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.......

Who said he was a saint? They also threatened to burn him out of his house. People can be pushed over the edge. Like I said, I'm no apologist for him but you'd have to be a bit nuts to think old Len did that out of pure unprovoked sadism.

But what do Plymouth actually do Math (other than agree with your ideology)? Do they provide permanent sites? Do Plymouth not evict travellers who set up illegally? Our council doesn't seem to.

I do give credence that a lot of the problems are down to the bad handling of the council. Whether you believe that Dale Farm should stay or go, I think most people would agree it has been badly handled by BC. I believe the Cottenham residents in Cambs held their council similarly responsible for their problems too.

I don't agree with redesignating greenbelt I'm afraid, greenfield is fine, but greenbelt is too important.

Yes, they provide permanent sites, and they are in the process of implementing their plan and securing the funding for the additional sites their plan envisages. They have recognised that the necessity for and existence of unauthorised sites is a blind alley for both 'sides'. They also recognise that appeals against evictions are more likely to succeed when a council evicts without providing any reasonable alternative.

So sorry Maryz twas a rushed namechange because of the very personal experiences I posted waaaaaay back. Will revert to my 'proper' name again soon and leave this thread a distant memory....

My usual name is properly 'capitalised'.

I understand what you're saying Maryz there is a big difference between 'some' and 'all' but on a forum when so many people post negative remarks or observations about 'Travellers near them' or 'Travellers they know of' it begins to look like a lot of muck is aimed in their general direction, with little differentiation possible among those it might end up sticking to.

There is a point where it all begins to look like an avalanche of negativity. Where does a huge accretion of individual negative observations become a generally negative trend?

I don't think Traveller support groups are saying Travellers are above criticism. There is a good deal of the poor mouth on some of the sites, but the Traveller tendency to circle the wagons is not unusual and shouldn't come as a big surprise given some of the more extreme things that are said about them. It makes it hard for people in the Traveller community to speak up about issues like DV when the whole community seems under attack from the outside. It is easier for elements in the community who are hostile to the idea of children continuing in school for secondary education to ask 'whose side are you on?' when the whole community is facing bulldozers or people who think the bulldozers can't get revved up fast enough.

Even to use some of your examples they could rightly point out the level of truancy in the general population, the fact that settled people sometimes evade insurance requirements (and actually Travellers have experienced insurance company blacklisting in the past, maybe even the present), some settled people live in places that are eyesores or far from what they were originally (look at Crumlin in Dublin for instance eyesore is in the eye of the beholder, but there are architectural heritage groups who really object to the sort of 'improvement' that has happened to the sturdy corporation houses there since the 80s, and I am old enough to remember the start of the campaign of David Norris to prevent the destruction of Georgian Dublin, sadly also old enough the remember the failure of the campaign to stop the Sam Stephenson monstrosity on Wood Quay).

I don't think anyone has said 'Travellers are a minority group and can do what they like' though (Onagar's misrepresentations notwithstanding).

There's a difference between that and reminders that they are an officially recognised ethnic minority and that their culture therefore has to be taken into account when the question of their accommodation (accommodation in the sense of housing/site provision and not bending over backwards) comes up.

Have the Travellers living on the illegal part of Dale Farm actually officially been told by the Courts they have to leave? I read an article in The Telegraph this morning about a case where a Traveller had bought green belt land without planning permission and built on it anyway. He was taken to Court and the local Council gained an injunction against him. Said Traveller refused to remove illegal building and Council took him to the High Court and he was consequently jailed for contempt of Court.
This case started in August Bank Holiday,is done and dusted and Traveller is now released from prison after removing 4 caravans from the site.
Is that not how it should be?
Don't know if I should be comparing the cases though.
Has BC made a mess of the whole legal proceedings? Is that why it has dragged on for 10 years and we now have hundreds of people to deal with?

Its all getting a bit more complicated now according to this

thewashfairy,I would presume that traveller you mentioned built without planning permission,he may have applied retrospectively and been turned down.I would think that the Council issued an enforcement notice,which he ignored,the civil matter then became a criminal matter,for which he was convicted and sent to prison.
The difference with Dale Farm is that the residents have appealed against the enforcement notice and then gone to court when turned down.This may not be a very expert view on the two situations but as best as I can do.

Thank you bubbles4