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.......

So:
Greenbelt is not available
Greenfield is hideously expensive, esp with pp
Brownfield is dangerous or not fit for human habitation
Councils have no obligation to provide sites

and Travellers should therefore....

Math, my post was written in response to your incredible generalisations in your comment:

"The people of the developed west live in general 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 that 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"

You can't just dismiss everything as 'stereotype'.

Mathanxiety,how is my reasoning mixing up cause and effect? Genuine question.
Makes sense to me,if both Travelling community and settled community interacted more they would probably understand each other's cultures better and there wouldn't be the immediate response of fear the minute Travellers ask for planning permission,so therefore less instant resistance from the settled community to any pp request put forward by the Travelling community.

Should what Math? Be above the law?

Don't you think that would cause more friction?

mathanxiety,I have given up engaging with that poster,they ignore questions put to them but expect you to answer theirs.They also word their posts in such a way that is anti-traveller but stops just short of being blatantly racial.

Notacitychickwasnt len Gridley arrested after threats with a shotgun.

I hadn't heard that Bubbles - not saying it's not true of course. But he has has his own life threatened.

Do you think the answer is to just let Travellers develop greenbelt sites then? To be unrestricted by planning laws? One rule for Travellers, another for everyone else? I'm genuinely interested.

I actually came to this thread with the view that the travellers should have been evicted due to the failure to obtain pp,if I seem to be supporting them its because of the posters who have aired their racist views.

As a Romany gypsy family,we applied for pp on a field that had been in the family for three generations.The racial abuse that was contained in letters protesting against the pp was horrific,this from people who didnt even know us,just knew that we were Romany gypsies.

Bubbles, yes I can totally believe that is true and I don't agree with it. That is racism so I can understand why you would be sensitive to it. The same happened in Stotfold, where a site was proposed. 3000 of the protest letters were judged by the council as racist.

I

I,m not sure if it,s true but I read on another thread that a poster has been banned because of the her postings on this thread.

No I dont think that there should be one law for travellers and one law for the rest.Everybody should conform to one law.What I think should happen is for the councils to get firmer,when they have identified land as being suitable as a traveller,s site,they should not be buckling under local protests as has been reported in the media time and time again.If action isnt taken then this problem is going to happen time and time again and nothing will ever be sorted.

Yes, I can believe that. There were a few definitely dodgy comments. I know I had a couple of posts deleted on here as well - but that was for personally attacking Math not for racism.

I had one deleted on the other thread for telling a racist bigot to f**k off,apparently its considered a personal attack,my first ever deletion in 6 years.

Math was being very annoying though

I thought it was all part of MN that you could tell people to Eff off, but apparently not (according to Olivia MN).

I find that sometimes in these debates the arguments polarise into 'for' and 'against' and often people end up arguing a stronger case than they believe ~(if that makes sense). It's quite hard to keep the sensible middle ground.

I couldnt get over her cheek in reporting me after the racial crap she had just come out with but I havent seen her since so dont know wether or not she is keeping a low profile or she has gone as well

I like the approach of Plymouth CC, i.e. where it is accepted that Travellers and Gypsies exist and need somewhere to stay and that it behoves the council to spend taxpayers' money responsibly and provide sites, thus preventing any wild accusations that certain groups are 'above the law'.

CCs contribute to the problem of the public perception of Travellers being 'above the law' when they fail to provide any alternative to the catch 22 type of bind Travellers find themselves in (outbid developers with deep pockets for available land with pp or stay on an unsuitable site in hopes of gaining retrospective pp or set up an unauthorised camp and risk the disturbance of children's education when they are moved on) and very obviously when they actually cause a problem for other LAs by moving 80+ families somewhere else -- anywhere else, doesn't matter to Basildon DC apparently...

Redesignating greenbelt land is one option among many when it comes to finding suitable sites for Travellers. The alternative to sitting down sensibly and finding somewhere for their ever-growing numbers to stay/settle temporarily is to commit the country to continuously hound them from post to pillar ad infinitum. It is also to fuel the flames of mutual antipathy.

Here's an article about Len Gridley's arrest.

Here is an illuminating set of documents related to pp for Len Gridley's house in Windy Ridge, on greenbelt land. The question of retrospective pp and the development of greenbelt land comes up in these documents. Nowhere is it suggested that no development whatsoever may be countenanced on greenbelt land. Instead, it is implied that each proposed development may be assessed on its merits as they relate to the greenbelt status. The 'law' about greenbelt development is a little fuzzier around the edges than a lot of people here are trying to say it is.

(Documents were linked to here.)

I agree with your last post.It would also help if people are going to argue for or against ,they do a little but of factual research and not actually believe everything the read in the media or what they have heard from a friend of a friend.

mathanxiety,i agree with what you are saying about Plymouth CC,but it will be interesting to see if they actually follow through with their plans,they have been dithering for ages,if one Council stands firm in the face of local opposition then other Councils will follow.

mathanxiety, I am mostly taking the piss now because really your position isn't something to be debated - just laughed at.

You want minorities to be allowed to break the law just because they are minorities.

Is that sensible? No.
Is that going to happen? No.
Are you helping them by pushing for this? No.

With friends like you they hardly need enemies.

The only part that needs debating is whether we should generally provide sites for those who traditionally have travelled about. That is a matter of opinion so both sides may have views there and different suggestions.

I'm not apologist for Len Gridley, but whether he was arrested or not does not detract from the fact that he was threatened in a public meeting 'Len Gridley you're dead'.

Only 'mostly'?

Len Gridley allegedly managed to throw diesel fuel on the plastic barricade with the aim of setting it alight. He failed. Lucky for anyone who might have been standing on the other side, whom he wouldn't have seen until it was too late. Nice.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but let's not pretend LG is any sort of saint.