Ok, I've been provoked into indulging myself in a little touch of pomposity. I believe the 20th century squatting movement began after WW2 when servicemen returned from the war to "a land fit for heroes" (to use a WW1 phrase). Many found that their homes had been bombed but there were plenty of empty buildings. So they moved in.
The present law change applies only to residential properties; it does not cover empty commercial premises which is where a lot of squatting takes place. One image of the squatter is the person who breaks into your house whilst you are on holiday and steals and then trashes your home. Another is of the person who occupies a building that has been long empty, owned by some overseas investor as a tax scam or waiting for the property market to rise, and - other than squatting - would likely be empty for the foreseeable future. Often the occupants, for their own comfort, renovate the rundown place and improve a rotting eyesore to the neighbourhood. To classify both sorts of squatter in the same way seems, to me, to be crass. The equivalent of supposing that all football fans are hooligans or all estate agents are evil. Of course, some squatters are lazy, selfish dross; and, of course, some aren't.
