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

[rocketty]

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.

cjbartlett Because the process is too damned slow and allows of too many appeals.

As to your second question I don't know.

They do IIRC own the land so it's not a random patch is it?

Lemon tehre's thread where someone seems to be doing just that, mrsdevere's threadf- ok not 5 houses but similar.

Funny old world.

Very valid points, Andrew, albeit I can see the OPs POV too.

I guess my own conclusion is that you cannot have positive discrimination by allowing one sector of society breaking a law which the rest of society has to obey.

I imagine the local residents will be glad to see them go. I remember watching an interview some years ago with a resident whose property abutted the travellers and his garden was a target for rubbish and other stuff. When he went to them and complained he got a lot of abuse and worse threats. Didn't seem very neighbourly behaviour to me. They should have applied for planning permission when they purchased the site. Greenbelt is greenbelt for a good reason and it means land in greenbelt is cheaper to purchase because of planning issues.

They built there knowing they did not have planning permission. so they have families, so what, they are not above the law?
human rights my arse

Peachy If you were a landlord and your tenant (with DCs) did not pay the rent - simply decided not to - what would you do?

It is neither immoral nor unfair. They knew exactly what they were doing when they set up their 'estate'. These are bungalows by any other description. It should not be one law for travellers and another for the settled community.

Well it depends if the government are going to stop charging me taxes and let me build whatever I like on the big field over the road then sure they can stay. But it can't be right that a group of people can completely ignore the laws and rules of society. If everyone did this we'd be in an complete mess.

Oh hang on we are !

The thing is just evicting them without giving them anywhere to go just moves the problem. It doesn't solve it. Our council has been put on high alert and we have been given a number to call if we spot any. So they can get the anti traveller teams out to all the fields. I dread to think how expensive that is.

Yabu.

The original site was an ex scrap yard and they were given permission to settle on that substantial plot.

The homes on the original site are mostly boarded up and empty, the surrounding site is the bit that is subject to an eviction order.

The evicting children argument is a diversion, they would not be evicted if their parents were occupying the original site and there is plenty of room there.

worraliberty I know you know Travellers is a catch all phrase, you're too smart to miss anything

There are huge numbers of people who live outwith societal 'norms'... One man's caravan is another man's roadblock.

Having read The Diddkoi as a child I always did fancy living life on the open road.

YABU. They are not travellers. They are people who don't want to live by societies rules.

You cannot be a traveller and live in a static caravan for 10 years.

In the last ten years, how many housing developments have gone up? If a property developer builds homes on a former scrapyard - no big deal. The thing I dislike about this is that it becomes a big deal because of who the people are and the shape of their property development. Would Essex County Council have reacted in the same way if these homes had been starter homes or executive flats or that ilk?

As for the scrapyard I believe I have read, but I am not sure, that it was there before the land was made green belt. If that is so the occupier had the right to keep using it, but any future non-green-belt use would be prohibited without planning permission.

It made me feel sad when "travellers" decided to settle beside the scenic woods near my home with their big loose Alsations and their piles of rubbish. People were too intimidated to go past this site as the dogs would run out and terrify adults and children and the travellers would not control them. When they finally left there were burnt places on the ground, burnt out cars and piles of stinking rubbish. I suspect sad is not what you would feel if they settled illegally near you.

If the church wants to blame anyone for the kids being evicted, why not blame the parents for settling illegally with their kids in the first place?

Surely if they're travellers they won't be homeless.I thought being a traveller meant you travelled.

Also many people with children get evicted for various reasons such as breaking the law or not paying their mortgage.

Sorry if you do something wrong you live with the consequences or should all parents be exempt from abiding by rules now?

Law is law.

Am I wrong to think they own the land then?

I;ve been a landlord. It probably makes me weak but I would never evict a child to nowhere, i' work with them to make sure they qualified for social hosing or emergency accomodation at the least, by following teh corect procedures and realising I would hav to formally evict before they qualified.

The council have gone on record to say they cannot provide this.

My preferred solution would be for the famillies to be rehoused appropriately: still hard on them but a roof. That is not happening. There is a vid on the news sites of a council member saying they could not accomodate them. That's not OK. There should be enough sites in the first place and yes, I would be OK if one opened up locally. I would make myself be OK about it.

rocketty if the District Council - not the County Council - had been asked for planning permission first that would be a different story; the application would be dealt with subject to appeal to DCLG in the usual way. It's the move in, start building, then apply afterwards approach which is so offensive.

Owning land does not give you a right to develop it however you wish. This is a crowded island with precious little green belt land stopping unrestricted urban sprawl, particularly in the south east. I feel sorry for the innocent children losing their homes but not for the adults who went ahead and built these homes without planning permission - they are the ones who caused this, not the planning authorities or courts.

Mila theey will be moved on; a change in law means that traveller sites now no longer have to be provided so tehre is a massive shortage. They are not allowed to just aprk up anywhere down the road, I remember watching a documentary (so admitting one sided) where they said the police would just follow them and move them on every time they stopped.

"The homes on the original site are mostly boarded up and empty"

They are now miniwedge. They weren't before the travellers arrived. The impact on this small rural community of this huge influx of travellers has been enormous :(

That doesn't mean I feel happy about seeing people forcibly evicted from their homes. Of course I don't. But the impact of 80+ (often large) familes moving into a tiny rural community should not be underestimated either

Tortilla I know, but I was responding to a question about if I were a landlord

It's not the same as being a Landlord, it's not anyone else's home. It is defunct land.