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'm British by naturalisation. I chose to live here. That means I accept and obey British law. I don't expect others to accord my law-breaking because of its past, with which many are not at fault. Tons of other immigrants live here, too, all by choice, and accept and obey British law even if it's in diametric opposition to their culture, religion and ethnicity.

So should all, who chose to come to live here.

If 'Iris Robinson' allows you, Perry, in your own mind, to insinuate that most or all planning officers or committee members in England, Scotland and Wales are corrupt, then I reckon you have double lost the argument.

The Travellers are not asking for anything for free and the land they live on in Basildon is theirs. I thought we had already established that they turn down council housing?

How is living with three generations of your family such a threat to the stability of Britain and the rule of law that it must not be countenanced, and cannot be possibly be provided by a council? How can it it be far preferable to spend £18m to evict them? That is £18m of the honest hard-working taxpayers' money. Do you really think that is £18m well spent? Not that the Travellers would want it anyhow, as already shown. They prefer to live in their own houses and not drain the public purse. So why begrudge them their houses on this land that they own. Why does a greenbelt designation for land that absolutely no-one else wants, and that they own, come above basic human values?

Lachesis, my point about the 'No Irish' thing is that people tend to integrate as fast as they are allowed to by the natives. Following on from that, the Travellers will integrate as fast as the settled community will let them also. Because they are people too.

How can anyone say with a presumably straight face that everyone else who comes to live in Britain lives by the rules? It is really a land where no-one ever riots or loots and there are no hooligans, and where cities are not overrun by drunken hordes every weekend? How about the fact that Britain is a fertile source of Islamic Fundamentalist terror these days? Obviously a good few people living in Britain do not accept the rule of law, the secular nature of society or even the concept of basic human rights. . IMO, the furore over the Basildon Travellers is the same sort of match set to the same gunpowder.

PigletJohn, I fear I may have tipped you into insanity.

math a couple of things. I can assure you that "visual impact" is not a woolly non-issue in this case. Have you seen the before and after pictures of the site?

Nobody has "insisted the stop being annoyingly different." Far from it in fact.

The land that they live on is theirs yes. But it is not to be used willy nilly. It's green belt. In a small village. Which cannot sustain 1000 people suddenly arriving overnight

I'm not sure it's piglet that's notthinking straight. It's you!

FWIW I am the lilliest livered of liberals and hate to think of families being evicted :( but I have seen and heard first hand of the horrendous impact this camp has had on the local community (who also have a cultural heritage and rights too I assume ) and something has to give. It cannot continue

Who is being impacted by the appearance? It is not overlooked, and it used to be a scrapyard after all, so the visual impact of the site has at worst remained the same.

Math if you look at the before and after pics on my post on Wednesday at 21:41 I think you'll agree that the site does have a visual imapct on the village. And bear in mind the "after" picture was taken 5 years ago. The site is much denser now.

The "scrapyard" you refer to was very small and at the end of a long lane, set way back from the road and the village. The travellers' site is neither of those things.

The whole village is impacted by its appearance. Why not actually come here and have a look for yourself before you say things like that of which you have no actual first hand knowledge.

You are welcome to come and stay with me - so long as you don't take 10 years to leave!

PS I never said the truth was equidistant between he DM and the Guardian. I saidit was somewhere between the two. HTH

But Math we all want the American Dream. Who wouldn't love to be able to save and put down enough cash to buy a nice big building plot outright and build their perfect home on it? And we are entitled to, of course. But we have to get full PP first, and pay the going rate for that land, which will be probably 5 to 10 times more AT LEAST, than the cost of land with no PP. And then of course there are the restrictions on which land/locations would ever get PP in the first place.

Personally I always favour areas of outstanding natural beauty, with no passing traffic and no close neighbours, and plenty of room for my dogs to run unchecked, and room to run my business from my garden without paying business rates, but it doesn't mean I am entitled to have it just because I want it!

I live in such an area now actually, and there are fields all around me. My house is old, which is why it is here, but these days NO amount of cash in brown envelopes would allow ANYONE to get planning to build around my house. Hence it was rather expensive, and we have had to pay the full going rate for that privilege, which given that every penny we have ever earned has been taxed at source that has taken rather a long time, and we still have a big mortgage. Is it any wonder people are thoroughly pissed off when someone else pitches up at the end of the garden and takes all the benefits of that for a tiny fraction of the cost and effort? Paid for cash, from (probably) untaxed, untraceable income? Often 'earnt' through dubious illegal means?

Personally I would not want to live in such close proximity to my wider family either, but I appreciate that many do, and of course they have that right as well. But again, as others have pointed out, there are legal ways and means of doing this, and you only have to look at the British Asian community who have adopted whole towns and streets as owner-occupiers. Many of them will pool their money and live much more densely per house than the Average white British family would find palatable, but they are happy to do it, and they pay to do it the legal way, so good luck to them. I suggest if Travellers hate the confinement of brick walls they buy houses in rural areas with big back gardens and put one caravans per house out there, and stay in those as often as they flipping well like, and 'live' in their gardens! That would be perfectly legal. Oh, but hang on.......expensive. And no way of avoiding council tax. Shame.

But what none of us have the right to do, is insist that the law need not apply to us, to enable us to do live exactly where we want, in the cheapest, quickest way possible, irrespective of the rules.

I understand what you are saying though - nothing is working so far, so we need to try another tack. But that other tack should not be just rolling over and giving in. There should be absolute zero tolerance on retrospective planning. I'd like to know (from that stuff you cited from the Guardian) how many of those legal pitches that are privately owned have planning that was obtained BEFORE occupation took place. Sometimes, I am sure, LA's do cave in, for an easy life.

And if it only takes one square mile of land to house all the illegal pitches currently causing problems (I am rather about that but anyway...) then let's identify one suitable square mile of land. Or rather, several smaller plots scattered evenly across the country and by lottery, on brownfield sites, big enough to house a small to medium size extended family - no more than say 5 or 6 plots. Then grant planning for them and offer them up for sale as land with full PP for residential building especially for Irish Travellers or other nomadic people. But they must pay the going rate for land with full residential PP, and comply with building regs just like anyone else. And any illegal expansion of the site should be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly. No fannying around. And no special mobile/segregated Traveller services for schools. Their children enrol in school and if they don't turn up they get the authorities breathing down their necks just like you or I would, with parents imprisoned for serial absence without proof of the children being adequately educated otherwise at no cost to the state - just like you or I would be.

I hate that that may be the only solution. I hate that we should kowtow to their desire for a self-imposed apartheid system. I hate that they may need to be given the right do do this, whilst people of other ethnicities and persuasions do not have the right to express a desire for ethnic segregation on the grounds of their cultural preferences. It sucks. But I don't know what else we can do short of totally crushing and eradicating their 'culture' altogether.

No, you can't have PP for building "especially for Irish Travellers or other nomadic people".

No apartheid here please.

Isn't this still more than a little to do with us pointing and shaking a finger at those we don't entirely understand?
Travellers have different customs and are motivated by different things than the majority of the dwellers in the UK. If we accepted that and allowed them to make provision for their families within those customs we could start to live a great deal more happily with them.
If they continue to feel hounded and treated largely unfairly then they will react defensively and this pattern of mistrust will continue.
We need better provision for traveller families in each county. Simply saying they can go on a council housing list is beside the point, as living in a house isn't culturally acceptable to most travellers.

I accept that quoting the Iris Robinson saga wasn't entirely fair, as Mrs Robinson was entirely guilt free of any planning schenanigans. However I think we are being disingenuous if we say that we haven't been aghast at some of the planning decisions made within our boroughs later to find developer/councillor/familial connections have swayed the decision making process. The planning process is itself a nightmare for most without influence let alone those generally seen as pariah with less than great literacy.

I think generally we treat travellers very badly and rarely give them a chance. They often behave badly in return. If we want to continue this cycling relationship of mistrust and bad behaviour, on both sides, then aggressively moving families on will certainly help to maintain the status quo.
Travellers are less likely to start to integrate into UK society if they are constantly treated badly. If we show them respect and make provision for them. Give them a chance. Don't assume they are all bad. Eventually they will start to drop their defences and integrate.
The pathway we are now on will not achieve this imo

great post fellatio

I don't expect, want or even care if they integrate Perry

That's not the issue

The issue is whether they are still subject to the law. Not just planning law. Any law.

Why don't the government just buy out all the residents (in the houses) who are complaining about these travellers and then the travellers can take over the whole village?
May be cheaper than £18m and those NIMBYs can live somewhere where travellers can't affect them.

I think for a lot of people the issue is integration curry

There seems to be a great deal of commentary along the lines of they have been offered council housing ...

Sometimes when situations are particularly difficult or protracted the law needs to be stretched to accommodate the solution required. I would assume that most travellers would say they have no choice but act as they do.
Unless we want Dale Farm after Dale Farm we will need to make more of an effort to accommodate the travellers and their culture. Perhaps in the way Fellatio has suggested

I agree Curry. The Plymouth Brethren do not integrate one iota. They form consanguinous relationships and move around the country to mix with other PB to extend their gene pool a bit, and they are very distrustful of outsiders. I don't agree with the way they live, but since they have never once bothered me, or anyone else as far as I know, they can carry on for all I care.

And I do not agree, Perry, that we treat Travellers very badly and never give them a chance, and as a result they behave badly. I think it is entirely the other way around. If most people have a dislike/distrust of Travellers it is based on historic experience of them, or anecdotal evidence of the experience of others. It is human nature.

Perry, the law has been stretched for over 10 years - and now it's at breaking point

I don't think most reasonable sized communities would object to a small traveller community. I know I wouldn't.

But for 1000 people (the largest traveller site in Europe apparently) to land on a very small rural community is untenable. And this is exactly what the problem is in Crays Hill

Not traveller culture. Not traveller rights. Not anything like that. Just an untenable situation

I'd love to live with my extended family - mathanxiety is it a violation of my human rights that no council has seen fit to arrange that?

After all we have a cultural heritage of our own.

Do you agree that everybody should expect to be treated the same under the law, regardless of their ethnic origins?

Maryz That's why I said it should be done by lottery, and evenly spread around with several possible sites identified in each given region/area, then a lottery within each region/area to decide it. And absolutely no green belt. The sites would need to be hand-picked very carefully indeed to cause minimum disruption the the existing community. And there could perhaps be a system of agreed re-purchase by the LA of any owner occupied homes within a certain distance, likely to be adversely affected or where the value would drop considerably. Those homes (or the land they stand on) could then be used to provide much needed social housing. Or an alternative option could be that some form of compensation should be paid for those those who would like to stay.

If the sites were MADE to be kept small then any unpleasant or intimidating ghetto effect could be minimised, and if there were problems then they would be dealt with just as any nuisance neighbour is dealt with - through the courts. But for it to work, there must be NO woolly excuses or exceptions made for behaviour that is not within the law. That way there would be a forced integration of sorts, but the need to live around family/clan would remain intact. And in smaller groupings it would be harder to cover up criminal activity, DV etc. Local schools would not become overwhelemed one month, then left virtually empty the next.

And the law must be made very clear that this provision will only apply to travellers/Gypsies, because of their need to move from site to site. It should not ever be extended to just anyone who decides they fancy a bit of segregation. Though I give it 5 minutes before some other ethnic group challenges that.

Having said all that, I still don't think it would work. I do not believe they have it in them, by and large, to work within anyone else's guidelines, or to pay the going rate for anything. They would still try to work the system. But at least they would have no defence along the lines of 'we have no choice because you refuse to provide us with the means to live as we choose.' so when need arises to take legal action against them we will be in a position to actually ACT on it for once.

I've read this thread through and found it a thoroughly interesting read. I profess to not know an awful lot about Travellers and indeed the planning laws. What I do understand though is that greenbelt land is protected land that should not be built on. I have known this since being a child since I grew up in an area that was all greenbelt and thus outstandingly beautiful.

It is irritating me that Mathanxiety can't seem to grasp that the poor settled residents near Dale Farm have probably paid a premium in order to live in their once picturesque surroundings. They did this lawfully (supposedly) and were living a peaceful, tranquil existence. (May be a little far fetched but maybe true for some).
Then the travellers bought some land, built on it legally, ok all fine it's legal. Then they expanded and expanded getting more and more people in. The people in the nearby town/village are being victimised by some of the Dale Farm residents (who are living there illegally).
Quite rightly the settled residents near Dale Farm are getting peed off with the way their once peaceful lives are being ruined by some of these travellers!

Now I also don't know the area the settlement is in so all that I have deduced is from what I've read on this thread, so correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see the issue is nothing to do with race, religion, tradition or heritage. It is to do with a bunch of people moving in in hordes, building illegally and terrorising the neighbourhood. The Dale Farm residents use all the stalling tactics in the book to avoid eviction, their luck seems to have run out!
Yes there are women and children at risk in this settlement, this to me is horrifying, but there really is no other solution other than eviction. As many others have said, it's a very dangerous precedent to set by NOT evicting them.

Fellatio your posts have been really interesting and very enlightening and I agree with everything you say. Many other posters too have made very valid and interesting points and I feel I've learned an awful lot from this thread. It also saddens me so much to think of the plight of the children and actually the young women in these camps.
I did watch MBFGW and found it pretty hard going at times, but took it with a pinch of salt because of it being a TV show and all the sensationalism involved, but reading some of the posts on here make me shudder to think that a lot of it was how life for travellers really is!

P.s this post has taken ages to write so apologies if I've raked over old ground!

Well, no, Squeeze for anyone stumbling in and not having time to read the whole thread I think you have precised it very well!

Especially the bit about me being really interesting and enlightening, obviously.

But my prize for that goes to Math. Although I am sometimes about about what her stance actually is, she has added lots of fascinated background to this issue, and she writes in a way which is a joy to read for people who appreciate eloquence and articulation. [suck up emoticon]

FFS, that made no sense did it? No wonder I am in awe of Math, she can at least string a proper sentence together.

In my defence I should not be on here so I am rushing - I am supposed to be packing to move in three days. I really need to get off this thread.

Riv, this is all remarkably unlike you! So much so that I was wondering if it even was you until you mentioned the tragic child. Have you had some kind of weird right-wing epiphany?! You are usually a fervent supporter of all things awkward and non-conformist! Do you need to lay down with a damp flannel for a bit?