Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

AIBU to find it disgusting that gypsies have taken over a school playground

808 replies

Adizzylass2014 · 04/04/2015 22:17

whilst attending my best friends wedding today in a little village I was horrified to see that gypsies had taken over the school playground. There was rubbish all over the floor, children and dogs running all over the place and scantily clad women puffing away.
why a school playground, these people have no morals. The poor caretaker is going to have his work cut out for him as there was at least 15 caravans! Angry

OP posts:
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 05/04/2015 17:36

Not at all. White people invaded and displaced the indigenous people in that case. Not just eroding their way of life but actually taking over their entire country.

I'd say we are doing a pretty effective job of displacing the travelling community....

madreloco · 05/04/2015 17:37

The travelling community want special dispensation to live their lives in a way that nobody else would be allowed to. Everyone else in society is expected to only occupy land that belongs to them or is properly rented. Everyone else is expected to provide their children with a minimal education. Everyone else it expected to pay proper taxes and clear up their own rubbish and obey road laws (ten time higher driving fatalities amongst the traveller community, guess why?).

It is not discrimination in any form to say: these minimum standards we expect all people to keep too, black or white, indigenous or immigrant, male or female, all religions; we expect this from you too. Citing your way of life just isn't enough, same as it wouldn't be for any other minority grouping you could mention.

This is not prejudice. This is reality.

Andylion · 05/04/2015 17:38

Travellers are asking for somewhere to live, not somewhere to live altogether. It isn't the same as your example at all.

SoupDreggon, it's my understanding that the Dale Farm residents, for example, objecting to being re-homed because they wouldn't all be together.

worridmum · 05/04/2015 17:40

you do know theres a speical word that used to mean black but its now seen as a deeply offence word and I will give you a hint it begins with N and ends with R

The word only means black how can it be used as an insult........

Ubik1 · 05/04/2015 17:42

What do you mean worridmum

ResurrectAndEatShitChoc · 05/04/2015 17:44

Noir?

worridmum · 05/04/2015 17:45

sorry thread moved on so fast it was in reference to the groger not being used as an insult when in fact it is being refered to and was using a word from the english langauge that basically meant black but now conisdered the most racist word in our lanaguge and rightly so

ResurrectAndEatShitChoc · 05/04/2015 17:46

I can't be offended for travellers having a name for me, a non traveller, as I call them travellers so they do need a name for us.

Sorry if my post stirred this up, I was just wondering if he was calling me that or not and if I need to be offended nowGrin

Ubik1 · 05/04/2015 17:46

Eh?

worridmum · 05/04/2015 17:47

and no resurrect Noir is french for black I am thinking of the word that would get me banned for writing it and i doubt your so dense to not no the word i mean and its offensive to people of africain decsent

SmillasSenseOfSnow · 05/04/2015 17:49

madreloco, I'm sure you could pick lots of aspects of non-travelling communities lives and hold them up as 'minimum standards' that everyone should aim to meet. The problem is that it's quite easy to fall into a trap of picking otherwise arbitrary criteria that are defined solely by the fact that travelling communities don't do them.

You can't argue that travelling communities would be treated fairly except they just don't play ball when it comes to 'fitting in' enough to benefit from the rules you've made, when the rules have been made specifically with preventing the travelling communities from following them in mind.

E.g. 'If they just settled and stopped moving around, everything would work' 'But they don't want to settle, moving around is their cultural heritage and a key part of their way of life.' 'SEE? They just refuse to live like normal people. Well fuck 'em then, fucking pikeys, nothing more we can do.' Hmm

ResurrectAndEatShitChoc · 05/04/2015 17:51

worried I just made a very bad joke. I know what word you mean Grin

JacquesHammer · 05/04/2015 17:52

'If they just settled and stopped moving around, everything would work' 'But they don't want to settle, moving around is their cultural heritage and a key part of their way of life.' 'SEE? They just refuse to live like normal people. Well fuck 'em then, fucking pikeys, nothing more we can do.

I don't necessarily think they should settle and stop moving around - that's their right if they want. BUT I do think they should stop invading land belonging to other people - who equally have the right to quiet enjoyment of their land surely?

SmillasSenseOfSnow · 05/04/2015 17:55

I'm confused, worridmum, are you suggesting that all descriptive terms for ethnicities/groups of people become pejorative at the same rate and at the same time? I.e. because 'nr' was not seen as offensive but now is, gorger must therefore also be as offensive as 'nr'?

It must be me that's confused because that's one of the daftest things in this thread (and there's a lot of competition).

SmillasSenseOfSnow · 05/04/2015 17:58

Give them enough places to go then, Jacques. The reason nowhere is provided is because there's an attempt to eradicate this way of living. That and I'm sure they provide a nice distraction and scapegoat for a lot of politicians if they're annoying everyone no matter where they go. If they had suitable places to go, people might stop hating them and find someone else to complain about.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 05/04/2015 17:58

BUT I do think they should stop invading land belonging to other people - who equally have the right to quiet enjoyment of their land surely?

But this'd land didn't always belong to other people/wasn't always so heavily policed. There are not (as far as I know) enough legal sites for all of the travellers and (as far as I know) the population hasnt significantly expanded. They uses to have places to stay. Now they dont. They are prevented from buying their own land and establishing sites. Councils are also discouraged from creating sites. Many travellers just have nowhere to go.

Andrewofgg · 05/04/2015 18:02

ItsAll They are subjected to the same planning laws and polices as anybody else and so they should be.

Ubik1 · 05/04/2015 18:02

I get the land thing - but is it necessary to leave several tonnes of rubbish and rubble behind, let horses roam about on busy A roads ruin farmers fields, render parks unusable for weeks afterwards?

I think travellers have to accept responsibility fur that - we are one society and communities should be respected. Our communities will do our best to accommodate travellers in terms if healthcare and education - surely not leaving a horrendous mess behind would be a welcome gesture.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 05/04/2015 18:04

ItsAll They are subjected to the same planning laws and polices as anybody else and so they should be.

Indeed. But I imagine a travellers site gets a hell of a lot more opposition than a caravan site...

Sallyingforth · 05/04/2015 18:07

They are prevented from buying their own land and establishing sites

I didn't know that 'travellers' were banned from buying land. is that a new law, or one that has just been kept very quiet?

As to establishing sites, they can choose any land designated for development. Or are you suggesting that certain self-selected groups should be exempted from planning regulations?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 05/04/2015 18:12

I didn't know that 'travellers' were banned from buying land.

Of course they are not banned. But I imagine the vast majority of landowners would not want to deal with the grief they would get if they sold land to travellers. Plus, I imagine that as a population many travellers would not be able to afford the land.

As to establishing sites, they can choose any land designated for development.

Indeed. And go through the planning process. Where every member of the local population will massively object, as will local councillors and MPs.

IFinishedTheBiscuits · 05/04/2015 18:13

I thought nationality is a legal status but ethnicity is how you see yourself?

NotallTravellersarebad · 05/04/2015 18:23

Gypsies and Travellers are not banned from buying land, they are banned from changing its use, hence planning permission. That is refused 9 times out of 10.

NotallTravellersarebad · 05/04/2015 18:24

Posted too soon.
Therefore many Gypsy/Travellers are deemed to living "illegally". Even the term is offesensive. Nobody housed, who doesn't pay the rent us called living there illegally afaik.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/04/2015 18:25

Are you suggesting that certain self-selected groups should be exempted from planning regulations?

A very pertinent question, Sallying

I accept there can be difficulties for travellers who wish to buy land, but it's certainly not automatically banned as the advice on this site clearly shows: www.gypsy-traveller.org/where-you-live-2/buying-land/

I'd like to think that the traveller community deal effectively with any criminality among themselves - for all I know they may do exactly that, though nobody answered my earlier question about this. Unfortunately, the bulk of the responses about it have merely suggested "you get criminal in the gorger community too" or "since everyone thinks we're disgusting there's no reason to behave otherwise"

Sad, really

Swipe left for the next trending thread