So my quiet town had a visit from our traveller 'friends' this week and

[AndThatsWhatIThinkOfYou]

They wonder why people are so against them setting up camp where ever they please.

They arrived last Wednesday on a football field with a park and caused a whole load of trouble, for example, going to the petrol station handing over euros, being told they won't accept euros as payment, they simple got in their vans and drove of.

Made a visit to our local Sainsburys got caught shoplifting, were locked in until police were called.

Local children playing on park got beaten up with sticks by the traveller children.

And to top it all of 3 vans pulling up outside a local pub, very busy, dropping their trousers and all three disgusting men casually took a shit one by one on the pub doorstep. Got in there vans and drove of.

Then left the football field and park in an absolute mess. Rubbish everywhere.

Each incident police were called but nothing has been done.

So AIBU to wonder why travellers think this behavior is acceptable? and why can't anything be done to stop it?

"As I say, I have personally witnessed the behaviour meted out to a group of Traveller children, of primary school age, who were walking along a street in the company of a (non Traveller) teacher."
How did people know they were "Traveller children"?

I do not believe if Travellers moved into a neighbourhood and behaved themselves that people would be antagonistic towards them.

"Most of the people on this thread have had negative encounters with travellers, rather than positive ones. Understandably those of us in this group are wary of travellers as a result."

It may be understandable, but it is not acceptable, IMO. A reason, not an excuse. If you are wary of travellers as a group, no matter what your personal experiences with certain individuals may be, then you are displaying prejudice. There is simply no way around that.

I am reminded of a very high profile case in New York City in the 1980s, known as the Central Park jogger case. A woman was raped and assaulted in the park, and five teenagers were arrested, tried, and convicted. Four of them were black, one was Hispanic. The hysteria surrounding this case was unbelievable. The media coined the term "wilding" to describe packs of dangerous feral teenagers, invariably from racial minority groups. The suspicion against young African American and Hispanic males in the general culture ratcheted up, the criminal justice system cracked down in ways that betrayed systemic racism, resulting in a high percentage of young men from these groups being incarcerated. And eventually it was proved that the five teenagers convicted in the original case were completely innocent. So. . . a cautionary tale about prejudice, knee-jerk responses, unintended consequences.

I guess all these sites are to be paid for and maintained with leprechaun gold then.

Expatinscotland,

I believe - I may be wrong, that it is one of the services that should be paid for via taxes (which of course include things like VAT and fuel duty, as well as the 'demand through your door' taxes).

Now you are going to say 'I don't see why I should pay for someone else's lifestyle through my taxes' ...

For one thing, it's something that we do all the time. The childless pay taxes that pay for schools. The working pay for taxes that pay for pensions. We pay tax for the upkeep of parks that we never visit, and museums that we last went into 25 years ago.

For another, you can't both bleat about the problems caused by travellers in illegal sites (throughout this thread there is a common theme that fewer problems are found in proper, maintained sites) and then say that you are unwilling for a tiny proportion of your taxes to go towards the most obvious solution (to collect all the rubbish from the settled traveller site I worked near was simply another call on the binman's round - scarcely a huge extra cost).

The ,aintained site I knew well had been in use for many years. Several families, becomning comfortable in that community and with the understanding schools and gradual adjustment of e.g. healthcare services, have bought land, put chalets on it legally, pay full taxes etc etc. It was a genuine stepping stone to the kind of changes that have been wished for in this thread. If no maintained sites are provided, that first step can never take place.

Expat there would be some money spare saved from the clear up costs and bailiff fees currently spent moving groups of travellers on.

Plus it is undoubtably cheaper to run these sites than provide housing/council tax benefit for them all if they suddenly settled and started to claim those.

The options are all costly really:

1. Council provide legal sites
2. Travellers set up as and where they want and council pay for clean up and bailiffs to move them on
3. Travellers settle as many seem to suggest they should and council pay out benefits (as I'm sure without a steady income and not enough money to buy a house/unlikely to be eligible for mortgage without permanent credit and address history - this will be the only option for most to take up this option). Then starts a thread on "all these travellers settling and claiming benefits!"

It seems there is no easy or cheap option.

If you are wary of travellers as a group, no matter what your personal experiences with certain individuals may be, then you are displaying prejudice.

^^ is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard anyone say.

Travellers already claim benefits. When my DH worked for the Jobcentre they'd regularly raid the camps to do spot checks on women claiming as single mothers, the vast majority of them had undeclared partners living with them.

OK. A town in the NW has travellers every year.
They don't cause trouble.
I used to live near their site for many years.
But the local youths beat one of the travellers to death - completely unprovoked.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3246518.stm

I was chatting to a traveller lady in nearby town whilst buying a lucky charm - she was commenting that they should move on as the local kids and youths were throwing stones and causing trouble.
She finished the conversation by saying 'well, kids will be kids, they don't really mean any harm'.

I don't think you can tar everyone with the same brush. Those particular people sound awful, but theres plenty of those in mainstream society as well.

And you really see this happening, teacher, in an era of budget cuts? Honestly, that won't realistically happen.

Tabitrha, you are surprisingly naive, then.

Are you sure that all the Afro-Carribean families who moved to London behaved in a way that meant that they deserved the prejudice shown against them? That every muslim in America post 9/11 (and I was there, so I saw it) behaved in a way that made everyone think that they were terrorists?

Sometimes, it is enough just to 'be different' to attract prejudice, whatever your own personal behaviour.

As for knowing that the children were Travellers - through their different genetic background the Travellers were observably 'different in looks' from the local - very white British - population. It was exactly analogous to prejudice agains someone with a black skin, or someone from an Asian background, or wearing a headscarf - it was a response based purely on appearance.

What you mean tabitha is if travellers stopped being travellers and became 'normal' and you genuinely can't see that that view is racist at all? I don't condone breaking the law but facilities should be provided for travellers to live the lifestyle they choose and that means councils need to provide more sites with facilities.

why were they wearing mini skirts and crop tops covered in gems?

Thank you teacher for articulating so much better than I can how I feel about this subject.

"I don't condone breaking the law but facilities should be provided for travellers to live the lifestyle they choose"
Why? If I want to live a lifestyle I can't afford, could I reasonable expect the state to provide that lifestyle for me?

Expat, which is why (if I recall) councils are required to work out requirements for GRT sites and then to provide them - it's not a 'thing TW2K would like', it's something they're meant to do, like providing enough schools etc.

Tabitha do you think settled people are entitled to housing provided by the state?

KissMeHardy, why is it ridiculous? Generalizing about an entire group of people is the very definition of prejudice.

If "traveller" is an ethnicity than fine. But ethnicity does not dictate behaviour, or lifestyle.

You would expect the state to provide you with a home tabitha that met your needs why are travellers denied that by not being provided with sites they can use.

What is stopping travellers from being provided with the same homes that settled people are provided with ie council homes or HA homes?

And we go back to you trying to force your lifestyle on others. There is also simply not the accommodation available to house all the traveller families. Why not just provide the amenities on a legal site.

There is nothing stopping travellers from being provided with settled homes. THEY DON'T WANT THEM and do not want to be 'settled'. Doh !

Because their lifestyle - the travelling lifestyle - is recognised under UK law. You might not like that, but there it is.

Some travellers decide to settle and do apply for council houses.