from what i've read on this story, dale farm is an legitimate traveller's site, just that some of the residents have erected structures without planning permission.
in my view, i cannot see how it is in the public interest that these people are evicted. i wish the council would spank the 15 or so million quid on something more worthwhile for the community, such as more affordable housing, support for young working families, better facilities or infrastructure.
i'd like to think that we live in a country where people are entitled to live their life how they please and not have to conform to some narrow-minded stereotype without fear of persecution or being told to fuck off where they came from. some of the comments in this thread make me feel a little uncomfortable, i have always regarded most participants here as intelligent liberals.
i'm an atheist, i think (organised) religion is evil, but i would never go on some sort of crusade trying to rid this country or world of those views. it's a personal choice and our world is an all the more interesting place for it.
Dale Farm
-
Dr Lobster*
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14
I was waiting for those comparisons to be drawn, and frankly I find them a bit insulting. Discriminating against people for being gay or being black is discriminating against someone for being what they are, something they can't change - and also something that isn't hurting anyone else. Discrimination on those grounds is clearly wrong.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.
You just can't put travellers in the same basket as though they are some sort of put upon group doing no harm who can't help what they are.
Their way of life is a lifestyle choice, they might like to claim it's 'in their blood' that they have to live in static caravans on fields and move around, but it's nothing of the sort. To live as a traveller is a lifestyle choice, nothing more.
I've nothing against people having lifestyle choices which I personally don't subscribe to - as long as they are causing no harm to anyone. Whilst there may be no more physical or mental harm done by travallers than any other demographic group, they *do* hurt me and everyone who lives a convential lifestyle financially, being that they use the public resources of this country (even getting money specifically spent on them through the provision of legal sites) yet they don't cough up the same number of pound notes to pay for it as your average boring old joe does.
The country couldn't survive in the form we know now if the majority of it's inhabitants were travellers just as it couldn't survive if the majority of it's inhabitants were benefits claimants and it is for that reason that I consider them to be incompatible, not a group we should be encouraging to expand and certainly not a group which should be shown any consideration at all.
In my view (and I accept that it is only mine) being that we live in a capitalist society, those who work and pay taxes for everything (or who are deservedly now retired having had a long working life) ARE at the top of the tree and people who don't pay the full shilling for things ARE inferior to those who do - and as far as I can see travellers are in the latter group.
I'm not 100% clued up on the ins and outs of this story, so I won't judge too strongly - but I'm in full agreement with Dr Lobster - it seems there are two sides to a complicated story, and I'm not 100% sure of what the council are getting out of removing these people, or whether it even begins to justify the £15m spent doing the job when spending cuts are already in place.
I'm sure a better arrangement could be made to sort out this mess - it seems to be two extreme views by both the council and the travellers who live there.
I'm sure a better arrangement could be made to sort out this mess - it seems to be two extreme views by both the council and the travellers who live there.
-
Dr Lobster*
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14
but who are you to say that they can't make that choice? you are just judging another person or group by your own standards.cwathen wrote: You just can't put travellers in the same basket as though they are some sort of put upon group doing no harm who can't help what they are.
Their way of life is a lifestyle choice, they might like to claim it's 'in their blood' that they have to live in static caravans on fields and move around, but it's nothing of the sort. To live as a traveller is a lifestyle choice, nothing more.
i agree, if lifestyle choices impinge on others then those individuals should refrain or change that behaviour, but that applies to each and everyone of us in every facet of our lives - people who have music too loud, leave dogs out barking all day, block accesses with poor parking etc etc. clearly if the travellers are causing a significant nuisance then certainly there is a case for enforcement orders and as a last resort, evictions but i'm just not sure that is the case here - after all many of those facing eviction have been residents for a decade or more.
i enjoy reading your posts chris, but i just don't think you, or anybody else can parse judgement on another human beings 'right' to to adopt a particular lifestyle, whether you accept it or not.
Upload service: http://www.metropol247.co.uk/uploadservice
I would, first of all, like to reiterate the comments made by Woah and Dr. Lobster. Some of the comments, on the first page, at least, were rather 'other the top', if that's the right way of putting it. Points about elements of religion being 'socially unacceptable' are a bit extreme, no? That's a choice people make, and if people did only what was 'socially acceptable', we'd live in a very dull world.
Dr Lobster has, however, pointed out something to me. Obviously, I hadn't read deep enough into the story, as I hadn't heard of the Planning permission side, until now. If the site is in fact a legitimate camp, then the residents have more of a right to protest, no? However, planning permission is always awkward when you haven't applied for it before a build. Isn't the procedure usually to knock the offending structures down? Therefore, isn't evicting all residents, including the 'legitimate' ones, an extreme.
And, as also said, £15 million is quite a price to do this. The money could indeed be better spent. le make, and if people did only what was 'socially acceptable', we'd live in a very dull world.
Dr Lobster has, however, pointed out something to me. Obviously, I hadn't read deep enough into the story, as I hadn't heard of the Planning permission side, until now. If the site is in fact a legitimate camp, then the residents have more of a right to protest, no? However, planning permission is always awkward when you haven't applied for it before a build. Isn't the procedure usually to knock the offending structures down? Therefore, isn't evicting all residents, including the 'legitimate' ones, an extreme.
And, as also said, £15 million is quite a price to do this. The money could indeed be better spent. le make, and if people did only what was 'socially acceptable', we'd live in a very dull world.
Watched Dispatches about this last night and it kind of reaffirmed my views on travellers. Most don't pay tax and national insurance and expect free education and healthcare.... They travel in the summer and trash public spaces, fly tipping and basically going for a shit outside in woodland with toilet roll with feaces on it left there (so they don't have to use their own toilets in the caravan!). I'm sure there's good and bad within their community but what exactly do they contribute to society?
Only part of the site is legal. There are structures and caravans on another part of the site which is NOT sanctioned as a halting spot, but is actually greenfield / green belt land (albeit green belt land Basildon council have seen fit to concrete over).
Incidentally I'm not wading into this argument because I don't know enough about it, so I cannot judge. There are some in the media and society who would do well to do the same. Alien cultures are alien for a reason - we do not understand them. I won't judge someone I have no understanding of on their motives. However, I do expect the rule of law to prevail. If that law is wrong, it can be changed. What's to stop the "gypsies" forming a political body and challenging for representation on Basildon Council?
Incidentally I'm not wading into this argument because I don't know enough about it, so I cannot judge. There are some in the media and society who would do well to do the same. Alien cultures are alien for a reason - we do not understand them. I won't judge someone I have no understanding of on their motives. However, I do expect the rule of law to prevail. If that law is wrong, it can be changed. What's to stop the "gypsies" forming a political body and challenging for representation on Basildon Council?
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
I think you sum up my views there, Alexia.
I just don't know enough about the situation - but if you can stop a developer from building on green belt, and you can ask Cliff Richard to demolish a £30,000 extension built without permission - also on green belt site, then it strikes me that the law should apply to everybody.
Not sure how the council get away with letting something happen for a decade without earlier intervention. Seems like a failure on their part.
My old home town had an area that travellers occupied. It had been the site of a factory, long before my time. They were known in the community, and relatively well integrated. They ran the fun fairs for the "Gala Days" in the region. When the council wanted to build a sports centre on the site, I'm told they "gifted" an area for the travellers to move to. No fuss.
I don't know whether some worked in full-time jobs paying National Insurance or not. I'm not sure that the Dispatches programme's research was exhaustive or not.
I do know that if you ask 100 people if they think its right that people should pay no council tax or NI and receive the same universal benefits as those who do, MOST will say no. But surely that same standard should apply to people who have a fixed address, just as it should for those who live in static caravans.
Its just easier to focus on a group who are so visibly different.
I just don't know enough about the situation - but if you can stop a developer from building on green belt, and you can ask Cliff Richard to demolish a £30,000 extension built without permission - also on green belt site, then it strikes me that the law should apply to everybody.
Not sure how the council get away with letting something happen for a decade without earlier intervention. Seems like a failure on their part.
My old home town had an area that travellers occupied. It had been the site of a factory, long before my time. They were known in the community, and relatively well integrated. They ran the fun fairs for the "Gala Days" in the region. When the council wanted to build a sports centre on the site, I'm told they "gifted" an area for the travellers to move to. No fuss.
I don't know whether some worked in full-time jobs paying National Insurance or not. I'm not sure that the Dispatches programme's research was exhaustive or not.
I do know that if you ask 100 people if they think its right that people should pay no council tax or NI and receive the same universal benefits as those who do, MOST will say no. But surely that same standard should apply to people who have a fixed address, just as it should for those who live in static caravans.
Its just easier to focus on a group who are so visibly different.
That final point is just what I was thinking when I was reading this yesterday. It's almost as if those saying 'they don't contribute anything' are saying 'the only people who don't contribute anything are travellers'. I'm not, of course, saying that that is what people think or are implying on here, but it does seem to be that it is travellers who get a lot of the stick, much of it unfair.
As far as I know they have been offered alternative sites and council accommodation.
I cant understand why all the protesters are up in arms, this fake concern is strange as I bet they are all middle class and their tune would chance if they turned up at the end of their street or village.
We had an official site when I worked at the council. 1/2 a million pounds worth of damage caused by a small minority of them caused it to be closed very quickly. the problem is a small number ruin it for the rest of them and everyone then gets the same reputation. (same with any group of people).
If they want to travel they should be allowed to as long as its within the law.
I am correct in thinking Romany gypsies travel, Irish travellers travel. So therefore Dale farm is now a static caravan park not a travellers site as soon have been there for four years?
Are they charged council tax on the static site? (you have to pay council tax if you moor a canal boat for a period of time)
I cant understand why all the protesters are up in arms, this fake concern is strange as I bet they are all middle class and their tune would chance if they turned up at the end of their street or village.
We had an official site when I worked at the council. 1/2 a million pounds worth of damage caused by a small minority of them caused it to be closed very quickly. the problem is a small number ruin it for the rest of them and everyone then gets the same reputation. (same with any group of people).
If they want to travel they should be allowed to as long as its within the law.
I am correct in thinking Romany gypsies travel, Irish travellers travel. So therefore Dale farm is now a static caravan park not a travellers site as soon have been there for four years?
Are they charged council tax on the static site? (you have to pay council tax if you moor a canal boat for a period of time)
To go back to my view that we shouldn't make concessions for people who choose to distance themselves from society as a whole or do things which society as whole finds unacceptable - I don't really feel this is over the top at all. In the case of religions, yes - people are free to believe whatever they want but I don't feel that should give them the right to behave in a way which creates psychological boundaries between them and the rest of society. In the case of the example I gave, I find the whole ethos behind it abhorrent as it seems to essentially boil down to male superiority and the right of men to control women. I don't think religions (any of them) deserve the sort of 'respect' we're programmed to offer as they as organisations continue to abuse it. But this is all massively off-topic.
With regards to what people have said about them moving on elsewhere - well, I don't really buy that argument. It seems that a majority of the 'residents' of this site are in fact just using it as a halting site over the winter. The minority that don't move about (some of which have what are essentially small prefabricated houses rather than caravans) - well, what's the difference between having a "caravan" which cannot easily be moved and is in fact appointed like a house and actually living in a bloody brick and mortar house? Kicking up a fuss for kicking up a fuss' sake if you ask me.
I don't understand how the gypsies themselves are never charged for the damage they create? I have no issue with people 'roaming', leaving the site on which they pull up as they left it but personally I've yet to find a group of travellers who've done this. I've witnessed perhaps 10-15 site takeovers, and more importantly their aftermath and there wasn't a single case where the site wasn't totally trashed following their eventual removal.
With regards to what people have said about them moving on elsewhere - well, I don't really buy that argument. It seems that a majority of the 'residents' of this site are in fact just using it as a halting site over the winter. The minority that don't move about (some of which have what are essentially small prefabricated houses rather than caravans) - well, what's the difference between having a "caravan" which cannot easily be moved and is in fact appointed like a house and actually living in a bloody brick and mortar house? Kicking up a fuss for kicking up a fuss' sake if you ask me.
I don't understand how the gypsies themselves are never charged for the damage they create? I have no issue with people 'roaming', leaving the site on which they pull up as they left it but personally I've yet to find a group of travellers who've done this. I've witnessed perhaps 10-15 site takeovers, and more importantly their aftermath and there wasn't a single case where the site wasn't totally trashed following their eventual removal.