Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

Dale Farm - our society seems to hate people without "proper houses" Probably true?

BigJimBob's picture

Sorry, what the hell is this all about? Okay, they broke planning permission on land they own, but the Travellers have built on a former scrap yard site and the council has now spent £18M trying to get rid of them. What is Basildon going to use the site for afterwards? It's not the type of place where executive homes will be built. When I saw the ill treatment of Roma in E. Europe I foolishly thought, "well at least this doesn't happen in the UK." I really wouldn't like the rest of Europe judging the UK on the pictures that are now coming off the site.

Plus, where are the travellers going to go now? Surely, this is only going to acerbate Basildon's "gypsy problem?"

6

Dale Farm

No planning permission for the site to be there. Despite this, and knowing this through official documentation from the local council clearly highlighting what the long term repercussions would be, sections of the Dale Farm community chose to build semi permanent residences on this land. I can't build a house in my garden without the relevant permissions either. It's a perfectly level and non discriminatory level playing field. Why travellers would wish to build "permanent" residences anyway is surely a contradiction in terms.

There are also a number of perfectly good, and legal, travellers settlements nearby in South Ockenden, Aveley and Grays. You can see why permission would be refused.

They UN and EU comparing this to Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the Chinese ethnic cleansing is, frankly, bonkers.

OOAA.

39
Six Dog | 19 October 2011 - 5:21pm

I fully agree with you on

I fully agree with you on this. Those 'activists' will now have to find another band wagon to jump on. What really annoys is that those self same activists would probably baulk at a Gypsy/Traveller site down their street. Not all 'cultures' are worth saving and I am not sure what the above group bring to socienty.

5
woodface | 19 October 2011 - 5:25pm

Sorry...

...but did you just say "not all 'cultures' are worth saving"? I'm just really hoping I read that wrong (although I'll allow that having cut and pasted it verbatim into my own post makes that pretty unlikely).

So who gets to decide who has a right to exist? You?

13
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 7:33pm

As I read it

woodface's post was more to do with the fact that the behaviour that the residents of Dale Farm are saying is part of their culture isn't really culture at all, hence putting the word "culture" in quotes.

I may be wrong though. I'm not intending to put words in anybody's mouth.

3
Joe R | 19 October 2011 - 8:08pm

That's very charitable, Joe.

I don't share that interpretation, but I'd like to believe you're right. I took it to mean that woodface doesn't think traveller culture as a whole is deserving of the name. I'm sure he'll set us straight, and if you're right, I'll apologise to him. But I still think you want to be careful with language like that.

0
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 8:16pm

That's how I read it as well

My reading of woodface's post was that he was referring to the gypsy culture - the lifestyle, music, myths, history, etc - rather than the people or the race.

0
stimpy | 20 October 2011 - 7:18pm

Even so...

...for me, it's pretty repellent to describe a people's "lifestyle, music, myths, history, etc" as "not worth saving". Or rather, to be fair, imply that they're not: he didn't say it explicitly.

OOAA. Useful abbreviation, that one.

0
Bob | 20 October 2011 - 7:25pm

I thought we'd had a inexplicable influx

of Cornish contributors when I first saw that one being used.

1
Vulpes Vulpes | 20 October 2011 - 7:35pm
Bob | 20 October 2011 - 8:35pm

Ah, I see.

A northerner.

1
Vulpes Vulpes | 21 October 2011 - 7:55am

Yes I did, just because

Yes I did, just because something is deemed as a 'culture' does not give it inherent value or otherwise. I appreciate there is a rich romany/traveller tradition and I also understand that there is a difference between the two groups. The behaviour of the Dale farm 'residents' was abhorrent to my eyes; they did not have permission to be there and I could only feel for the wider community whose lives have been blighted for the last 10 years. I don't have the right to decide who exists but and I do not believe my post intimated that I did. I don't understand the distinction between a permanent static home and a normal house; if you would live in one then why not the other? I am reasonably open minded so if someone can convince me about the positive apects of the above cultures I will bow to their greater knowledge. The negatives are well documented including, illiteracy, domestic violence, bare knuckle boxing & criminal behaviour.

3
woodface | 20 October 2011 - 10:49pm

Thank you for explaining.

We still don't agree - not even close - but that's a much more nuanced view than I originally credited you with, so sorry for jumping down your throat.

A lot of people make the distinction between Roma and what they see as "not proper" travellers. I'm not sure it's a fair one. Sure, there might not be a distinct ethnicity to folk like the Dale Farm people, but that doesn't mean their culture is automatically worthy of dismissal.

I'm just intensely uncomfortable with anyone pronouncing an entire demographic as culturally valueless, or - perhaps worse - "not even a real culture". Once we start arbitrarily deciding on whose lifestyle is valid* and whose isn't, we're edging close to Godwin territory. So I think it's worth being careful with language.

*Within the confines of the law, that is. As described below, my support for a given group of travellers living however they like evaporates the minute that specific group breaks the law or impinges antisocially on others. But even when/if that happens, I'm very, very reluctant to write off the entire culture on the basis of the behaviour of individuals or groups within it.

0
Bob | 21 October 2011 - 6:40am

My understanding is that the

My understanding is that the biggest distinction between Irish travellers and Romany gypsies comes from within the respective groups with no love lost between them. It is difficult to define what is an actual culture as opposed to a sub-culture but, for example, I can find little to endorse about the South African Boers but then you could argue that the real negative elements (persecution of non-whites) came from a more hardline sub-culture from within. I think some lifestyles are not really valid in wider society (the petty criminals who keep trying to break into my house for example) but perhaps I should organise one big group hug?

0
woodface | 21 October 2011 - 7:56am
Vulpes Vulpes | 21 October 2011 - 8:10am

Seconded

I read this book recently and it definitely improved my understanding of a way of life usually portrayed unsympathetically in the media.

0
Mr Sparks | 25 October 2011 - 1:01pm

There is an interesting question here

at what point does group activity become culturally important and how acceptable is lawlessness when performed by a group.

I'm aware that football hooligans in the 70's and 80's developed quite a specific culture yet because of their extreme lawlessness, no one wants to protect their culture. The London gangland culture in the 60's is another example. The Nazis another.

I'm not sure how much law breaking needs to happen before a culture becomes less worth saving but it strikes me that cultural importance isn't enough of a reason to allow lawlessness.

The above points assume that laws are, in principle, accepted as a fundamental set of rules for civilisation.

3
Leedsboy | 21 October 2011 - 9:35am

Fine point Leedsboy

Fine point Sir.

FWIIW, here is one from me.

I always struggled with Dave Pearce on late 90s radio 1 talking about "Dance Culture" - I think what he really meant was getting in amongst the mood altering substances while listening to music your parents would hate.

0
jackthebiscuit | 21 October 2011 - 10:41am

Very eloquently put, just

Very eloquently put, just because some group is deemed a culture does not automatically validate the behaviour of its members.

1
woodface | 21 October 2011 - 10:53pm

Don't see what the fuss is about.

If I was to build another house in our garden without planning permission, the local council would be round like a shot. Why should the residential travellers of Dale Farm be treated any differently? And no, I don't read the Daily Mail.

8
geebee | 19 October 2011 - 5:21pm

I don't know...

...but I don't think they'd turf you out. I think they'd just make you tear the new structure down.

This is the part I don't understand about Dale Farm. I get that they broke planning law. I don't see why that means they've no right to be on the site.

1
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 7:31pm

Presumably

the land was bought without planning permission, and with no prospect of getting it.

That would make it considerably cheaper than buying land where it was possible to get planning permission.

Had the travellers decided to site their permanant non-movable houses on land with planning permission they would then have had no problems.

Can't help thinking they were trying to pull a fast one - and it didn't work out.

Also not a Daily Mail reader. Not the Torygraph either.

3
Slick | 19 October 2011 - 9:05pm

Planning permission

Anyone know, in all this, why planning permission wasn't granted on the scrapyard bit?

Is it because the local council felt that a scrapyard would be best use of the land?

Or did they not want to extend the amount of land lived on by (and therefore, the number of) travellers in the area?

In all of this, it just strikes me that this action will simply lead to a settled community being moved on, to become someone else's 'problem'. Whereas a bit of flexibility around the original planning application (assuming there was one) might have avoided the problem altogether.

2
Paul Waring | 19 October 2011 - 9:12pm

Guessing

that since this was green belt (even if brown field !) there was an assessment of density of housing which mitigated against granting planning permission.

It's the same type of laws that stop farmers turning unprofitable land into estates of executive homes. Or building what they like in National Parks.

Similarly, as someone else said, just building a house in your backgarden is a no-no, and it'd get pulled down (and whomever you had living in it would then be homeless). Unless you can hide it for long enough - and then apply for retrospective planning permission. This is a bit of a lottery and there's been some recent high profile cases of this. Some get the permission, some get the house torn down.

1
Slick | 19 October 2011 - 9:38pm

Sure, that'd make sense too.

I'm not being disingenuous when I say I don't understand: I really don't! Thanks: that seems like a perfectly reasonable possibility.

1
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 9:13pm

Pre...

...sumably they were not willing to tear their homes down or to let anyone else do it either. Once they are moved out to allow destruction of said 'structures' they are inevitably homeless and so will have no choice but to move on - one thing follows another. What would be the point of staying?

0
Sven Garlic | 19 October 2011 - 9:16pm

I dont give a stuff whether people

find my iew PC or not but we have fields in front of our house that are owned by a farmer. If Gypsies suddenly turned up there and were left to leave their detritus everywhere and cause a nuisance to their neighbours without any challenge from the authorities then I would most likely take the law into my own hands. I agree with one of the above comments - they do not bring anything of value to society and bugger human rights. What about the human rights of law abiding citizens who have invested in and take pride in their property. The biggest worry for me is they have been able to get away with it for so long.

10
Steve Turner | 19 October 2011 - 5:44pm

This is not a Wanstead Green.....

.....an anti-Iraq War march, an exporting on lorries of live animals abroad issue, as I don't think public opinion is against the police and local council on this one.

49 out of 54 buildings without planning permission is a pretty damning statistic.

Oh, and I'd take being stuck in a lift with one of the residents long before being stuck in a lift with one of the activists.

2
ranger | 19 October 2011 - 5:46pm

Completely agree

Many of the "protesters" will be "serial anarchists" who will jump onto any cause that gives them publicity and challenges majority thinking. That in itself is not a bad thing but when our society represented by our courts has reached a decision then...

The legal case here has been decided.

They should accept it and move on (no pun intended!)

1
Uncle Wheaty | 19 October 2011 - 9:27pm

From the footage today

it was the activists causing all the aggro with the police whilst the travellers were caught in the crossfire. Yt this was only gonna end one way once the "protestors" arrived, wasn't it?

Its strange that the law has defended the travellers of Dale Farm up to now and all the judges are lovely. Today, the law is an ass when it acts against them.

There is blame on all sides - the council for letting it drag out, the travellers for not accepting alternatives and the media for in turn painting them as criminals or whiter than white.

As with all these things its not that simple. I suspect our European cousins are looking at the police conduct and saying "why aren't they using water cannon to blast those buggers off the scaffolding?"

1
DogFacedBoy | 19 October 2011 - 5:54pm

Don't think you can seperate the two

I suspect the residents could have found a way to discourage the "activists" if they hadn't wanted them on the site

0
Slick | 20 October 2011 - 12:33pm

Well...

...I have absolutely no problem with people living however they want. I really dislike all the horrible things said about "pikeys" and "gyppoes" and so on, because, to me, it's flat out disgusting and - depending on your view of what constitutes a race - pretty much racist.

On Dale Farm, specifically, I'm a little confused. Sure, they broke planning permission. But why does that give the council the right to remove them from land for which they legitimately paid? I guess I'm missing something. Knock the structures down, sure, but chuck them off the land? Don't see how that follows. Someone will enlighten me, I'm sure.

However, I think that however you want to live, you have to live considerately, and you have to pay into any societal setups from which you plan to derive a benefit (benefit in the large sense, not in the sense of 'on benefit').

As long as travellers do that, I have zero problem. None whatsoever. But if anyone, regardless of their heritage, wants something from the state, they need to accept that it doesn't come for free. If they don't want to pay for it, they can't expect its benefits or protection. And littering/squatting and so on is just antisocial and wrong.

It's a real shame that some traveller communities do behave very badly. I'm sure there are tons, a majority, that don't impinge negatively on anyone else at all. But like anything, a few bad apples don't half sour the reputation of the whole.

10
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 6:01pm

Exact-a-mundo

I don't know enough about the Dale Farm situation to make an informed comment. However on your final point, I do have a friend that was raised in a travelling community and she's a wonderful, kind, *normal* person. Therefore it annoys me when people throw insults about based on the actions of a few.

3
Spartacus Mills | 19 October 2011 - 6:45pm

I suspect, Bob, and I'm guessing here,

that the 'they' who purchased the land, and the 'they' who promptly knocked up a home on it, are not necessarily the same 'they'. There is almost certainly some overlap, but I'd guess that those getting the heave-ho are not the deed holders to the site as far as the Land Registry is concerned.

Anyone got any better gen?

1
Vulpes Vulpes | 19 October 2011 - 6:57pm

That would make sense, Foxy.

Don't get me wrong, if they're there illegally, and if eviction is the only remaining recourse available to the council, I'm supportive of it. I'm just a bit wary, as I sometimes wonder if public antipathy to travellers (and the travellers' own lack of interest in the legal framework) gives councils quite a bit of cover to ride roughshod over legitimate rights.

Not that I'm saying that's what's happened here. I just think it's a risk.

1
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 7:20pm

There seems to be some confusion

As I understand it, there are two plots - both in the green belt and subject to strict planning laws. The travellers bought one plot and got permission to put homes on it. So they did. That is uncontested and the travellers are not being moved from there. The issue is the they bought the scrap yard next door (Dale Farm) and at the time were told that they could not build on it. They did it anyway. The clearing is to remove these illegal structures, they still own the land, they can still use it, they just can't build on it. So those that are going are the ones that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

All this talk of ethnic cleansing and pictures of a rent-a-wooly are great for media who love a good story. Have you actually seen the size of the site and the area being contested? I was surprised how small it was.

4
VincePacket | 19 October 2011 - 8:55pm

When I hear

a radio report (on BBC 5 Live) stating that protestors had banners with "no ethnic cleansing here", I lose any sympathy. A lack of perspective is the least of it, this is just chronic ignorance and stupidity.

2
Francis Barry-Walsh | 19 October 2011 - 6:45pm

Sympathy

Do you lose sympathy for the protesters or the residents themselves?

0
Spartacus Mills | 19 October 2011 - 6:47pm

Clearly,

for the actions of the protestors. From my very superficial understanding of the case, the residents have been poorly represented by people who claim to act on their behalf.

1
Francis Barry-Walsh | 19 October 2011 - 7:56pm

There was an interview on Today on Radio 4

a few weeks back with one of the Travellers spokespersons and she clearly wasn't enamored with the protestors. She pointed out that a few people in Dale Farm were gravelly ill and if an ambulance had to be called it wouldn't be able to get in due to permanent blockades set up by "supporters." She wasn't happy.

0
BigJimBob | 19 October 2011 - 8:04pm

Good roiddance

Why do these bloody "activists" have to turn up everywhere where they think they're going to have a go at knocking a copper's hat off !
I've got no sympathy with the Dale farm residents - they are there illegally, they knew what was going to happen and they obviously wanted confrontation with the forces of law and order.
Let's face it - however much sympathy anyone can feel for these people would dissipate in a second if they came and parked their vehicles next to your property and left the sort of unsanitary, disgusting mess that they leave everywhere

9
georgiawarhorse | 19 October 2011 - 7:08pm

Congratulations!

My bingo score just went through the roof ("forces of law and order", "these people", "unsanitary", "disgusting". Want to try for a "silent majority"? If you do, I've got house.)

5
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 7:15pm

As I said above

I've had one of 'these people' in my property. Many times. 'They' didn't leave a mess.

1
Spartacus Mills | 19 October 2011 - 7:24pm

Here we go . . .

. . . it's bleeding heart liberal time I suppose. You've obviously never seen the mess that they leave after one of their camps just off the London Road in Brighton.
Enjoy your copy of the Guardian

8
georgiawarhorse | 19 October 2011 - 7:44pm

WAHEY!

HOUSE! I'VE GOT HOUSE OVER HERE!

11
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 7:45pm

*here's a cuddly toy*

with its head in a noose attached to a gate

0
DogFacedBoy | 19 October 2011 - 7:51pm

That's nowt

I've now achieved the incredible feat of being labelled both a Guardian reader and a Daily Mail reader by members of the same online community.

Where's me badge?

4
Spartacus Mills | 19 October 2011 - 7:52pm

It's over here.

Underneath my copy of the Daily (Morning) Star.

0
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 7:55pm

You're obviously

the first of a new race!

0
Rotherhithe Hack | 19 October 2011 - 8:42pm

This house Bob.

Did you have permission for it?

9
Leedsboy | 19 October 2011 - 8:54pm

Bleeding heart liberal?

No, just reasonable person. If you had a muslim friend, you'd probably object if someone said 'they all carry explosives' or 'they all stink of curry'.

This is no different in my eyes.

1
Spartacus Mills | 19 October 2011 - 7:54pm

So you are a reasonable person ...

... because you disagree with the kind of stereotyping a moron would come out with - yet you conclude that some travellers are ok because you had one in your house and she didn't make a mess.

2
Formbyman | 19 October 2011 - 8:07pm

Yeah

but she is still there 10 years later in a house she built out of lego

1
DogFacedBoy | 19 October 2011 - 8:16pm

Nice try

The comment about my friend not making a mess in my house was in context of the previous post, which suggested that I wouldn't like travellers coming near my house, leaving a mess.

0
Spartacus Mills | 19 October 2011 - 10:03pm

I used to work with Irish Travellers, as a teacher.

My wife's godfather (also a teacher) asked me if I could 'send them all back to Ireland.' He really seemed to despise them all. That a professed Christian, and a well-educated professional could hold these views really shocked me.

0
Adman | 19 October 2011 - 7:45pm

Seriously,

what is it about Travellers that produces this reaction? No other race or religion produces this effect anymore. It's not as if they are bombing anyone.

0
BigJimBob | 19 October 2011 - 7:55pm

No they are not bombing anyone

but some of them are involved in burglary and petty crime ie. stealing metal for cash. The warehouse of the company I work for has been broken into on 2 occasions since I have worked there - both times metal was stolen and both times it was by gypsies. As was said elsewhere the actions of the minority tar the reputation of the majority.
Regarding the matter that we are discussing I can't even put a garden shed up without planning permission if it is over a certain height.They broke the law and the only recourse they have is a legal fight. Which they lost.We all have to live by the laws of the land - if the law is an ass as it often is we have the power to try and change it. Unfortunately the anarchists have no interest in this and probably need a good kicking (only kidding).

9
Steve Turner | 20 October 2011 - 8:51am

Oh please don't say that sort of stuff - its dangerous

Some travellers are criminals? Well, since the rest of the population is completely 100% law abiding, lets arrest all These People straight away.

While we are at it, you know I saw a rasta smoking some weed the other day. That's breaking the law, since "the actions of the minority tar the reputation of the majority" maybe I should seriously change my view of black people?

Also I know a plumber who always asks for cash, when he does a job. He's white working class - has tatoos, but you know these chavs they're all the same aren't they?

1
BigJimBob | 20 October 2011 - 1:51pm

You have completely twisted

my comments BigJimBob and I suspect you know it. However for the record I didnt make any comments about Rastas, Blacks, Plumbers or Chavs. The fact is Gypsies,or travellers if you feel the Gypsy term is racist, have a reputation for the crimes that I described. Incidentally those crimes did happen and were perpetrated by Gypsies. As I said the actions of the minority do tar the reputation of the many.I didnt suggest that all Gypsies fell into that category or perhaps you have read something that wasn't there.
English tourists abroad have a reputation for being moronic, violent, lager swilling yobs. Tars the reputation of the rest of us. Is that racist enough for you or doesn't it apply to White Anglo Saxons? Let's just have a bit of accuracy please.

3
Steve Turner | 20 October 2011 - 9:20pm

That IS my point

I am not twisting your words, honest. Like you say there is too much generalization going on. You know of two crimes committed by what you call gypsies and suddenly they are all the same.
And actually there is a huge difference between Travellers and gypsies ethnically and culturally, it is not a PC point. Gypsies would be VERY annoyed that you are lumping them together. Google it.

1
BigJimBob | 21 October 2011 - 10:14am

Torquemada

was a well-educated Christian professional.

0
Moose the Mooche | 25 October 2011 - 12:56pm

But how is this moving things on?

Apart from teaching "these People" a lesson, how are the council actions improving the situation for everyone? I would think its highly likely that at least some of the travellers are now going to role up in a less suitable site and Dale Farm will be left for what?

1
BigJimBob | 19 October 2011 - 7:50pm

Bob - since you like a verbatim quote

here's one from you:

"It's a real shame that some traveller communities do behave very badly. I'm sure there are tons, a majority, that don't impinge negatively on anyone else at all. But like anything, a few bad apples don't half sour the reputation of the whole"

Wow. Just replace "traveller communities" with "black people" and see how it sounds

3
Sheev | 19 October 2011 - 7:54pm

Oh god.

Sheev, you know full well what the tone of my post was, and you're taking that out of context. I said "reputation". I didn't say it was a reputation I subscribed to. I emphatically don't.

Although it seems, like Spartacus, I'm about to be tarred as a right-wing arsehole and a bleeding-heart liberal all in the same thread.

3
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 7:57pm

So you are

speaking out of your arse and from the heart at the same time?

4
BigJimBob | 19 October 2011 - 8:06pm

For clarity...

...bleeding heart liberal. Every fucking time. More or less. Except when I'm not. But this isn't one of those times.

I just find it astonishing that Sheev chose to characterise a post which was so demonstrably anti-stereotyping and prejudice as having, somehow, racist overtones.

0
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 8:11pm

I didn't characterize

I just quoted. Verbatim. And formulated a supposition. To which you have supplied the obligatory "taken out of context" riposte

Look, before you do one of your usual excitable tail chasing exercises - happy to say I'm a liberal too.

The issue for us liberals is that instinct and intellect are over-ridden by the fear and/or imminence of violence and/or smelliness.

I will defend the right of violent, smelly people to have a life, rights and all amenities just as long as it's not near me. I am a hypocrite.

A hypocrite, a liberal, with a touch of guilt. Which is why I like Steely Dan. I guess.

11
Sheev | 19 October 2011 - 8:41pm

Well fine.

I won't be doing any excitable tail-chasing, I hope. Thanks for that, by the way.

If someone acts like a complete arsehole - be they traveller or banker or high court judge - I'll be the first to give them what for, the first to try and arrange matters so they're not around me.

The corollary to that is that if they're alright, they're alright by me. I haven't had nearly enough experience of travellers - some, but not that extensive - to be able to form a view on what they're all like. The ones I've met have been as much a mix of personalities as any other group of people. If some travellers moved in near me and were perfect neighbours, we'd be fine. If they moved in near me and were awful, we wouldn't.

It'd have fuck all to do with what group they belong to, and everything to do with how they behave.

5
Bob | 19 October 2011 - 8:48pm

Looking forward...

... to that one - you giving a High Court Judge "what for".

1
Formbyman | 20 October 2011 - 6:55am

Sounds like a scene

from a P.G Wodehouse book.

Bertie's Aunt Agatha gives a high court judge "what for".

1
mojoworking | 20 October 2011 - 7:38am

I've got

twenty quid on Aunt Agatha...

1
ivan | 20 October 2011 - 1:00pm
illuminatus | 25 October 2011 - 2:39pm

Probably unwelcome cross-thread observation interjection

That's what Gervais is trying to get at of course - though he's become a bit of a bore about it. Embrace the contradictions.

0
Sven Garlic | 19 October 2011 - 8:48pm

Oh.

And there's me thinking that Gervais has just unilaterally decided 'mong' is an appropriate term to bandy around in polite society.

The fuckwit.

7
Paul Waring | 19 October 2011 - 9:15pm

I don't disagree

Playing around with liberal hypocrisies is kind of what got him there though. Fuckwit or not.

3
Sven Garlic | 19 October 2011 - 9:47pm

Phew

I got an up arrow - back in favour

1
Sven Garlic | 19 October 2011 - 10:36pm

You had me...

sorry, double post.

0
jackthebiscuit | 20 October 2011 - 7:13pm

You had me...

You had me on your side until you mentioned Steely Dan.

0
jackthebiscuit | 20 October 2011 - 7:13pm

Hmm.

"Wow. Just replace "traveller communities" with "black people" and see how it sounds."

It sounds dreadful. But it is also a canard.

How many black people are there who can go to bed tonight and think "You know what, tomorrow, I'll stop being a black person."

Not many.

Now substitute "black person" with "traveller" and you'll see where I'm going.

The Times, which has not allowed its coverage to be slanted by PC notions, carried an excellent leader today.

2
Lenny Law | 20 October 2011 - 8:39pm

apart from upholding the law

yeah the council are right bastards

One of the travellers on the site, the only one that Radio 5 seemed to talk to over the last couple of months, said that 60 members of her immediate family are on the Dale Farm site. I'm guessing that they all wanted to move into the same site if they were relocated and that wasn't possible.

Thou of course they now claim they have never been offered an alternative by the council ever in the last decade.

0
DogFacedBoy | 19 October 2011 - 7:55pm

I thought it was about the green belt

my understanding is that once a council allows development on green belt land it's a slippery slope and before you know it, the whole lot will be concreted over. It just suits the Dale Farm people to play the oppressed minority card.
As usual, OOAA

2
davebigpicture | 19 October 2011 - 9:24pm

But look at the plan Vince posted above.

On what basis is half that site 'green belt' and the other half 'not green belt'?

That's what I don't understand.

0
Paul Waring | 19 October 2011 - 9:34pm

Confusing, I agree

im still working so just had a quick skim online but it seems that the area has been mixed use for a long time, the scrapyard didn't have permission and the site next door only got permission after a court case. I don't think you can get away from the fact that they knew they couldn't build there and did it anyway.

0
davebigpicture | 19 October 2011 - 9:47pm

Thanks Dave (and Slick)

Agree totally that they knew what they were doing. Guess I'm just trying to understand why they were refused permission in the first place.

0
Paul Waring | 19 October 2011 - 10:25pm

Green Belt

is a designation for an area of land not every single plot of land within it.

So, as Green Belt is a relatively new thing, in any land designated as green belt you will find houses, farms, roads, factories, etc. A mix of genuine "green field" and plenty of "brown field".

Green belt is a way to curb urban sprawl, nothing more really.

0
Slick | 19 October 2011 - 9:54pm

Listening to the BBC News (Radio 4)

I was amused to find that I am now characterised as "part of the settled community".

0
Slick | 19 October 2011 - 9:30pm

The travelling folk.

Somehow or the other, I have ended up with a reputation as a dentist who will happily treat members of the travelling communities.

I treat all people as they come. I respect them and, I hope, they respect me. The Travellers I treat tend to be rough and ready people. Mostly illiterate, heavy drinkers, heavy smokers and with little respect for normal healthcare regimes, it is no surprise that they die young. They appreciate immediate treatment and, despite reputations, they always pay promptly.

Always in cash.

They tend to be rowdy. They tend to turn up en masse. I normally book Travellers in at times when none of my more regular patients will be around.

Portsmouth sees less of them now. A few years back, a group of caravans camped on Canoe Lake Park in Southsea. The posh bit. Where the more.. Erm.. Colourful members of Portsmouth's.. Erm.. Business community tend to live. The Travellers were asked to leave by representatives of said community. They didn't.

There was rumoured to have been a fairly substantial dust-up which involved fatalities on the side of the Travellers. Plod were, apparently, looking the other way that night.

As I say. All rumours.

As far as I am aware, no Travellers have set up camp on the Island since.

My practice is outside Portsea Island.

3
Lenny Law | 20 October 2011 - 1:11am

Be careful, Lenny, lest Sheev accuses you of double standards.

Imagine if you'd said that you, "normally book black people in at times when none of my more regular patients will be around."

Which of course, you didn't say.

3
Vulpes Vulpes | 20 October 2011 - 8:14am

I love

a double standard me

1
Sheev | 20 October 2011 - 8:21am

"Always in cash"

But of course. Who needs the hassle of all that pesky income tax carry-on, anyway?

0
mojoworking | 20 October 2011 - 8:25am

Here's the envy

that makes so many people antipathetic towards travellers; they get away with stuff we can't get away with, even if we wanted to. Which we don't of course, as we're all reasonable, law abiding citizens.

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 20 October 2011 - 8:35am

I was

referring to Lenny!

0
mojoworking | 20 October 2011 - 8:42am

Nailed it VV

I was having a conversation with my GLW on the ire that travellers produce in society in general, and that is the point she brought up. Meanwhile, of course, the Bankers have pinched the lead of everyone and if anyone protests about it by, say, putting some tents outside St Pauls, they are gullible Guardinista, anarchists, or trouble makers

OOAA

2
BigJimBob | 20 October 2011 - 9:36am

I may be reasonable

But don't ever call me law abiding!

0
Spider-mans arc... | 20 October 2011 - 11:32am

F-Olding Money

The Cash thing 'might' also be part of a long-standing tradition amongst Gypsy/Traveller communities of carrying all their money (either as cash or gold - hence the jewellery) rather than trusting it to others.
Would make sense if you were A) historically not a terribly popular community and B) on the move a lot.

There can't be any justification for not trusting a bank though surely...

1
sam and janet e... | 20 October 2011 - 7:24pm

Indeed

Try getting a bank account without 3 years at the same address on the electoral register.

0
fortuneight | 21 October 2011 - 8:57am

My point exactly.

My cash takings are receipted, banked and declared to The Revenue.

1
Lenny Law | 20 October 2011 - 8:32pm

Travellers' Health

A third of Irish travellers die before they are 25, half die under 39, and 80% die before 65.

Shocking statistics but perhaps arising more from their own ignorance rather than lack of access to education or a health service.

I think most of us will cope with their absence.

2
Sebastian Beach | 20 October 2011 - 11:03pm

While they're demolishing homes..

It does make me laugh, in a twisted cynical way, that they're booting people out of places they've lived in for years, permissions or no while our government is planning to revise planning and building permissions to allow big business to build on green belt land.

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2011/10/06/cameron-promises-tory-hou...

5
SimonL | 20 October 2011 - 8:44am

That's because

of the Golden Rule: Those that have the gold, make the rules.

5
BigJimBob | 20 October 2011 - 10:30am

Those that have the gold, make the rules.

Those that have the gold, make the rules.

Hasnt it / isnt it always been the case?

0
jackthebiscuit | 20 October 2011 - 7:19pm

An Irish perspective..

Sheev and Bob and all the other liberal nice guys above are to be admired for their, well, liberality. Hell, I'm one too. And Dale Farm is a sobering tale, sad for the kids, shows Basildon in a bad light, and has the right-of-centre scurrying with outrage.

We Irish have various more or less bile-filled words for the travellers/gypsies/tinkers/itinerants. Their lifestyle is indeed ancient but they are not nearly as prevalent as they used to be, many having settled down in provided housing. The country went through this hand-wringing mud-slinging soul-searching debate years ago.

Growing up in the 60s and 70s, I remember the gypsy camps on the outskirts of every town. They were never welcome anywhere, being regarded variously as shifty, rowdy, dishonest, feuding, and criminal.
Maybe this was stereotyping of an oppressed minority: I personally never had any unpleasant encounters. Undoubtedly though, when they moved on, they would leave a mess behind them, not just some litter but literally truckloads of crap draped across the hedges and bushes of our green and pleasant land.

So, as their mentality seems to be to suck the life out of wherever they happen to be, and despite being an easy-going right-on liberal type of person, it's difficult for me to feel any sympathy for them.

5
Declan | 20 October 2011 - 9:51pm

Each year Stow on the Wold has a huge gypsy horse fair

Driving through there this morning it was evident that one was just coming to an end. You know the fair is on by the sea of litter and rubbish engulfing the area. A large crew were out hosing down roads and picking duty and I'm sure by the time I pass back tonight all will be spick and span again.

All sorts of people seem to think it's OK to drop rubbish where they stand but it's the scale on which it happens here that knocks you back a bit, and its easy to see how it will alienate people. I guess it comes from a community who see no reason to care what the non gypsies think of them. Chicken and egg I suppose.

0
fortuneight | 21 October 2011 - 9:25am

Stow is a bit like Glastonbury, really,

with horses instead of bands.

1
Vulpes Vulpes | 21 October 2011 - 9:40am

Someone was going to post this

so it might as well be me...

(Full size image at http://pigeonsnest.co.uk/stuff/thieving-gypsy-bastards.html)

1
stimpy | 25 October 2011 - 1:24pm

I thought about posting it

a week ago, but bottled out.

Glad you did it though.

0
mojoworking | 25 October 2011 - 1:30pm

I seem to recall that, the following month, they published

a strip entitled (something like) "The Traditional Romany Folk" following complaints. Oddly enough I couldn't find that on the WWW.

0
stimpy | 25 October 2011 - 2:11pm

I remember all the complaints

but not the strip you mention.

0
mojoworking | 25 October 2011 - 2:27pm

The follow-up was on the next page.

A single-row strip called The Nice Honest Gypsies. For some reason, it failed to placate the irate members of the travelling community and an apology had to be printed in the next issue.

0
Lenny Law | 25 October 2011 - 3:05pm

along with good wishes to a prominent member

of the traveller community on his forthcoming court case, IIRC

1
davebigpicture | 25 October 2011 - 6:20pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd