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 completely agree Maryz and was just about to post myself on the fact that anyone living near these site only ever have negative experiences.

Again, the point of living next door to any other 'ethnic' minority would bring out hundreds of posts stating their neighbours who are lovely etc etc, is also very valid. Personally I judge a person on their behaviour, not where they're from, religion or colour of their skin. I get on with people who have my sense of humour, values, morals etc. It speaks volumes, the way travellers choose to conduct themselves, that most of the settled society find them very bad neighbours!
It also seems a shame to me that alongside the few bad apples within the travelling community, there will probably be some wonderful, interesting people who I imagine I would really like, but because of their segregation not many people get the chance to really get to know them!

One more thing, I remember watching MBFGW and thinking some of the young girls on there, who were getting married seemed to me to not be overjoyed by the fact that their life was set to cleaning, cooking and bringing up oodles of children! It actually really bothers me that in this day and age, these girls are still being subjected to a life of drudgery and serving their man. I think it would be so brilliant if the children were made to attend school and the parents penalised if they didn't attend! Maybe this would be the start to some of these girls being able to actually make a choice and get a career, maybe buy a home, I don't know but choose to live how they want,and not how they're told!

Sorry nothing to do with initial AIBU, but just on my mind!

Apologies, they do own the land. They do not have permission to live on it, however.

Maybe I'll build that extension I need. It's 2 storeys, the ground floor would be entirely on the footprint of an existing part of the house that needs to be rebuilt. The upper storey would provide with a bedroom and ensuite. Next door neighbours were allowed to build one, they live in the other half of my semi.

I won't get permission though. And if I go ahead and build I will be forced to pull it down.

I own the land, I live on the land. I won't be building it because I abide by the law.

Oh gosh Maryz yes, I know exactly the bit you mean! So sad!

Well it may be cheaper to let the travellers take over the whole village and buy out the NIMBYS but as people have pointed out, the problems spread into the towns.

And Basildon is quite difficult enough to live in as it is. I should bloody know, I've been here almost forty years. If we're going along that road then I would suggest a nice little village in the Cotswolds for them to settle in. Where the brand new Range Rovers will fit right in.

Except that the point is, they have broken the law.

I am intrigued as to why the post where I outlined my own personal experiences was deleted - I've been posting here for years (serial namechanger) and this thread is the first where I've had posts deleted. I did not give any information which would identify the individuals involved, and I did not generalise my experience.

It is only a thread, but I am utterly confused my MNHQ's stance on this. I am pretty sure that if I'd posted elsewhere about those neighbours and mentioned that they were Scottish, that would have been allowed to stand.

I don't think that this thread is representative of general attitudes, most people who are interested enough to post on it have either had personal experiences with travellers or are familiar with the area this camp is in. In general, I think people are instinctively sympathetic with them, and their demands to be given special rights. Until they look at it a bit more closely and realise how problematic that approach is.

Yes! Poof goes another one of mine! The one where I said I was sexually assaulted, and the one oabout the YouTube videos of women in organised fist fights with small children encouraged to watch. I wonder if this is MNHQ acting alone or if the threads are being reported by someone who is merely lurking? Because if you have something solid to bring to the table in their defence (but please not a carrier bag of shit) then please do - we are all ears, and we are tired of debating with amongst ourselves now.

IMO there's no need to turn this thread into a "travellers are horrid/no they're not" debate.

I see it as a simple "should people obey the law" question.

Apart from anyone who's given way to their bias and pejudice (like maths) there's not really any argument that the answer is anything but "yes"

"prejudice"

and no, I have not reported any threads.

I don't see mathsanxiety as showing prejudice or bias. I think she is giving a view point that is contrary to your own or asks you to consider other points in your decision making process.
She's very calm, reasonable and articulate

As a point of law..does anyone know what the council did about the scrapyard that was there before the travellers?

Have we read this?

Perry - it was either there before the land was green belt - and therefore legal - or there too long (four years) before the council took action. Either way that is water under the bridge; it is not there now.

"I don't see mathsanxiety as showing prejudice or bias."

well I do. I tried to get her to say if she was in favour of people obeying the law, and she spouted a cloud of obfuscation.

Eventually, her answer boiled down to "Yes, but not the Travellers"

That is prejudice just as much as if I said to you "do you believe in people having the vote?" And you answered "Yes, but not the women/blacks/Jews/Muslims/Irish/Bosnians/whatever."

I'm in favour of equal treatment for all regardless of their ethnic or cultural group. Maths isn't.

"She's very calm, reasonable and articulate"
Absolutely agree, and sometimes in the face of outright abuse.

calm, but prejudiced and evasive.

Prejudiced = doesn't agree with your point of view
Evasive = refuses to be corralled into giving a simple yes or no answer when clearly there is no such simplicity to any of the arguments in this case.

I do agree with you, PigletJohn, this should have nothing to do with whether we like or don't like them. It is indeed a matter of planning law and nothing else. However, when well-meaning people ask the question 'why is it so hard for them to get planning in the first place?' and 'why are local communities so hostile towards them and paranoid about the possibility of their presence?' it is inevitable that people will respond with their experiences of exactly why.

Also, many of the negative comments about their lifestyle and habits have been part of a wider discussion about their culture in general, and whether or not it is appropriate that they should be enabled to live in segregation from mainstream society as a way of preserving practices that most of us find abhorrent. Yes, it's a matter of planning law, but once we discuss them in a wider context it's pretty impossible not to connect the two.

"Prejudiced = doesn't agree with your point of view"

No. Prejudiced, has no moral or logical foundation for her position, bases it on her sympathy, or lack of it, for the group she's considering.

"Evasive = refuses to be corralled into giving a simple yes or no answer when clearly there is no such simplicity to any of the arguments in this case."

No. Evasive, avoids saying what she believes, or why, and what she bases it on.

I think we should agree to disagree as we are straying wildly from the point of this thread.

Suffice to say I think its obvious from her posts that Math gave an awful lot of logical and moral foundation for both her position and her beliefs - far more so than most contributors. I personally found what she had to say both enlightening and articulate, despite not always agreeing with her.

No I disagree pigletjohn

I think that it is a question in AIBU and therefore takes into account all manner of different issues relating to what is going on currently at Dale Farm.

Is it legal that the council carry out a site clearance, yes
Is it fair or right?
I'd say very definitely no.
The UN would say no.

Do I believe that people react in a racist manner toward traveller gypsy or roma people. Yes. Again and again and again
Do I believe that this clearance is the right thing
No
I can't believe that we will watch an entire community being forced out with nowhere to move on to.
Do I believe that there is an element of racism in the way that people view the traveller community. Yes

'mmm

(lawyer) "These people have broken the law."

(judge) "Well, I don't know. Are they Welsh? Ginger? Muslim? Travellers? Belgian? Disabled? Vegetarian? It makes a difference to whether they are guilty or not, you know."

NO IT DOESN'T!

Pigletjohn
No disrespect but once again it seems you are trying to win the argument by over-simplifying it. Nothing about this case is simple or straightforward, borne out by the very fact it has taken TEN years to reach this point. Also by the massive number of posts on this thread.
If it was as simple as right/wrong or legal/illegal we wouldn't all be here debating it. In the same vein there is no simple answer. It's a nightmare frankly, and I'm glad I have to go and collect DS4 now and get off this addictive thread!

You need to differentiate between Romany Gypsies and Travellers. They are not the same. And I have seen no prejudice towards Romanies on this thread. Any prejudice against Travellers is entirely their own doing. Vilifying their behaviour is no different to vilifying the behaviour of the recent rioters.

Is it legal that the council carry out a site clearance? yes.

Is it fair or right? yes, it is upholding the law.

Do I believe that people react in a racist manner toward traveller gypsy or roma people. No, they are not a race. Romany Gpysies are a race. Prejudiced manner, yes. But there is no effort on their behalf to over come this prejudice, in fact they appear to encourage and revel in it.

Do I believe that this clearance is the right thing? Yes. They may be a community, but they are a community that is acting illegally. It would not be tolerated from any other section of society, and neither should it be tolerated by them.

To do anything other than clear the site would create such precedences as to make current laws against it unworkable. A precedence must not be set.

If the Church and others, such as Vanessa Redgrave, feel that the Travellers are treated so unfairly, then they should put their money where their mouths are and set up legal camps on their own land. Where they live. Not just a random parcel of land miles from where they would have to experience them.

• from them, not by them. 4th question.

"No disrespect but once again it seems you are trying to win the argument by over-simplifying it."

No, I am trying to get an answer to the fundamental question.

Here are two examples of bias and discrimination:

I accuse this man
Is he a Jew?
Yes
Then he's guilty

I accuse this man
Is he a Traveller?
Yes
Then he's innocent

Both are based on prejudice, not justice. Both are wrong.