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.

Maybe old Vanessa has a bit of a guilty conscience for not embracing them then?

Yes-Mary, I agree-I can't that having designated areas would work. Also, the local schools alone would struggle to cope.

I think the eviction absolutely has to go ahead, but can see it being a very bloody affair. I'm sure I read somewhere that the local B+Q has sold out of pickaxes etc which sounds really scary. I wonder how soon it will be.

Hmm, yes-I don't think they'll do it in the depths of winter, either.

I also wonder if the UN getting involved will slow things down again or not?

'I'm old enough to remember when gypsies set up an illegal camp on Hampstead Heath (where Vanessa Redgrave is from) - would have been the mid 1980s i think.

Don't recall too many of the local luvvies rushing to embrace them then. in fact, as I recall, they were moved off in record time.'

Math: there is no dismissive attitude toward their culture - it's an intense dislike of their oft-reported criminality and anti-social behaviour. The only people equating that to a culture are you and Working.

All I have said about their culture is that it doesn't seem to deserve special ethnic status and I've repeatedly asked for any positive radical cultural differences and haven't been given any. Have you got any now??

"What I have tried to point out is that you can't say they are so different that it is impossible to live near them/they should assimilate as the Romany have done/they should be sent back to Ireland, yet deny that they are different enough to constitute a separate ethnicity."

People don't want them to go because they're "so different" - they want them to go because they often cause problems. In fact people have gone so far as to say they can do what they want within the community so long as they don't cause problems. That's it Math - nobody says anything else. We don't want travellers because "they" allegedly cause a lot of problems.

I think its a tough one this, and I can see both sides. I do think that any ethnic minority in any country must abide by the laws and moral codes of the country they choose to live in.

However, prejudice exists and I have to question the reason these people were refused planning in the first place? Does anyone know? (serious question) There is a strong possibility it wasn't entirely fair.

And looking at the footage of the site in the news with the banner about ethnic cleansing is a huge insult to the millions of people who have been slaughtered all over the world (Rwanda, Serbia, The Holocaust, to give three examples).
That is ethnic cleansing, not notice to leave an illegal site.

wasn't it because it was greenbelt land. You can't really blame people for not wanting these sites build near them. i wouldn't and am glad I live in Suburbia.

I have to question the reason these people were refused planning in the first place?

Because the land is Greengbelt-that's why they bought it so cheaply as nothing could be built on it.

Princess - I think the question of planning has been covered several times in this thread.
The Travellers buy up green belt land, which is cheaper because there is no chance of PP. They then build on it regardless of PP.
Or they move in on other peoples land and lay down roads and tap into water and electricity supplies.
I had an interesting conversation with an architect about the high levels of rejection wrt PP from travellers. He said it had nothing to do with racism or cultural discrimination, but everything to do with the areas they were trying to gain PP on and the type of thing they were wanting to build, and it not being in keeping with an area, and also (in some cases) because of the size of the development they want to build, and the devastating impact it would have on the community of settled people. (his example of this was a school with 50 pupils suddenly having to cope with an influx of up to 150 children, the increased police presence needed etc)

(have no idea if any of that makes sense, I'm feeding a baby and listening to ds destroying something )

But Princess they did have planning permission for a smallish site. They illegally extended it, several times over, and continued to do so long after eviction notices were served and court action was started.

The council would have given permission for the size of site it felt that local services, infrastructure, location and existing community could support. Just like the basis for any planning. They abused that.

Thanks faverolles it makes perfect sense, I wondered if this was the case but didn't, I confess, read the whole thread...
Its an awful situation and one which I think can only end badly. In this case it is insane that it has been allowed to fester for years, why has the process taken so long, so that they have got so settled? It will now cost everyone so much more, in time, money, stress... I do sympathise with the view that evicting children is very sad, though if they own houses elsewhere there isn't a problem as they will not be rendered 'homeless'.

The Muslims in my local town have managed to live how they choose, but by legal means. They bought up large houses one after another and moved their whole family in. The value of the adjacent houses went down, so other Muslims bought them cheaply from non-muslims who were desperate to move away from the new neighbours. So we now have whole swathes of the town populated entirely by single ethnic groups. The Muslim families tend to live multi-generationally (is that a word?) and share the care of the younger and older generations. My father has been in and out of various respite and rehab care homes in the past few years and I have never seen one Asian resident. When you drive through the Muslim areas you often see young children helping great-grandma across the road. I believe that Sharia law is also allowed to operate on some matters in these areas as well. For the most part, there is little trouble between adjacent areas.

"Its an awful situation and one which I think can only end badly. In this case it is insane that it has been allowed to fester for years, why has the process taken so long"

Well that's the travellers fault too. They refused to move on when they were asked. They went to court after court after court (may be on legal aid, who knows) and just brought more and more people on the site even when it was repeatedly declared illegal.

It wasn't "allowed to fester" - the travellers did it. Not really an insane thing to do, one assumes it was all planned - buy cheap greenbelt, build on it, claim ethnic cleansing when they try to move you off. But definitely selfish and illegal .

why did it get like this. I don't remember there being problems in the 80's. Is it because of our human rights legislation or is it because some sites were closed by councils? There must be some reason why the people have all flocked together.

They were given a 2 year extension by Prescott to enable them to move out peacefully. They've been given every chance, far more chances than anyone else who flouts planning laws.

What I mean is that our laws should be strengthened to nip this sort of thing in the bud more quickly, so they are not allowed to draw the process out for so long. They clearly know the law and how to play the system, so the system needs updating to cope with this. If the site was 'repeatedly declared illegal' then it should have been dismantled long ago.

I've no idea alemci, I'd hazard a guess that they are taking advantage of our benefit system for one. And their actions are less tolerated back in Ireland, where they would be facing criminal charges.

They've successfully created a no go area for themselves, to the detriment of the rest of the local population.

Am I remembering wrongly, or was there an illegal site a few years ago that was provided with a fully kitted out community centre by the local council while the very same council was fighting to evict them?

Posted too soon!
Meant to add that if that did happen, the Travellers have everything to gain by staying illegally, if they are getting so much support from the people who should be supporting the settled community nearby.

Google is my friend!
here

It's a DM link, so not sure how reliable it is

"If the site was 'repeatedly declared illegal' then it should have been dismantled long ago."

Hello? There'd be another court case, another appeal, another stay.

This is the council's first opportunity to send in the bailiffs.

There is no other legal resort for the travellers. My only thought was the EU court of HR but surely that would have been tried by now or announced by now. Europe has ruled on the planning in this and found for the council but not to my knowledge on HR.

It has cost the local people MILLIONS. People really ought to stop blaming the council, or the planning laws, or anyone else except the travellers themselves. Why are you trying to find someone else to blame? They are to blame - they are the authors of their own misfortune.