Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
KellyKettle · 20/09/2011 09:12

Do they really not pay council tax or for utilities? Or income tax on their earnings on whatever gardening/maintence work they do?

I'd be interested to hear what those who have defended the Traveller community think about that.

If it's true then it does seem quite one sided. What's the phrase you see on here a lot lately - they know a lot about their rights but little about their responsibilities?

SansaLannister · 20/09/2011 09:19

I completely agree with Cote and edam.

SarahStratton · 20/09/2011 09:22

Some do Kelly.

I've got to say that these threads have been an education. I tarred them all with the same brush, but I've learnt a lot and realise I was wrong. I can see from others' experiences that there are legal sites where Travellers and house dwellers live peacefully and respectfully side by side.

It's a shame it can't be like that everywhere.

aliceliddell · 20/09/2011 10:25

The tone of some posts on here is evidence enough that the 'Stop ethnic cleansing' signs put up on the site by residents are not an overstatement.

Meteorite · 20/09/2011 10:29

I don't understand why the council pays. If people are living somewhere illegally why aren't they liable for costs incurred?

Dillydaydreaming · 20/09/2011 10:33

Alice they have been there 10 years illegally. Just WHY do you think that the law being upheld is "ethnic cleansing".

They have broken planning laws for the past 10 years, it's not ethinic cleansing, it's enforcement of the law that they have to live by as well as us.
I have never had an issue with the legal part of the camp, they generally live peacefully and there are no problems. The issue is with the illegal part o the camp and believe me when I tell you that there are some real trouble makers there as those of us who have to live alongside them know only too well.

Why why why should they be allowed to flout the law and stay?

onagar · 20/09/2011 11:53

aliceliddell, I understand that the BNP agree with you about having different laws for minorities.

In this country we prefer equality and one law for all.

aliceliddell · 20/09/2011 12:03

Like the law being completely impartial- 'it bans rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges'?

onagar · 20/09/2011 12:08

oh I am far from happy that there are immensely rich people while others are poor (especially as I am poor) but the idea that disagreeing with a law gives you the right to break it is nonsense.

And certainly "you want to break this law? hang on while I check your skin color against the list" isn't going to work.

Remember we used to have different laws for black people and women. We have tried to get rid of all of that.

onagar · 20/09/2011 12:10

These people were banking on people like yourself being on their side you know. As in "there's one born every minute"

Pendeen · 20/09/2011 12:15

YABU yes. The alternative?

As a country we could accept that we should allow some forms of law breaking because of the cost.

Let's go even further. It costs about £40,000 keep one prisoner for one year and £170,000 to build each prison place so there's a huge saving to be made if we release every prisoner and close down all the prisons.

The cost of evicting these criminals (for that is what a court has found them to be) is worth it.

edam · 20/09/2011 13:38

Blame the travellers who have occupied land illegally for the costs. They are the ones doing wrong. And the ones dragging it out for 10 years using every trick in the book.

Blubell · 20/09/2011 13:55

Pendeen I didn't say we should let them get away with breaking the law, but if they've been breaking it for 10 years they're obviously going to still be there if you leave the eviction 18 months. Try to reach a compromise, use the UN's offer, this eviction is not going to rid the area of travellers, simply reduce their numbers. There are different levels of crimes, to say "oh let's just let all criminals go because that costs money" is ridiculous, they are not rapists, or murderers, and to use the adage "a crime is a crime and should be punished" is silly too because I defy anyone to say they have never, ever broken a law of some sort, be it speeding, underage drinking, pocketing the pencil in IKEA... Perspective is needed, should an old lady die because she's fallen out of bed trying to take herself to the loo because her care package has cut just to finance an eviction? Because that's the kind of thing it is going to boil down to. IS it worth it? unfair I know, but fact.

OP posts:
Blubell · 20/09/2011 13:56

Two wrongs don't make a right Edam

OP posts:
aliceliddell · 20/09/2011 14:14

I'll (generously) assume it's not deliberate. You don't have to like people as individuals or as representatives of a particular culture to understand the basic principles of direct and indirect discrimination. You dont have to want to live next door to them. You can still recognise that laws can impact on different groups in different ways. That's what leads to indirect discrimination. Like turbans and crash helmets/uniforms etc.

onagar · 20/09/2011 14:17

Two wrongs don't make a right

Which two wrongs?

When police arrest someone for speeding is that two wrongs?

AnneWiddecomesArse · 20/09/2011 14:21

I know about the defecating in fields/paths etc. (unfortunately); as a result of traveller camps; and as recorded by Channel 4 Dispatches last night. We had 1500-2000 travellers for a weekend at a "Christian" festival prior to the mass invasion. I recorded my experience on previous threads and the piles of shit that were left.
We used to shit on paths, streets, roads and in woods years ago in this country, in Medieval times.
Time and science showed that random human defecation isn't a great idea unless you're into (for example) ..cholera.

Why should any culture (by it's existence) threaten Others ? It's not racist; it's self preservation for the majority.
Mathanxiety will pop up again.
Simple question Mathanxiety. Do you accept that we all have the right to crap wherever we want ?

Blubell · 20/09/2011 14:22

ongar Edam said "blame the travellers, they are the ones doing wrong" but just because they have does not mean everyone else has to, and I think spending £18m to evict them at the expense of other things like carers, which must be happening given that Essex council has to cut £300m in 3 years, is wrong.

OP posts:
thecaptaincrocfamily · 20/09/2011 14:27

I think the system needs to change completely. i.e. the council provides a specialised chipped card for the electric on site and the gypsies have to pay for it to be issued/ topped up to cover council tax at a rate that covers all utilities, instead of squandering the money to clear a site that will likely be invaded again once it is cleared. If there were more specified areas and a scheme to collect funds for utilities there wouldn't be the same issue.

However, the Dale Farm residents aren't paying and that isn't fair.
The Geenbelt issue is complete tosh really because you can put up temporary residents/ building, just not permanent.

It was a scrap yard fgs!

There are plenty of non travellers living in council accomodation they aren't entitled to, not paying tax, claiming benefits, disability when not entitled.
So YANBU but they are the easy target. More over they don't generally claim benefits.

aliceliddell · 20/09/2011 14:32

AnneW I've seen people holding their kids to wee/poo in parks 5 mins from toilets in London. It's not a great idea. But they weren't getting evicted in a police raid for having no planning permission.

Blubell · 20/09/2011 14:35

I agree captain' I'm not saying they should be allowed to break the law, just that there could be a more cost effective way of going about things, just like you've suggested.

OP posts:
cookcleanerchaufferetc · 20/09/2011 14:36

They are breaking the law ... Simple as that.

AnneWiddecomesArse · 20/09/2011 14:50

I'm sure you have alice. The odd toddler wee/poo, I've done it myself when toilet training and my DD couldn't make the loo without an accident. I then cleaned up behind me. Don't see that as a problem. If I had a dog I would also clean up behind me.
1500 adults and children shitting in your village al fresco and not clearing up is a "Cultural" choice by "Travellers". They don't shit in their own caravans. They shit on other people's doorsteps; don't clear it, and then move on. Dog owners are required to remove dog shit. Travellers (in my experience) of a "Christian Traveller festival"; do not remove their own shit.
I'ts a "Culture" that I don't wish to support. There is a total disregard for anybody and everyone outside their own community.

mathanxiety · 20/09/2011 15:27

How long would it take for the Travellers to rack up £18m in water, electricity, gas and council tax charges?

Are people here seriously suggesting the council should pay £18m to stop being taken for what is by comparison a drop in the ocean?

It makes no sense.

Of course we do not have a right to crap wherever we want to. However, up to relatively recently, not medieval times at all, many people in the UK had no choice but to share communal outdoor privvies and of course many just went wherever they liked or wherever they were forced to when the one toilet for one hundred people inevitably packed it in. There were ash pits too, inside houses, which servants had to empty much like cat boxes. Until the 1960s many in rural areas of Ireland and Britain had an outdoor toilet.

Yes, it's a public health issue. Are you suggesting that the Travellers prefer the bushes to outdoor toilets though, innately inclined to soiling the environment? (And if so, I presume your desire to see them housed in council houses means council houses a long way from you and your shrubbery?)

I personally would like to see a documentary on the Glastonbury Festival, that noted Traveller extravaganza of rubbish generation and public defecation, seeing as how keeping England pristine is something people care about. This may be news to you, but apparently there's not much will to enforce the law when it comes to public defecation or even the presumably much more common issue of public urination. Here's a few policemen discussing the matter. The question of criminal damage to bushes would not survive any kind of audit, but it is obvious that the problem of drunk and disorderly non-Traveller individuals befouling the streets and alleys of towns and cities on weekend nights is something of a problem. [warning; link contains refreshingly frank sexism]

'two million pints of urine per annum are said to be deposited on the streets of London alone' Shock. I'm sure that's not all Traveller urine. It seems there is a large section of the British population that considers it has a right to use the great outdoors as a urinal.

House of Commons Committee Report on the provision of public toilets nationally. As with provision of serviced sites for Travellers or Romany/Roma, short sighted local authorities who skimp on the provision of public toilets for whatever reason end up dealing with the sadly predictable and expensive consequences. Predictable to anyone with an ounce of common sense that is.

mathanxiety · 20/09/2011 15:30

Glastonbury of course is not a Christian festival so at least there's no irony involved in the defecation.