage played a major part in forcing the Council to negotiate
despite the reluctance of many councillors and council officers, and in
July an agreement with the squatters was worked out. Some squatter families
were to get permanent council homes, the Council was to carry out a review
of its use of short-life property and all gutting was to cease while this
review was carried out. The squatters were to meet the Council again after
it was completed. In order to obtain these concessions, the squatters
had to vacate the houses they occupied and stop their campaign in the
area. They voted by a two-thirds majority to agree to the Council's conditions
but the agreement was denounced by some as a 'surrender' and there was
a lot of bitterness on both sides about the decision.
Although it did get housing for some of the squatting families, the agreement
had only a small effect on Council policy. Redbridge did bring into use
some properties not scheduled to be demolished for seven years but claimed
that most would cost too much to bring up to habitable standard. Three
years later, in fact, it released several of the poorer short-life properties
to local squatters. One of the properties that squatters voluntarily vacated
in July 1969 No 2 Woodlands Road - was still empty ten years later. Indeed
the same streets in Redbridge which were the focus for the 1969 campaign
remain blighted by the same redevelopment scheme in 1980. To avoid opposition,
Redbridge now has a policy of 'prior demolition', pulling down houses
which are on land not needed for several years.
Nevertheless, the Redbridge struggle achieved a great deal. It ensured
that owners seeking eviction went through the courts, affording squatters
a minimal degree of security without which squatting could not have gone
beyond the stage of protest sit-ins. Indeed the London Squatters Campaign's
adroit legal defence established precedents which benefited squatters
for many years and many people involved in Ilford went on to promote squatting
in other areas. The London Squatters Campaign renamed itself East London
Squatters as new local groups were established all over the capital. The
beginnings of squatting on a mass widespread scale had been made.
Hippydilly
The tide of public opinion, which was firmly in favour of squatters in
Redbridge, turned later in 1969 as a result of the terrible publicity
attratced by the occupation of a number of prominent buildings in central
london, particularly No 144 Piccadilly.
September 1969 became the open season for hippy-hunting and squatter bashing
in the press. The main action was centred upon the takeover by the "London
Street Commune" and assorted supporters of No 144 Piccadilly, an
empty school in Endell Street, Covents Garden and empty offices in Russell
Square, Bloomsbury. No 144 Picadilly was squatted early in September and
when police evicted its occupants less than three weeks later, many of
them moved into the Endell Street school, from which they were evicted
after only two days. The Russell Square squat was equally short-lived.
The press had already introduced the 'hippy-menace" to the public
earlier that year, but had not yet generated thehysteria which erupted
in September. The London Street Commune was a loosely organised group
of mainly young, long-haired people who wanted to find somewhere for hundreds
of 'hippies' then sleeping rough in London's parks to stay overnight.
No 144 Picadilly, a privately owned empty mansion at Hyde Park Corner,
seemed an ideal place to establish a communal squat. But any possibility
of this happening was immediately destroyed by the powerful reaction of
the media.
"Drug taking, couples making love while others look on, rule by heavy
mob armed with iron bars, foul language, filth and stench. THAT is the
scene inside the hippies' fortress in London's Picadilly. These are not
rumours but facts, sordid facts which will shock ordinary decent' family-loving
people."6
declared the front page of The People under the heading 'HIPPIE THUGS:
THE SORDID TRUTH'.
The Times warned in a lead article that 'Molotov cocktails were being
manufactured' in preparation for a long siege. The Sunday Express, in
common with most newspapers, 'smuggled' reporters and aphotographer into
the building. Under the heading 'HIPPIES WITH SWORDS WAIT FOR BATTLE',
the brave journalists revealed that the squatters had an armoury consisting
of 'knives, coshes, rocks and even swords'.
Media coverage ensured that the crowd outside No 144 Picadilly rarely
dropped below 500 during the day and large sections of it were extremely
hostile and potentially violent. Indeed, until the eviction, most police
activity was directed against spectators who wanted to 'deal with' the
squatters. Little media coverage was given to these incidents. In one
case, when five motorbikes belonging to people inside were set on fire,
not one large circulation paper mnetioned it, even though every paper
reported that the occupants hurled missiles at the people responsible.
The media, having created this mood of intense hostility, neglected, by
and large, to report how it was manifested. For example, the saddest moment
of these squats was reported only by radical papers and The Guardian.
A youth climbed onto a window ledge 30 feet above pointed iron railings
during the eviction of the Endell Street squat. A policeman inside the
building tried to grab him. Down in the street a group of onlookers yelled
'Let him fall' and 'Come on, why don't you jump?' For a moment it looked
as though he might fall; he slipped, lost his footing and was left holding
on by one hand. The group of men below cheered but much to their disappointment,
he was saved.
Even when No 144 was evicted on 21 September, press coverage remained
firmly rooted in the fantasies the press had created which seemed to relate
more to medieval times or the Wild West than to 1969. For the Daily Mirror,
the Picadilly eviction took on the form of the 'FALL OF HIPPY CASTLE'.
The Times emphasised the role of 50 young policemen who formed 'a bridgehead
for a supporting column of police waiting nearby' and its headline bawled
'SQUATTERS OUSTED BY POLICE COMMANDO'. The Daily Telegraph crowed delightedly
'POLICE ROUT PICADILLY HIPPIES'.
The next day The Times carried an editorial demanding that squatting be
made a criminal offence, and suggesting 'Meanwhile, if groups of hippies
continue to roam from one unoccupied building to another, they could be
prosecuted under the Vagrancy Acts.'
Although, looked at objectively, these squats did not give a particularly
good impression of the squatting movement, the frenzy of paranoid indignation
they aroused was out of all proportion to their significance or to the
number of people involved. Furthermore, the public hostility itself was
largely responsible for the escalation of the squatters' defences and
the disintergration of organisation inside the squats. For example, after
initially intending to occupy No 144 Picadilly peacibly and eventually
to argue their case in court, the hippies felt forced to bring in Hell'sAngels
to form a defence force against attacks by police and skinheads. The Hell's
Angels started to dominate the squat and there were several nasty incidents,
including a rape. Faced with angry crowds, impending eviction and internal
dissent between hippies and Hell's Angels, what could have become peaceful
communes housing homeless young people became chaotic and disorganised
fortresses.
For all the talk of violence, there was none at the evictions. Most of
the weapons were figments of journalists' imaginations. Those that really
existed - mostly brightly-coloured plastic balls and fire extinguishers
- were relatively harmless and ineffective. It took just four minutes
for police to take control of No 144 Piccadilly and little longer at Endell
Street.
The press outcry also provided a smokescreen behind which civil liberties
were being cast to one side. The eviction of No 144 Piccadilly was not
legally authorised. The police had no possession order and used a warrant
under the Dangerous Drugs Act to legitimise their entry. In Endell Street
200 policemen evicted 63 squatters, all of whom were arrested and charged
with resisting the Sheriff. Many had additional charges laid against them
and most were refused bail. One month after the arrests 32 of them were
still being held at Ashford Remand Centre. Eight were singled out as 'ring-leaders'
and charged with conspiracy to 'forcibly detain' the Endell Street premises
under the 1429 Forcible Entry Act. After a nine day trial held in ultra-conservative
Lewes 50 miles from London, all eight were found guilty. Two were jailed
for nine months, two sent to detention centres, three given suspended
jail sentences and one escaped with a £20 fine.
The events of September 1969 provide the historical basis of later popular
and media images of squatters. Labels thrown around freely at that time
stuck. The image of lazy scroungers bent on destroying society became
synonymous with squatters, as Peace News observed:
'The word 'squatter' now conjures up a club-waving savage who is liable
to take over your semi-detached the moment you turn your back, and wreck
it. A totally misleading image, even insofar as it applies to the occupants
of No 144, let alone to other varieties of squatter. But it will stick,
and it will greatly help the Quartermains of this world.'7
Whether the press campaign against hippy squatters was, as the newspapers
would claim, a reflection of public outrage or whether, as is more likely,
the campaign itself created that outrage, there is no doubt that the media
coverage pandered to people's worst prejudices, and focused resentment
not just against hippy squatters but against squatters generally. Prior
to these events, the press had been equivocal about squatters, and, at
times had supported them wholeheartedly like at Redbridge where public
opinion lay solidly with the exhomeless families involved. But No 144
Piccadilly was totally different. The demands of the bridge squatters
had been realisable in the short run within the terms of the existing
institutional framework of housing. They sought improved housing provision
for homeless families and the main issue at stake was bureaucratic in
the handling of local authority housing stock. Conflict between the needs
of people for housing and the right of property owners to do as they wished
with their property - including leaving it empty - was a secondary issue.
Squatting in Redbridge was not so much a challenge to private property
rights as it was to incompetent councils.
The 'hippy' squats appeared to present a starker threat to private property.
The lifestyle of the hippies, or at least the way in which it was described,
was perceived as a challenge to society's most dearly held values. It
called into question both the nuclear family and the work ethic, and however
superficial that challenge was in reality, it was regarded by the public
and the state as a real and substantial threat.
The London Squatters Campaign vacillated in its attitude to the 'hippy'
squatters, and in doing so missed one of the most crucial points arising
from the central London occupations - the expression of the growing need
for single person accommodation and more imaginative thinking in housing
provision. Not all young people wanted to live in bedsitters or with their
parents, and the big squats of September 1969, for all their short-comings,
did reveal the increasing demand for communal living arrangements managed
by young people themselves.
But any serious consideration of the issues raised by these squats was
drowned in the tide of hysteria. Meanwhile we were left to reflect upon
the unedifying spectacle of Mr Ronald Lyon, a property developer, walking
into West End Central Police Station and donating £1,000 to police
charities in appreciation of the good job done in evicting the occupants
of No 144 Piccadilly. The building stayed empty for three more years and
was then demolished (despite being listed) for a luxury hotel.
Siege mentality
It was not only 'hippy squats' which ran into trouble at this time. In
the midst of the Hippydilly affair Alistair Black, Under Sheriff of Greater
London, whose opposition to squatters has since often put his name in
headlines discovered 'an armoury of diabolical weapons' in No.22 Rumbold
Road, Fulham, after he had evicted squatters from the premises. Alderman
Bill Smith, Leader of the local Council said the house was like a 'World
War One dug-out' and that the weapons found included gas chlorine bombs,
swagger canes filled with lead, piles of bricks and sticks with sharpened
metal ends.8 The squatters were subsequently found guilty of conspiracy
to commit actual bodily harm to persons attempting lawful entry and received
suspended prison sentences.
In Brighton too squatters went to extreme lengths to defend their homes.
Squatting in Brighton was launched by the Brighton Rents Project, a broad
based campaign for better housing which had already received widespread
support, including that of the Labour MP for Kemp Town, Dennis Hobden.
Squatting was seen as a last resort in the face of an intransigent Conservative
Council. Several empty houses were occupied and families installed. The
Council promptly announced that the squatters would be struck off the
housing waiting list, and immediately began court proceedings for eviction.
And, as if to emphasise its lack of concern for the homeless, it proceeded
to sell No 70 Church Street, a house in the town centre which it had kept
empty for 20 years.
Despite numerous arrests of supporters on minor charges, the campaign
continued to grow. Towards the end of July 1969, houses in Queens Square
and Wykeham Terrace were squatted. The army, which owned the properties,
had been intending to sell them with vacant possession, but the presence
of squatters meant that this had to be postponed. The squatters dug in
to fight and called for support In the months up to the eviction (on 28
November) the local press pilloried the Rents Project and its helpers,
warning of 'private armies' and 'terrible weapons' waiting at Wykeham
Terrace. The dire warnings seemed to be validated when three people from
the squat were arrested for firebombing a local army recruitment office.
The petrol bombs had been made at the squat and several squatters were
later sent to prison.
These events were widely publicised with disastrous consequences. In Brighton
for instance, squatting abruptly came to an end and the Brighton Rents
Project disintegrated, torn apart by external hostility and internal divisions.
Physical defence of squats was not in itself the main mistake. Indeed
in Redbridge, which had received nothing but favourable publicity, it
had been essential. On one occasion when a bailiff broke through the front
door of a squatted house, he fell down to the basement as the Council
had removed the ground floor floorboards. His misfortune was compounded
as squatters pelted him with bricks until police intervened. The difference
was that in Redbridge, physical defence was part of an overall strategy
and the actions of the squatters were clearly seen (both in law and by
the public) to be in response to violence on the part of the Council and
its bailiffs. The weapons in Fulham and Brighton were, in fact, a direct
response to events in Redbridge as a statement, largely ignored by the
press, from the Fulham squatters made clear:
'The stockpiling of weapons must he seen against the right background.
They were acquired at a time when certain authorities were using private
armies of strongarm toughs on eviction work. When the danger of this happening
in our case diminished because the owner showed no intention of using
violence I the weapons should have been got rid of. Unfortunately they
weren't.'9
The reason why the weapons were kept was that a kind of siege-mentality
had taken over from reasoned and intelligent action. The task of physically
defending buildings had completely dominated that of organising an effective
defence politically. The occupants became involved in an increasingly
introverted and insular struggle which bore no relation to tactical or
political realities.
This failure was exploited to the full by the media to the detriment of
all squatters.
Emergence of licensed squatting
In June 1969, negotiations started between South East London Squatters
and Lewisham Council, with a view to allowing people to use empty Council
properties on short term licences. The first squats in Lewisham coincided
with the violence in Redbridge and Lewisham Council was eager to avoid
a similar conflict. The existence of several large redevelopment schemes
in the borough meant that a large stock of property would be empty for
several years and the Council realised that if it failed to reach an agreement
with the local squatting group, squatters would probably take over these
houses anyway.
The negotiations were long and protracted, partly due to the cumbersome
process of local government, but also because the Labour minority opposed
any deal with the squatters. At all stages, the squatters' negotiators
pushed for further concessions but some squatters felt that they were
being too conciliatory and betraying the original ideas of the squatting
movement. Critics of a 'deal' pointed to the number of restrictive conditions
insisted on by the Council. Only Lewisham families on the waiting list
were to be housed; dwellings licensed to the squatting group were to be
vacated when required and there would be no guarantee of rehousing.
In return the squatters would be licensed to use short-life houses given
to them by the Council. (Technically a licensed squatter is not a squatter
at all but a licensee: a licensee has permission to remain in a property
until the licence is revoked; a squatter does not have the owner's permission-
see p 230). The families who were housed would have their housing waiting
list points 'frozen' so that their long-term chances of getting a Council
house would not be jeopardised.
The critics amongst the squatters argued that the conditions imposed by
Lewisham made the squatters totally dependent upon its generosity and
its efficiency in the use of its housing stock. There were a number of
objections:
· How could they be sure the Council would honour the agreement?
· What would prevent it from merely releasing a handful of dwellings
keeping many more empty?
· Why restrict allocation to families living in the borough?
· What about the rights and needs of single people?
Supporters of the deal argued that obtaining licences was a great victory.
Families gained security from eviction and the agreement did not preclude
further militant squatting campaigns if the Council failed to deliver
the goods. Indeed the agreement was based upon the threat of direct action.
Furthermore, they argued that it was easy to ensure that a family was
put on the waiting list by housing them temporarily at an address in the
borough all residents of Lewisham being eligible to put their names on
the waiting list. They also pointed that although no offer of permanent
rehousing was made, families evicted out of short-life property could
always find accommodation through Lewisham's Homeless Families Department.
Eventually agreement was reached and on 13 December 1969 Sam and Jill
Kelly moved into a Lewisham house with their ten-month old baby, marking
the official recognition of the first licensed squatters association.
Within a few months the Lewisham Family Squatting Association had over
80 houses and employed Ron Bailey, one of the founder members of the London
Squatters Campaign, as a full-time worker. During the next five years,
it housed around 100 families at any time and at the time of writing it
is still operating, though with fewer houses than in the past. It has
long been a thriving model of a short-life group working in harmony with
its local council.
The creation of licensed squatting emphasised a division that was developing
between 'responsible' family groups and other squatters, especially of
the 'hippy' variety. This division facilitated the development of a dual
movement by the end of 1969 when various groups had forced concessions
out of a few authorities and won licences whilst many more squatters continued
to face hostile reactions. There was a growing lobby in favour of making
squatting a criminal offence. This came not only from expected sources,
such as the Property Owners Protection Society and the Conservative Party,
but also, and more alarmingly, from sections of the Labour Party. Squatters
could thank the tangled and complex laws of property ownership and tenure
for the reluctance to legislate quickly rather than any enlightened approach
on the part of either major political party in office. In the absence
of any centrally-directed policy, the state's response to squatting varied
immensely between one area and another and even between different groups
of squatters within the same area.
Growth and limitations of licensing
Local authorities did not rush to follow the example set by the Lewisham
agreement. On the contrary, the usual pattern for the emergence of licensed
'squatting' groups was that first, squatters moved into council property
and the council would start the eviction process while the squatters responded
by waging a campaign around demands for no evictions and the use of empty
property. Finally, the council would capitulate and hand over a limited
number of its empty houses. Councils rarely handed over houses unless
faced with the threat, or use of, direct action.
Nevertheless, licensed squatting became more firmly established as housing
authorities grew more aware of its value. In June 1970, the Greater London
Council (GLC) gave Lewisham Family Squatters Association four houses on
licence and later that year Student Community Housing came into being
in Camden with houses from both the GLC and Camden Council. Tower Hamlets,
Greenwich and Lambeth soon followed suit in reaching agreements with their
respective local squatting groups and in September 1970 the Family Squatting
Advisory Service (FSAS) was set up with a £5,000 grant from Shelter.
FSAS activist Jim Radford outlined two basic purposes behind its establishment.10
There was a practical purpose - to alleviate housing need by making use
of disused council property:
'To this end we were prepared to work, organise, negotiate and, if necessary,
fight.' There was also an ideological purpose: 'To show that ordinary
people can organise collectively to run their own affairs and make their
own decisions and that the weakest can become strong through the principle
of mutual aid.' A fundamental innovation of the family squatting groups
was that they were democratically controlled by the families involved,
even if in practice they frequently relied on professional leadership.
The successful development of the Lewisham group made it possible to persuade
Shelter to fund FSAS in the belief that it would bring about a rapid increase
in the use of short-life housing and a network of self-help, community
controlled groups. The grant enabled FSAS to employ two full-time workers
and maintain an office in Lewisham. An FSAS hand-out described its job
as
'To service, support and maintain contact with existing groups and to
initiate the setting up of new groups by researching possibilities, development
plans, etc in new areas, by contacting and bringing together interested
people for this purpose and by assisting and advising at every stage of
the negotiations if needed." A model agreement between councils and
family squatting associations was drawn up and FSAS also produced a series
of detailed information sheets on legal, practical and organisational
aspects of squatting, as well as Squat, a bi-monthly news magazine. Interest-free
loans of up to £100 and grants of £20 were made available
to local groups.
Soon after its inception FSAS could point to new agreements reached by
groups in Brent, Islington and Wandsworth. By the end of 1971, 12 local
authorities in London had entered into agreements with squatting groups
many of which were renamed 'self-help housing' groups as technically their
members were not squatters but licensees. By the beginning of 1972, the
family squatting movement was housing around 1,000 people. During that
year Ealing Council (in January), Haringey (September) and Hounslow (October)
started to give self-help groups short life properties. Even Redbridge
Council finally gave way in June 1972.
Outside London, where the housing crisis was less severe, far fewer squatters
obtained licences. There, the condition rather than the availability or
cost of housing tended to be a greater problem. The proportion of squatters
in small towns was thus smaller than in London and this correspondingly
reduced the amount of pressure which squatters were able to put on councils.
Also, a greater proportion of squatters outside London were in privately-owned
property for which licences were less forthcoming.
Squatting outside London achieved much in terms of forcing the release
of property for use by housing associations, charities and other non-squatting
groups. In 1972, for instance, I was involved with a community project
in Stoke-on Trent; the Community Help and Information Project (CHIP),
which became one of many such groups to benefit from the squatting movement.
CHIP needed premises from which to operate and the Council had many empty
commercial proper. ties in the city centre pending demolition for a new
road. By reaching a licensing agreement, CHIP was able to get a shop and
sufficient space to run a 'crash pad' for people with nowhere to stay.
Squatting had provided the impetus for the Council to reach an agreement
and the means by which it could be formalised to its satisfaction -a licence.
Councils also awoke to how unnecessary it was to use expensive bed and
breakfast hotels as temporary accommodation for homeless families when
empty short-life property was available as a far cheaper alternative.
By May 1973, FSAS estimated there were 2,500 licensed squatters in 16
London boroughs, an increase of 150 per cent in little over a year. This
rate of increase continued throughout 1973 and by the end of the year
Student Community Housing alone was housing over 700 people. Provided
the groups handed houses back when required, the arrangement was extremely
advantageous for local authorities and the continuing pressure of unlicensed
squatting was forcing them to look for ways of avoiding the squatting
'problem'. By 'co-opting' the family squatting movement they could exercise
control over a trend which was threatening to usurp a little of their
power. Granting licences to particular groups which were housing the deserving
'homeless' also added the bonus of undermining popular support for squatters
without licences.
And yet this strategy was unable to halt the 'boom' in unlicensed squatting
which started in 1972. Family squatting groups were quickly inundated
with requests for housing which they were unable to fulfil and most groups
had housing waiting lists almost as intractable as those of local authorities.
Also, with the exception of Student Community Housing, none of the groups
catered for people without children and few would house people from outside
the boroughs in which they were based. The failure of licensed groups
to cope with the demand for such accommodation, coupled with the continued
existence of a large amount of empty property which councils were unwilling
to license, meant that unlicensed squatting became increasingly attractive
for a growing number of people.
At the end of 1971 when there were about 1,000 licensed squatters in London,
there were fewer than 1,000 unlicensed squatters. From 1972 onwards, however,
the number of unlicensed squatters exceeded the number of licensed ones.
The history of squatting after 1971 becomes more and more concerned with
'unofficial' squatters and it is to the growth in unlicensed squatting
that we now turn.
Model Agreement between Councils and Family Squatting Associations
Information Sheet No.7 Family Squatting Advisory Service
1. 'The Council of the London Borough of --- (The Council) will offer
to the --- Family Squatting Association (The Association) all properties
in the Council's ownership with a minimum life of nine months and which
the Council does not propose to use themselves.'
2. 'Such properties shall be offered to the Association without charge'.
3. 'The Association will decide whether to accept or reject properties
offered to it. Before officially accepting a property the Association
shall be permitted to enter the property for the purpose of repairing
it.,
4. 'Anyone rehoused in the properties by the Association shall be liable
to pay general rates and water rates.'
5. No expense shall fall upon the Council in respect of any works, repair
or maintenance needed at any of the properties.'
6. 'The Association will ensure that the properties are only used for
the benefit of people registered with the Council for housing accommodation
and in exceptional cases for any other families, provided that in such
exceptional cases the Association shall obtain an alternative rehousing
commitment for the families involved.'
7. The Association will give the Council vacant possession of any of the
properties when they are required by the Council for demolition or rehabilitation
and the Council will give the Association at least three months notice
to vacate.'
8. The Association undertakes to use its best endeavours to rehouse the
occupiers of any of the properties when they are so required, unless
(a) the occupiers qualify for Council accommodation, or
(b) the occupiers have persistently failed in a material respect to comply
with the terms of the licence granted to them by the Association.
As regards (a), in assessing eligibility under the Council's points scheme,
the occupiers shall be deemed to have remained in continuous occupation
of the accommodation they occupied immediately before they were first
rehoused by the Association.'
9. 'The Council and the Association shall each nominate four people to
serve on a Working Group to discuss this agreement, its workings, any
disputes or any other matters which may arise. The Working Group shall
meet whenever either party decides there is a need for such a meeting.'
The number of families in licensed 'squats', in London boroughs, end of
1973. (Source: FSAS).