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.......

'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.'

I suspect that in all progress there are winners and losers. Even generally very good things like setting a legal definition of who can call themselves a Dr probably put some unqualified incompetent people out of work.

But generally progress is seen as a good thing by most people if there are more winners than losers and the impact on the losers isn't too great.

So building motorways benefitted many people who wanted to travel places quickly and benefitted many industries such as domestic tourism. People whose houses had to be knocked down or who would live very close to the motorway would be seen as losers. So the Government provided financial compensation so their loss wasn't too great.

But I'm sure there would still have been stories of elderly people forced to move out of the house they were born in or very ill people forced to move.

As far as I'm aware the Judge has no qualms about the illegality of the site and the actual eviction itself,just how to go about it in an orderly way with minimum distress for ALL parties involved. Just dotting the i's and crossing the t's .

'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.'

So it emerges that it is not known for a fact at all that 'the Travellers' do not pay council tax? How is it ok to publicly hint that they do not? How is this not racist stereotyping?

They do seem to get an awful lot of legal aid hence it dragging on for years'. If they had to pay more costs do you think it would have gone this far.

But Maths what has the council tax non payment got to do with being racist. If some of them intimidate the locals, do you think anyone would come along and chase them for council tax.

There are facts and figures about the payment of council tax benefit and housing benefit by Basildon Council to the travellers in question on the Telegraph's website, FWIW.

Who do the Dale Farm travellers rent their abodes from? I am confused.

I would have thought if it was just a case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's,then it would have been dealt with today,ready for eviction proceedings to start on Monday morning.

I wonder if the Travellers presented the evidence they found about planning permission being applied retrospectiely.

'Democracy can only work if people obey laws even when they don't profit from them. It's no use every group sulking that they don't gain anything from this law or that.'

So the independence campaigns of the United States of America and India and Pakistan and Ireland were all anti-democratic exercises carried out by groups of sulking individuals who refused to obey the law that said they were British subjects?

The Civil Rights movement in the US was another band of whinging sulkers presumably, refusing to obey the law and threatening democracy? They had no right to sulk because they didn't profit from this law or that?

They should have all been happy because there were hospitals and railways and roads?

Quite likely the one who bought the land in the first place

How is that any different to a non traveller claiming Hb to pay a private landlord?

Some of them have chronic health problems so have a very genuine claim to benefits.

They just want to make sure they get it absolutely spot on this time so the Traveller's lawyers can't find another dot missing to drag that through the courts again. It's worth the wait.
Bubbles genuine question,how would their latest find change their case?

'But Maths what has the council tax non payment got to do with being racist?'

It is racist to assume they don't pay tax and racist to broadcast your assumption as fact.

If it turns out after reference to the appropriate records that none of them has been paying council tax then it is perfectly reasonable and not racist to post this.

To go ahead and blithely accuse an entire group of non-payment of council tax without knowing the facts is racist because your assumption is based on a negative stereotype.

I didn't realise that there was a single landowner renting out the plots / abodes.

Well,Basildon have refused retrospective planning permission citing greenfield status,well documents have been obtained showing retrospective planning permission for an illegally built dwelling on the edge of Dale farm,puts a whole different slant on things.

'All the advances we have made are available to them.'

Oh the White Man's Burden. How onerous it must be to carry all that around.

'what is stopping the Travellers from buying sites that would be likely to be granted planning permission?'

Maybe, despite many uninformed assertions to the contrary, the Travellers are not in fact rich?

Or maybe it's the same thing that stops even councils from providing sites. The 'likely' word. The likelihood of being turned down has nothing to do with the land and everything to do with the applicant.

That's interesting Bubbles,thank you for clarifying. Would you happen to know if this building is on the now legal site or on the illegal part? Suppose that might make a difference too?

So it emerges that it is not known for a fact at all that 'the Travellers' do not pay council tax? How is it ok to publicly hint that they do not? How is this not racist stereotyping?

FFS do you cry racist at everything? That's not being racist, that's asking a perfectly valid question to clarify a statement. That wasn't 'hinting' at all.

Has nobody ever told you that being able to learn from others' opinions takes strength of character and is not a weakness? Do you actually take on board what others say, or do you just pick and choose what you wish to read? I see plenty of other posters listening and learning, but you sure aren't one of them.

I don't know that, but that would be the most likely legitimate explanation linerunner. I do know the land was bought and it is just a planning permission issue. If they are up to anything benefit wise how come they have not been done for fraud?

Its not on Dale farm,it is on land that borders it,but it does show that retrospective planning permission can and has been given.

Bubbles, is that Len Grierley's place? I thought his house was still without planning permission. Because if it is his, he should have been the next on the list to be evicted.

That would be a completely separate issue/investigation though wouldn't it? How does that effect the Travellers case? (Sorry bit naive,but I find it very interesting )

It is his house,an enforcement notice was issued but an appeal was allowed and planning permission applied retrospectively.

How is it ok to state without evidence that the Travellers do not pay council tax, since you object to the word 'hint'

mankyminks,it shows that planning permission has been granted on a greenfield site in the area.