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.......

Math, you keep saying that the travellers will just go and act illegally somewhere else. You should feel ashamed to be making such claims against them without proof.

btw if we were to make enough sites for anyone who wanted to be a traveller (I hope you are not suggesting it be racially restricted) then it wouldn't be enough to make one spot per family. As they travel around they might all happen to go to Basildon or all happen to go to Brighton. Each town must therefore have enough spots for the whole number of travellers. Otherwise you are restricting their human right to free movement.

Oh and phone the EU cos that means traveller sites in every town in Europe.

'Your opinion is that it would be more pragmatic to build sites for travellers, and I would be in some agreement with you there. But the fact that councils have not built sites is not a reason for travellers to just go ahead and build on greenbelt land with impunity.'

Yes it is, Notacitychick. Because their alternative is??????

There is no idealism here. Where are they to go?? That is not a hypothetical issue. It is not some abstract question. 80-something families may well find themselves and their dwellings on the road some time in the next few weeks, with children who need to be in school, babies needing to be born, people needing to see the doctor for one thing or another. Where are they going to go?

'You see, Math, it is an idealistic argument you have there, because it has no grounds in current law. It is how you are arguing things should be.' So the alternative to finding a sensible solution is to do exactly what with the Travellers, Notacitychick? To point to the law and shrug? Where are they going to go?

When I say they will go somewhere else and likely will camp illegally it is not because I am looking down my nose at them for being some sort of habitual scofflaws. I guarantee they will end up somewhere else that is unsuitable just because there are no other appropriate places available for them. Onagar -- they are not going to just disappear. When they cannot find places to settle that are legal, then the only alternatives are to jump into the sea or stay somewhere illegally.

Onagar -- Anyone who wants to can be a (New Age) Traveller; all it takes is a trailer and a desire not to live in a house, but only people whose families/ancestors are Irish Travellers are classified as Irish Travellers. I don't know what is so difficult for you about the concept of ethnicity and how it is defined. Your little attempts at cleverness on this theme are really stupid.

I responded to your comment about 'returning' to Ireland upthread, Alemci. Just because they are called Irish Travellers does not mean they are Irish by birth. Lots of them are British born and bred. They are called Irish Travellers to distinguish them from Scottish Travellers and New Age Travellers and because Ireland is their ancestral homeland, but perhaps many generations removed.

math Do you not grasp that it is a changing world and that travellers cannot be immune from that?

It is preposterous to suggest that the world owes them scope to live according to their preferences regardless of the effect on others.

Math We'll just have to agree to differ on the subject of greenbelt land won't we? I note that you ignored the common ground that we do have, namely that I also think councils should provide sites - and no, I don't expect them to vapourise into thin air - but I don't pretend to have all the answers. I don't happen to think buying and developing greenbelt is 'ok' or an 'ok' solution to the Travellers plight though, and I never will. Greenbelt land is sacrosanct - it is precisely what prevents urban sprawl and protects the British countryside. There is other land available for residential building on - you just have to pay a bit more for it.

FWIW I have always been in two minds about the eviction of the Dale Farm site specifically because the land was a scrapyard beforehand. This has been bolstered even more by the ruling yesterday that 5 of the permanent structures would remain on the site, and so the council cannot restore the land to greenbelt. Furthermore, I have seen what gypsy evictions look like and they are not pleasant - I wouldn't relish it at Dale Farm despite what alice may think.

Math - have you thought of campaigning for the compulsory provision of sites for travellers? After all, as you so eloquently told me a few pages back - we get the public services we deserve. This is obviously something close to your heart.

Furthermore math I'm not sure your polarising the debate the way you have on this thread is helpful to anyone. I'm convinced that the solution is to find middle ground and sympathy on both sides.

An eviction will use whatever force is neccessary to uphold the law and remove the illegals.

So no force at all if the travellers move on freely.

Gettting manhandled is a choice many of the travellers will be happy to make if it supports their 'persecution' argument. Looks good in the news and is a recruitment banner for more useful idiots. It is 100% their decision.

Can only agree with lassylass. And as for the travelling community at Dale Farm going on about the waste of council money. Well,they could save us an awful lot by hooking up their caravans voluntary and just going. That would also gain them an awful lot of sympathy votes.
No wonder people are fearsome of inviting these groups to stay anywhere near where they live if there is a great chance of it developing into another Dale Farm.
That would also make it more difficult for them to gain planning permission elsewhere. Vicious circle really.

Andrewofgg, it appears to me that it is not the Travellers but the settled community that is having the biggest challenge accepting that things change, judging from the refusal to accept the reality of the Travellers' presence in Britain and the necessity of dealing with them in a way that acknowledges that they are not going to disappear.

The people of the developed west in general live according to our preference for massive use of fossil fuels, water and other resources, regardless of our effect on others; we assert our right to do that every time we get up in the morning whether we suggest the world owes us the scope to do that or not.

An eviction is a very sorry spectacle, force or no force, and it reflects very poorly on the elected officials who preside over it. The sort of 'blame it on Them' sentiment expressed there, Lassylass, is most distasteful and belongs in the schoolyard. That well-educated public officials who have a responsibility to spend the public's money responsibly should turn down offers of mediation tendered by the UN that might have defused the situation, in preference for some sort of OK Corral showdown is something that should have more heads shaking sadly.

How much more difficult could it be for them to get pp elsewhere, TheWashFairy? They could go from 90% rejection to 100%? The Travellers have been manoeuvered into a position where they have absolutely nothing to lose here.

It would be nice to get the impression from this and the other Dale Farm inspired threads here that there were more people willing to find some sort of middle ground and build a consensus based on humanist values, but in the face of the vitriol that is so apparent, the task seems futile.

"The sort of 'blame it on Them' sentiment expressed there, Lassylass, is most distasteful and belongs in the schoolyard. "

'Them' with a capital. Loving it. Hints of racism again. You really have nothing else do you.

Pleading for understanding and negotiation when the travellers have acted with complete manipulative disregard to the law or the locals for ten years is a sick joke. I cant believe you typed that without shamefaced embarrassment.

So now we are at the end. The legal system cant be played any further, the tax payer cant be exploited and their own money used against them, and the only negotiation option open to the travellers is with the sharp end of a JCB.

We got here because of the travellers. No-one else is to blame. When they are evicted it will be well deserved and reflects on no-one but them.

Did you know that the judge is hearing three judicial reviews at the moment,the decision is due on Friday,so I think its a bit premature to think its all over bar the bailiffs moving in.

Yeah you are right bubbles4.

I guess it gives the travellers a couple of extra weeks to raise the foundations on their caravans, or whatever the fuk that travellers who dont actually travel need to do to get back on the road again. Maybe also time to let the tax authorities know that they are moving on and for them to provide their forwarding addresses.

Mathanxiety,do you know what options where offered to the Travellers and what the REAL reasons for BC where to refuse these? (think Travellers where offered a site with no costs involved for BC,but that was rejected by BC?) I thought the % of rejected pp appeals by travellers was so high as they tend to go for retrospective pp for greenbelt land,not for any other reason?
What I was trying to say is because there is so little interaction between settled community and Travellers there is a lot of mutual misunderstanding regarding each others culture.
With that comes a degree of fear of the unknown which won't help the Travellers case when they do ask for pp.

Mmm, the vitriol is not just one sided though Math is it? As Maryz has drawn attention to. I do think you have a very romanticised view of Travellers as peace loving, environmentally pure 'Romany' type gypsies, living off the land. But, the vitriol towards settled folk from Travellers can also be shocking as well.

What about the woman in Cambridgeshire; Travellers were legally living on the land neighbouring her orchard. They then illegally moved their trailers onto her land, destroying beautiful ancient trees. The trees that were not chopped down were killed by the dumping of oil on the land. Not so environmentally friendly huh? When she went onto her own land they threatened to 'put her in the ground'. An old lady. On camera.

I quote this story, and I will no doubt be called racist again. But, I would like to stress that this is not anecdotal- it is a matter of public record (she applied through the courts for eviction and both her and the Travellers concerned attended public council meetings about it.)

I do think there are issues to be dealt with, seems to me that something has gone very wrong, and it does revolve around this issue of councils not providing camps; then encouraging Travellers to buy their own land to live on. But they then buy up 'cheap' greenbelt land cheap because you're not allowed to live on it . Therein lies the problem :(

The solution though is not to just let Travellers flout planning laws - it can't be. Surely you can see that if a certain section of society is allowed to above the law then it will just cause even more friction?

*allowed to be above the law

Oh, and following the Basildon Council hearing the Travellers were on camera saying 'you're dead Len Gridley'. That's beyond vitriol.

Notacitychick,in my area the councils were advised to encourage Romany gypsies and travellers to provide their own sites,and one of the guidelines was not to automatically refuse pp because it was a green site,not encouraging them to build on green sites but a slight relaxation of the rules.I agree that building should be on brownfield site,but these sites do not come on to the open market,the sites have already been sniffed out and snapped up by developers with large funds at their disposal.

(Maryz -- Have never come across Workdrivesme to the best of my knowledge but will look her up...)

Thewashfairy, I don't know how you have managed to get things so upside down, inside out and backwards here, but this:

'What I was trying to say is because there is so little interaction between settled community and Travellers there is a lot of mutual misunderstanding regarding each others culture.
With that comes a degree of fear of the unknown which won't help the Travellers case when they do ask for pp.'

• is as fine an example of mixing up cause and effect as I have ever seen.

Notacitychick, I assure you, having lived near Travellers in Ireland, that I do not have any sort of romanticised view of them. Nor do I confuse them with the Roma or Romany (or any romantic view of them either). However, I think piling on anecdotes or even items that are a matter of public record starts to constitute racism and stereotyping (and thus can be defined as vitriol) once it reaches a certain point, and I think that point was reached very early on on this thread.

Appeals of pp rejection are legal. You are entitled to appeal too if an application of yours is denied. The right to appeal is not reserved to just one group that is allegedly 'above the law', and retrospective pp is granted to far more non-Travellers than Travellers.

bubbles4 your council applies different laws according to ethnicity?

Have you reported them yet because last I heard that was illegal in the same way that "whites only" signs are illegal.

I agree with your first sentence bubbles, but the issue with brownfield sites is precisely the opposite from what you say. Brownfield sites are more likely to be difficult to develop due to the possibility of contamination, pollutants etc. A whole load of safety measures have to be in place, depending on what the land was used for in the past. In fact, the problem with re-selling brownfield sites was so great that there is a gov program to return brownfield sites to greenfield sites, in order that they can then be used for housing development.

Don't confuse greenfield with greenbelt - greenbelt is specifically the land surrounding towns and cities to prevent urban sprawl and uncontrolled growth eating into the countryside. Greenfield is just agricultural land. Greenbelt is far harder (but not impossible) to get planning permission for development (I believe).

Residential land is for sale, just you pay a massive premium for land which already has residential pp.

The following are reasons why Plymouth CC is taking the bull by the horns:

'Alternative options considered and reasons for recommended action:
Tolerating the current situation is not a realistic option, because;-
? An unplanned, ad hoc and reactive approach will incur increased costs, arising from dealing with unauthorised encampments estimated at £200,000 to £300,000 a year and other costs arising from possible breaches of planning control and related appeals.
? An unplanned approach is inconsistent with commitments in the Corporate Plan and will damage the reputation of the City Council as a progressive forward thinking authority.
? Unauthorised encampments costs will remain (or rise) and management of them will become more difficult.
? Unauthorised developments will rise and there is an increased risk of planning applications being allowed at appeal, with associated costs being awarded against unreasonable planning decisions.
? Gypsies? needs will not be met and therefore significant inequalities will remain.'

There are broader elements to take into account than your piss taking approach does, Onagar, when considering the topic of inequality. But of course you know that.

"retrospective pp is granted to far more non-Travellers than Travellers"

It really depends though on the kind of retrospective pp i.e. are you comparing apples with pears. Looking on the internet non-travellers were granted retrospective pp for wendy houses, conservatories, etc. This is not comparable to houses being built on the green belt.

If you have stats that show non travellers have greater success at gaining retrospective planning permission for houses on the greenbelt, than travellers, then I would agree that that looks like racism. But your example does not prove that at all.

And you can buy land to build on - but it is not easy to find and it costs a lot more than greenbelt land.