View Full Version : Dale Farm
How do orgers feel about the treatment of the travellers at Dale Farm today by the authorities???
I personally find it totally disgusting, to treat human beings like this, yes there are lots of law behind why they needs to be moved but to watch tv and see police use tazer guns and shealds!
teddybear1873
19-Oct-11, 23:06
How do orgers feel about the treatment of the travellers at Dale Farm today by the authorities???
I personally find it totally disgusting, to treat human beings like this, yes there are lots of law behind why they needs to be moved but to watch tv and see police use tazer guns and shealds!
Probably nobend activists who didn't even live there.
How do orgers feel about the treatment of the travellers at Dale Farm today by the authorities???
I personally find it totally disgusting, to treat human beings like this, yes there are lots of law behind why they needs to be moved but to watch tv and see police use tazer guns and shealds!
Maybe you should get out more?
How do orgers feel about the treatment of the travellers at Dale Farm today by the authorities???
I personally find it totally disgusting, to treat human beings like this, yes there are lots of law behind why they needs to be moved but to watch tv and see police use tazer guns and shealds!
I think the moral is......you shouldnt watch what you find "disgusting"
They were breaking the law, and had been for 10 years
How do orgers feel about the treatment of the travellers at Dale Farm today by the authorities???
I personally find it totally disgusting, to treat human beings like this, yes there are lots of law behind why they needs to be moved but to watch tv and see police use tazer guns and shealds!
I expect you were happy with the way they treated the police then. They are travellers - let the travel.
How do orgers feel about the treatment of the travellers at Dale Farm today by the authorities???
I personally find it totally disgusting, to treat human beings like this, yes there are lots of law behind why they needs to be moved but to watch tv and see police use tazer guns and shealds!
Why do you think they had shields? If you had people throwing bricks, metal pipes and buckets of urine at you and you had a tazer, you'd just turn the other cheek, right?
They are breaking the law! Do you think throwing bricks, metal and urine is acceptable?? When raol moat went mad - no one questioned use of a taser?? they are travellers - the clue is there. they should travel. my bloody tax is payin for them wasters to lie at home and feed there flea ridden dogs! Yet - the elderly, people who have worked all there life are having to pay for theyre end of life care!! DISGUSTING!!
How do orgers feel about the treatment of the travellers at Dale Farm today by the authorities?Hmmm Trying to cause a riot are we?
I did actually find a bit of it amusing today, just before I got a little bit cross about it.
On the footage I saw there were a bunch of rentamob, violence inciting, (probably) middleclass, white, educated, financially independent, too much time on their hands bunch of wifeys. Oh, and a few numpty students.
Most of which probably wouldn't never normally be seen anywhere near a Caravan ("good god, do people actually live in them"), never mind have any clue or serious interest in the actual traditions of Gypsy's or Romany Travellers.
Personally, I would have been kicking the bottom leg out of that scaffolding just to see how serious these people were about Dale Farm.
Well said.....10 years.....wowee
It makes a refreshing change to see a Council occupying Travellers land, it's usually the other way round!!....;)
The great unwashed rent-a-mob do them no favours whatsoever, I hope they manage to round them all up and get them in prison for attacking the police like that. As for the Travellers, they are Travellers so get travelling!!!! Ethnic minorities my bum, they are non tax paying, idle and very dodgy Irish for God's sake and the sickening thing is they have all been offered houses within Essex while the normal Joe Public would have to wait years and years to get a house down there. And of course they would have had their rent paid and council tax paid for by us mugs.
C3............[disgust][disgust]
what i dont understand is if this is private land owned by the travellers how can they be evicted? and what then happens to the land?
do the council get to swoop in and say "mine!"
i do understand about not having building permits and the like..but does that constitute throwing people off private land and confiscating it?
im curious to know what will happen to the land once everything has settled down.
obviously, i do not i know all the ins and outs of the story.. have read the time line for it.. and seems a bit shady if you ask me.
so not sure what to think.
it does worry me when the government can come in and take away private property which seems to be the case.. and not a case of squatting which i orig. thought it was.
I think some people should research this case before having a go at the police , authorities travellers etc. the original travellers that moved to dale farm and bought it, got planning permission, then others started moving after buying plots into greenbelt land in their caravans, the council notified them this was not acceptable and told em to stop, they continued then started building chalets etc, knowing that this eviction could happen. I am not predjuced before anyone starts, cos my family are too travellers but we are now settled as are my husbands family, well alot of em anyway. No the council didnt offer them anywhere else to go, but the travellers were offered alternative land privately - yes I know this for a fact! and yet they still refused to move????? Now as for the trouble at the eviction most of it was caused and stirred up by the "professional protesters" that like nothing better than a fight and publicity, this has only aggrevated an already bad situation and hasnt done the travellers any favours. Now those of you that have said the travellers should travel wont mind will they when they come and camp on the green area next door or at the end of the road from you will you? I think this situation has been aggrevated by both sides and now should be left to be sorted out by those sides . By the way does anyone know where the Caithness traveller site is or is it like the majority of councils that dont offer such like? (by the way when travellers stay on council sites they do pay rent and most do not collect any benefits as they work for themselves, so they are not a drain on any taxpayer!)
They still own the land - nothing changes that.
Therefore "the government" is not taking anything away from them.
However, if they want to change what they wish to use it for, from its original usage, they need to apply for planning permission, like everybody else in the country has to.
Well said nicnak, and clearly put. I too wish that these "do gooders" would check their facts, before slamming the police and the authorities.
I'm confused. Is it Dale, or Dale House?
Pouleriscaig
20-Oct-11, 10:52
How do orgers feel about the treatment of the travellers at Dale Farm today by the authorities???
I personally find it totally disgusting, to treat human beings like this, yes there are lots of law behind why they needs to be moved but to watch tv and see police use tazer guns and shealds!
Jac,
I'm with you on this one.
I think the Dale Farm Friends and Supporters website banner heading,
'If not a Scrapyard then where'?
is particularly apt.
Our thoughts are with the 87 families whose lives are being uprooted needlessly.
How do orgers feel about the treatment of the travellers at Dale Farm today by the authorities???
I personally find it totally disgusting, to treat human beings like this, yes there are lots of law behind why they needs to be moved but to watch tv and see police use tazer guns and shealds!
I am with you on this one, I believe that after a period of time living anywhere "one" should have the right to stay there, after all it is their land.
On the subject of councils, I think they have far too much power and more especially with regard to planning issues, in my opinion anyway, the very least this council ought have done would have been to grant planning permission retrospectively,
The courts ought to have quashed this council's case on day one, afterall, they do it all the time for other landowners and as for the people of the town and their apparent intolerance of these others, well all I can say is "there but for the grace of god go I".
roadbowler
20-Oct-11, 11:10
@nicnak, I think you are correct in saying land was offered but, the land in question was offered for free by the Homes and Communities Agency to Basildon Council (not the travellers) to rehome them and Basildon Council has repeatedly refused this offer because they quite simply do not want them in Basildon. No suitable alternative accomodation has ever been offered to rehome the travellers. I think what jac is getting at here is that inherently, most humans would watch what happened yesterday and have seen a fairly sad indictment of humankind. Some will say that they were simply upholding the "law", however, yesterday just highlights the immaturity of the law when we think we need to treat humans like this. The only folk as far as I can make out that have a problem with dale farms supporters are the people who would never dream of protesting against injustice to other human beings because they fear what they will lose themselves by their action, these same people will believe all the rubbish the media tells them justifying the actions of the "law enforcers" and to justify their own fear based, shallow prejudices towards those who fearlessly defend those who are at the receiving end of the injustices. It's worth remembering that in the past few decades, the more people have gotten into debt, mortgages and more reliant on the system to babysit them and provide for their every need the more compliant and apathetic we've become. This is only the very beginning of the financial crisis, what fight will the people be fighting when they no longer have a job to pay the mortgage, their debts and to feed themselves? First, they came for the vulnerable, the travellers and the gypsies... you know the rest.
@nicnak, I think you are correct in saying land was offered but, the land in question was offered for free by the Homes and Communities Agency to Basildon Council (not the travellers) to rehome them and Basildon Council has repeatedly refused this offer because they quite simply do not want them in Basildon. No suitable alternative accomodation has ever been offered to rehome the travellers. I think what jac is getting at here is that inherently, most humans would watch what happened yesterday and have seen a fairly sad indictment of humankind. Some will say that they were simply upholding the "law", however, yesterday just highlights the immaturity of the law when we think we need to treat humans like this. The only folk as far as I can make out that have a problem with dale farms supporters are the people who would never dream of protesting against injustice to other human beings because they fear what they will lose themselves by their action, these same people will believe all the rubbish the media tells them justifying the actions of the "law enforcers" and to justify their own fear based, shallow prejudices towards those who fearlessly defend those who are at the receiving end of the injustices. It's worth remembering that in the past few decades, the more people have gotten into debt, mortgages and more reliant on the system to babysit them and provide for their every need the more compliant and apathetic we've become. This is only the very beginning of the financial crisis, what fight will the people be fighting when they no longer have a job to pay the mortgage, their debts and to feed themselves? First, they came for the vulnerable, the travellers and the gypsies... you know the rest.
Yes, I would agree with all you have written, and most especially the last sentence,
Until "one" has or is facing eviction, "one" cannot begin to understand the underhand tactics used in the councils, the courts and in the inadequacies of the written law.
My heart goes out to all those who inhabited Dale Farm, god help them.
roadbowler
20-Oct-11, 11:27
I am with you on this one, I believe that after a period of time living anywhere "one" should have the right to stay there, after all it is their land.On the subject of councils, I think they have far too much power and more especially with regard to planning issues, in my opinion anyway, the very least this council ought have done would have been to grant planning permission retrospectively, The courts ought to have quashed this council's case on day one, afterall, they do it all the time for other landowners and as for the people of the town and their apparent intolerance of these others, well all I can say is "there but for the grace of god go I".Couldn't agree with you more. Well said. The councils whole argument is based on the fact they claim dale farm was greenbelt land when it clearly was not! It may have been a scrapyard in a greenbelt area but, that is as far as they could stretch it in my view. Basildon Council used to tip rubbish there when they used the site years ago! It is clear dale farm is nothing to do with planning issues.
Roadbowler, no you are not correct syaing that they had not been offered other land because I personally know that other land has been offered to the families, I am a traveller and am not siding against them but you cannot have one law for one and one for another, the families knew when they moved on that they could not build on the land and yet they continued to do so, this has been going on for ten years now so it was hardly a surprise to them that they were getting evicted. Even if you own land you still have laws to abide by and they didnt abide by them it is as simple as that.! I agree that if you own your own land you should be able to do what you want with it but the law doesnt allow that so you cant be surprised that you get evicted if you do something wrong in the planners eyes , especially if you knew when you built something that it was a chance that eviction was gonna happen. The only solution would have been give the councillor a big enough back hander or dont do the building in the first place !
Have to agree with nicnak last statement. A lot, not all travellers, seem to think they are above the law, and imo. Get away with it most of the time.
roadbowler
20-Oct-11, 12:42
Roadbowler, no you are not correct syaing that they had not been offered other land because I personally know that other land has been offered to the families, I am a traveller and am not siding against them but you cannot have one law for one and one for another, the families knew when they moved on that they could not build on the land and yet they continued to do so, this has been going on for ten years now so it was hardly a surprise to them that they were getting evicted. Even if you own land you still have laws to abide by and they didnt abide by them it is as simple as that.! I agree that if you own your own land you should be able to do what you want with it but the law doesnt allow that so you cant be surprised that you get evicted if you do something wrong in the planners eyes , especially if you knew when you built something that it was a chance that eviction was gonna happen. The only solution would have been give the councillor a big enough back hander or dont do the building in the first place ! then details please! Not willing to just take your word for it just cause you hear a rumour sorry! Besides, there may be reasons why they didn't take the offer. Ok? I hope that doesn't sound harsh, nor do i mean it to be but, there is a lot of rumours flying about from both sides. I'm trying to work from facts of the case here and the offer of free land from the agency was the subject of an argument in one of the judicial reviews and confirmed.
Irrespective of agreeing or disagreeing with the eviction. Since when do we as a nation use riot police as a first resort?
Very worrying indeed.
And since when have they been an instrument of the local council to crush resistence? Seems to me we have been fighting wars recently to stop just this sort of authoritarian behavour.
Irrespective of agreeing or disagreeing with the eviction. Since when do we as a nation use riot police as a first resort?Very worrying indeed.
And since when have they been an instrument of the local council to crush resistence? Seems to me we have been fighting wars recently to stop just this sort of authoritarian behavour.
After the riots in England in August where it has been proven that the out of work / wont work element was at the fore. And with the damage and injuries caused to our policemen, why are you surprised the Police went in tooled up and expecting the worst. The Travellers are not know for their working ethics and the hingers on who attached the to the so called "travellers cause" they are professional agitators who look for every oppertunity, to cause destruction and damage.
I do not understand the mentallity of the do gooders on the Org, the travellers at Dale Farm had broken the Law.
The ‘travellers’ have broken the law by erecting unauthorised buildings on land designated as part of the green belt. They sought and were refused retrospective planning permission. In most other such cases the miscreant would be required to demolish their unauthorised building and return the land to its former state. The travellers did not.
IMHO this debacle should never have happened if Basildon Council had upheld the law more rigorously at the beginning, the situation would never have got as bad as it has. The Council were complacent and of course the travellers took advantage of that.
The situation this week is regrettable but not entirely unexpected. We’ve seen preparations for a siege with all manner of obstacles arranged in the way of the bailiffs. The travellers even placed gas bottles in strategic locations and threatened to use fire to deter any unwelcome visitors.
Both sides have been seen to talk up the possibility of conflict. The travellers have not helped their situation by handing over their dispute to an eclectic mix of anarchists and protesters whose motives are at least questionable.
The police were given the job and came prepared for public order duties. In other words they were ‘tooled up’ because they expected to have anything and everything thrown at them – and it was. Their use of Tazers would only have been authorised against particular targets who were posing an immediate danger. That would include someone about to throw a brick, with force, at someone else.
The authorities and the police are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they do nothing, they will be labelled weak and ineffective. Basildon Council would incur the wrath and scorn of its voting taxpayers. If they try to uphold the law everything they do will be picked over and scrutinised in minute detail. Yet I doubt the offenders will be subject to the same scrutiny.
While I have some sympathy for the travelling community they have to understand that we all have to abide by the same laws
roadbowler
20-Oct-11, 16:12
@gronnuck. These are all valid points and i agree with some of them. However, your last paragraph there, this ordeal would not have ever come about had the council also abided by the law and fulfilled their legal duty to accommodate travellers. Basildon have failed to fulfill their legal duties on 49 counts. Lets not forget on their original attempt at eviction they were planning to clear the entire site by bulldozing plots it is now found they cannot legally.
Roadbowler i think you will find that since 1994 the councils no longer had a duty to provide sites for travellers! so its up to travellers to pay for campsites the same as any normal person staying somewhere, its not ideal, but it is the travellers choice to travel or they can be like our family and settle down, buy a house or build one legitimately! like I said its a shame but it is the law "simples!"
teddybear1873
20-Oct-11, 16:37
Can't understand why their called travellers, not much of a traveller if you've been in one place for a decade.
All were offered council houses, what more do they want??
http://www.basildon-today.co.uk/News.cfm?id=34183&headline=Travellers%20offered%20council%20homes%20 %E2%80%93%20but%20they%20say%20%E2%80%98no%E2%80%9 9
C3............[disgust][disgust]
All were offered council houses, what more do they want??
http://www.basildon-today.co.uk/News.cfm?id=34183&headline=Travellers offered council homes – but they say ‘no’
C3............[disgust][disgust]
Aye but that means they would have to pay rent, council tax, and have a permanant address, so the tax man and HMRC could find them easily.
All were offered council houses, what more do they want??
http://www.basildon-today.co.uk/News.cfm?id=34183&headline=Travellers offered council homes – but they say ‘no’
C3............[disgust][disgust]
Apparently, alternative pitches for their caravans, it doesn't seem too much to ask. Did you actually read the article?
They could have their own sites if, they buy the land with acceptable planning to keep a caravan on the land, its not rocket science, its not up to the council to find them sites
anymore. Have a read of this it will make things clearer; http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/158454.pdf. Like I said its not ideal but travellers can, if they
want and can find, a council site stay on it, if there are any vacancies and here they will have to pay rent. And if they want to use it as an address they will have to pay council tax too!
@gronnuck. These are all valid points and i agree with some of them. However, your last paragraph there, this ordeal would not have ever come about had the council also abided by the law and fulfilled their legal duty to accommodate travellers. Basildon have failed to fulfill their legal duties on 49 counts. Lets not forget on their original attempt at eviction they were planning to clear the entire site by bulldozing plots it is now found they cannot legally.
Councils are not under any obligation to provide accommodation for travellers. The Housing Act 2004 only requires that "Every local housing authority must, when undertaking a review of housing needs in their district under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68), carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers residing in or resorting to their district." There is then a requirement for them to put in place "a Strategy." It does not mean it has to provide Pitches-upon-Demand. Although there are more legal travellers pitches in Essex than in any other county in the country.
IMO compromise is the way forward but I must acknowledge that Essex already has more than its share of "travellers."
roadbowler
20-Oct-11, 17:34
Roadbowler i think you will find that since 1994 the councils no longer had a duty to provide sites for travellers! so its up to travellers to pay for campsites the same as any normal person staying somewhere, its not ideal, but it is the travellers choice to travel or they can be like our family and settle down, buy a house or build one legitimately! like I said its a shame but it is the law "simples!" i didn't say they had to provide sites i said they have a legal duty to accommodate travellers needs, try the Regional Spatial Strategies along with £97 million ringfenced at the councils' disposal to fulfill these duties. I'm well aware what happened with the housing act in 2004.
roadbowler
20-Oct-11, 17:53
Aye but that means they would have to pay rent, council tax, and have a permanant address, so the tax man and HMRC could find them easily. here we go again, wielding prejudices instead of facts, show evidence for your claim the dale farm travellers did not pay council tax. However, there is plenty of evidence that they did pay council tax at Dale Farm. Waiting.....
Irrespective of agreeing or disagreeing with the eviction. Since when do we as a nation use riot police as a first resort?
Very worrying indeed.
And since when have they been an instrument of the local council to crush resistence? Seems to me we have been fighting wars recently to stop just this sort of authoritarian behavour.
Precisely!
This is the result of a council playing GOD.
Mrs Bucket
20-Oct-11, 19:07
I beleivetravellers deal mostly in cash and dont pay taxes. They travel fast enough if they are being checked up on by the Inland Revenue Why should they think they should get any preferential treatment.
Irrespective of agreeing or disagreeing with the eviction. Since when do we as a nation use riot police as a first resort?
Very worrying indeed.
And since when have they been an instrument of the local council to crush resistence? Seems to me we have been fighting wars recently to stop just this sort of authoritarian behavour.
Riot Police? We don't have riot police in the UK. We have police; some are trained and equipped for Public Order Duties. Obviously the Bailiffs were not equipped to deal with protesters who threw bricks, buckets of urine and much more at them. Nor were they equipped to deal with many of the other tactics employed by the protesters, (including the threat of using makeshift flame throwers). It appears that the commander on the ground decided the situation required that the police take and secure the area at the same time protect themselves and the Bailiffs from the protesters.
Given that the Bailiffs and the Police had a job to do I cannot see how they could have done it any differently.
I beleivetravellers deal mostly in cash and dont pay taxes. They travel fast enough if they are being checked up on by the Inland Revenue Why should they think they should get any preferential treatment.
Travellers or otherwise, they are people and there are good and bad people in every walk of life and to my knowledge it is not exclusively travellers who try to dodge the inland revenue,
oh no, you just have to flip through any morning paper at any given point in time to read that this one or that one has been found guilty of tax evasion.
Irrespective of agreeing or disagreeing with the eviction. Since when do we as a nation use riot police as a first resort?
Very worrying indeed.
And since when have they been an instrument of the local council to crush resistence? Seems to me we have been fighting wars recently to stop just this sort of authoritarian behavour.
How about when those acting outwith the law are openly making threats about how violent they are going to protect their position. Are you going to send in a single council employee and watch them get put in hospital before you act! Then again just keep twisting the facts, if it was in one of the countries you you say are authoritarian they would have been thrown out years ago or just killed. Not quite the same as one gippo getting a bit of an electric shock for striking the police for doing their job.
Nobody can argue against the legal principal of removing illegally built buildings that do not have planning permission where there is a clear need to do so. But buildings that are built without permission don't always get removed so why here, on an old scrap yard?
I blame Basildon council, why didn't they grant permission? There would have been no objection from the other residents that do have permission to live at Dale Farm and that is what matters, the nuisance caused to those nearest living by.
The whole thing smacks of prejudice imho. Once over these people could live on common ground but that has been removed and gradually we will see a whole way of life disappear.
roadbowler
20-Oct-11, 21:29
Nobody can argue against the legal principal of removing illegally built buildings that do not have planning permission where there is a clear need to do so. But buildings that are built without permission don't always get removed so why here, on an old scrap yard?I blame Basildon council, why didn't they grant permission? There would have been no objection from the other residents that do have permission to live at Dale Farm and that is what matters, the nuisance caused to those nearest living by.The whole thing smacks of prejudice imho. Once over these people could live on common ground but that has been removed and gradually we will see a whole way of life disappear.I couldn't agree with you more.
porshiepoo
20-Oct-11, 21:42
Why on earth did these travellers assume that they could illegally squat on the land anyway? Arrogance I would assume.
They knew full well the rights, wrongs, ins and outs of what they were doing from day dot so they hardly have a valid argument now - 10 years later - that the council have finally gotten around to legally evicting them.
Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the kids TBH. They're the ones that will be wrenched away from what they've always known as home and sadly a reminder of this fiasco will be served to them daily in a 'that's why we hate 'settlers' ' sandwich.
My sympathy to the kids however is probably equally weighed out with my sympathy to the local community who have had to suffer an illegal travellers site lowering the value of their homes and the surrounding area, especially when you're talking about a posse of travellers who historically do not like to integrate with the settled community.
Personally I have nothing against travellers, in fact I could do with a taste of that nomadic lifestyle myself at times, however they do need to understand that times have changed and that laws are in place for a reason and are there for the benefit of everyone and everyone is accountable to them - including travellers.
The traditional travellers do have a lifestyle based on traditions that may not be acceptable in this day and age but I think it's a shame if this nomadic lifestyle were to die out completely, although obviously these 'new age travellers' are veeeery different from the traditional cart pulled by pony travellers.
Hmmmmm. So what defines a 'traveller'? Surely pitching yourself permanently to a field for 10 years kinda makes you settled? Or am I missing something?
Nobody can argue against the legal principal of removing illegally built buildings that do not have planning permission where there is a clear need to do so. But buildings that are built without permission don't always get removed so why here, on an old scrap yard?
I blame Basildon council, why didn't they grant permission? There would have been no objection from the other residents that do have permission to live at Dale Farm and that is what matters, the nuisance caused to those nearest living by.
The whole thing smacks of prejudice imho. Once over these people could live on common ground but that has been removed and gradually we will see a whole way of life disappear.
Here lies the nub of the problem. The decision should have been made and enforced at the very beginning. Having made the decision the council should have enforced it - they didn't. Thus followed years of dithering and prevarication. It was not just about a couple of families throwing up a few extra buildings. The council couldn't allow a rapid and unplanned expansion of families in the area. For the settled community in the area the influx of travellers caused a number of problems, however I shall restrict myself to describing just one.
Crays Hill Primary School once had a reputation for excellence but was abandoned by settled families as the school wrestled to cope with the traveller children and their families. The school situation became so difficult that in 2003/2004 every school governer resigned. In 2006 it was labelled the worse school in the country for truancy. It has been recorded that when traveller children joined the school, many were illiterate. The Local Authority couldn't or wouldn't put in any extra funding to provide extra help. Parents in the settled community started withdrawing their children and placing them in other schools in the area. In 2009 every child that sat them failed the SATs tests in maths and English which meant they moved into secondary education without a basic education.
The problems associated with a large influx of people moving into a community are well known. Peterborough in Cambridgeshire, Slough in Buckinghamshire and Boston in Lincolnshire have their own examples, where a sudden influx of other Europeans have caused concern. Even the community in Aldershot is concerned about the number of Nepalese that have moved there.
The problem seems to be one of funding. Funding to support the extra needs of this expanded community. But in these times of austerity where is this extra funding to come from?
I wish I had an answer but all I can suggest is that we abide by the law and use our imperfect democracy to work for change.
Why on earth did these travellers assume that they could illegally squat on the land anyway? Arrogance I would assume.
They knew full well the rights, wrongs, ins and outs of what they were doing from day dot so they hardly have a valid argument now - 10 years later - that the council have finally gotten around to legally evicting them.
Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the kids TBH. They're the ones that will be wrenched away from what they've always known as home and sadly a reminder of this fiasco will be served to them daily in a 'that's why we hate 'settlers' ' sandwich.
My sympathy to the kids however is probably equally weighed out with my sympathy to the local community who have had to suffer an illegal travellers site lowering the value of their homes and the surrounding area, especially when you're talking about a posse of travellers who historically do not like to integrate with the settled community.
Personally I have nothing against travellers, in fact I could do with a taste of that nomadic lifestyle myself at times, however they do need to understand that times have changed and that laws are in place for a reason and are there for the benefit of everyone and everyone is accountable to them - including travellers.
The traditional travellers do have a lifestyle based on traditions that may not be acceptable in this day and age but I think it's a shame if this nomadic lifestyle were to die out completely, although obviously these 'new age travellers' are veeeery different from the traditional cart pulled by pony travellers.
Hmmmmm. So what defines a 'traveller'? Surely pitching yourself permanently to a field for 10 years kinda makes you settled? Or am I missing something?
A major contributory factor was that successive governments gave local authorities the right to sequestrate common land. This effectively denied cattle owners to right to graze their cows, shepherds to graze their sheep and travellers the right to stop anywhere for a few days and thus forced them to find somewhere 'permanent' to pitch.
Irrespective of agreeing or disagreeing with the eviction. Since when do we as a nation use riot police as a first resort?
Very worrying indeed.
And since when have they been an instrument of the local council to crush resistence? Seems to me we have been fighting wars recently to stop just this sort of authoritarian behavour.
They were not there to crush resistance, but to protect the Bailiffs whilst going about their lawful business. THey are to be congratulated on the way they hoodwinked those on the site (both dids and hangers on) and accessed the site so easy. They were in riot gear to protect them, and how right they were.
Having lived in Beautiful Caithness, where you do not have the problems with Travellers that we have down here, I find some of the views strange. Would you rather we had a "free for all" and these Irish tinkers come in droves and do what they please, ignoring our laws.
My own opinion is a bit extreme, but I would have brought a car ferry round to Tilbury, moved the lot onto it, and shipped them back to bloody Eire where they belong.
They knew what they were doing, and it has cost the Taxpayer millions.
They were not there to crush resistance, but to protect the Bailiffs whilst going about their lawful business. THey are to be congratulated on the way they hoodwinked those on the site (both dids and hangers on) and accessed the site so easy. They were in riot gear to protect them, and how right they were.
Having lived in Beautiful Caithness, where you do not have the problems with Travellers that we have down here, I find some of the views strange. Would you rather we had a "free for all" and these Irish tinkers come in droves and do what they please, ignoring our laws.
My own opinion is a bit extreme, but I would have brought a car ferry round to Tilbury, moved the lot onto it, and shipped them back to bloody Eire where they belong.
They knew what they were doing, and it has cost the Taxpayer millions.
I just hope you never put your shed up in the wrong place.:eek:
Pouleriscaig
21-Oct-11, 09:30
Why on earth did these travellers assume that they could illegally squat on the land anyway? Arrogance I would assume.
They knew full well the rights, wrongs, ins and outs of what they were doing from day dot so they hardly have a valid argument now - 10 years later - that the council have finally gotten around to legally evicting them.
Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the kids TBH. They're the ones that will be wrenched away from what they've always known as home and sadly a reminder of this fiasco will be served to them daily in a 'that's why we hate 'settlers' ' sandwich.
My sympathy to the kids however is probably equally weighed out with my sympathy to the local community who have had to suffer an illegal travellers site lowering the value of their homes and the surrounding area, especially when you're talking about a posse of travellers who historically do not like to integrate with the settled community.
Personally I have nothing against travellers, in fact I could do with a taste of that nomadic lifestyle myself at times, however they do need to understand that times have changed and that laws are in place for a reason and are there for the benefit of everyone and everyone is accountable to them - including travellers.
The traditional travellers do have a lifestyle based on traditions that may not be acceptable in this day and age but I think it's a shame if this nomadic lifestyle were to die out completely, although obviously these 'new age travellers' are veeeery different from the traditional cart pulled by pony travellers.
Hmmmmm. So what defines a 'traveller'? Surely pitching yourself permanently to a field for 10 years kinda makes you settled? Or am I missing something?
Just a small point by way of correction, the travelling people hold the legal title to the land they have been cleared from, i.e. they were not illegally squatting. It was more about not having planning permission to put caravans, etc, on part of it allegedly.
Just a small point by way of correction, the travelling people hold the legal title to the land they have been cleared from, i.e. they were not illegally squatting. It was more about not having planning permission to put caravans, etc, on part of it allegedly.
It was all to do with Council incompetence and arrogance, the travellers own the land but like so many other land owners they did not have the "right" to do anything on that land,
At least that appears the case in England, in Scotland however, landowners are it would appear perfectly entitled to CLEAR their land, ignore the law and profit big style from it.
The Councils regardless of location in Scotland bend over backwards to accommodate the "landowner" even though he or she has no legal interest in the land they own.
Work that one out.
Justified.............they knew it was coming...........move along.
There seems a disparity in that large barns and the T3 building can be put up without planning permission under the thin veil of being temporary and then someone can't put a caravan in an old scrap yard and has to be evicted with a massive police operation. I'm sure there is more to it but that is how it comes across.
I just hope you never put your shed up in the wrong place.:eek:
I've managed to survive 70 years by observing the laws in this country and the several others I have served or worked in, but thanks for your concern.;)
I've managed to survive 70 years by observing the laws in this country and the several others I have served or worked in, but thanks for your concern.;)
Good to see your still on the go Jim,now stop beating about the bush !!!!
Good to see your still on the go Jim,now stop beating about the bush !!!!
As always Iain, Nice to hear from you, I'll look you up next year when I visit Gods Country.:Razz
i think they have been treated more than fairly. they were given plenty of notice that they were going to be evicted so what did they expect? they were breaking the law at the end of the day as simple as that.if you break the law you have to accept the consequences. too bad.
purplelady
22-Oct-11, 23:25
It makes a refreshing change to see a Council occupying Travellers land, it's usually the other way round!!....;)
The great unwashed rent-a-mob do them no favours whatsoever, I hope they manage to round them all up and get them in prison for attacking the police like that. As for the Travellers, they are Travellers so get travelling!!!! Ethnic minorities my bum, they are non tax paying, idle and very dodgy Irish for God's sake and the sickening thing is they have all been offered houses within Essex while the normal Joe Public would have to wait years and years to get a house down there. And of course they would have had their rent paid and council tax paid for by us mugs.
C3............[disgust][disgust]here here totally agree x
teddybear1873
22-Oct-11, 23:29
Got to sympathies with the travellers at Dale Farm. I too have a lifestyle choice that attracts persecution from the government
I have a job.
you have a job and most likely pay your taxes. where as these travellers probably do work for cash in hand so dont pay tax they obviously dont pay rent or council tax for the land the land they are living and polluting on i find it very hard to sympathise with these people. and whats more is their local council now has to foot the bill for the eviction and the clearing of the site.
teddybear1873
22-Oct-11, 23:59
you have a job and most likely pay your taxes. where as these travellers probably do work for cash in hand so dont pay tax they obviously dont pay rent or council tax for the land the land they are living and polluting on i find it very hard to sympathise with these people. and whats more is their local council now has to foot the bill for the eviction and the clearing of the site.
I was being sarcastic dandod :D
linnie612
23-Oct-11, 00:53
you have a job and most likely pay your taxes. where as these travellers probably do work for cash in hand so dont pay tax they obviously dont pay rent or council tax for the land the land they are living and polluting on i find it very hard to sympathise with these people. and whats more is their local council now has to foot the bill for the eviction and the clearing of the site.
It would be unlikely they would pay for their own eviction
roadbowler
23-Oct-11, 01:46
teddybear, i understand your sentiment. They will pay for the eviction by a charging order on the land when sold undoubtedly. Dandod, they do pay council tax, the fact has been widely reported by even basildon council themselves.
Tom Cornwall
23-Oct-11, 11:41
Yes, I would agree with all you have written, and most especially the last sentence,
Until "one" has or is facing eviction, "one" cannot begin to understand the underhand tactics used in the councils, the courts and in the inadequacies of the written law.
My heart goes out to all those who inhabited Dale Farm, god help them.
and also..the Tory Council in Basildon say that they're not allowed to build on greenfield land..yet the Tory Council in North Norfolk say it's ok to build on greenfield land and are allowing developers to build houses in North Walsham..it seems to be one law for one and another for someone else..if your face fits..NIMBYism..
and also..the Tory Council in Basildon say that they're not allowed to build on greenfield land..yet the Tory Council in North Norfolk say it's ok to build on greenfield land and are allowing developers to build houses in North Walsham..it seems to be one law for one and another for someone else..if your face fits..NIMBYism..
Yes, you are so so right.
and also..the Tory Council in Basildon say that they're not allowed to build on greenfield land..yet the Tory Council in North Norfolk say it's ok to build on greenfield land and are allowing developers to build houses in North Walsham..it seems to be one law for one and another for someone else..if your face fits..NIMBYism..
As long as the council are willing to be bribed, it'll go on.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.