Dale Farm

User avatar
WillPS
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2008 18.32
Location: Carlton
Contact:

I've followed the whole Dale Farm story with interest. I find it really hard to sympathise with them (just as I do with any inward looking group), and I'm confused by the motives of the protest group who are chaining themselves to the illegal site's gate.

I have pretty radical view on cultural groups who insist on being separate from society to any extent, and gypsies seem hell-bent on warring with 'outsiders' rather than working together to find a reasonable solution, hiding behind 'cultural heritage' as if the intention is to eradicate them as in the Third Reich (a comparison I find offensive).

What troubles me slightly is the £18m cost of eviction. It seems that one law enforcement firm has managed to monopolise this niche market and is basically ripping off the taxpayer. I can understand that those enforcing deserve some reward for such a dangerous and unpleasant job, but surely that £18m figure must be inflated significantly by a preposterous profit margin?
Image
cwathen
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 17.28

We may all moan about about the government, about our taxes, about rip-off Britain in general, but the bottom line is that our entire country relies on that structure for it's existance. It relies on people living in fixed places, holding down a steady job, and paying taxes on every element of their lifestyle which in turn pays for the country. No other model is viable to keep this country and everything we take for granted in existance.

A country full of benefits claimants who are being encouraged to 'work towards work', a country full of misunderstood souls who commit crimes but need to be 'understood to reduce offensive behaviour'...and a country full of travellers who apparently have the right to make a lesser financial contribution to our society under the guise of it being 'their way of life' cannot support the UK. Call me a right wing bore, but a country full of dull people like me who just live in the same place, go to work each day and manage (on the whole) to abide by the law probably can support it.

People who live any kind of 'alternative' lifestyle should be grateful that they live in a country where they are allowed to live outside the box at all - if I had my way it wouldn't happen.

These people have been wilfully breaking the law for a decade, and it is absolutley right that they be evicted. Their argument that they have been forced into this position is ridiculous - you can't have a demographic group deciding that the law doesn't cater for what they want to do so they'll just ignore it and it's then the law's fault that they've broken it, which is precisely what the traveller's argument is. Moving them on is wrong only in that it has taken so long and has cost so much to achieve.

If they have a problem with that, then they should go to a country which will accomodate their lifestyle - except I don't think they'll find one any more accomodating than the one they are allready in.

Quite frankly, my view on this is FIFO - Fit In or Fuck Off.
User avatar
Col
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep, 2004 18.51
Location: York
Contact:

Awh, I thought this was a thread to discuss whether Captain Quenchers were better than Pear Pickin' Porkies - or if Jokers were the overall rulers.

(If you're not from Norn Iron, forget this message exists)
User avatar
WillPS
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2008 18.32
Location: Carlton
Contact:

cwathen wrote:Quite frankly, my view on this is FIFO - Fit In or Fuck Off.
I see exactly where you're coming from.

My personal view is that there's no excuse for doing things that are socially unacceptable, and I don't see why concessions on this should be made for religions (e.g. Muslim women covering their faces) or cultures.
Image
User avatar
lukey
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu 25 May, 2006 01.11
Location: London
Contact:

Frankly, I don't care about the Dale Farm story but I find sentiments like "Fit In or Fuck Off" really depressing, and what you call "socially unacceptable" you really mean "I find unacceptable". A dull world it would be if we consider any lifestyle outwith a narrow cultural window to not only be peculiar but intolerable.
User avatar
Pete
Posts: 7589
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.36
Location: Dundee

This aside I have a long held belief that people who write large placards with spelling mistakes on them / misjudge the size of the letters and have to squish the last few one should be second up against the wall.

Image

First is reserved for people who use the terms "wealth creator" and "moderate muslim".
"He has to be larger than bacon"
Charlie Wells
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue 02 Nov, 2004 16.23
Location: Cambridgeshire

The source of the problem is that they have built on greenbelt land without planning permission. On this aspect I agree with the view that planning laws should be upheld for everyone, regardless of whether they are travellers.

That said with the reported cost potentially being up to £18 million I can't help wondering whether the money could somehow be better spent. Probability is that some will turn up a few miles down the road on another patch of land and the council will then have to spend yet more money getting them off that land.

I wonder how many of these travellers who claim to have "nowhere to go" actually have properties in Rathkeale, County Limerick. BBC News have added an article/clip on this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-14975103 (The Daily Mail have unsurprisingly also reported this previously.)
"If ass holes could fly then this place would be an airport."
User avatar
lukey
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu 25 May, 2006 01.11
Location: London
Contact:

lukey wrote:Frankly, I don't care about the Dale Farm story but I find sentiments like "Fit In or Fuck Off" really depressing, and what you call "socially unacceptable" you really mean "I find unacceptable".
Surely if a majority of people find it unacceptable, then it's "socially unacceptable".

It's such a sly approach to suggest people with opposing views to yours are alone in their views, whether it's branding them a "racist individual" or "bigoted individual" or an "individual whose views are wrong", as your post suggests. There's millions of people who will share cwathen's view, and I'd be willing to argue that a majority of people agree with his views on Dale Farm. So whilst that does make you a "pansy liberal" it doesn't make him a right-wing individual.
Probably no more sly than putting 'racist individual', 'bigoted individual', 'individual whose views are wrong', and 'right-wing individual' in someone's mouth, a bit like the Fox News tactic of saying "Obama" and "muslim" in the same breath where possible.

And you can't be 'willing to argue' a majority of people agree with anything. They do or don't.
Charlie Wells
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue 02 Nov, 2004 16.23
Location: Cambridgeshire

A spokesman for Basildon Council said the enforcement notices would set out the precise action the authority intends to take.

He added that, should the council overturn the injunction, travellers will be liable for all costs incurred by the delay.
Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14983284

I can't help feeling the council will have a bit of difficulty in actually getting the money off the travellers.
"If ass holes could fly then this place would be an airport."
User avatar
Finn
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun 06 Nov, 2005 17.02
Location: Manchester

There's millions of people who will share cwathen's view, and I'd be willing to argue that a majority of people agree with his views on Dale Farm.
Even if they do, that doesn't necessarily make those views 'right' in any absolute sense.

Not so long ago the majority of people believed that homosexuality was wrong, filthy etc.

A few hundred years ago, you could argue that the majority of people believed that non-whites were inferior or that slavery was acceptable.

Does that make those views intrinsically 'right'?
Critique
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10.37
Location: Suffolk

I agree with the viewpoints here that the people of Dale Farm should be 'evicted', so to speak, but not to the extent some are going to. I wouldn't agree with the 'Fit in or F*ck off' point, for a start. I wouldn't agree that, as another mentioned, that we shouldn't make exceptions in what is 'socially unacceptable' for religions. Surely, in the long-term, a religion, and therefore wearing a headscarf, isn't causing disruption, whereas setting up camp on land that don't have planning permission for, etc, will have an effect in the long run.

When it comes down to it, these people can probably protest, and then exercise, their human rights. However, surely, by staying there, they're abusing someone else's human rights, making their's invalid?

One thing I will say, however, is that it surely isn't right that they can live without the expenses of owning a house, etc, and still, in some cases, benefit from the free-schooling provided in the UK?
Post Reply