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.

I have no interest in the ethnicity or family traditions of offenders.

That is quite irrelevant to my opinion on whether or not people who break the planning laws should be evicted. I am not in favour of treating people either more or less leniently depending on whatever national, ethnic or cultural group they are thought to belong.

So far as I can see, math sees things differently.

Her 22:43 post did not answer my question. Note my reminder of 22:53

I fancy it is far closer to the Grauniad. The truth is never equidistant between the DM and any other point of reference.

Nor am I sitting on the fence here. The Travellers are different from settled people. That much is really self evident, and whether you accept that that difference constitutes a separate ethnicity or not makes no difference for practical purposes because at present no law can be used to force them to live anywhere. The law can only be used to prevent them from living somewhere.

Insisting that they stop being so annoyingly different, take what is being offered by way of housing, assimilate and disappear from view (the David Cameron tack) despite the fact that this approach has never worked in Ireland where it was tried for years, or in Britain, will result in a giant waste of taxpayers' money not just this one time but each time LAs deal with Travellers and end up evicting them.

just to check, in your view a person is not obliged to obey planning laws, if they claim to be a traveller, right?

Yes, because it's been going on for ten years, through the illegal campers' machinations, we should just let it go.

No, that's not my view. My view is that if planning laws are to be on the books at all they should be applied equally, evenly, openly. There should be no temporary planning permission and no retrospective planning permission, and no woolly terms allowed in objections ('visual impact' for instance). Objections should be allowed only on grounds related to civil engineering and traffic issues, issues that are quantifiable and subject to objective testing.

so you mean that a person who has broken the planning laws, and been through the legal process, should be evicted?

(a simple yes or no answer is preferred)

'The law can only be used to prevent them from living somewhere.'

It's there to make sure they, and ANYONE else, lives somewhere in compliance with planning regulations, and that includes landlords letting properties.

Any other sidetracks about lifestyle or ethnicity or culture are aside from the fact that they are there illegally.

Landlords who let a 2-bed flat can, by that token, claim that the Asian/E. European/African, whatever occupants are used to living in conditions we consider overcrowded or sub-par, so screw laws regarding occupancy or planning permission when he/she lets a garden shed in his garden out. But if that landlord gets found out the occupants are evicted.

But somehow it should be different because these are travellers? Bollocks to that.

They broke and are breaking the law and continue to do so. Their legal machinations have failed. So they are facing evictions.

So many have no real sympathy with that.

Evict and get on with it.

but you want to change the planning laws to criteria of your own choosing, which is of course a different issue.

mathanxiety - it did work in Britain, the Romany are the indigenous travelling community here, they don't appear to have been given special treatment and they have become integrated with the rest of the community. I've never once heard a bad word said about the culture of Romany gypsies.

It is to be hoped that the travellers and the new influx of Roma gypsies will also become integrated, in time. Bending over backwards to preserve a patriarchal culture, which relies on segregation, is not a good thing.

Please refer to my previous Yes and No answer.

The planning laws were not given by God to Moses in a dramatic scene involving burning bushes. They are not Sacred Texts. They have been used cynically by people who have a bee in their bonnet (understatement) about Travellers.

Uncalled for, Piglet, and not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

So, you reckon, that If me and my family were to set up an illegal campsite, we would be allowed to get away with it since we are not travellers?

Get real, there is no reason to think that travellers are being discriminated against when it comes to planning laws. Unless you want laws to apply differently to them.

given up wasting my time on a weasel.

And why would that be Kerymumbles......... See the last 850 post and it might become a bit clearer.

Fact stays they are illegal,they've played the game and lost it. Now for the sake of your children,elderly and infirm pack your stuff and quietly TRAVEL.

The garden shed scenario is exactly why Travellers do not like to rent. Not the only reason -- they like to own their residences and they live in large multigenerational family groups. Some also like to travel part of the year if they can. The normal rental lease really doesn't take account of the family aspect or the travelling aspect of the lives of some of them.

If planning laws were changed to make them impervious to any attempt at abuse by any parties then I would be all for changing them. I would like to see how much money Irish county councillors who were on the county planning committees found in brown bags on their desks during the last two decades in Ireland. I would like to see a breakdown of planning permission applications objected to and turned down on grounds of 'visual impact'. In the long run, it seems to me, the planning process seems to be the stumbling block for all parties concerned in the imbroglio of LAs and Travellers. Travellers use and abuse the pp process. Locals and LAs do the same. Meanwhile, the taxpayer stumps up.

The Romany used to be feared and despised in Britain until the Irish showed up in sizable numbers. The current Roma influx (from Romania and other parts of Eastern Europe) is showing no signs of willingness to assimilate either in Britain or Ireland. Generally, the first step in assimilation happens when the settled population accepts that a group is here to stay and might not actually be the nightmare they thought they were, and I think this is what happened with the British Romany.

Let us not forget that if the Travellers were 100% travelling all the time and staying only for a fortnight at most in any one spot the issue of planning permission would not even come up. They are in transition as a community, somewhere between travelling and settling. Whether they settle and continue the process of assimilation depends very much on being allowed a place to settle (yes, with respect accorded to their preoccupation with family closeness; why not try an approach that might work instead of fighting them every inch of the way?) by those in whose hands their fate lies, the planning committees of the LAs.

I agree, many. It's illegal, you lost the bids to stay, now you are being evicted. Accept the housing that is on offer, which is complaint with what legally must be offered, or move on.

How hard is that to understand?

And no, I would not want anyone who felt it was their right to park up and live illegally next to me.

A camp sprung up next to my daughters' school last week.

Because Scottish law is different regarding matters of illegal camping and squatting (totally illegal here), they were moved on within a day. But the fact is, you can't just park up wherever you please for a reason. Either find a place to do it legally or jog on.

bury the question in fluff and flannel like math and conceal the answer in obfuscation, that might make it more difficult to understand.

I believe Mankyminks' post was tongue in cheek, Lachesis...

And there's the rub -- 'find a place to do it legally'. Bear in mind that your visual impact has the potential to ruin your chances of finding legal neighbours.

God I have really managed to get on your tits haven't I, PigletJohn

yes.

Blimey just realise I must be a Traveller. I like to own my own residence,adore living in large multi generational family groups and like to travel some part of the year if I can. Must check out end of season garden sheds at Wickes offers as that must entitle me to put one up in my PIL's garden and live happily ever after.