Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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 · 22/09/2011 17:37

"Hostility from local communities is high."

Can't imagine why. Hmm

lesley33 · 22/09/2011 17:43

I agree that Travellers are discriminated against. And I agree that there is in the wider society a lot of racism to Travellers. And I agree that some Travellers are great kind people who keep their surroundings clean.

But the Travellers built illegally on land that they were unlikely to ever get planning permission for.

They have been offered space on a site in Liverpool. I understand that the Travellers involved may prefer to stay where they are, but that is not an option as they acted illegally by building on the land they did.

Like the majority of people in life they can't have the ideal situation. So they can either accept housing where they are and keep their kids in the local school or they can take up space on other sites which mean they don't all live close to each other. Or they find other accommodation themselves.

Yes I know Traveller families value big extended families. But actually when it was easier to find places to pitch, and so Travellers still travelled around a lot, most Traveller families did not travel together. They travelled in smaller groups and met up at events such as fairs.

Large Traveller families have only really lived all together in England within the last generation. So this isn't a long standing tradition.

And lots of large extended farming families (I mean those who don't own farms) have been split up as villages have become yuppified and adult children could no longer afford the rent or mortgage on the smallest property there.

LadyBeagleEyes · 22/09/2011 17:50

Ffs math, if I hear ethnic cleansing mentioned again I think I'll throw my laptop across the room.
If I could be arsed, I would look up the mass murders in Bosnia and Rwanda, or the Kurds in Iraq, all within recent memory, and send you a link of murdered men, women and children
To even use these words regarding Dale Farm sickens me to the core, and is an insult to everbody who has truly suffered the true evil of ethnic cleansing.
And nothing you write is original, you just plagiarise every article that supports your point of view.

aliceliddell · 22/09/2011 17:52

Sarah you do understand that travellers don't traditionally live in council houses? So it might be considered culturally inappropriate? In the same way, it wouldn't help you to be offered a pitch on a 'legal' travellers' site if you were made homeless.

aliceliddell · 22/09/2011 17:57

Lady I'm not sure you would be thanked for identifying the ethnic status of all minority groups. Do you think historic examples of ethnic cleansing start with mass murder, or are you open to the idea that it's a bit more subtle to start with?

aliceliddell · 22/09/2011 18:03

www.dalefarm.wordpress.com gives some indication of the 'equal' application of planning regs Hmm

SarahStratton · 22/09/2011 18:06

Perfectly Alice, in exactly the same way as they don't live in houses in Rathkeale.

If it were ethnic cleansing, then the legal part of the site would be also evicted. It isn't. Because nobody has a problem with it BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL.

SarahStratton · 22/09/2011 18:07

And that illegal development should also be removed. IMO there is no difference.

SarahStratton · 22/09/2011 18:08

The one in the link, I mean, apologies that was v unclear.

SansaLannister · 22/09/2011 18:08

Gah, honestly, I can't say I give a rat's arse about them anymore. They have and are breaking the law, many of them own homes elsewhere but somehow can't take up council housing offers because they can't live in houses, well then fuck 'em. The sooner they get evicted, the better. They park up somewhere else illegally, keep evicted them.

They want it all handed up on a platter to them exactly how they want it.

I wouldn't care if they were black, white, Martian, three-eyed, they can go get knotted.

onagar · 22/09/2011 18:13

aliceliddell, are we moving all legal travellers from that site or just the illegal ones. if the latter that makes the "ethnic cleansing" claim ridiculous.

onagar · 22/09/2011 18:14

Ah I see I wasn't the first to notice that.

mathanxiety · 22/09/2011 18:15

'Like the majority of people in life they can't have the ideal situation.' It's hardly ideal really, living on a patch of concrete that nobody else wants when it is made plain to you that even that patch of unwanted concrete is being begrudgingly provided.

Apparently the Basildon DC (and Eric Pickles) can have their ideal solution though, at taxpayer expense, both the taxpayers of Basildon and those of Liverpool.

Apparently too, the fact that Travellers and their way of life have minority status seems to have gone right over the heads of many. So comparisons to the plight of mainstream farm families due to yuppification are irrelevant. Traveller families are usually multi-generational and large (fertility rates are much higher than the general population) and often families will occupy two or more trailers.

'But the Travellers built illegally on land that they were unlikely to ever get planning permission for.' The Travellers right next door got planning permission. That is what is so ludicrous about this. On a patch of supposedly precious greenbelt, a former scrap yard no less, one group got planning permission. Yet pp for the additional area could not possibly be granted because it is greenbelt land . Does that make any sense?

I take issue with the word 'unlikely' too -- at the risk of repeating myself, the vast majority of Traveller planning applications are turned down initially (90%) but most appeals are upheld and retrospective planning permission is the most common type approved for Travellers. It was highly likely, going on prior experience, that pp would eventually be awarded.

'"Hostility from local communities is high."
Can't imagine why.'
-- Because it is the last (?) respectable form of racism.

WhereYouLeftIt · 22/09/2011 18:22

Mathanxiety, thanks for coming back, I appreciate your contributions.

I sort of agree with you when you say "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."

But I also don't agree. What I think is instead going on is that the world is changing with every generation, and the settled community knows this and accepts it (even as they complain about it). I don't live the same way as my mum did, seeing her sisters several times a week and her mother every day. (But I sometimes wish I did.) She didn't live as her mum did, youngest of 13 and beholden to her husband for every penny. Life changes. Evolves, if you will. The changes are not always pleasant or wanted, but they are accepted. In contrast, they see a community that refuses to evolve, that INSISTS that they will not change their way of life no matter what. All well and good, but this community lives alongside the settled community and if they don't change but the settled does, then they're not going to 'fit' any more.

To take one point of contention as an example since so much was made of it earlier , defecating outside makes perfect sense when 'inside' is space-limited and on the move, and doubtless had little impact in earlier, less crowded times. It would have been washed away or into the soil with the next rains. All populations have since increased, settled and Traveller alike, so more outdoors defecating taking place, and less suitable places to do it. Fewer hedges with every generation, less unworked land, more built up areas. So more impact on relations.

I think what I'm trying to say is that, from my point of view, the Travellers want their way of life to remain as it ever was, and that just isn't feasible. There is nothing more constant than change. It's an evolution thing. As our (geographical, financial, political) environment changes, those most fitting to it survive best and those not weaken and disappear. And those most fitting to a changing environment are those who are most flexible. The panda is an endangered species because it's diet is so restrictive. Dogs are not because they'll eat anything. For humans - a century ago, a good living could be had if you were illiterate as many skilled and well-paid jobs didn't need you to read or write. Now, these jobs are largely gone and education is a must. Life has changed.

To continue the evolution metaphor, I'm all for biodiversity. Monoculture means everything dies when the environment changes significantly. So it is important that the majority never ousts the minority variations. But in evolution, some branches will become dead ends. You just never know which branches until a long time afterwards. The Travellers don't have to become a dead end. They could adapt to the changing environment. Buy sites for which planning permission would be granted. Co-operate with each other to maintain the sites, even if they don't own the one they're on at that particular moment. Loads more that I can't think of right now. But if they dig in their heels and insist that the changing world must deal with them on their unchanging terms, then sadly, they will become an evolutionary dead end. And that would be sad.

mathanxiety · 22/09/2011 18:24

OK, LadyBeagle, I will start making stuff up about the Travellers, or maybe you would prefer if I suddenly started agreeing with your pov? That way I could just repeat what everyone else has said, in most unoriginal fashion, pile in and defame people ad nauseum. If you don't want to read my posts, then don't.

aliceliddell · 22/09/2011 18:44

OMG, somebody said racism! Surely can't be true. Funnily enough, a friend read through the last few pages of this and that was his first word too.

SarahStratton · 22/09/2011 18:49

Unoriginal? Math, pretty much all you post is regurgitated from websites that happen to support your POV. Other posters have read what is on these threads, thought about it, and learnt. I see no evidence of that in your posts at all. It's like you are working to some agenda, hell bent on forcing others to agree with you.

You hold a (very) minority view. Usually, there's a reason for minority views being so. Because they are inflexible, unchanging and unwilling to adapt. I won't say wrong, because there are parts of that view that we can all learn from, but that is only a small part.

And I see no evidence of anyone making anything up, links have been provided. Personal experiences have been deleted. That doesn't make them untrue, just that they seem unpalatable for certain people, as they make a mockery of their views.

To say that others are making stuff up is bloody insulting.

SarahStratton · 22/09/2011 18:50

Excellent post WhereYouLeftIt.

alemci · 22/09/2011 18:52

Oh come on Maths. I don't think it is racism. It is because sometimes the travellers blight the area and bring down property values and then they intimidate the locals.

I know they are not all like that but can you blame the residents of Clayhill.

The travellers need to be flexible. I am sure many people would like to stay near their families but they cannot afford the housing etc.

I think they need to move forward and modernise and be more flexible

mathanxiety · 22/09/2011 18:56

In contrast, they see a community that refuses to evolve, that INSISTS that they will not change their way of life no matter what. All well and good, but this community lives alongside the settled community and if they don't change but the settled does, then they're not going to 'fit' any more.

First of all, they have changed and evolved, but that would not be apparent to a society that first started noticing them in any numbers until the 1950s at the earliest. Part of the perception of lack of change and quixotic insistence on clinging to old ways comes from a lack of knowledge of how far behind Travellers are coming from compared to the rest of society, which is itself hurtling forward at warp speed. They have never 'fitted', even back when they mostly lived in desperately poor rural Ireland.

They now send their children to school, albeit for fewer years than optimal. In the very recent past, Traveller children did not go near schools. An aunt of mine in rural Ireland in the 1940s and 1950s used to instruct children in the rudiments of catechism in preparation for First Communion and Confirmation. The children were illiterate and so were their parents. Lessons were completely oral. (Their recall was tremendous, according to my aunt.) Travellers have an interest in pursuing secondary education but still see no value in the more academic side of what schools offer. English Lit has little appeal for them.

Practical/vocational courses have a lot more perceived value. An old school friend of mine married a Traveller who was a bank manager. He had been encouraged to go to school and his family perceived maths as a useful skill.
They tend not to do half as much travelling as they did before. Ironic to see this used as a cheap jibe here. The reason they do not travel as much is that they remain in one place for the school year when allowed by local residents/councils, etc.

Occupation-wise, they used to do sasonal agricultural work, tinsmithing, dealing in horses, making and hawking crafts -- all occupations that have gone the way of the donkey cart. They have turned to concrete and paving, roofing, landscaping and general unskilled building occupations.

The use of the great outdoors as a toilet is not their preferred means of toileting. They are perfectly willing to use toilets on sites, and do so until the toilets become predictably unusable given the number of people the facilities are supposed to accommodate. The reason not to have a toilet in a caravan or trailer is because of notions as to what constitutes cleanliness that are certainly different from settled society. They have ideas on cleanliness that are akin to kosher rules. But bear in mind that settled society only very recently re-embraced the toilet after thousands of years of Traveller-like behaviour. It is very unpleasant, just as much so for Travellers as for anyone else, to poo in a field or in the bushes, and not a bit nice for women to have to do their business essentially in public. It is not something they choose but you can't just cross your legs until you find some premises willing to let you use the toilet.

They are incredibly flexible. That has been the secret of their survival in a country that exported millions of its own people over the last 170 years because the land just couldn't support them and the economy was permanently set at stagnant.

They have banded together politically to press their case in the political/policy sphere, having had absolutely no cohesion in the political sense heretofore. This has been forced on them by the trend of policy since the 1960s, and is perhaps a double edged sword as far as government and policy-makers are concerned. But it is an evolution. Next step? I predict many of them will develop an interest in getting a legal education. Be careful what you wish for.

SarahStratton · 22/09/2011 18:58

They could always try cleaning their toilets. Other high traffic loos seem to manage. Campsites for example. Sorry Math, but you are talking utter bullshit again .

aliceliddell · 22/09/2011 19:39

alemci dangerously close to 'If you want a n for a neighbour, vote Labour'. That was house prices, too. Not our finest hour, but if you want to keep your property values up, way to go.

Andrewofgg · 22/09/2011 19:43

A thought. To get the sort of temporary injunction they got on Monday you have to give an "undertaking in damages". Now since the only asset available to seize is the land and they already huge amounts in costs, that undertaking is worthless.

Answer: Nobody, except in such cases as d.v. between individuals, should be able to get injunctions without an undertaking to meet any damages caused and pay any costs if they lose backed by an insurance bond. No bond - no application and no injunction. Is that fair and if not why not?

SarahStratton · 22/09/2011 19:49

Huge difference Alice. You are comparing legall neighbours who happen to have been (back then) the 'wrong colour' with illegal neighbours. There is no point of similarity.

SarahStratton · 22/09/2011 19:50

legal.