Dale Farm et al

[AnneWiddecomesArse]

A continuation...

Do you really think Travellers have nothing better to do with their time than amuse themselves taking the piss out of the pp process? How surprised the other 10% must be when their little joke is taken at face value...

Among the general population, the figure for pp application denial is approximately 20%.

In light of the booklet used in Devon, do you think there just might have been concerns about hate-filled letters, issues where councillors turned down applications for reasons other than those directly related to land use or civil engineering concerns, and issues where that old chestnut of visual impact surfaced when objectors had their hate filled screeds returned with the invitation to reword them?

When something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is usually a duck.

It may be clear to you, FreddyG, but it is not at all clear to me that Traveller communities need to be destroyed, banished or forcibly assimilated.
'We are aware the operation has caused a lot of disruption to the other residents of the site and we thank them for their co-operation and understanding.? ...from this report

Cookcleanerchauffeuretc, I wonder how many FreddyG's tend to show up at hearings when Traveller applications come up for discussion...

Here's a nice civilised discussion on Horse & Hound where tips on opposing a Traveller site are shared. 'The best objections are the non personal ones, the ones that are valid planning stuff eg especially flood plains, dangerous access, lack of local services and difficulty of laying them on, protection status of land etc. Flooding risk is the best one cos it presents a danger to the residents themselves so planners wont allow that without a lot of protection work and only if that wouldnt affect those 'downstream'.' A bit more imaginative than 'visual impact', I'll hand them that...

From a Guardian report
'At the well-established Greenacre caravan park in Leighton Buzzard, which has 16 mobile homes, one of the men taken by police, who did not want to be named, said he had been living in a caravan on a Traveller plot for several years, working as a paver and was being paid £50 a day.

"I think it's all a load of rubbish and they just hate Travellers," said the man, who is in his 50s. "Plenty of men who were here wanted to be here and they were getting paid. The police coming in heavy-handed like this is just wrong."

From a Guardian report
'At the well-established Greenacre caravan park in Leighton Buzzard, which has 16 mobile homes, one of the men taken by police, who did not want to be named, said he had been living in a caravan on a Traveller plot for several years, working as a paver and was being paid £50 a day.

"I think it's all a load of rubbish and they just hate Travellers," said the man, who is in his 50s. "Plenty of men who were here wanted to be here and they were getting paid. The police coming in heavy-handed like this is just wrong."

Well I'm sure once they show the police their salary/PAYE records (which as an employer by law they have to keep), they will quickly establish that their workers were being paid above the NMW & the charges will be dismissed... (IR35 would rule out the workers being self-employed as they are working for the same employer all the time, but I'm sure the law-abiding travellers will know that)

I'm happy to be corrected, but I expect that traditionally, Travellers did not live in camps of 100s of people, or over 1,000 as are said to be at Dale farm.

They travelled - moving about in smaller groups, which had far less impact on local communities. These giant camps are something new, not part of their cultural heritage.

What shines out most clearly from Traveller websites is the feeling of all being in the same boat when it comes to the outside world. They have circled the wagons against perceived hatred and discrimination. They have every reason to believe that their stance is justified and will back up even those in their group who are jeopardising the existence of all the others because their sense of community loyalty is very strong.

The reason there are such big camps now is that LAs are in effect not obliged to provide small pitches any more. The buck has been passed to the Travellers to apply for pp on sites they themselves own. When a site becomes developed, they all pile in, because they simply have nowhere else to go. Settling in council houses or 'going back to Ireland' is not an option. There is a very predictable cycle going on here.

I absolutely agree that the law must be for all and must be seen to be for all.

I do think it is the community whose crowning glory is the law that needs to stand up for it. 'I mean, why on earth would anyone obey the law or pay taxes if they didn't have to?' Exactly.

Maybe less contempt for the letter and the spirit of the planning laws on the part of councils would be a step in the right direction. Maybe councils will see that evasion of the issue of small pitches ultimately means dealing with £18m worth of a problem in a few years, and maybe someone will put on their thinking cap and show a little leadership therefore.

The question of who is doing the wedge-driving is moot really. The fact is that if LAs are serious about seeing to it that Traveller children get to school, that Travellers have access to healthcare and vaccinations (this is important to everyone in the age of H1N1 and other epidemics), expecting Travellers to comply with tax and insurance laws and the law as it relates to DV, they must be prepared to meet the Travellers half way, since keeping track of how well compliance is going means knowing who everyone is and where everyone is. (The best way to do that is to establish numerous small pitches). LAs are the party to this imbroglio whose duty lies in those aspects of law and administration, so in order to ensure that the public's money is best spent they are the ones who need to demonstrate the ability to take the bull by the horns here. The Travellers do not see themselves as the group with the most to lose here and in some respects they are right in that perception.

Settling in council houses or 'going back to Ireland' is not an option.

Why?

Because they refuse to stay. You can't make people stay in a council house or flat. You simply can't. It is not possible. You can try to prevent people living in a certain place but you can't make them live somewhere else. And you can't criminalise living in trailers because they have a right to pursue their traditional way of life or to express that part of their identity, which historically has involved living in accommodation that is mobile. Britain has recognised them as an ethnic minority and that ethnicity involves the mobility or the potential of mobility.

'Back to Ireland' is not an option because a huge number of them are British born and bred and the responsibility of British govt and LAs. Some of them travel between Ireland and Britain, (but so do families who are Irish and not Travellers who live in Britain. My mother's cousins were evacuated from Liverpool to the farm in Ireland for years during WW2) and some of them have children born in both places.

They themselves would prefer to have their children educated and their families well, their asthma treated, doctors who know them, teachers and school communities where they wouldn't be made to feel like second class citizens. They are not asking for whole estates dedicated to them. They have traditionally lived in small groups and camped by the roadside. Providing a variety of smaller sites for small groups would cost far less than the costs involved in clearing illegal sites or going through the long appeals process or the process of eviction. It is also the cheapest in terms of establishing a rapport with them, which is necessary in order for the functions and duties of the LAs in terms of law enforcement, healthcare and education to be carried out. Providing smaller sites would also send a message to those in the settled community who feel they have a right to their absolute intransigence wrt Travellers that the way forward is civility and realism.

You see, I don't think I am the responsibility of the British Government or the LA. I am responsible for myself. I am also failing to understand why LAs have to provide for people. Surely, it is only those people who fall through the safety net who need providing for, and given support whilst they look to supporting themselves. These people choose to live outside the safety net. So why should anything be provided?

Or am I just really, really, stupid?

Bestyboop - salary/PAYE records .... Ha ha ha!

Good for you, Exit. Sturdy self sufficiency -- fantastic. No doubt you pay for all your own healthcare, etc.

When the government insists that your children be educated then you can't really opt not to do that. They send truant officers after you. Unless there is a high demand for education, why not shut down the whole system? While we're at it, the law could just decide it wasn't worth its while dealing with crime basically a drain on the public coffers to have all those police, cars, facilities up and running every day and close up shop too.

Citizens could then do as they wished with their own children and fend for themselves when dealing with criminals. They could visit a bonesetter or the local quack when hospitals closed and doctors high tailed it elsewhere in order to get paid.

The law and all of its apparatus is necessary, and over the years a consensus has been reached as to the necessity of the NHS and the education system; education is compulsory from age 5 to age 16. Same goes for a consensus on the necessity of providing housing for those unable to do so for themselves and unwilling to emigrate or live under bridges in cardboard boxes. The reasons to provide housing have historically been related to public health, as life in a foetid slum has drawbacks where infant mortality is concerned. The Travellers do not claim public housing. They generally do not want to live in council housing at all. They want the chance to live on their own land, in their own homes, paying their own way. They encounter fierce opposition to their applications for planning permission. The second best option is serviced small sites (i.e. with running water and rubbish collection) but obv they prefer running water, in their own taps, and private indoor toilets, just like anyone else does. They are perfectly willing to provide all of this for themselves. Because if the government is going to insist on children being sent to school, then the parents need an address from which to send them.

Government and society have decided that a certain standard of life is desirable and that government will provide the services necessary in order to achieve the objectives that society has set; a basic level of education and access to healthcare are therefore available and availed of by vast numbers of Britons through schools and the NHS.

They themselves would prefer to have their children educated and their families well, their asthma treated, doctors who know them, teachers and school communities where they wouldn't be made to feel like second class citizens.
They don't understand that this is difficult to achieve when they insist on living a way of life that is incompatible with modern society?

And who pays for everything that the Governement deems to be necessary for a decent standard of living Math? You are deliberately choosing to misinterpret what I said to suit your own ends. Who do you think pays for healthcare, and education and benefits and bin collections and street cleaning and so on Math. I'd put money on the fact that it isn't the travellers.

No JLK2, they insist on their own way of life just as you do. Plenty of people insist on ways of life that are incompatible with modern society.

Maryz, how can the Travellers not end up overcrowding the sites where they are able to live when there are no other options available to them thanks to the failure of LAs to provide enough small sites? They have large families (a human right) and are willing to put up with the crowded conditions in trailers that that entails. The fact that they are semi-nomadic and therefore different from the rest of society (along with language and other considerations) is enough for international bodies to recognise them as an ethnic minority, and nomadism, whether historical or in the present day is a key part of their identity and their way of life, therefore built into that designation -- whether you want to take issue with what the UN or the ECHR says about them is up to you, but the fact remains that that is the designation of the Travellers and that is what LAs have to acknowledge and work with. You can't live as your ancestors did because you are not a member of an ethnic minority (afaik). They can, in fact, turn down a council house and request instead to be allowed to settle communal style elsewhere.

I doubt if the owners of land care when someone comes along and pays cash when it's for sale. It doesn't seem to bother the government either as tax is paid out of the transaction, depending on how much the seller wants to reveal about the price. But there is no law against paying cash. The homes they build are usually of the chalet variety, prefabs that can be taken apart, quite cheap and standardised and manufactured according to general planning laws. They still need pp, and this is where they run into difficulties 90% of the time.

'Who do you think pays for healthcare, and education and benefits and bin collections and street cleaning and so on Math. I'd put money on the fact that it isn't the travellers.'

I'd put money on the fact that you don't pay in a fraction of what you take out, Exit. Millions of people take out far more than they pay in, hence the debt crisis. (And apparently plenty of people would rather pay £18m some time over the next few weeks to move the Dale Farm community on to their next port of call, a ludicrously shortsighted waste of public money and something I personally would be inclined to question, given that providing small sites would cost far less). If you're unhappy with the idea of providing basic services to people who may or may not be paying tax in whatever form then fire off a letter to your MP. But society has accepted that some members will be carried by others since the start of the Welfare State. Travellers pay VAT unless they are extremely frugal, which everyone has a right to do, and probably pay a lot in excise duties.

The idea that they have the right to refuse council houses and live in temporary or semi temporary accommodation is not mine, or some slogan the Travellers made up. Like it or not, they are a recognised ethnic minority and the law is the law where their traditions are concerned. I don't know what can be more reasonable than that -- I'm not making it up.

I don't necessarily wholeheartedly support it as the be all and end all of policy wrt Travellers; I hope it will eventually take the edge off the strong emotions that get stirred up when it comes to Travellers because encouraging that has resulted in the current standoff and in the wider standoff where all of Traveller society perceives itself to be facing down a hostile world. The law can be used to instruct everyone as to behaviour in a civil society, Travellers and members of planning committees alike. It would be really nice to see the police get tough about DV in the Traveller community. That would send a valuable message.

Wishing them away and insisting that they are just the same as everyone else so why don't they just behave like everyone else has not worked. It is irresponsible to keep on spending taxpayers' money on the same old failed policies time after time.

I don't see how the Royal Family is incompatible with modern society.

NEETs are a problem that needs to be tackled. If travellers continue to be a problem, they need to be tackled to. I see no reason why their "right" to an alternative lifestyle should take precedence over other people's right not to have to live next to the chaos, crime and unhygienic conditions created by travellers sites.

If they want sites, let them pay for them themselves. Buy land in residential zones and apply for the relevent permission to build dwellings.

"You can't live as your ancestors did because you are not a member of an ethnic minority (afaik). They can, in fact, turn down a council house and request instead to be allowed to settle communal style elsewhere."

Does that apply to all ethnic minorities then? Or is it just travellers? Many cultures are/were traditionally nomadic. Do you believe that people whose ancestors were from the nomadic traditions of Africa, the Middle East and central Asia should be entitled to the same rights as Travellers - to turn down council housing and demand to be allowed to settle in communal style with their extended families? The small sites you are arguing for would surely be open to them.

That is why the UN intervention in the Dale farm case is so bizarre - there are huge numbers of traditionally nomadic people in the world. I find it very hard to believe that the UN or EHCR is requiring all countries ensure these traditions can be maintained.

Actually Math, I think I take out far less than I pay in. Private Healthcare, Private Schooling, Private Pension. I pay tax and NI on my part time salary, and DH and I also run our own business so we pay employers NI, corporation tax, VAT, provide a good living for 12 employees and as it is a haulage business we pay enormous fuel bills, most of which goes to the government. I also do voluntary work so think my contribution is adequate.

And for what it is worth I still fail to understand why travellers have ethnic minority status. To my mind, having such a status implies there is something worth preserving, something of value, and the way the travellers live and behave now is of no value to anyone and hence is not worthy of preservation.

Travellers were given ethnic minority status in the UK, but not in Ireland, which suggests the decision was not clear cut. But, doesn't everyone of Irish decent have ethnic minority status in the UK anyway? I am pretty sure that official forms have a "white Irish" option. So maybe that is why they have special status.

What I fail to understand is what relevance it has. If you support equality, as most of us do, there should not be discrimination when it comes to law enforcement, or even allocation of social welfare. Everybody, whatever their ethnic background should have the same rights and responsibilities. And I really can't see why that should include the right to be enabled to live as your ancestors did - whether they were travellers or aristocrats. Giving special privileges, based on ancestors' lifestyle, would get quite messy for those groups who are less insular than Travellers. e.g. Do you get to enjoy these extra rights if you have one grandparent who was a nomad, or a step parent? How long before something becomes a traditional way of life - if your parents were both new age travellers, should the local authorities be obliged to ensure that you can continue that way of life?

Agree Wholly - ticking a box on an official form hardly confers rights on people.

"I doubt if the owners of land care when someone comes along and pays cash when it's for sale. It doesn't seem to bother the government either as tax is paid out of the transaction, depending on how much the seller wants to reveal about the price.But there is no law against paying cash."

The owners of the land might not care where the money comes from, but any legal professional involved in the transaction would have to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations & wouldn't just accept a wad of cash without knowing it's history ("savings from under the bed" won't do). If they somehow circumvent the use of a legal professional then the (old) owner of the land would find it very difficult to pay a large amount of cash into the bank without an audit trail of where it came from as well, (from further back than the land purchase transaction) as the Banks also have to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations.