To think that rights/wrongs aside, a council needing to make £300m cuts should focus it's funds somewhere other than evicting gypsies?

[Blubell]

I know there are massive fors and againsts in the Dale Farm evictions, and I don't want to start a big travellers debate, but in this time of austerity measures, and the fact that Essex council needs to cut £300m in 3 years, is evicting the site now, when it's a case that has been going on for 10 years really the best way to spend the little cash they have? Its been reported it's going to cost the council £18m to return the site - which used to be a scrapyard so hardly a place of outstanding beauty - back to greenbelt, how many carers, libraries etc will be lost to fund that? Just a thought.......

exactly I totally agree. Some of the cars they drive seem rather nice so perhaps they could be sold.

As you say mankyminks they have been taking the p for far too long and the governments have pandered to them. Things need to change.

Great to see an almost perfect example of racism intersecting with anti-feminism. The liberal recourse to legalism is also quite impressive. Just to reiterate: 'equal' doesn't mean 'the same', you don't have to like an individual or their culture to defend their civil/human rights. Tricky concept, it seems.

I don't think it's credible that people of mainstream majority race or culture would be treated or discussed like this. And comments made here and elsewhere lead me to believe the equivalent behaviour is not regarded in the same way.

aliceliddell, I can appreciate your point that "'equal' doesn't mean 'the same'".

But please answer me this (scenario outlined first) - modern society only works because we pool our resources. We contribute taxes, work, time; we withdraw benefits, support, medical care. Contributions will rarely equal withdrawls for any one individual; some will 'overpay' and some will 'overdraw'. We largely accept this because we don't know which we will end up doing, but we pay in in the hope that it can pay out when we need it to. Obviously this is the idealistic version which doesn't always work, but it's what we (as a society) largely aspire to.

But - and this is what I would like you to answer - how can society work if a determined minority (and I'm not restricting this minority to those Travellers under discussion here) continually draws on larger society whilst deliberately not contributing? Are you saying that society should NOT try to protect itself from the selfish few? That it should shrug its shoulders and let it continue?

You also seem to be claiming that the behaviours at Dale Farm, had they been done by the white settled community, would not attract the same level of condemnation. I disagree. 'Playing the system' is currently also being done by bankers, politicians, Rupert Murdoch etc., and I've seen nothing but contempt and disapprobation for them once exposed, and a deep desire by most for the full weight of the law to be brought down upon them. And deep frustration when the law is manipulated by artful lawyers, as with Dale Farm. Can you truly not see that people wouldn't feel anything about Dale Farm residents had they not behaved as they have over such a long time?

People of mainstream culture and race have been treated like this and been told to demolish houses they have illegally built.

There is discrimination against Travellers and prejudice comes across in a small number of posters. But i also honestly don't believe that people would defend a mainstream culture where people were pooing and dumping litter etc in public spaces.

But people in mainstream culture do! see^ my comments about dog shit, pissing in lifts, kids pooing/weeing in parks, etc. You could add flytipping, and various anti-social behaviour. But they don't get evicted with their whole community in a police raid. Nor do the others mentioned by left it. I find it disturbing that this has so easily gone into the 'shit and disease' mode, which always happens when the 'reasonable' arguments against minorities start. And they smell funny, or their cooking does, or whatever. My point stays the same - I don't need to like an individual or their culture to acknowledge their human rights.

Yes people in mainstream cultures act anti socially. But-

1. Travellers are not being evicted for being anti social. They are being evicted for building without planning permission.

1. It is not logical to say that someone's behaviour should not be condemned just because another person also behaves this way.

1. Nobody has said Travellers smell funny or their cooking does.

1. People have posted about their own experiences of Travellers which is natural. Some have said Travellers near them are fine. Others have said Travellers near them have caused problems e.g. human poo. You have jumped in and defended Travellers pooing outside. That has caused a debate on here as frankly I think lots of us, myself included, are taken aback that you defend this.

1. People living near this site has said that Travellers living on the legal part of the site don't cause any problems unlike some of the people living in the illegal part.

1. There are a few posters who come across as having prejudice against Travellers. However, I think most posters here don't come across that way - they just don't agree with you.

We have a legal site where I live.

Nice people, no problems with neighbours, council tax paid. No problems in local school. Site well maintained, no noticeable increase in crime.

The girls situations aside (have met loads in a professional capacity, lovely, well mannered but their outlook is so very narrow I could cry) we are happy to have them. But I suspect that is down to the people themselves.

As for Dale Farm, sorry but they have to go. No-one should be allowed to break the law. However, there is a huge need for more legal site places where travellers are welcomed. My beef is that instead of spending money clearing up/moving people on/bailiffs, councils should try some prevention rather than the costly cure merry-go-round we saw on Dispatches the other night.

Some people will defend a minority no matter how offensive the behaviour/culture is. It's just another way of subconsciously that they are more correct/different in their way of thinking. It's no different to punks/emos/goths/hippies considering themselves outside of mainstream culture and looking down on others as 'sheep' or boring, when they actually have just created their own little subculture with it's own, fairly set, uniform. They can't see that, to anyone else, they all look exactly the same.

I have a relative who is a huge fan of alternative things. The day they make conventional medicine illegal, is the day he will find himself an illicit pharmacist.

Dale Farm is a legal matter, no more and no less. The legal side of the site is not being cleared.

I agree with katie scarlett.

Ignoring them won't make them disappear. The dale farm lot seem to be moving onto another illegal site. There needs to be legal sites and they should pay rent and council tax on those plots. However those who don't abide by the law should be evicted sooner.The law needs changing if it takes ten years. My landlord can evict me in two months, the gypsies are not being discriminated aginst in that respect.

In reply to the OP, the council have wasted taxpayers money, if they had provided legal sites they wouldn't have this problem. It can't cost 18 million for a plot of land and a few toilets. In that respect travellers have been discriminated against as they have not been offered culturally appropriate housing. Can't see the big deal providing it, it's a damn site cheaper than building much needed council houses. In that respect society has not accomodated them.

aliceliddell I see you thought they were being evicted as a punishment for some unrelated action.

If you actually read the news articles and what others are posting you will discover that they are being evicted because they had no right to be living there in the first place. It's a very direct connection which doesn't require comparing race or gender to sort out.

Ah but one can't get on one's PC high horse over that.

I have not defended travellers or anybody else shitting outside. I have not said they,or their cooking, have been accused of 'smelling funny'. They have been accused of making places smell, and I have pointed out that this is a typical accusation made against minority groups. I understand they are being evicted for breaking planning laws. The point is that those laws have a much more serious impact on them than anyone else. When your local (eg) baker gets done for planning permission, we don't have a debate about truancy rates of baker's children or fly tipping habits of bakers, or shit left in parks by dogs owned by bakers, do we? So all the above is obviously not just about planning permission, is it? And again, my opinion on how offensive somebody's behaviour is does not overrideg their human rights.

None of which changes the fact that they are there illegally and most be moved. Being forced to stop breaking the law doesn't affect their human rights.

oh and as for the "When your local (eg) baker gets done for planning permission" example you don't in that case get claims that baking bread gives you the right to break the law and people don't come from miles around to help you break it some more.

But you would if you made it illegal to bake bread. Then it would be a law which disproportionately affected one group, even though it would be illegal for anybody to bake bread. Because laws are socially constructed to suit the majority controlling the society.

Alice, it's not only minorities that have human rights. And when the antisocial actions of others, any others cause offence, then it's time to look at whose human rights should be prioritised.

Particularly when the offending parties happen to be breaking the law.

It comes back to my TV which I have mentioned somewhere else today.

I was brought up to watch a lot of TV. It is part of my lifestyle. Therefore since I can't afford a huge plasma TV I'm going to break the law by taking one from the shop.

I can't be prosecuted because it's my right to watch a lot of TV like my father before me.

More seriously (well a bit) Laws are constantly changing and affecting the way people live. I can't keep cows in my front garden like I would have been able to at one time. I can't ride a horse freely round my neighbourhood. The evil government have built roads and traffic lights and all sort of things because they hate me. There used to be forests and wild animals to eat and now they are all fenced in and if I hunt or pick fruit I will be arrested. What's all that about? I should be allowed to take whatever I see.

We all lived differently once. We are all those people who changed as the situation changed.

You are not a minority because of TV watching, Onagar. Most people in the western hemisphere watch TV. The Traveller and Gypsy lifestyle is recognised as part of their culture whether historically or in the present. The culture is recognised as separate from the mainstream.

yanbu. Now is NOT the right time. What's more, if this government doesn't get their act together and build more affordable housing for all those low paid/unemployed that struggling now, with the increases in prices of basic needs and the freezes on pay, I think more and more people will have to resort to making their own homes on illegal sites.

LadyBeagle -- would you prefer it if I simply made stuff up as so many on this thread seem to be doing? Or pass along friend of a friend anecdotes? Or pontificate about The Law as people here are doing who seem to have gleaned their knowledge thereof from The DM?

'In reply to the OP, the council have wasted taxpayers money, if they had provided legal sites they wouldn't have this problem. It can't cost 18 million for a plot of land and a few toilets. In that respect travellers have been discriminated against as they have not been offered culturally appropriate housing. Can't see the big deal providing it, it's a damn site cheaper than building much needed council houses. In that respect society has not accomodated them.'

This is the crux of the matter. The families are going to be moved -- where? Apparently some have already shown up elsewhere and used a bolt cutter to gain access to another site. It is as difficult for Councils to secure approval for legal sites over the objections of residents as it is for Travellers to secure pp for sites they own.

Are the Travellers to be drummed out of the country? Is that what people would like?

Lots of cultures have minority lifestyles. They are not a problem because they don't break the law. Which, oddly enough, is the issue here.