Gypo Rant..Dale Farm

Pudseyp

Do you support the gypsy's or aggree with the courts over the Essex traveller site ?

My view is ok they bought the land but then but buildings up without prior permision and approval....at the end of the day if I built a extension the same way I would have to take it down...the law is the law no matter what ethnic group your from, you live in this country so must comply.

They are now saying that they will burn down all the buildings...I hope they do so the courts can bill them for sending out the fire service..

And the supporters are all the Tw@ts that crawl out of the woodwork when this is a fight on the cards, any industrial action, the petrol protest,military etc....they are allways there the stinking scumbags..
they should let you sign up for the police in such instances give you a tw@t stick and let you carry out your own justice...

Well thats my view...rant over

Andy

Pudseyp wrote:

They are now saying that they will burn down all the buildings...I hope they do so the courts can bill them for sending out the fire service..

Yeah! They can send the bill out to their...... ahhh rubbish...

Anonymous

Pudseyp wrote:

buildings up without prior permision and approval....at the end of the day if I built a extension the same way I would have to take it down...the law is the law no matter what ethnic group your from, you live in this country so must comply.

Thing is, they don't like it, but are willing to take a stand against it, in however small a way.
It's apparent that you don't appreciate the fact you can't build an extension without (expensive) permission. It's a bit hypocritical to shoot someone down for saying "well, fukk you" to such a system.

bails87

Pudseyp wrote:

They are now saying that they will burn down all the buildings...I hope they do so the courts can bill them for sending out the fire service..

It's their own stuff, if they want to destroy, it they can can't they?

I do find some of the arguments a bit.....confused though. They shouldn't have built stuff they weren't allowed to build. And they've said they won't go to the new place (possibly with 'fixed' houses, I don't know) because that would be an attempt to destroy their way of life. If that's true, and the new site is 'fixed' buildings then why have they built stuff on the current site?! If living in a fixed house is against their way of life then building fixed properties would also be against their way of life, but if they're being moved to a 'caravan only' site then that fits with their way of life, surely? :?

Also, claiming it's ethnic cleansing is a bit OTT, I'm sure some of the Muslims from Srebrenica or Kurds from Iraq would like to explain to them what ethnic cleansing really means.

But, if you live in this country then you should follow the laws of this country, and that includes dishing out summary vigilante beatings....

I'm not sure giving someone a hiding for a breach of planning regulations is particularly fair or proportionate anyway.

sheepsteeth

i would say that the gypos should be allowed their cake and they should be allowed to eat it:

stay in the houses, then set them on fire.

sideways.

j_l

Don't get me started on Pikies

Kick em out, as said above laws are laws who ever you are :twisted:

DCR00

two minds about this

1. They dont pay taxes and choose to live outside of our society, so they dont get a say. They didnt follow proceedure, and if someone else built a house on a piece of land without permission, they could be asked to take it down. So it should be the same rules for them.

2. Some of them have been living there for 10 years. I dont agree with their inherent right to live in the same system as us without paying any taxes, when i pay a truckload of tax every month, but equally i dont really want to see familys turfed out of a house they have lived in for 10 years. It also seems a tad hypocritcal to say its ok to turf these people out of their homes when we let people from other countries live here if there is a danger of them being persecuted in their home country, giving them somewhere to live and money for food etc.

That said i dont live anywhere near the site. If i was local i may well feel very differently about this.

VWsurfbum

I too have mixed feelings about this,
1 they have lived there 10+ years so cant be classed as travelers, becuase thats not traveling.
2 if they have lived there for so long why are they not conforming.
3 if they leave (which they wont) my business will be a lot quieter
4 My wifes uncles land (thats a stone throw away) that used to be worth a fortune will go back up slightly once they leave (unlikely as now tarnished)
5 they will cause so much havoc for basildon council it will cost them god know how much more than initaially thought.
6 if they wanted war they now have it
7 who the hell are they going to send in (other than chuck norris) to get them out?

bails87

DCR00 wrote:

2. Some of them have been living there for 10 years. I dont agree with their inherent right to live in the same system as us without paying any taxes,

They don't pay taxes? So they flash their travellers card and are exempt from insurance premium tax, VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, whatever taxes apply when buying land etc? I'm sure, like a lot of self employed people they do 'cash in hand' work, but plenty of taxes are unavoidable, and if they're caught using red diesel (for example) to avoid fuel duty then they'll be punished the same as anyone else.

but equally i dont really want to see familys turfed out of a house they have lived in for 10 years. It also seems a tad hypocritcal to say its ok to turf these people out of their homes when we let people from other countries live here if there is a danger of them being persecuted in their home country, giving them somewhere to live and money for food etc..

I don't think the two are related. Some people flee persecution and a very real threat of false imprisonment/harrasment/assault/rape/death because of a mentalist being in charge of their country, and get £36/52 a week depending on if they're an adult/child. The travellers have cars/accomodation/businesses, aren't in any real physical danger from the authorities and knowingly(?) broke planning regulations, the buildings breaking those planning regs should be treated the same way as any other non-regulation building would be treated. Either adapted to meet the regs or pulled down if it can't be granted retrospective permission.

If we do that, I suppose we have to look at how many people are going to be left homeless and dependent on social housing to keep a roof over them and their kid's heads.

spongtastic

sheepsteeth wrote:

i would say that the gypos should be allowed their cake and they should be allowed to eat it:

stay in the houses, then set them on fire.

sideways.

I'm sure they'd burn pretty well with all the connifer trimmings and calor gas bottles that seem to litter every pikey site I've ever been to.

TBH, it would have been easier for the local Council to ask them to apply for retrospective planning permission, then refuse and tell them to leave, or grant it let them stay and get them to pay tax etc at their 'fixed address'. I think they'd be quite suprised how quickly they left then.

As for the mongo anarchists that have turned up, they look like they need a good 'ethnic cleansing' shower.

sheepsteeth

god, Bails, you are such a fucking bleeding heart hippy.

bails87

sheepsteeth wrote:

god, Bails, you are such a ******* bleeding heart hippy.

I know, saying that if travellers houses break planning regulations then they should be knocked down!

Now where's my mungbean and lentil organic caserole......

sheepsteeth

DCR00

bails87 wrote:

DCR00 wrote:

2. Some of them have been living there for 10 years. I dont agree with their inherent right to live in the same system as us without paying any taxes,

They don't pay taxes? So they flash their travellers card and are exempt from insurance premium tax, VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, whatever taxes apply when buying land etc? I'm sure, like a lot of self employed people they do 'cash in hand' work, but plenty of taxes are unavoidable, and if they're caught using red diesel (for example) to avoid fuel duty then they'll be punished the same as anyone else.

but equally i dont really want to see familys turfed out of a house they have lived in for 10 years. It also seems a tad hypocritcal to say its ok to turf these people out of their homes when we let people from other countries live here if there is a danger of them being persecuted in their home country, giving them somewhere to live and money for food etc..

I don't think the two are related. Some people flee persecution and a very real threat of false imprisonment/harrasment/assault/rape/death because of a mentalist being in charge of their country, and get £36/52 a week depending on if they're an adult/child. The travellers have cars/accomodation/businesses, aren't in any real physical danger from the authorities and knowingly(?) broke planning regulations, the buildings breaking those planning regs should be treated the same way as any other non-regulation building would be treated. Either adapted to meet the regs or pulled down if it can't be granted retrospective permission.

If we do that, I suppose we have to look at how many people are going to be left homeless and dependent on social housing to keep a roof over them and their kid's heads.

well yes im not suggesting we are persecuting them to that extent, but lets face it, they do face a certain amount of animosity and racism based on thier lifestyle choice

if a little old lady was being forced to tear her house down that she had been living in for 10 years cause she didnt have the correct planning permission, there would be plenty of people saying that was wrong, but because they are travellers, its now ok ?

sheepsteeth

DCR00 wrote:

but because they are travellers, its now ok ?

fiiinally, some sense.

you are completely correct, it IS ok if some gypos get kicked out of their pikey houses, kicked out all the wy back to the end of whatever rainbow they came here from.

bails87

DCR00 wrote:

well yes im not suggesting we are persecuting them to that extent, but lets face it, they do face a certain amount of animosity and racism based on thier lifestyle choice

if a little old lady was being forced to tear her house down that she had been living in for 10 years cause she didnt have the correct planning permission, there would be plenty of people saying that was wrong, but because they are travellers, its now ok ?

I absolutely agree, that's why I was careful to say danger from the authorities, as opposed to hostility from the general public.
And:

bails87 wrote:

, the buildings breaking those planning regs should be treated the same way as any other non-regulation building would be treated. Either adapted to meet the regs or pulled down if it can't be granted retrospective

bails87

sheepsteeth wrote:

DCR00 wrote:

but because they are travellers, its now ok ?

fiiinally, some sense.

you are completely correct, it IS ok if some gypos get kicked out of their pikey houses, kicked out all the wy back to the end of whatever rainbow they came here from.

One thing I don't understand is why they're being evicted from the site. Kick them out of the houses, so they can be 'adapted'/flattened to meet the regulations, but the land is still theirs and they can still have caravans on it can't they?

sheepsteeth

bails87 wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

DCR00 wrote:

but because they are travellers, its now ok ?

fiiinally, some sense.

you are completely correct, it IS ok if some gypos get kicked out of their pikey houses, kicked out all the wy back to the end of whatever rainbow they came here from.

One thing I don't understand is why they're being evicted from the site. Kick them out of the houses, so they can be 'adapted'/flattened to meet the regulations, but the land is still theirs and they can still have caravans on it can't they?

hmm, that does seem a bit off. surely

they should be allowed to stay on their own legally purchased land, plus, it would make it easier to do this

im only joking, i promise

KitsuneAndy

if the little old lady had known it was illegal before she bult the house, then strung it out for 10 years through the courts and turned down all offers of alternative housing, it'd be entirely her fault as well.

bails87

KitsuneAndy wrote:

if the little old lady had known it was illegal before she bult the house, then strung it out for 10 years through the courts and turned down all offers of alternative housing, it'd be entirely her fault as well.

But people do this all the time and get their sadface in the local paper, where they have a moan at the evil council kicking them out of their house.


One I did like was the farmer who was denied permission to build a house, but was allowed to build a (larger) barn. So he built the barn. Then built a house inside the barn, then the barn 'fell down' and he was left with a new house


If I remember correctly he had to knock it down!

97th choice

The council has treated them with kid gloves for ten years and explored almost every alternative option. They have had numerous opportunities to avoid this situation.

Bring on the gypsy curse I say.

Raymondavalon

Interesting reading.
Pikeys are bad news, when I worked in Aylesbury and the "travellers" arrived in the neighbouring fields, crime in the resedential and business areas would escalate, so I associate travellers with crime.

As for the topic on hand, I say move them out, show these people they are not exempt to any laws, planning or otherwise.

GhallTN6

gypsies always seem to make a mess of things!!

cooldad

Only bit that doesn't make sense is council reckon it will cost £18m to move approx 80 families. That's over £200k per family.
Bet if you offered them £50k each they'd move.

Thewaylander

cooldad wrote:

Only bit that doesn't make sense is council reckon it will cost £18m to move approx 80 families. That's over £200k per family.
Bet if you offered them £50k each they'd move.

Yeh but thats more to do with the fact that local council are so woefully ineffiecient that there are about 14 million n 84 forms to be filled out at 15 levels of the council adn will take 200,000 man hours to arrange

Pudseyp

You need planning permission for a permanent building, temporary structures such as prefab garages and some conservatories you don't.

At the end of the day the law is the law, but unfortunately we have such a shite judicial system now thanks to the EU with so much red tape and right to appeal, you have three years since the notice is issued to apply for retrospective planning permission and if you fail you appeal.....hence why the stinking pikies have been there for 10 years....

As for grandma, she is probably living in a 3 bed house stinking of urine.....kick her out as well and let a young family have the better use of it.... euthanasia is the answer………..

Stevo_666

This kinda sums it quite well for me:
http://pigeonsnest.co.uk/stuff/thieving-gypsy-bastards.html
Classic Viz

cat_with_no_tail

sheepsteeth wrote:

i would say that the gypos should be allowed their cake and they should be allowed to eat it:

stay in the houses, then set them on fire.

sideways.

I'll eat your cake in a minute!


Oh, hang on, I've been away for a while, does cake still mean what it used to?

Nevermind. Carry-on.

Frank the tank

sheepsteeth wrote:

i would say that the gypos should be allowed their cake and they should be allowed to eat it:

stay in the houses, then set them on fire.

sideways.

Like wot 'e sez.

angry_bird

I think these gypos should just demand some money to move, making everyone happy, if they then want an alternative lifestyle the should buy boats with the money and become pirates.

Preferably somewhere far away.

Pirates are nasty.

That's about the limit my brain can stretch to tonight.

cooldad

Excellent idea, we need more pirates to combat global warming.