I heard someone today saying they are protecting their way of life. I wasn't aware their way of life meant buying land and building on it. Shows how much I know about the Traveller Lifestyle.
I'd love to know what Vanessa Redgrave would say if they turned up and buit a town at the bottom of her garden
Agreed, people who defend them, obviously have never been unfortunate enough to have dealings with them.
And that's the problem. They would never have a chance of being able to build anywhere near where people who have a lot of money and/or influence actually live. Maybe she should offer to put them up for a few months? That would solve the problem for a short time - then maybe she could ask another aging middle-class ponce looking for a cause celebre to get their name in the papers to 'look after' them. Actually, maybe we could marry every bunch of 'travellers' up with the seemingly endless list of celebrities looking to expose the plight of the downtrodden hungry masses from inside the protected enclaves of the properties they avoided paying tax on.
I have had dealings with Travellers over many years, including having a knife held at my throat by one individual.
There is a Romany Gypsy culture. Many of the Travellers though are not from this tradition.The life of the Gypsy Traveller though is one that has history woven into it.
There used to be an obligation on Councils to provide a certain number of permanent sites for Travellers. If they complied with their obligations, then councils could evict Travellers from any non designated site.
As I understand it, that Act - The Caravan Sites Act was repealed by the Tories some years ago and Traveller sites were put under "Planning" regulations. This is why we have the huge mess that is grotesquely typified by the Basildon site. Effectively taking away the right to evict within days, unlawful sites, has produced a situation where the Travellers have been emboldened to purchase land, build on it and hope they will triumph in a protracted planning dispute. Hence we have massive site and millions of pounds are going to be spent evicting, and reclaiming the land for farming.
The Tories objected to the whole concept of a statutory obligation on Councils to provide sites which was not a brilliantly idealistic solution but was a pragmatic one, and now we see what happens when pragmatism gives way.
I am not trying to make a party political point but rather point up the unintended consequences of idealism over pragmatism.
Another 'minority' pleading for special treatment - I actually heard one of them on Radio 4 last week saying that they should have special dispensation not to obey these particular laws (that the rest of us apparently have to) because they are from an 'ethnic minority' and as such, the local council has to treat them differently to those who actually pay taxes and have to obey planning laws. Whoever allowed this culture of special pleading for one set of citizens over another should be locked up in the nuthouse.
As usual, the Guardian is in uproar about this. Once again, the comfortable Hampstead bleeding heart luvvy set is able to lecture those that actually have to live with these situations about what the correct, BBC approved PC way to think is (and that the hell that they have had to live in is all in their imaginations) and how we owe them all a living because some of our ancestors were nasty to foreigners when we had an empire.
The media is missing the much bigger picture with this it is not an anti traveller thing. It is an anti building without permission thing. If the go ahead is granted for this then there are literally hundreds of rejected planning applications in Essex alone where permanent structures have been refused because of green belt. If the travellers are allowed to stay then all these (mainly farmers) who have been refused permission to build houses on green belt will either re-submit claims which by pressident would have to be accepted or they will simply go ahead and build despite having their applicaitons rejected.
Travellers are making this a racial thing when its not.
I do agree with one thing they have said though which is if they were either black,muslim or another ethnic minority their would allegations of racism in trying to evict them.
I do agree with one thing they have said though which is if they were either black,muslim or another ethnic minority their would allegations of racism in trying to evict them.
I don't see any examples - anywhere - of people from a "black, muslim or other ethnic minority" doing what these 'travellers' are doing (and have been doing for years and getting away with). in fact, the Sub-Standard seems to have been running a concerted campaign against Romanian squatters with the express intent of poisoning the chattering classes against 'real' Romany people in London and getting away with it for weeks now.
Travellers are already defined as an ethnic minority by the governement. Which is why they are even allowed to get theis matter onto the news agenda. When farmers try and circumnavigate the law in the same way it is not given media attention. Unless it is by environmental organisations trying to protect the green belt.
I have'nt seen any pictures and only caught about 10 seconds of this on the news last night so blissfully unaware of the finer points. Am I to believe that they're building their own homes???? Lol, that should be a laugh. We've all seen the quality of their handywork in the past. They'll have foundations 2 inches deep, ground floors will just be covered in a thin (uneven) layer of concrete...............but they'll have fantastic drives.
Yes, basically they own farm land in Basildon and have built permanent structures on it without planning permission. They were refused planning permission because the area is designated green belt. There is a section of the farm which is brown field (for construction) and several permanement residences exist there which were built with permission.
They claim it is their land and therefore they should be allowed to do what they want with it. Hense why it will open up the option to farmers across the land to develop housing estates just because its 'their land'.
They are also refusing to move to other housing which has been offered by the council as this apparntly is against their beliefs of a nomadic lifestyle. Which is clearly nonsense given the orginal problem.
They are indeed playing the "ethnic" card.The numpty "friend" holding the card up at court suggesting this was "ethnic cleansing" needs shooting .
Leroy was spot on. Let Redgrave and all her Guardianistas live with em---let them camp in their leafy suburbs, let their kids go to school with em(as i had to have for two hellish years). Salt of the Earth my arse.
They tried asking the real tax paying locals what they thought and were told they would not speak on TV as they were to frightened that they would get their windows put through / attacked or be labeled as "racists. There you have a fine example or Brown/Blairs legacy---label a problem with anything "ethnic" and people are cowered down ---unable to have an opinion---to be shouted down and labeled a bigot(using Browns own words).
Let someone from a GENUINE ethnic minority try to marry into the "travellers" community --------------------see how tollerant they are of others.
They appear to be "Irish Travellers" now as far as i can see / remember Ireland is a very open and not very populated place. Idea to "travel" in. No one to hassel you etc etc. So just a thought why dont they travel back there ?
I grew up on St Pauls Cray, we had our fair share. They settled there in the 50's as the hop picking dried up and they couldnt afford to travel. Have a look at Pathe News website at the gypsy singer called
Danny Purches. The film you will see is St Pauls Cray.
I have to say I feel massive sympathy for people who are trying to live a life the way they want and feel the weight of the law against them. It is not good enough to say that "they can apply for planning permission like anyone else" when there is inevitably a massive furore when they do apply which is generally not the case for most other people.
The decision to turn their planning permission down becomes a political imperative - so the system is skewed against them. Hence why what was a scrap yard for years - and nobody was evicted - is suddenly classified as "precious greenbelt"' which has to be protected when travellers move in. Hypocrisy - they deserve a place to live like anyone.
And - before anyone says it - I do have travellers living down my street. Never been anything but neighbourly to anyone I know who lives round here.
I have to say I feel massive sympathy for people who are trying to live a life the way they want and feel the weight of the law against them. It is not good enough to say that "they can apply for planning permission like anyone else" when there is inevitably a massive furore when they do apply which is generally not the case for most other people.
The decision to turn their planning permission down becomes a political imperative - so the system is skewed against them. Hence why what was a scrap yard for years - and nobody was evicted - is suddenly classified as "precious greenbelt"' which has to be protected when travellers move in. Hypocrisy - they deserve a place to live like anyone.
And - before anyone says it - I do have travellers living down my street. Never been anything but neighbourly to anyone I know who lives round here.
'The system' is skewed against them because they don't pay any tax. If you don't do anything to support 'the system', you don't have any recourse when it comes down on you like a ton of wet shit.
That is the popular misconception. In reality when they work they work they pay tax PAYE like anyone else. And when they live on an official site they pay rates like anyone else (just like the families who live down the road from me).
Ironically it is when the local council does not allow them to live anywhere legally that the council cannot charge them rates. So give them somewhere to live and charge them tax like everyone else.
(And yes of course there will be a proportion of people who are just trying to avoid paying taxes like in the rest of society, but I have never seen any proof that this proportion is any larger than for society as a whole)
That is the popular misconception. In reality when they work they work they pay tax PAYE like anyone else. And when they live on an official site they pay rates like anyone else (just like the families who live down the road from me).
Ironically it is when the local council does not allow them to live anywhere legally that the council cannot charge them rates. So give them somewhere to live and charge them tax like everyone else.
(And yes of course there will be a proportion of people who are just trying to avoid paying taxes like in the rest of society, but I have never seen any proof that this proportion is any larger than for society as a whole)
Absolute, utter bollocks. I have never known a single 'Irish traveller' to pay a penny in tax. Ever. Perhaps you;re confusing 'traveller' with 'pikey'?
The decision to turn their planning permission down becomes a political imperative - so the system is skewed against them. Hence why what was a scrap yard for years - and nobody was evicted - is suddenly classified as "precious greenbelt"' which has to be protected when travellers move in. Hypocrisy - they deserve a place to live like anyone.
Stevie, that's cobblers. Half the site was a scrapyard, and they got planning permission for a certain number of pitches on that side. It's the other side that they bought and developed (at a higher density) without planning permission that's designated greenbelt and is the subject of the court case.
It is quite possible that you know more about this than me - it would not be hard! - but icannot see anywhere online that suggests that this is the explanation. Even The Telegraph, which is no great supporter of travellers' rights, habitually refers to the area as a former scrapyard.
All I do know is the timeline from Basildon Council's website:
The site began to be used illegally as a scrap yard and there was no enforcement action against it. Quite the opposite, in 1978 it was given special licence to be allowed to remain there - yes the local council and people thought so much about this area that they happily let an illegal scrapyard stay on it. Then, after 2001, travellers moved in and it suddenly became important that the 'greenbelt' should be protected.
To me, this is a very good example of where the planning system is skewed against travellers - indeed the Commission For Racial Equality suggests that 20% of requests for planning permission are denied in total, for travellers that figure is 90% - and in that case it should give pause for thought before simply saying that the law must be enforced.
Comments
I was wondering that.
I heard someone today saying they are protecting their way of life. I wasn't aware their way of life meant buying land and building on it. Shows how much I know about the Traveller Lifestyle.
have dealings with travllers down this way always good on there word and turn up with me timber and generators whenever I order one
this thread gonna go one way glugg glugg glugg
The media is missing the much bigger picture with this it is not an anti traveller thing. It is an anti building without permission thing. If the go ahead is granted for this then there are literally hundreds of rejected planning applications in Essex alone where permanent structures have been refused because of green belt. If the travellers are allowed to stay then all these (mainly farmers) who have been refused permission to build houses on green belt will either re-submit claims which by pressident would have to be accepted or they will simply go ahead and build despite having their applicaitons rejected.
Travellers are making this a racial thing when its not.
Yes, basically they own farm land in Basildon and have built permanent structures on it without planning permission. They were refused planning permission because the area is designated green belt. There is a section of the farm which is brown field (for construction) and several permanement residences exist there which were built with permission.
They claim it is their land and therefore they should be allowed to do what they want with it. Hense why it will open up the option to farmers across the land to develop housing estates just because its 'their land'.
They are also refusing to move to other housing which has been offered by the council as this apparntly is against their beliefs of a nomadic lifestyle. Which is clearly nonsense given the orginal problem.
Nomads they are NOT as DRF states.
In fact, shouldn't their "travellers" monniker be challenged under the Trades Description Act ( if it still exists ) ?
The decision to turn their planning permission down becomes a political imperative - so the system is skewed against them. Hence why what was a scrap yard for years - and nobody was evicted - is suddenly classified as "precious greenbelt"' which has to be protected when travellers move in. Hypocrisy - they deserve a place to live like anyone.
And - before anyone says it - I do have travellers living down my street. Never been anything but neighbourly to anyone I know who lives round here.
Ironically it is when the local council does not allow them to live anywhere legally that the council cannot charge them rates. So give them somewhere to live and charge them tax like everyone else.
(And yes of course there will be a proportion of people who are just trying to avoid paying taxes like in the rest of society, but I have never seen any proof that this proportion is any larger than for society as a whole)
All I do know is the timeline from Basildon Council's website:
The site began to be used illegally as a scrap yard and there was no enforcement action against it.
Quite the opposite, in 1978 it was given special licence to be allowed to remain there - yes the local council and people thought so much about this area that they happily let an illegal scrapyard stay on it.
Then, after 2001, travellers moved in and it suddenly became important that the 'greenbelt' should be protected.
To me, this is a very good example of where the planning system is skewed against travellers - indeed the Commission For Racial Equality suggests that 20% of requests for planning permission are denied in total, for travellers that figure is 90% - and in that case it should give pause for thought before simply saying that the law must be enforced.