Talk:Squatting in England and Wales#Recent edits

I think a citation is needed here about conflict between these 2 groups. While I think it's fair to say that in the 1970s more people squatted for political reasons as well as out of economic necessity, I haven't read anything about conflict between the squatters in the 1960s vs the 1970s. Do you have a source you can share?

Similarly, there is a citation needed for this: "squatters who...decided it was a good way to save money." Most academic articles on this subject cite political activism and economic necessity as main reason why people squatted in the 1970s. People just wanting to "save money" doesn't seem accurate. Do you have a source you can share?

rscooli

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscooli (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

:Here is that removed, unsourced text, for posterity.

:: By the early 1970s, there was a growing conflict between the original activists of the Family Squatting Movement and a newer wave of squatters who simply rejected the right of landlords to charge rent and who believed (or claimed to) that seizing property and living rent-free was a revolutionary political act or more practically decided it was a good way to save money. These new-wave squatters (often young and single rather than homeless families) were a mixture of anarchists, Trotskyists—the International Marxist Group (IMG) being especially prominent—and self-proclaimed hippie dropouts, and they denounced the idea that squatters should seek to make agreements with local Councils to use empty property and that Squatting Associations should then become landlords (or Self Help Housing Associations as they were sometimes styled) in their own right and charge rent.

:Feel free to reinstate with independent, reliable, secondary sources. czar 03:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced section 6.1(A) and other provisions were added, which override this and give the right of entry to "displaced residential occupiers", "protected intending occupiers" (someone who had intended to occupy the property, including some tenants, licensees and landlords who require the property for use), or someone acting on their behalf." This is incorrect Displaced Residential Occupiers (DRO) and Protected Intending Occupiers (PIO) were covered prior to 1994 under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act. The DRO procedure was usually missued, in that it only applied to a person (or persons) who were "displaced from their normal place of residence" by squatters which was unlikely to happen. It was used by the police on behalf of tenants who were illegally sub-letting their flat. When the sub-tenants changed the locks and refused to pay rent, claiming Squatters Rights, the police usually gave them 48 hours to leave.

Similarly the PIO procedure was intended for someone who cannot move in because it squatted. The intention of the law was to protect people where the place had been squatted after the tenant had accepted the tenancy. Instead the landlord (city council) would allocate the property (sight unseen) to someone on the waiting list and tell them that this was the only chance to be housed etc and get them to sign authority for the council to act on their behalf to evict. Now first of all the prosepective tenant has only accepted viewing rights, they have not actually been granted a tenancy. Then Section 7 (as it stood then) only applied to the person intending to occupy. Not the landlord acting on their behalf. (This may have been cleared up under the 1994 Act).

Noel Ellis 05:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

:: hiya, are you suggesting an edit to the article? Mujinga (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @ManfredHugh, it's been nice to see someone else working on this page! I just wanted to query your citation technique, since looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squatting_in_England_and_Wales&oldid=1293844368 this recent edit] as an example, the text you have added (plus a few additional edits) is:

The police attempted to bring criminal charges against squatters, typically of criminal damage or theft, although if squatters had not actually taken or damaged anything in entering premises these often failed in court. In the case of squats, magistrates readily handed over warrants to search for drugs, but the resulting raids did not necessarily lead to arrests. '''In September 1977, 80-strong police contingents, spearheaded by the Special Patrol Group, made early morning raids on the squatted Elizabeth Garrett Anderson maternity home in Hampstead, north London, and the Bristol Gardens squat in Little Venice, west London. Doors were kicked in, but charges were only brought against three people in the Hamstead squat, all for possession of small amounts of cannabis, and none at all in Bristol Gardens, suggesting the raids might have had "less to do with maintenance of law and order than with intimidation".

This is cited to Squatting the Real Story p57, which says:

The number of raids and the number of police involved was disproportionate in relation to the number of drug-taking squatters. For instance, in the same week in September 1977 80-strong police contingents, spearheaded by the Special Patrol Group raided the squatted Elizabeth Garrett Anderson maternity home in Hampstead, North London and squatted houses in Little Venice, West London, both early in the morning. At the maternity home, the police kicked down almost every door in the building,

including one which fell on top of a 58-year-old woman, causing a face wound which needed four stitches. Eleven of the 40 people living in the squat were arrested but only three were actually charged all for possession of small amounts of cannabis. In Little Venice, people who did not get out of bed immediately also had their doors kicked down but no one was arrested. The role of the police in drug raids on squatted premises had less to do with maintenance of law and order than with intimidation. Magistrates handed over warrants to search squats for drugs without question and the police often took advantage of the lack of public sympathy for squatters by treating them as they liked.

I've bolded the close paraphrasing. This means that the text you have added is much too close to the original. Since @Diannaa has already blocked you indefinitely and then unblocked you for copyright violation issues previously, I would hope that you would be able to see the problem here. I haven't looked at other edits yet. Mujinga (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, Mujinga. Much appreciated.~~~ ManfredHugh (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I was hoping you would take a look back at prior edits, but you have not done that. I am finding other instances of copyvio, for example:

Our article: Wasteland and commons also accommodated workers in mines, ironwork and manufacture. Their informal settlements were sometimes tacitly encouraged by landlords who might themselves employ labour, and who, in lieu of rent, could annually fine the squatters for encroachment. Some of these settlements developed as the nuclei of larger-scale industry in areas like the Black Country, the Forest of Dean and the Potteries.

Ward p105:

The open commons provided accommodation for workers in mines, ironworks and other major manufacturing concerns. Often the lords of manors tacitly encouraged such settlement .. Squatters .. could be fined annually for encroachment.

Such settlements became the nuclei of large-scale industries in areas like the Black Country, the Forest of Dean and the Potteries.

This is textbook close paraphrasing. I'm also finding instances of things not being backed by the citation, so please do not add more information that is either copyvio or not backed by the source. Earwig is now giving a score of 51% compared to Squatting the Real Story (the source referrd to above) :( Mujinga (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:"Their informal settlements were sometimes tacitly encouraged by landlords who might themselves employ labour, and who, in lieu of rent, could annually fine the squatters for encroachment. Some of these settlements developed as the nuclei of larger-scale industry in areas like the Black Country, the Forest of Dean and the Potteries." In this summary of Ward's points, which are properly references, only the second line is close to paraphrase and I will correct for that by direct quotation. Other than yet, yes I am happy to leave this for you to check through. ~~~ ManfredHugh (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::No, I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand what close paraphrasing is, which is unfortunate since this is not the first you have been picked up on it. For wikipedia, to say for example " Their informal settlements were sometimes tacitly encouraged by landlords who might themselves employ labour, and who, in lieu of rent, could annually fine the squatters for encroachment" is WAY too close to the source which says " Often the lords of manors tacitly encouraged such settlement .. Squatters .. could be fined annually for encroachment." Putting words in a different order doesn't solve the issue. I have to warn you that you will most likely get blocked again since you don't seem to understand the severity of close paraphrasing. I have neither the time nor the inclination to check all your edits, it's a shame because you obviously want to improve the page, which is great, but I would urge you again to go through your previous edits, otherwise I'll have to roll them back and ask for admin assistance. Mujinga (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, if you think the wording too close I'll scrap the line, and check through the other edits.~~~ ManfredHugh (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• OK since you said that, you have made edits which include:
• 1 Close paraphrasing - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squatting_in_England_and_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1294305831 You]: In July 1945, Time magazine credited a "bowler-hatted chimney sweep, Harry Cowley," with blowing "the lid off Britain’s housing problem". In Brighton, at the head of 400 self-styled Vigilantes he moved families of servicemen into three empty houses and then went on to Speaker's Corner at London's Hyde Park "to explain the theory and practice of house snatching"

Source (Time): A bowler-hatted chimney sweep, Harry Cowley, 60, called “The Guv’nor,” blew the lid off Britain’s housing problem. In Brighton, jampacked seaside resort, a posse of 400 self-styled Vigilantes (all local war veterans), headed by Cowley, took the law into their own hands. Into three empty, habitable houses, they moved the families of servicemen. ... Last week the Guv’nor traveled to “Spouter’s Corner” in Hyde Park (London’s Union Square) to explain the theory and practice of house snatching.

• 2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squatting_in_England_and_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1294367369 Adding a reference] which does nothing to support the cited information
• 3 More close paraphrasing - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squatting_in_England_and_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1294362032 you] 144 did not overrule the old laws of adverse possession - source = The judge declared section 144 was not intended to deal with the old laws of adverse possession. Further in this edit you said the squatter won on appeal but they didn't
• Sorry but you can't be makign such sloppy edits on wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. It's a shame becuase I do see the good intention but I do not think you understand how to cite sources, so I have rolled back your edits. Mujinga (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Well this is extreme, and uncalled for. The paraphrasing, you refer to, of cited material is in close terms of meaning (which it should be) unless one insists that basic generic terms such "old laws" cannot be replicated (although, if it is that critical, this could be placed in ""). How would you propose to convey the judgement in question? And yes it was a judgement on an appeal--an appeal to the High Court of the decision by the land registrar to deny of the squatter's adverse possession claim to title--read the cited source. It was not a "sloppy" edit . With respect, this is an over reaction, and restores a version of the page that has considerable gaps. Regards ~~~ ManfredHugh (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Unfortunately this rollback is neither extreme nor uncalled for. Copyvio can be reverted on sight, I was trying to work with you first. You are adding interesting information but you are adding errors, copyvio and close paraphrasing as well. This often happens on wikipedia, so i'm not disputing you are trying to improve the article, you clearly are, but we can't be plaigirising sources. Your last response indicates you are still unaware of the main issue at hand, even though you were unblocked after supposedly demonstrating you had got a grip on things. By the way we should not be distracted by a minor dispute over whether the squatter appealed the decision - I dpn't think he did, I think the registrar took him to court and lost, then was given leave to appeal by the judge, but the main issue here is copyvio. Mujinga (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Mujinga, maybe we are going to agree on this, but yes I have been blocked before for potential copyright violation, and while clearly I can slip up, I learned enough understand that there is nothing in the lines to which you object that our guidelines would define as "copyvio".
• :::In July 1945, Time magazine credited a "bowler-hatted chimney sweep, Harry Cowley," with blowing "the lid off Britain’s housing problem". In Brighton, at the head of 400 self-styled Vigilantes he moved families of servicemen into three empty houses and then went on to Speaker's Corner at London's Hyde Park "to explain the theory and practice of house snatching" (citation)
• :::You call this "close paraphrasing", which our guidelines tell us can be "appropriate within reason", particularly when rendering, as here, opinionated commentary (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing). But what it clearly is, is in-line quotation of a kind you can find throughout Wikipedia and elsewhere. Whatever you might think of it stylistically (and maybe there is an issue there), it is not a copy violation.
• :::The High Court ruled that the denial of title on the basis that Mr Best had been committing an offence since the introduction of the criminal trespass section 144 in 2012 was "founded on an error of law". Intended to help people, "like those who went on holiday and found that squatters had moved in to their home in their absence", 144 did not overrule the old laws of adverse possession. (citation)
• :::Yes, these convey the jist of court's ruling as reported [and which, by its nature, does appear to be a ruling on appeal to the High Court, but, as you say small, point]. But outside of the direct and acknowledged quotation, the two lines broadly order the points and summarise the action, as best they can in their own terms without departing from the authority of the source.
• :::But, in any case, no matter how debatable you think any of this is, where are the "copyvios" that are so blatant and so egregious, as to somehow merit reverting the offending sentences together with everything I have contributed to the article, no matter how unrelated?
• :::You were kind enough to acknowledge that I have genuinely tried to improve this article (and indeed, being one of people who had their door kicked down in the raids of 1977, squatting is a subject in which I have a particular interest).That's what I thought I was doing in trying to pull together its sometimes disjointed elements into narrative and by drawing on new and credible sources to enlarge some of the discussion, particularly with regard to the development of the law.
• :::I appreciate a protective feeling toward the page, and that it can be disconcerting for someone come in and rework it so extensively. Maybe it was just too much, too fast.
• :::Regards~~~ ManfredHugh (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I am seeing the same issue with your edits at Centro Iberico. If you want to summarise a source, please try rewriting it in your own words, not juggling the source's words or replacing like for like. I can only refer you back to the bolded words at the top of this section - if you can't see the problem there then the issue remains. I'm very happy for editors including you to improve this and all articles related to WP:SQUAT but there cannot be copyvio and/or close paraphrasing. Mujinga (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Mujinga you write on talk page vis a vis our discussion above:
• :::::Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases, especially if they are not attributed to their source, may constitute copyright violation and/or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia.
• :::::That's absolutely correct, but if you are going to remove all my contributions to the Squatting page on grounds of clear "copyvio" it is beholden on you to identify where these inappropriate, longer close-paraphrasing, possible unattributed, passages are in my edits of page (or in in edits to Centro Iberico, if you want to widen the charge). They are certainly not there in the only contributions you have highlighted. It cannot be enough simply to quote the guidelines and say you see issues, or that if I don't see them that's the problem. If you you are going to reverse everything I've written on the basis of "copyvio" you have got to show, per the guidelines, where that copyvio is. Regards~~~ ManfredHugh (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)