Advanced search

to think that evicting hundreds of travellers from their site is unfair and immoral

(1005 Posts)
rocketty Wed 31-Aug-11 20:38:04

It's an illegal site. They didn't have planning permission. It's greenbelt...

but it used to be a car scrapyard (not rolling fields and thatched cottages then), they own the land and it's right next to a legal settlement.

They've obviously broken the law by settling here, but on balance, wouldn't it be more ethical to let them be? The children are settled at school and getting an education. Lots of people are prejudiced against gypsies and travellers but they've got to live somewhere.

I've seen the news articles about it. It makes me feel sad.

CurrySpice Wed 31-Aug-11 20:39:26

It makes me sad too.

But I expect the people who live in this very small rural community feel very differently about it

PonceyMcPonce Wed 31-Aug-11 20:39:33

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

renaldo Wed 31-Aug-11 20:39:51

its unfair and immoral to buils houses without planning permission

ll31 Wed 31-Aug-11 20:39:56

but..but.. its an illegal site for which I think they were refused planning permission and just built anyway.... so should we all be able to do that?

worraliberty Wed 31-Aug-11 20:40:42

I don't understand how they're 'travellers' though if they don't want to travel?

Or am I totally missing something?

Andrewofgg Wed 31-Aug-11 20:41:44

No, because it would put a premium on illegal action.

The planning law must apply to everyone whatever their ethnic origin.

Retrospective planning permission should never be given where prospective permission would have been given.

The process of ending illegal occupation should be much, much quicker.

As for travellers wanting to live in the company of other travellers - apartheid anybody?

QueenOfFeckingEverything Wed 31-Aug-11 20:41:45

Yep, I agree totally

Comes to something when we have the UN and Amnesty calling this a 'grave breach of human rights' and calling for the eviction to be halted.

As the Bishop of Chelmsford has said recently - "If evicting chilren is the answer, we are asking the wrong question"

PonceyMcPonce Wed 31-Aug-11 20:43:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CurrySpice Wed 31-Aug-11 20:43:42

I live about 5 miles away from this site and I can assure you that it is a very emotive issue in these parts.

naturalbaby Wed 31-Aug-11 20:43:59

yea but no.

i'm not expert but there are quite a few that appear around a town near me. most of them seem to know the tricks of the trade and there are always appeals in the paper. if it's illegal then it's illegal. you can't just set up a mini village where ever you fancy.

i quite fancy building my dream home in an empty field but i can't just turn up and start building or deposit a caravan and move in can i?

PonceyMcPonce Wed 31-Aug-11 20:44:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ll31 Wed 31-Aug-11 20:44:28

or alternatively the bishop of chelmsford should move from sound bites to considering why he thinks one group of citizens dont' have to obey law

Andrewofgg Wed 31-Aug-11 20:45:29

They are not living in the Bishop's back yard without planning permission!

Hulababy Wed 31-Aug-11 20:46:40

Comtary to popular belief laws are not there to be broken.

This is an illegal site. To allow them to break the law and get away with it wouldn't be right. If we do that surely we open ourselves up to even more flouts of the law?

If these people want to be living in this area and their children in these schools they should do what most other people do - go about it in a legal manner.

rocketty Wed 31-Aug-11 20:48:04

I know it's the law, and that, for me, is a damn persuasive argument.

But it makes me feel sad that in all the legal processes, no one decided that it would be the lesser of two evils to let them stay.

Andrewofgg Wed 31-Aug-11 20:48:05

Thank you Poncey - the planning laws are an implied contract between all landowners - "I will use my land lawfully and you will use yours lawfully" and the people in the illegal settlement are simply flouting it. As you say, if you don't pay your mortgage, in the end you will have to go, children and all. And this is the same.

reelingintheyears Wed 31-Aug-11 20:48:14

I can see both sides..

I feel very sorry for the people being evicted and the council should have acted years ago before they became settled on the site and had children in schools there.
Too many traveller children have little or no access to education.

But they should get planning permission before they buid settled homes.

It's a hard one to be sure.

Maryz Wed 31-Aug-11 20:48:40

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

cjbartlett Wed 31-Aug-11 20:49:18

I don't understand why they weren't evicted ten tears ago when they first started living there illegally

Do travellers pay council tax does anyone know?

Peachy Wed 31-Aug-11 20:49:25

They ahve said they cannot guarantee the people anwhere else to move to.

It is imo immoral to make a child homeless without the ability to find an alternative.

That outweighs everything else to me.

Child welfare being more important than planning permission on former scrapyards.

Mitmoo Wed 31-Aug-11 20:49:31

The church has blllions at its disposal, if the Bishop feels so strongly why doesn't he finance their living facilities.

LemonDifficult Wed 31-Aug-11 20:49:35


Although, if we did decide to just let them stay presumably it would be OK if I just build a couple of five bedroomed houses in my garden (without planning permission)? And maybe we could all just overlook that?

MilaMae Wed 31-Aug-11 20:50:29

`With many youngsters priced out of the housing market I'll bet an awful lot of people would love to slap a house,chalet or caravan on a patch of land and flout planning regs. I don't see why 1 section of society should be allowed to do this and not the rest to be frank.

Peachy Wed 31-Aug-11 20:50:35

'I know it's the law, and that, for me, is a damn persuasive argument.

But it makes me feel sad that in all the legal processes, no one decided that it would be the lesser of two evils to let them stay'

yes I agree.

This thread is not accepting new messages.