Dale Farm Eviction

[niceguy2]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-15163750

It seems sanity has prevailed. Let's hope there are no more delays and the site is cleared ASAP

So you couldnt give a shit if babies and toddlers are living in laybys. They cant travel as their not allowed to stop anywhere. Last year they couldnt travel to Appelby fair because the councils and police barricaded all the laybys off. Since before 1750 they have been travelling there but now they cant.

I feel I haven't really had a response to this earlier post so I'm repeating it.

I'm not sure why you are trying to blame the authorities for every problem the traveller community has. Are they children? Have they no responsibility for their own fortunes?

If the travellers want to travel in Britain, they need to home educate their children appropriately to stay within the law.

If the travellers want to settle in Britain and educate their children in schools, they need to settle according to British law.

If they find themselves unable to do so, or dislike British planning or education legislation, they are free to travel out of the country.

If they chose to confront the legislation within the country then action will be taken.

Fifi they don't have to live in laybys. There are vacant sites elsewhere in Britain.

few corrections: if math is talking about the thing i think she is talking about, a Permitted Development Certificate - then an amendment to a house might take 4 years to obtain, but a whole house....or change in use of a property ...would take 12 years of being there 'without let or hindrance'

that's alot of time to be hiding the fact that you live somewhere. one letter from a council planning officer in that 12 years and the game is up.

the 90% stat - an interesting one.

how likely would the average person to get planning permission for 'placing a caravan/ mobile home on agricultural/ commercial land' ?
if that person is a farmer - they stand a reasonable chance. so long as they can prove a work-related reason (eg, i want the van there so i can be out with the flock during lambing = good reason) - they may still have their work cut out though.
if that person is an average body who wants somewhere to live, or even somewhere to go on holiday - no chance. 10% would seem optimistic.
the reason travellers have a chance at all is because there is some dispensation in the planning regs for them (not as good as the dispensation for farmers!).

are there political reasons for appeals being granted? in our area, the local council routinely opposes all development. for a larger development, the county council decide - and they are currently pushing a large build of 50 odd houses. the county council has targets of houses to build, the local council wants to please their voters. county councils used to be targeted with legal pitches as well - was this why they were granting them on appeal? (them not having the same interest in pleasing locals?)

what %age are appealed? are some just spurious applications to delay an inevitable site clearance? part of a cat-and-mouse thing?

and a case study for you :) a picturesque village near me had these permissions to approve -

1. second traveller van on site with one extant van
2. porch extension to pub, to allow smoking
3. second house on piece of residential land (land currently used as parking)
4. knock down 3-bed house, rebuild as 4-bed

all but one were turned down....4) was granted ..as it didn't constitute 'development' - as commented on previous threads, planning in some areas seems lax - in rural areas of the south of england, it is very tough indeed. how much of that 90% are applications in places like this?

You forgot the bing bang bong bit. What response do you want to that?

Your questions seem rhetorical more than genuine expressions of bafflement.

that's very informative poe

You responded to, and agreed with bing bang bong. I reposted the parts that you didn't address.

Rhetoric or expressions of bafflement - hard to disagree with, which I guess is the reason why you didn't address them.

So why cant they have their own schools like other faiths. We have a large OthodoxJewish community here who dont mix and have their own schools, playgroups and medical centres.

Or should the othodox Jews piss off back to where they originated from as well

heres some info for you, most of them dont originate from Ireland and are English born. Why would they toddle back to Ireland. Half of them probably havent even been.

www.applebyfair.org/about_gypsy_travellers.html

I don't see how you can disagree with any of my points there actually. I suppose I reposted just to show you that these are the basic facts, and I don't see how anyone can justify the rejection of the law which the travellers have chosen.

Fifi, that is a terrible thing to say about the Orthodox Jewish community.

I'm sure the traveller community could organise themselves into a legal and approved home education collective should they show the desire, ability and commitment to do so.

Have they?

How is it horrible,

I havent said anything, i was asking marypole if she thinks other faiths and communities should go back to where they come from like she has said the gypsies should

even though they were born in England

They dont mix and have their own community and beliefs like the gypsies yet they are not persecuted. Point proven.

'mostly illiterate environment where a lot of verbal give and take between adults and children'

That says to me 'different culture' and evokes more pity than anything else. Children whose parents are illiterate do not do well in school, and no, not everyone grows up in a children should be seen and not heard household.

EAP -- if there is a designated time limit for change of use, etc., then obviously the phenomenon is not unheard of.

Here's a booklet prepared by various bodies with an interest in planning in Devon (Devon Association of Local Councils, Devon County Council, Plymouth and Devon Racial Equality Council, Community Council of Devon and others) "In excess of 80% of applications for pitches [were] refused" since 1994 when LAs were relieved of the duty to provide sites for Travellers and Gypsies. They have a right to live in caravans or chalets as mobility or potential mobility is part of their traditional culture.

You are right that the attempt to clamp down on Travellers and the nomadic way of life/pitching camp in the countryside or in towns has had an impact on everyone, farmers included. That's what happens when a sledgehammer is used where it is not needed.

It's hard to say what proportion of applications or appeals are cat and mouse affairs for any group or individual, but if they can be accused of doing it just to delay eviction isn't it reasonable to conclude that they actually want to stay there or need to stay there -- why would they want to delay eviction otherwise? I don't think it can be ascribed to downright mischievousness when there might be children in school or a job for a family member nearby, or even an old person tired of the hopping and trotting.

Here's an article by Brendan O'Neill about rural areas and pp in the south of England, and the purpose of greenbelt. A bit on the jaded side perhaps.

You keep bringing in these references to other "ethnic communities" which to be honest are starting to sound as if you resent these other communities and faiths.

It's an issue about respecting the law, civil or criminal. Ethnicity doesn't come into it, or shouldn't. It has, somewhat, to the travellers. favour, but claiming this is racism or ethnic cleansing suggests a rather perverse view of global atrocity.

If they are white Caucasian and English born, but simply enjoy a number of illegal lifestyle habits, I struggle to see the need for special protection in the name of ethnicity.

I didn't agree with the bing bang bong. I merely commented that that summed up the rest of your post. You're not doing too well at this mind-reading.

My children don't grow up in a "children should be seen and not heard" household. But they can read and write, are pretty respectful and understand what a law is.

These are not mutually exclusive. One can talk to one's children: one just needs to talk about the right things.

You are mixing up race and ethnicity and clearly know very little of Traveller culture (but that has been obvious since your 'badly brought up children' comment).

Now now math, let's not get personal.

Pity is useless when you enable the continuance of that behaviour with justification.

Do you have any response to those points above, math?

Lifestyles which do not fit in with the conventional do not automatically deserve ethnic protection.

to clarify my position: it would be wrong to ignore the potential for bias - but equally i don't think the raw 90% stat proves it - you need more of a like-for-like comparison. planning is essentially biased against any group of non-land owning people

just try building anything in this area on land that isn't already residential and see how far you get.

where there is a claim lies in the question of provision of legal pitches. If anyone is going to counter-argue that legal-pitches are difficult to provide, and keep provided, i will agree. but councils have a duty to provide them - complex issue with problems on both sides.

the eviction is going through any which way: if one lesson should be learned - it is provide good legal pitches and keeping them open will be cheaper than the 18 million spent on this!

They are persecuted and not allowed to live the way they have always lived hence this causes problems.

I used the Jewish community who have been here a lot longer than me as an example. They have a similar lifestyle albeit in bricks and mortar. They dont mix and educate their own kids in their own schools which they built themselves. Most of them arrived as immigrents. They were obviously allowed to build.

The Romany community should be able to do the same, they are forced to live on inadequate sites and refused planning permission. They have never mixed and dont want to. Like i said upthread our site is large, legal and well maintained. They pay council tax. I know the head of the community as the kids grandad is a farrier and horse shoe supplier. They are nice people who just want to live the way they have always lived.

I dont resent other faiths. I respect the Jewish community for not changing and doing things the way they want without outside interference. They built their own community and are self sufficient

I would resent being on the council list and constantly shunted to the bottom as asylum seekers are being emergency rehoused as priority and given 4K. I DO NOT apologise for that. If that makes me racist so be it.

Poe: Tony Ball has said there are more legal pitches in Essex than any other county.

Fifi - if it's your opinion that making them respect the same law as everyone else involves persecution then so be it. It's not mine.

well, i see Brendan O'Neills point.

no votes in approving new developments though.

If you have a gripe with the designation of the Travellers and Romany, Scottish Travellers, Roma, etc., as ethnic minorities, then take it up with your MP. They have languages, origins and cultural practices including but not limited to nomadism that distinguish them from the rest of society in Ireland, Britain and mainland Europe, and those are the reasons for their ethnic minority designation. A different language and culture is not a lifestyle.

A comparison of 80-90% turning down vs. 20% turning down of initial pp is quite a difference.

'the eviction is going through any which way: if one lesson should be learned - it is provide good legal pitches and keeping them open will be cheaper than the 18 million spent on this!' I could not agree more.