Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

744 replies

Blubell · 19/09/2011 12:32

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.......

OP posts:
SarahStratton · 21/09/2011 20:08

Math, you have shit on your nose.

onagar · 21/09/2011 20:31

Math you say "You are not a minority because of TV watching, Onagar. Most people in the western hemisphere watch TV."

But other people travel and live in caravans. Many of them travel more often than once in ten years. So what makes these people travellers then is their perception that they are. So I can perceive myself to be a minority too. It's all about my perception of how much TV watching is part of my way of life and if I say it is then I can break the law if I like.

mankyminks · 21/09/2011 20:33

Math,shall we show up at your place of residence and use a bolt cutter to gain entrance? It's not just another site they have entered it's a PUBLIC park. There to be enjoyed by everyone not just a few.

onagar · 21/09/2011 20:34

Actually I'm tempted to turn up with bolt cutters and move into one of their caravans. They could take me to court if they liked or they could pay me to move. I shall demand £6million since that seems to be the going rate for extortion these days.

LadyBeagleEyes · 21/09/2011 20:41

No, math, I don't want you to make stuff up. I would like to hear you speak from experience though, instead of spewing out stuff from various sources that support your point of view.
There are many people on this thread that do have experience, some for and some against.
But as far as I can see all your knowledge seems to be quotes, and seem to make you feel like some sort of self styled expert.
I find you extremely irritating, and will happily listen to the debate on this thread
from people that know their subject first hand.

mathanxiety · 21/09/2011 20:42

Onagar, it is not about how you perceive yourself. If you want minority status, then make your case to the UN or go to the ECHR, and if you have a problem with the government according minority ethnic status to the Travellers and the Romany then start a campaign to have it repealed.

So everyone will be happy to spend another £18m in a few years to have the Travellers removed from the park? You think that's a fair use of taxpayer money?

mathanxiety · 21/09/2011 20:44

Because when you insist that people move but provide no reasonable alternative location for them to move to, you are going to find they settle on whatever site they find that they can get into and stay for as long as they can.

SarahStratton · 21/09/2011 20:44

I'm 44. I've lived in 16 different houses in my lifetime. I've travelled a hell of a lot more that the majority of Travellers have.

mankyminks · 21/09/2011 20:55

I happen to live in a grade 2 listed house. When I bought it I KNEW that would come with certain restrictions. If I attach as much as a Sky dish to the property the planning authorities would be round here faster than I could get myself back indoors and put the telly on.They would make me remove it on the spot and if I didn't do it they would send their people round to remove it for me and send me a hefty bill with a fine on top of it. If I refused to pay it,they would send the bailiffs round to remove as much of my possessions as they deemed necessary to pay for it.
When the Travellers at Dale farm bought this particular piece of land,they knew it had restrictions on it with regards to how many sites it would allow. It being green belt and all that. They build on the illegal part anyway, consequences should be equal to me attaching a Sky dish to my property. Remove what's illegally there (caravans etc) or have it done for you and pay the costs.
My parents taught me that if you have to make a very important decision in life to think of the worst that could happen if it turned out to be the wrong decision. If you can handle that go for it,if you can't steer away from it.
Travellers gambled,they lost, now accept the consequences and go.

onagar · 21/09/2011 20:55

mathanxiety I don't actually need to since I don't really want to break the law.

when you insist that people move but provide no reasonable alternative location for them to move to

You forgot about the offers of accommodation already made to them didn't you.

And don't worry about them too much. We we make room in the prisons if they continue to break the law.

justaboutstillhere · 21/09/2011 20:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

alemci · 21/09/2011 22:17

also some of them do have housing in Ireland.

also I believe the travellers have made some local peoples' lives difficult by intimidation. Is that okay?

I don't wish any of them any harm but i do think that they should have to abide by the law of the land otherwise it does become a bit like animal farm with some animals being more equal than others.

Marney · 21/09/2011 22:45

if the goverment dont sort out the ridiculous amount people have to pay for water rates it costs me about 6 weeks of my income a year and then theres the rhuge gas and electric bills i was thinking of becoming a traveller.Do they have to give the bbc a few weeks of their income its probably three weeks of my income each year as well did someone say they dont pay council tax .Really thoughI think if they are not hurting anyone and they have been their so long leave them its not like they have taken over a stately home is it I dont even watch bbc though i m sick of there biased political coverage There are travellers on a site not far from us they seem okay dont harm anyone been there years it would be really sad to see them evicted so i think the council should spend the money on bettre things all things considered

SarahStratton · 21/09/2011 23:02

Excellent idea Marney.

What? Don't look like that. I want one and it's part of my culture, innit.

missymarmite · 22/09/2011 00:15

I simply think it is disgusting to through people out of their homes when there is such a shortage of housing nationally. So all these families are now going to need re-homing somewhere, no? Is the council going to provide them with a suitable site somewhere else? Or put them in emergency B&B till a council house is available for every one of them, bumping other people who have been waiting for years further down the list? What about community cohesion? What about families helping one another, the big society? Moving a whole village and dispersing them across wide distances isn't going to help. What about the children?

Part of the site was actually legal, aparently. And all of it was a brownfield site, former scrapyard of no use to anyone else. They cleaned it up, bought it. It is only this country's stupidly rigid planning laws that prevented it being legal. Yet I know of plenty of rich fat cats with connections to my local council who can do practically what they like, while the ordinary person is hounded out of the planning office for daring to ask for a garage conversion.

Dillydaydreaming · 22/09/2011 06:32

missy, I live in the village where this site is. The legal part of the site is staying and nobody wants to see them go.

The ones we DO want gone are those on the illegal part of the site who have caused problems ever since they turned up.
All have been offered housing AHEAD OF EVERYONE ELSE ON THE WAITING LIST and they have turned this down!

The council have bent over backwards to be fair to these people and it has been thrown back in their face again and again.

lesley33 · 22/09/2011 08:36

They have also been offered space on another site in Liverpool. So not fair to make out they are just being evicted with nowhere to go.

"I know of plenty of rich fat cats with connections to my local council who can do practically what they like,"

I used to workin planning and never came across this. You should report it to the police and tell the local paper if your council is corrupt. I know there were a lot of problems with corruption in planning depts in 60's and70's, but that has largely been cleared up.

tbh I suspect you have made this up. But if not pm me and I will contact your local paper and the police.

squeezemebakingpowder · 22/09/2011 08:52

It's not legal because part of it is green belt, no other reason than that! No one would be given permission on green belt land, because it's green belt land. Why can't these do gooders see this?

lesley33 · 22/09/2011 09:00

Because they want to make it a fight between the goodies (the Travellers) and the baddies (the Council).

Or to be kinder, they recognise that travellers are discriminated against and thus interpret any situation where Travellers are fighting authority as an example of them being discriminated against.

squeezemebakingpowder · 22/09/2011 09:15

Yes you're right lesley33, and I agree that the Travellers are discriminated against a lot of the time.
It's frustrating to me that at Dale Farm they have been breaking the law for 10 years. I've read a lot about how some Travellers have been intimidating to people living in the area, yet somehow they are being discriminated against by being evicted from living somewhere illegally!

This is about Dale Farm illegal residents, breaking the law, nothing more! Surely a bunch of people breaking the law should not be supported?

WhereYouLeftIt · 22/09/2011 09:43

"Is the council going to provide them with a suitable site somewhere else?"

You know, when I travelled 300 miles to take up a new job, I was the one responsible for sorting out some new accommodation. It wasn't someone else's job, it was mine. If they can buy one plot of land and apply for planning permission when they knew it could not be granted, why can they not buy another plot with a likelihood of planning permission? There must be e.g. ex-industrial sites, utilities already in place, closer to towns and amenities out there. Why can't they provide themselves with somewhere else?

Serious question BTW.

mankyminks · 22/09/2011 10:04

That's the bit I don't get either WYLI. The huge over inflated sense of entitlement. Why would we or anybody else be responsible for someone else's lifestyle choice? People keep saying "o,your just against them because they don't live as you want them to,or because their lifestyle differs from yours. That has nothing to do with it. Anyone can live how they want as long as they consider other people too,stick to the law of the land and don't sit on their arses waiting for other people round them to hand their chosen 'lifestyle' to them on a plate.

squeezemebakingpowder · 22/09/2011 10:13

I agree WhereYouLeftIt, and the annoying thing is they've been offered housing that others have been waiting for! But they have declined because it means families being split! Their traditions lost! Whatever happened to Travellers travelling? Isn't that a tradition? They don't seem to've travelled much in 10 years (Dale Farm residents that is).

The way I see it they chose to set up home there illegally, I don't understand why it's now everyone else's responsibility to find them new sites/homes.

Another question, so squatters, if they are evicted from a home they've invaded, do they get re homed at the tax payers expense too? If not why aren't all the do gooders up in arms about this too? Isn't it a human right to have a roof over your head?

I feel really sorry for all the Travelling communities around the country who are tarred with the same brush. We must remember that while there are bad apples in every culture, religion and race, everyone is an individual and has their own beliefs and morals and should be respected until they do something to lose that respect!

mathanxiety · 22/09/2011 17:23

Manky, do you know how much the NHS spends every year on obesity and smoking-related problems? Do you know how much is spent every year on maternity services for people who have chosen to have babies? You do realise you are subsidising a lot of 'lifestyles'? In the case of the Travellers and Gypsies, their culture is not a lifestyle choice though. It is their culture. O?Leary v. Allied Domecq (2000) was heard by the Central London County Court. It established that Irish Travellers are a racial group under the RRA.

Your local council would clearly be wasting a lot of your money hounding you about a hypotthetical satellite dish on the side of your house. Why not take up that issue with them instead of taking out your frustrations on the Travellers? If you don't like what the council might do if you were to put up a dish, then take it up with the council. If you feel it is unjust that you should be forbidden from doing something to property you own, then how is it fine to prevent Travellers from doing something to property they own? Is your house the physical structure more important than the quality of life of those who live in it? Are the people of Britain owed the sight of your house, pristine and untouched, whenever they feel like it, no matter how much you would like better TV reception? Do you honestly support the amount of time and energy and money the council would expend trying to take down your hypothetical dish?

There is a very strong whiff here of people feeling they are being squeezed on every side and hemmed in by ridiculous regulations that their LAs seem hell bent on enforcing, in contrast to what is perceived to be favourable treatment of a 'non-deserving' group. This huge overinflated sense of umbrage is a bit like seeing a 5 year old tantrumming about an older sibling getting to stay up later than him.

As far as experience of Travellers, I grew up in Ireland in a suburb where an unauthorised camp was in existence for years, close to the home of a cousin of my dad's and his family (right outside their gates in fact, basically stretching along the side of the road for quite a distance). My relatives provided water for them and provisions for the elderly. The Travellers used to collect the dole and children's allowance at the post office and then would get directed next door to the little shop run by the postmaster, who would hold out his hand for their cheques at the door and then hand them a shopping basket. Easy money. In addition, there was a campsite, a bit like something out of The Grapes of Wrath, where down on their luck people drifted through, some settling for a few years, some for a few weeks, with the occasional Traveller family too. There were lots of vagrants in the locality always. The campsite has now been demolished and the site developed, increasing the residential density/traffic about 20-fold. The Traveller encampment eventually got squeezed out of the area as million Euro style housing development reached the formerly quite countrified neighbourhood.

My dad spent years working in educational administration and local politics and frequently dealt with Traveller issues in the educational realm as well as issues of trespass/land use. A cousin of his worked in local government; her job involved a lot of dealing specifically with Traveller women and children. A cousin of my mother's was a district midwife in a country area and delivered hundreds of Traveller babies over the course of her career, in tents and (spotless) trailers and the occasional old fashioned covered wagon. She commented on the cleanliness as it was sometimes a different story in some of the farmhouses she attended. My grandmother arranged for a Traveller woman who was a regular at the farm to wetnurse one of the twins of a neighbour whose baby was in danger of wasting away. The family stayed nearby for months instead of moving on with their group. Granny provided dairy produce and bread for the family as well as the odd chicken. My grandparents employed the odd Traveller for seasonal farm work but by my late teens the need for intensive manual work on the farm had evaporated as they had switched to predominantly dairy from a mixed farming operation by that stage.

If by my 'personal experience' of Travellers you really mean willingness to spew forth the sort of stereotypes and racist caricaturing that so many seem to be comfortable with piling on on this and the many other threads about Dale Farm at the moment, you will be disappointed.

Their separate ethnicity and all that that entails has been recognised by the government and until very recently their housing needs were accepted (at least on paper) to be different from people from mainstream society. The Basildon DC 'offer' of council housing is disingenuous in the extreme and nothing more than a cynical PR exercise on their part, grandstanding for the benefit of those ignorant of the Travellers' culture and its protected status, as is the option of moving to allegedly available sites near Liverpool, uprooting children from school, and separating families (scoff if you like but Travellers live in extended family units, not middle class nuclear units). It is also a calculated and sly way to incite hatred of Travellers who are perceived to be receiving favourable treatment from the more deserving members of the population, committing the most unpardonable of British sins, queue-jumping. Disgusting, cynical move.

From this article go ahead and roll your eyes

'Pickles has already announced the reversal of previous efforts to provide "pitches" within all local authorities, abolishing the regional planning bodies which were to oversee provision of registered sites for travellers and ease the tensions caused by Gypsies being forced to camp illegally.
The grants that had been made available to councils to provide sites have also been slashed, although an estimated £18m a year is being spent on evictions....'
Apparently ethnic cleansing will be carried out therefore, no matter how much it costs, with taxpayers braying their approval of each new hounding out or their dismay when the Travellers inevitably show up on each new doorstep. If this is what British society wants, then British society is guilty of a horrible crime.
Not to mention a self-inflicted bankruptcy.

Also from the article '..Hostility from local communities is high. The Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland is so concerned at the way many local newspapers are presenting issues with Gypsies, and the racist remarks left on their noticeboards, that it is contacting media outlets "to remind them that moderation of online comment boards is crucial in order to prevent the incitement of racial hatred".'

SarahStratton · 22/09/2011 17:36

You know what. Smoking, obesity, discrimination, shitting in woods. It's all irrelevant. The only facts that are relevant are that the part of the site that is due to be cleared is ILLEGAL. The legal part is staying. The occupants of the illegal part have been offered housing AHEAD of everyone else on the housing list, including truely homeless families. They have turned it down.

For that reason alone, anyone else on the list they would then count as making themselves homeless.

Swipe left for the next trending thread