What do forumites think of Dale Farm? and the travellers ...

[tek-monkey]

If you feel that strongly about a subject then why not use the words that most aptly describe the way you feel!

As least then everyone knows where they stand.

So if I called someone the n word because thats how I felt about black people, that would be acceptable? You can't tar all with the same brush, but you can punish all with the same law. They broke laws, handle them accordingly. Anything else would be racist.

 

[Hetairoi]

If you feel that strongly about a subject then why not use the words that most aptly describe the way you feel!

As least then everyone knows where they stand.

So if I called someone the n word because thats how I felt about black people, that would be acceptable? You can't tar all with the same brush, but you can punish all with the same law. They broke laws, handle them accordingly. Anything else would be racist.

You must obviously use words that are accepable and I believe both 'pikey' and 'scumbag' are both still acceptable.

On a separate note blacks are allowed to call each other the 'n word' but no-one else is, that can't be right!

 

[basil]

'blacks' ! omg ! ......

 

[halfmanhalfbrisket]

In conclusion – i don’t know what to think.

Ditto.. I'm all for people living where they want to live.. but they have to live by the rules, no exceptions..

And yes, the 'why don't travellers travel?' puzzles me a bit too.. I need to brush up on My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding a bit more I think

 

[ddub1984]

My view is, firstly yes they shouldnt have developed the site without obtaining planning permission first. That is against the law.

HOWEVER.....

Half of the site is completely legal & has planning permission. The other half (the illegal half) was a disused scrapyard, as I understand. From the aerial view Ive seen they seem to be respecting the boundary of the plot they own & not trespassing on neighbouring land.

As half of it is legal, this eviction can only hope to achieve at best a 50% reduction in the size of the site, at the cost of turning the travellers against the council & the local community, & causing tension in the community.

I think that yes while the council do have the right to enforce the clearance of the illegal half of the site, the common sense approach would be to grant planning permission retrospectively. They are allowed to do that, & by doing this they could have tried to build bridges with the travellers, as it is they have made enemies of them, not just the people they are displacing but also the remaining travellers who will be left living quite legally on the remaining half. I just think that the council have handled this very badly & after the clearance the village will not be a more pleasant place to live as a result.

 

[gilbert grape]

As a 70's kid living in Castletown, me and my mates suffered a numberof times at the hands of the "travellers" that frequently broke onto the land by the old gas works, which is now Sainsbury's car park. Therefore, I can sympathise with anybody who has had to put up with the behaviour that is reported in the press. You really don't understand until you encounter it. Moving onto land that somebody else may own is one thing, imposing your routine, behaviour and way of life on others who try to mind their own is another matter. Its no use moaning about civil rights etc if you've suddenly made life hell for others!
To expect to live in your own lawless bubble isn't integrating into society and that, in a lot of cases, is what happens.

 

[Admin]

- whether you agree or disagree with the classification, travellers are recognised as a distinct ethnic group by British law. Of course it is as illegal to discriminate in favour of one particular ethnic group as it is to do so against, but comments like "pikey scumbags" are not very helpful

Thank you, Withnail, for clearly and concisely making a point that has been troubling me ever since the "Caravan convention..." thread.

I would appreciate it if everyone would bear the above in mind and, regardless of your opinion of travellers' rights, etc., avoid slurs that could be used against you/The Forum in a negative sense.

I disagree with you there, I believe that people must be allowed to say what they feel.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, one has to remember that there are laws in this country, and there are specific laws governing racism and the use of language. Would you really deliberately jeopardise Stafford Forum by using language which breaks these laws, just to make a point?

I hope the answer is "No".

 

[tek-monkey]

My view is, firstly yes they shouldnt have developed the site without obtaining planning permission first. That is against the law.

HOWEVER.....

Half of the site is completely legal & has planning permission. The other half (the illegal half) was a disused scrapyard, as I understand. From the aerial view Ive seen they seem to be respecting the boundary of the plot they own & not trespassing on neighbouring land.

As half of it is legal, this eviction can only hope to achieve at best a 50% reduction in the size of the site, at the cost of turning the travellers against the council & the local community, & causing tension in the community.

I think that yes while the council do have the right to enforce the clearance of the illegal half of the site, the common sense approach would be to grant planning permission retrospectively. They are allowed to do that, & by doing this they could have tried to build bridges with the travellers, as it is they have made enemies of them, not just the people they are displacing but also the remaining travellers who will be left living quite legally on the remaining half. I just think that the council have handled this very badly & after the clearance the village will not be a more pleasant place to live as a result.

If I were to do similar, and extend my house beyond what the council said I could, would you also suggest the council take the common sense approach of letting me off? I know someone who does barn conversions and he can't even move a window due to planning restrictions, maybe we should all just ignore them?

 

[Withnail]

see below

 

[magda_xxx]

law is law everyone should respect!!!! if you do smoething against the law you should be charge for it!!! i belive is easy to understood

Good point, well made, however i'm unsure if Tesco and Virgin West Coast would agree.....

i think they will not! it looks like they produce they own

 

[Scoot Doggy Dogg]

My view is that the travellers "...don't want to assimilate into the collective. That's the point. [They probably] wish to be accepted without having to conform."

Surely they should be given a fair hearing on the strength of that?

 

[tek-monkey]

Why would anyone who was forced to conform allow others to live alongside them that don't? Do we want another multi-tier social system?

 

[Bobby]

Oh Scoot, your subtlety is dazzling. What a clever fellow you are. There's perhaps a tiny difference in not wanting to assimilate and actively causing harm to others. Not to mention breaking the law. A true libertarian could never condone such behaviour. Liberty stops at the point of damaging others.

Nice try though. I'd probably give that a C minus. But most likely an A for effort. Lol

 

[Gadget]

Admin do we have an ignore button on here? It's starting to feel like we are billy goats trying to cross a bridge.
G x

 

[Bobby]

Excuse me for responding to an obvious dig.

Admin, in some quarters this could be construed as cyber-bullying. Isn't there some kind of button I can press to alert the police or something? I think they have a special unit to deal with this kind of thing.

B x

 

[Withnail]

Another thing i read yesterday...said that the scrapyard had actually been set up by the travellers on the 'legal' side of the site and then encroached upon by the 'illegal' builders.

... i'm not sure how true this is... - if it is true it makes it that less easy to sympathise with their situation.

Turns out to be untrue - though there is some confusion over who did what when, it was a scrapyard before the travellers bought the site.

Much misinformation being bandied about.

 

[basil]

Excuse me for responding to an obvious dig.

Admin, in some quarters this could be construed as cyber-bullying. Isn't there some kind of button I can press to alert the police or something? I think they have a special unit to deal with this kind of thing.

B x

Good point, well made......

 

[Gadget]

Yes dear, carry on, carry on.

 

[Withnail]

carry on, carry on.

Nothing really matters.

To me...

 

[Miss Red]

Travellers/Tinkers/Gypsys, - as far as i am aware are 3 seperate things. Travellers popped up a lot in the 80's along with the tag "new age", twisted dreads and hippy.
Tinkers are a seperate thing they travel around and live in the caravans.
Gypsys some still do live in caravans, some in houses they work like anyone else does. I know some gypsys and they are the among one of the nicest familys i have ever met! They have values and respect and work hard with their own businesses.
You dont find any of them down the social claiming whatever they can grab!

Whatever happened to the "static sites" the government mentioned building a few years ago? People have to stay somewhere! Tramps linger around the back of shops and park benches - no one has a go at them!
Squatters have a right to move into a property thats not theirs! and i think thats worse than taking a piece of land thats sitting their doing nothing!

We all "roam" and "travel" - into other propertys/land whether its owned by us or rented from someone else, only difference is we pay out huge silly amounts to do it!