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

I highly doubt they will. They will do something to inconvenience the locals even more and claim they were forced into it.

It is like moondog says though. There is a reason people don't want sites near them, because of the reputation. It doesn't matter that not all travellers are like that - it's a pretty big risk. The people who should be angriest at aggressively self-entitled and criminal travellers are all the other travellers who get trouble for it. Apparently there are voices on the Gypsy Council who are not pleased about Dale Farm.

Yes that 18m could have built a new estate for all the homeless people and been ploughed back into local services.

Now they have a load of homeless travellers, less council properties and a big 18m bill

I've said already, I have seen both sides of this.
Yes, I agree, the travellers on the illegal site had to go.
But it doesn't answer the bigger problem, that there has to be some sort of government policy that gives them sites they can live on.
Surely if they do have a place to call their own it would be a good start for them to educate their children, pay their way, live their alternative way of life, with mutual respect from both sides?
Isn't that what we should be aiming for, or am I being hopelessly naive?

Is it just me or does the concept of the 'traveller' (freedom of the road and all that guff) demanding permanent sites just a tad odd?

Rather like teetotallers demanding 24 hour offies on every corner.
Shome mistake, surely?

Exactly! You can live in a static or chalet, but not a house!

Blueberties. Thanks. I started out here back when I was a single dad on the LP forum. I'm not an LP anymore but I guess i stay because I like the crazies like Glasnost [hgrin]

FiFi, it's not simply about the money though is it? It became a matter of principle. As I said earlier, if the council were seen to have caved to the traveller's demands then it simply invites others to do the same. Just where do you draw the line.

What next? Do we not bother prosecuting shoplifter's because they only nicked £20 of items and it would cost 100x that to prosecute?

I know niceguy, i just dont think it has actually solved anything though. Its probably just moved the problem on elsewhere.

You also have to take into consideration the points i have raised. Someone has to address the problems the travellers face in finding legal sites and find a solution. Its simply not just a case of saying move them into houses. I have posted enough links to show predjudice is a problem and how they normally fail in the planning system.

What has happened at dale farm does not solve anything. All it does is leave a load of displaced gypsies who will keep on with the same fight they have had for centuries

Like somone else says, just because its law it doesnt make it right. Laws change all the time and you can see this in the rules for travellers and sites.

I fully undestand other people points but realistically this has not solved anything.

Those hilarious Travellers, eh? Who don't even travel! Oh my sides! Of course they're not an ethnic minority, just because they think they are. How would they know? Obviously, you'd know better. Because if you did concede they are, then it would look the teeniest bit, well, racist, to say you don't want too many of them in your kid's school, for example.

Haggy, its not about that, its about staying together as a secular community

Is it just me or does the concept of the 'traveller' (freedom of the road and all that guff) demanding permanent sites just a tad odd?

They would travel if they could park up and use other sites. They now have to try and educate their children and a lot of them do. They cant send the kids to school when they are parked up in laybys

Has anyone read anything i have posted or just dismissed it as a load of rubbish

'This is not racism - at Dale Farm, they are for the most part white caucasian and if what Fifi says is true, many English born.'

Racism involves prejudicial words or acts or discrimination against members of any group, no matter what their skin colour. Prejudice against Gypsies and Travellers is racism. The idea that the term 'race' refers only to skin colour no longer applies. 'Race' now refers to groups with certain verifiable criteria in common, such as ethnicity, geographical origin or a history of endogamy. Gypsies and Travellers check every box in this revised model.

This is the legal definition of racial discrimination the UN uses:
'the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.'

Under British law the phrase 'racial group' means
'any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin'.

There comes a point in a thread like this when the piling on of hostile sentiment, harrumphing about lawbreakers and witty remarks about travelling start to look like the throwing of muck at one particular group.

It was the choice of the District Council to spend the £18m or whatever it will eventually come to. I hope they will be able to get away with 'not giving in to blackmail' as an excuse when explaining to constituents why their services will be cut, their class sizes get bigger, etc. It's easy to afford (so-called) principles when it's other people's money you are so blithely spending.

www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/7728702/Villagers-club-together-to-buy-out-gipsy-family.html

This is an interesting vignette about a Romany man who bought a field from a farmer who was heading overseas for his retirement, and overnight set up house, apparently with the intention of applying for retrospective pp. I am trying to work out what sort of chance this man's application for pp would have had if he had gone through the usual channels. I am inclined to think 'when pigs fly'.

He and his family are living elsewhere in the county now, so clearly not all potential neighbours are as unfriendly as the ones who bought his field from him.

Fifi, are you still harking on about the 90% failure rate for planning? Haven't we already covered that several times??

But nevertheless, some people are not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.

I notice some racist comments have gone, i sincerely hope that the people who wrote them realise they are racist towards romas and travellers.

Thats fine, you have a problem with them but please dont make a sweeping generlisation of a whole community. Do people seriously believe that there is a whole race of people who all act the same. Dont be ridiculous.

Theres a whole proportion of 'our' community who do exactlly the same, not because they want to be like the travellers but because thats life.

I think too many people believe all they read in the paper.

Change the post you wrote before, ommitt traveller and add a few steryotypes of other communities.

I think you will find you were extremelly racist but dont consider yourself so as you tolerate all other minorities

• stereotypes

haggy, yes. Would you care to address this problem. The actual info's there if you read it instead of guessing

An example of racism would be TalkinPeace's post there.
Unless you can prove the accusations you have made then you should not post them.
And 'too much for even them'?

Bloody hell math, im speachless. I really am

mathanxiety
would you like me to link to the pictures in the Southampton Echo?