Extinction Rebellion occupying former Co-Op, (74-78 Sydenham Road)

Can’t create an account on the SE26 site so thought would reply here:

@marymck they didn’t breach lockdown, they were in there well before. It is now their home until a court says otherwise. They are staying home - would you rather they be homeless during lockdown? Plus who exactly are they going to contaminate given a) the shop is shut and b) they live upstairs.

@topofthehill they are not squatters until a court says otherwise. Good if the council has given them permission to be there. They are keeping lockdown. Would you rather they were homeless? They cause absolutely no disruption or harm and if they hadn’t put a poster up in the window you wouldn’t even know they were there.

@anon5422159 any evidence they have broken in and entered? Is this statement not potentially libelous if not?

So many ill-informed and knee-jerk reactions. How quickly the thoughtfulness for each other fades away. Shame on you all.

I have just re-enabled sign ups on SE26.life so you should be able to now

Everyone has a right to air their opinion on this. Please don’t attack them for doing so.

My mistake Chris and apologies Hollie. I have edited to remove.

Nevertheless Chris, opinions are fine until they are misrepresentations.

We might find out that the owners of the former Co-op allowed XR in, that’s a possibility. I’ve removed my “break and enter” reference.

But my original comment was a general one. A high street whose commercial property is being “occupied” by activist groups (however that occured) is going to be a high street that new businesses are reluctant to invest in, for fear of having the same thing happen to their own property.

Do you represent or are you a member of this group? Who at the Council gave permission? Did you consult the owners and which ones? Have Gym Ltd signed the lease? What next? Our currently closed shops, cafes and pubs?

I have no relationship to them at all and have never met them. I know no more than you do.

It is an empty commercial property and has been so for two plus years, so letting some people who don’t have a home use it to shelter during lockdown seems pretty sensible and humane to me. Plus they turned the massively wasteful lights off which has been bothering me every time I drive past it. There is no slippery slope, no one is occupying active business premises.

What next, our children?

There are lots of empty business properties at the moment.

I’m sure there are plenty of people who’d like to live rent-free.

Where do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable seizure of someone else’s property?

My understanding is that they are active business premises and that The Gym Ltd were intending to take on a lease. I do not know if they had signed the lease before the lock down but planning permission was being sought and was at an advanced stage.

You can view the application documents here …

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_103031

You now say: “I have no relationship to them at all and have never met them. I know no more than you do”

Yet you say with some authority that the Council gave permission. How do you know that and who was it at the Council? An officer? Or an elected representative? And in either case, who?

@marymck not sure how you define an active business but no one has traded out of that building for a very long time. Lots of applications get made for planning long before leases get signed. Plus no gym is going to operate out of there, or indeed anywhere, for a fair while yet.

No idea if they have permission or who gave it - ask the council. Fact is, as the law stands, if they are residing in the building it is there legal home, unless and until the Court decides otherwise.

Where do we draw the line @anon5422159 ? We don’t. The Courts do. Until they do, they are there entirely legally, whether the Council gave them permission or not.

Sorry I thought from your first post you knew.

Fair point @marymck - Corrected. If Lewisham Council has given permission then good. Would mean it is more humane than some of its residents.

It would also mean it’s short sighted and not supportive of businesses who have enough to contend with without having to go to court to get their premises back. But no doubt we can find out more when the offices reopen on Monday.

But how do we know these people are homeless and, if so, can’t be taken in by other Extinction Rebellion members, plenty of whom have homes … some of whom (to my personal knowledge) have holiday homes in addition to their main residence?

Sorry @marymck are you suggesting they breach lockdown?

You have stated that they were in there before lockdown. Therefore other Extinction Rebellion members could have taken them before the lockdown

I’m suggesting that if these people are genuinely homeless then they come to arrangements with their friends in their organization whose second homes are sitting empty or who have spare capacity at their main residences. Surely that is more humane than camping out in someone’s business premises, which does not have the facilities of a residential property and where they cannot legally access mains services?

Should any genuinely homless people find it of use, I’d like to take this opportunity to post the link to Lewisham’s emergency housing services and the 999 Club that is working to match homeless people to hotel places across the borough. Please share.

3 posts were split to a new topic: Posts moved from Extinction Rebellion occupying former Co-op thread

1 post was merged into an existing topic: Posts moved from Extinction Rebellion occupying former Co-op thread

Thanks for your posts on this topic, @marymck and @topofthehill.

It’s nice that despite a this being a controversial debate, you are both able to constructively discuss the topic in hand without casting aspersions on other forum members. Forums rely on input like this, or they turn into angry places that acheive nothing.

@marymck @topofthehill apologies for any offence. Let me rephrase. By that reasoning we should all also be offering up any spare rooms we have to homeless members of the SE23.life community.

@anon5422159 I hope you would agree that we should also not cast aspersions on a group of humans none of us have ever met, and who appear to have done no one on this forum any harm, by decrying them as “squatters”,

Or suggest that they have willingly chosen to live above a disused co-op during lockdown, rather than with their friends or in their own houses, when none of us know anything about their circumstances, or indeed those of their friends.

Until a Court says otherwise, these people are living legally in their own home. And I say good luck to them.

Although it is correct that the legal definition of squatter is someone who unlawfully inhabits vacant premises or land, in common parlance the word squatter is used to denote someone who inhabits vacant premises or land, whether lawfully or unlawfully, and, as such. Is not a derogatory term.In practice.
people generally do not wait until after a Court Order before using the term “squatter”.
When I said the Extinction Rebellion should be treated as squatters, what I meant was they should not be treated differently from others who may have occupied vacant premises, just because they are members of Extinction Rebellion.
As regards the suggestion that the homeless of SE23 should be offered shelter in our homes, the fact is that the homeless of SE23 are not occupying the Co-Op building- unless of course any of them are members of this Extinction Rebellion group.

If consent has been obtained from the appropriate party for them to occupy the building, there can be no argument that they are entitled to be there. However, I would have thought consent should have been obtained from the Landlord/owner of the property unless, of course, it was given in conjunction with the Council, if permission was given by the Council. This is by way of being a question as I have no knowledge of how this should work in practice.

There’s a statement from Extinction rebellion over on SE26LIFE …

They are claiming to be squatters and make no claims of homelessness. They are encouraging others to break lock down rules.

I don’t see how they can be observing Covid-19 health guidelines on hand washing (or flushing the loos - eek!) without use of the utilities and mains services paid for by the freeholder. It’s clear they didn’t have permission to “gain access”.

It’s a rotten thing to do at this perilous time, meaning others (courts, police, freeholders) have to put themselves at risk, or put up with this “the Covid-19 rules dont apply to me” arrogance.

Opinions so far in our poll: