Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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:
mankyminks · 22/09/2011 20:16

Fantastic post WYLI!! Agree with all you said.

alemci · 22/09/2011 22:34

sorry Alice that is not the case. It must make it difficult for the residents to sell their properties and why should their properties be devalued because of this situation. That is what I am saying.

I do not think it is a racist comment. Thanks Sarah.

I don't get this bringing racism into this. that is rubbish. Also I don't like the implication of my train of thought being dangerous.

OpinionatedMum · 23/09/2011 06:39

Properties are devalued because people don't want to live near gypsies. That is racism.

bubbles4 · 23/09/2011 07:09

Devaluation of property prices is not a valid argument that can be used when objecting to a planning application.

OpinionatedMum · 23/09/2011 07:14

People can find valid objections when their real objections are much less noble.

bubbles4 · 23/09/2011 07:20

OpinionatedMum yes I know,rascism can be cleverely disguised,I know from personal experience.

SqueezeMeBakingPowder · 23/09/2011 07:53

I am very insulted by anyone on this thread accusing others of racism. Yes maybe there are some people who tar all Travellers with the same brush I have no time for those people, but on this thread all I have seen is people trying to get through to those who just keep c&p huge amounts of information Hmm why they believe these particular Travellers at Dale Farm should be evicted!

Why is it ok to let these people continue to break the law?
The Travellers in the illegal half at Dale Farm knew it was illegal, so why did they think it was ok to set up home anyway?
Someone answer these questions and also tell me how it's racist to not want a group of people to flout the law!

Also wanted to add great post WYLI!

SqueezeMeBakingPowder · 23/09/2011 07:54

shouldn't be evicted that should say sorry!

Dillydaydreaming · 23/09/2011 07:54

math - a pity you could not be living as near as I do to them. Believe me when I say you'd rapidly change your tune.

They are hideous neighbours and yet shouting for their "rights". IF they lived in harmony with the local community AS THE LEGAL SIDE OF THE CAMP DOES then in all probability they'd have more local support.

No. They prefer to avoid paying council taxes, they spit at passers by and throw bags containing paint or excrement. Nice friendly God fearing folk Hmm

I personally will be glad to see the back of them and I suspect that on the quiet so will the legal part of the camp.

The eviction can't happen soon enough for me and until some of you have had to live as close to it all as me then I'll listen, until then I will consider your comments are made from ignorance.

missymarmite · 23/09/2011 10:35

lesley33 Thu 22-Sep-11 08:36:57 said;

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.

Hi Lesley;

I know this from personal experience. I inherited my grandfather's run-down bungalow in a small costal village in south devon 1999. My uncle is an MD in a large architectural company in London. So I asked him to draw up some designs for a rebuild, only slightly bigger than the original. He designed a lovely one storey building, much improved on the bungalow, and very sensitive to the local area, which he knows very well, as his mother had lived in the locality until her death. We asked for planning permission, and were denied because it lies in an area of outstanding natural beauty. In the end, we gave up and just sold the property. Now there stands a huge two storey building, at least double the size of our original design. Wonder how that happened? [Hmm]

mankyminks · 23/09/2011 10:45

Wow Missy,that's seems unbelievably unjust!! Did you ever find out what the reasons where behind their 'change of mind' ?

lesley33 · 23/09/2011 10:59

missy - Planning regulations have legally been relaxed. There are now builds and certainly extensions, that once you needed planning permission for, but now do not.

Your example sounds like this has happened because of the legal changes in planning permission and not as a result of corruption.

lesley33 · 23/09/2011 11:00

For example, my neighbour put in for planning permission before the changes and was turned down - for a house extension. After the changes a resubmitted application with only minor changes was granted no problem.

bubbles4 · 23/09/2011 11:01

No. They prefer to avoid paying council taxes,,actually Basildon council has confirmed that over 60% of the illegal dwellings are registered for Council tax.

SarahStratton · 23/09/2011 11:21

But how many are actually paying? Considering that the illegal part of the site is a no go area, who actually enforces the payments? There's a huge difference between being registered and actually coughing up.

onagar · 23/09/2011 11:27

bubbles4 I had no thoughts on council tax at all, but if you are sure that up to 40% are refusing to pay I will believe you.

SarahStratton · 23/09/2011 12:27

No, that's not 40% are refusing to pay, just that 60% are registered. That's not the same as 60% paying. I'd like to know how many of that 60% actually pay their council tax.

aliceliddell · 23/09/2011 12:28

Of course nobody wants to be told that the result of what they believe to be impartial, fair principles will have the consequence of racism. Equally, Jade Goody & co didn't enjoy being told that joking about Shilpa Sheti's (sp?) name, cooking, cleaning habits etc was racist. Racism isn't just a belief that some races are superior to others.

SarahStratton · 23/09/2011 12:36

Yep, but that was racisim.

Wanting rid of an illegal site isn't. Wanting rid of the legal side too, would be. Surely you can see the logic in that?

aliceliddell · 23/09/2011 12:44

But the definition of 'legal' is made by one side of the argument (the settled community represented by the Council) to the disadvantage of the Travellers. Planning permission is only a useful concept in a society with permanent buildings.

SarahStratton · 23/09/2011 12:51

Fair few of the buildings on the illegal side look pretty immovable tbh Alice. And societies don't work without laws/rules. Without those it just becomes survival of the fittest. Do you really want to go back to the days of cavemen, where what goes is whatever the strongest person decrees to be right. Or the person with the biggest following/gun/weapon of mass destruction.

Because that is what it would be like if your argument is followed to it's conclusion.

onagar · 23/09/2011 12:53

will have the consequence of racism

It makes no sense to say something can unwittingly have 'the consequence of racism'. Racism is the intent/belief/motivation so has to exist in the person performing the racist act.

Imagine if I were to say I like a poster called Tom better than the one called Harry. If Harry turns out to be black that can't have been racially motivated if I had no knowledge of his race before-hand.

You seem to be using 'racism' as 'anything that's not in the best interest of someone who happens to be in a minority', but there are no laws saying that everything that happens in the world 'must' be in the best interests of a minority.

onagar · 23/09/2011 12:56

the definition of 'legal' is made by one side of the argument

Yes the democratically elected government.

missymarmite · 23/09/2011 12:59

The house was rebuilt there over 6 years ago. When did the planning rules change?

justaboutstillhere · 23/09/2011 13:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread