Dale Farm eviction

lemoncurd

kylemalco wrote:

I love ice cream

Me too.

Is Dale Farm ice cream organic?

Cleat Eastwood

MattC59 wrote:

Oh dear, it would appear that the balance of this thread has been disrupted.

Mods,
As it would appear that you have removed two of my posts, in the interest of balance, I would have thought that you would have also removed Weejie54's posts which reference my posts. Especially as all of my posts which have been removed do nothing but explain my intollerance for anyone who does not abide by the rules of the land or acts in an anti-social way. The information quoted by myself, is not opinion, it is fact, readily available for anyone to read.

I understand why you might remove any posts which appear to incite violence or hatred, but I don't believe that any of mine did, hence writing this post, I'm a little confused why my explanatory posts have been removed ?

My apologies if I have offended in any way.

Whether I agree with you or not on this topic is a another matter, but I don't think you need apologise. You're an adult with a point of view as is weejie and I dont think either of you have expressed an opinion you wouldn't hear in any pub or cake stop/cafe for that matter.

I've had a few posts disappear without explanation (one was a pic of a bird with big knockers), I think the least the mods could do is send a private email saying why and who made the complaint as to be honest I'd rather be part of a forum where the contributors have strong views but also a sense of perspective and humour. Almost all of the people on here give as good as they get and the forums a better place for it, I think if posters can't do that they should either be moved to the wasteland of the communting section or be forced to read speed_kings epic.....again.

DF33

I agree. Whether one agrees or not they are both entitled to free speech. Once you start censoring posts at this level, it being SO subjective, you have to carry on becausre the bits you left behind are just as annoying to the next man down the line and so on until your left with a Jack and Jill story.

Oh, Maybe better remove this post mods, as I said next man and not next person - that will genuinely offend some men and women. If you do you will genuinely annoy some men and women too as being so over the top and petty and ridiculous,
So where do draw the line on this - do you leave this post as harmless if a tiny bit non PC, or remove it as it is clearly sexist in some eyes and hurtful?

As you've started to sensor you have to act on this one way or another. Remove it or leave it, either way you show your decision.

Your call!

DF33

And the above post is not to goad you, mods. Purely to show the can of worms now opened by the very selective knee jerk removal.

Keith1983

At the end of the day, what these people's backround is, is completely irrelevant, as is any previous misdemeanours. At the end of the day they are in breach of planniong regulations as I understand it and the council are dealing with it by the means they have available. I don't even see that there is a debate. Are we going to start debating when the police arrest someone for theft or murder?

Yossie

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

I've had a few posts disappear without explanation (one was a pic of a bird with big knockers), I think the least the mods could do is send a private email saying why and who made the complaint as to be honest I'd rather be part of a forum where the contributors have strong views but also a sense of perspective and humour. Almost all of the people on here give as good as they get and the forums a better place for it, I think if posters can't do that they should either be moved to the wasteland of the communting section or be forced to read speed_kings epic.....again.

Agree - I've had a couple of posts disappear (one anti Dopey Millarcheat rant which was actually quite witty) for no reason at all (perhaps the mods are fans of cheating dopers who dope and cheat and lie and sleep with other people's wives?)

I personally think that the mods should start deleting the "what torque wrench should i buty/what oil should I use/how do I clean my chain/anything by Steve the Nutritionist" threads as these cause me more pain than someone ranting about Dale Farm.

Squillinossett

MattC59 wrote:

Oh dear, it would appear that the balance of this thread has been disrupted.

Mods,
As it would appear that you have removed two of my posts, in the interest of balance, I would have thought that you would have also removed Weejie54's posts which reference my posts. Especially as all of my posts which have been removed do nothing but explain my intollerance for anyone who does not abide by the rules of the land or acts in an anti-social way. The information quoted by myself, is not opinion, it is fact, readily available for anyone to read.

I understand why you might remove any posts which appear to incite violence or hatred, but I don't believe that any of mine did, hence writing this post, I'm a little confused why my explanatory posts have been removed ?

My apologies if I have offended in any way.

Matt C59, I wouldn't worry. Most of the regular posters know you well, so I wouldn't loose any sleep over the seemingly random censorship! I, and it seems most others are in full agreement with you on the matter.

Jeff Jones

Posts that get reported and break the rules are deleted. See 5. SPECIFIC RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT on that link for the reasons why. It's fairly obvious.

Note: not all posts that break the rules get reported and deleted (a clean up of quoted deleted posts is usually done, but sometimes bits get missed). This is because we cannot actively moderate the forum so for legal reasons we need to be reactive rather than proactive to offensive posts.

Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't violate other people's rights or promote criminal behaviour. "It was a joke" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

Ron Stuart

"Enforcement action should only be commenced where there is clearly a demonstrable harm arising from a development carried out without the benefit of planning permission. It is not a criminal offence to carry out development without first obtaining planning permission however it is work carried out at ones own risk."

The words above are taken straight from an email written to me from our local planning enforcement officer on a separate issue.

Does anyone have professional knowledge enough to know if he right? I would be pleased to hear.

Drysuitdiver

Ron Stuart wrote:

"Enforcement action should only be commenced where there is clearly a demonstrable harm arising from a development carried out without the benefit of planning permission. It is not a criminal offence to carry out development without first obtaining planning permission however it is work carried out at ones own risk."

The words above are taken straight from an email written to me from our local planning enforcement officer on a separate issue.

Does anyone have professional knowledge enough to know if he right? I would be pleased to hear.

the above is correct. Planning isn't just about the buildings themselves its the infrastructure required to support the buildings. water mains for example need to be adequately sized to ensure supply disruptions are negated for those on the same supplty. same for electricity networks and waste water removal.

septic tanks I am not sure about but if not installed correctly and signed off can have negative effects on communities.

thats why the "development" needs to come down.

have just been through certificate of lawful development which is far less onerous than the planning permissions required for a development like this and that was hard enough.

iainment

Jeff Jones wrote:

Posts that get reported and break the rules are deleted. See 5. SPECIFIC RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT on that link for the reasons why. It's fairly obvious.

Note: not all posts that break the rules get reported and deleted (a clean up of quoted deleted posts is usually done, but sometimes bits get missed). This is because we cannot actively moderate the forum so for legal reasons we need to be reactive rather than proactive to offensive posts.

Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't violate other people's rights or promote criminal behaviour. "It was a joke" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

I read through this thread yesterday and reported several posts that I regarded as either blatantly racist or that advocated criminal behaviour - that is violence or violent acts.
I don't apologise to anyone for this. This debate doesn't need to be dragged down to the levels of vitriol that were expressed.
I accept that there is a high degree of prejudice against Travellers but there are limits here as explained above by the moderator.
If, when, motorists use similar blanket invective against cyclists think about the responses here - not all Travellers are saints, but equally not all are as bad as some on here would have you believe.

Bozman

When the end approaches i have no doubt that the liberal do-gooders will be at fault for putting us there, but by then it will be too late to do anything about them!

Cleat Eastwood

iainment wrote:

Jeff Jones wrote:

Posts that get reported and break the rules are deleted. See 5. SPECIFIC RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT on that link for the reasons why. It's fairly obvious.

Note: not all posts that break the rules get reported and deleted (a clean up of quoted deleted posts is usually done, but sometimes bits get missed). This is because we cannot actively moderate the forum so for legal reasons we need to be reactive rather than proactive to offensive posts.

Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't violate other people's rights or promote criminal behaviour. "It was a joke" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

I read through this thread yesterday and reported several posts that I regarded as either blatantly racist or that advocated criminal behaviour - that is violence or violent acts.
I don't apologise to anyone for this. This debate doesn't need to be dragged down to the levels of vitriol that were expressed.
I accept that there is a high degree of prejudice against Travellers but there are limits here as explained above by the moderator.
If, when, motorists use similar blanket invective against cyclists think about the responses here - not all Travellers are saints, but equally not all are as bad as some on here would have you believe.

Hmmm, I'm guessing here; but I bet your first reaction to the posts was not to offer a post yourself proposing a counter argument rather it was ti aim the mouse for the 'red exclamation mark of doom'.

For what it's worth I totally agree with you; some of the comments could be construed as racist, and the intoned violence was frightening…..but asking for a post to be deleted because you disagree with it? Is that really appropriate. It's not as if any of the posts were personal attacks.

Play the ball and not the man as Tom Stoppard once wrote.

As it happens I fully support the actions of the travellers, I would support anyone who chooses to stand against authority and a dictatorial mindset. And I believe that having as your first action the pressing of the red exclamation 'report' button you are, perversely, no better than the bully boys of the council and the thuggish bailiffs sent to evict the travellers, which I'm sure wasn't your attention.

But thats my opinion and if you disagree with it the 'report button' is up there.

It's a wide world and people on here have vastly different experiences to mine so what right have I, or you, to exclude their opinion from any debate. Does the teetotaller asked for Frank the Tank posts to be removed because he mentions having a drink on his 50th birthday? Do I as a vegetarian take exception to discussions about 'Bacons' on the MTB forum?

Where does the logic end?

Finally what I find baffling is that the post that was deleted was Matt and Weejie having a grown up discussion; Weejie asking for and Matt offering clarification on his statements. Eminently adult and far more interesting than the posts being deleted.

@JeffJones with all respect "Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't violate other people's rights or promote criminal behaviour. "It was a joke" doesn't cut it I'm afraid."

Freedom of speech is paramount. And "it was a joke" does cut it as all too often, as i'm sure you're aware, humour is the framework around which difficult subjects are broached on this forum. But again, just my opinion.

Anyway, as the forum will off pretty soon for a week for an upgrade its an excellent time to get on our bikes and all kiss and make up.

We are after all fellow travellers.

Jez mon

The mods seem to have come in for some stick recently. Let's be honest, it's a pretty thankless task, generally they don't interfere too much and most of the time the forum is fairly amicable.

Nevertheless, I have lurked on a number of forums which have been killed by over zealous moderation and it's something which the mods should bear in mind.

There are still posts (or evidence of posts) in this thread which I feel (strictly speaking) break the rules. Surely they need removal...

I guess the difficulty with moderation by red exclamation mark is that the posts can be up for a long time before a being reported, which can lead to threads being spoilt by having one post reported and the balance spoilt.

MaxwellBygraves

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

iainment wrote:

Jeff Jones wrote:

Posts that get reported and break the rules are deleted. See 5. SPECIFIC RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT on that link for the reasons why. It's fairly obvious.

Note: not all posts that break the rules get reported and deleted (a clean up of quoted deleted posts is usually done, but sometimes bits get missed). This is because we cannot actively moderate the forum so for legal reasons we need to be reactive rather than proactive to offensive posts.

Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't violate other people's rights or promote criminal behaviour. "It was a joke" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

I read through this thread yesterday and reported several posts that I regarded as either blatantly racist or that advocated criminal behaviour - that is violence or violent acts.
I don't apologise to anyone for this. This debate doesn't need to be dragged down to the levels of vitriol that were expressed.
I accept that there is a high degree of prejudice against Travellers but there are limits here as explained above by the moderator.
If, when, motorists use similar blanket invective against cyclists think about the responses here - not all Travellers are saints, but equally not all are as bad as some on here would have you believe.

Hmmm, I'm guessing here; but I bet your first reaction to the posts was not to offer a post yourself proposing a counter argument rather it was ti aim the mouse for the 'red exclamation mark of doom'.

For what it's worth I totally agree with you; some of the comments could be construed as racist, and the intoned violence was frightening…..but asking for a post to be deleted because you disagree with it? Is that really appropriate. It's not as if any of the posts were personal attacks.

Play the ball and not the man as Tom Stoppard once wrote.

As it happens I fully support the actions of the travellers, I would support anyone who chooses to stand against authority and a dictatorial mindset. And I believe that having as your first action the pressing of the red exclamation 'report' button you are, perversely, no better than the bully boys of the council and the thuggish bailiffs sent to evict the travellers, which I'm sure wasn't your attention.

But thats my opinion and if you disagree with it the 'report button' is up there.

It's a wide world and people on here have vastly different experiences to mine so what right have I, or you, to exclude their opinion from any debate. Does the teetotaller asked for Frank the Tank posts to be removed because he mentions having a drink on his 50th birthday? Do I as a vegetarian take exception to discussions about 'Bacons' on the MTB forum?

Where does the logic end?

Finally what I find baffling is that the post that was deleted was Matt and Weejie having a grown up discussion; Weejie asking for and Matt offering clarification on his statements. Eminently adult and far more interesting than the posts being deleted.

@JeffJones with all respect "Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't violate other people's rights or promote criminal behaviour. "It was a joke" doesn't cut it I'm afraid."

Freedom of speech is paramount. And "it was a joke" does cut it as all too often, as i'm sure you're aware, humour is the framework around which difficult subjects are broached on this forum. But again, just my opinion.

Anyway, as the forum will off pretty soon for a week for an upgrade its an excellent time to get on our bikes and all kiss and make up.

We are after all fellow travellers.

Totally agree, which is why I didn't report.

I hope that a few posters just got a bit hot under the collar rather than having genuine conviction in their posting on this thread...

MattC59

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Finally what I find baffling is that the post that was deleted was Matt and Weejie having a grown up discussion; Weejie asking for and Matt offering clarification on his statements.

+1, hence my last post.
What I find really baffling though, is the fact that only one side of the discussion was deleted. As Weejie was fairly selective in his quoting of my posts, this has resulted in posts which have quotes out of context, are biased and not representative of the discussion. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that by leaving only one side of the discussion available to read, this could paint me in a rather bad light (to those who don't know me). Admittedly, Weejie had already cast that light and come to his own (incorrect) conclusion about me, but hey, what does he know ?

Taking quotes out of context has to rank amongst the lower forms of journalism, so I'm suprised that the Mods have allowed it here.

Ron Stuart

Travellers that refuse to travel. :shock: :shock: :shock: :roll: and taking quotes out of context is journalism these days isn't it
:?:

iainment

I reported the worst of the posts that broke the rules of this forum - particularly those that advocated criminal acts. These all happened to be from the anti Traveller side of the argument.
Ironic given that one of the constant things put against Travellers is that they don't stick to the rules governing us all.
As I said I don't apolgise for this but would hope a real argument of the issues might be possible without descending to talk of killing people as a way of resolving a planning issue.

peter101cycle

Okay, my take on this thing, after having read the comments and the growing controversy over the last few days.

The travellers, gypseys, pikeys, whatever you want to call them, IMHO, have a criminal element deeply engrained into their numbers and act in a way that disregards the normal laws and conventions of society that others (generally!) abide by.

But what sticks in my throat is that they seem to have this view that they can take and rip society off without making IMHO any contribution to that society in terms of tax, culture (other than the occasional fairground maybe or fortune teller?!?) and frequently cause others loss of property, theft, violence and intimidation, let alone the mess and desecration of the countryside.

Maybe that's a naive view and I don't know what I am talking about but hey, that's my view.

And, they should get thrown out of Dale Farm purely as they have broken rules that's others have to abide by, but unfortunately,they will just go and do the same elsewhere and we end up doing this again and again. If the government has any backbone, they would pass a law to make it easier to evict quickly and with less cost involved but the lawyers, hangers on and ECoHR will I am sure make this very meaningless.

Rant over. Plus, I don't think I was racist in any way or condoning violence I hope :P

Bozman

Po-stasi, we've got our own Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter.

peter101cycle

Bozman wrote:

Po-stasi, we've got our own Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter.

Okay, justify your comment and make an argument why don't you, rather than flinging insults?

Bozman

I'm not flinging insults, it's purely freedom of speech but if you're part or a majority that "freedom of speech" doesn't seem to exist anymore the minority always get the final word.
The BBC gave someone like Griffin a seat on Question Time and we all saw what happened, i'm not comparing anything on here to Griffin but we all have an opinion, this post gave some people a chance to air their thoughts on a subject that may have effected them in a negative way.
It could be seen like a modern take on burning books.

peter101cycle

Bozman wrote:

I'm not flinging insults, it's purely freedom of speech but if you're part or a majority that "freedom of speech" doesn't seem to exist anymore the minority always get the final word.
The BBC gave someone like Griffin a seat on Question Time and we all saw what happened, i'm not comparing anything on here to Griffin but we all have an opinion, this post gave some people a chance to air their thoughts on a subject that may have effected them in a negative way.
It could be seen like a modern take on burning books.

Racism is nothing to do with it and its a complete smokescreen to push the real issues to one side. I for one have lots of friends from different backgrounds and work with them as well. Mentioning the BNP is naive in the extreme.

Tom Butcher

There is no doubt that there is a strong element within the traveller community that have a total disregard for non-travellers. People who are ripped off are seen as to blame for their own stupidity. This is not based purely on anecdote and personal experience (though that's part of it) but if you read anything about them you come up with the same conclusion. It's as much a part of their culture as married women staying home and the men working or getting married young.

Obviously it isn't universal - just as not all traveller women marry young and not all stay home - but to deny there is a strong thread of criminality - or disregard for certain laws - is to stick your head in the sand.

What I think would be interesting would be to know why that is and where it comes from. A policeman posted earlier that he knows sites that are lawful and some that aren't - so it's not all of them and it's not inevitable.

bompington

Bozman wrote:

Po-stasi, we've got our own Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter.

I think we can take this as Godwin's law being fulfilled, surprising it took so long in this thread.

MattC59

bompington wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Po-stasi, we've got our own Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter.

I think we can take this as Godwin's law being fulfilled, surprising it took so long in this thread.

I was thinking exactly the same.

Is there a version of Godwins law which would refer to calling someone a Pinko Lefty Do-Gooder, or equivalent ?

Bozman

Peter101cycle - Griffin was used as an example, i'm not linking this topic to racism, the point was whoever or whatever your view you should be allowed an opinion and then it's up to the rest to respond to that opinion, not for the opinion to be erased.

Ron Stuart

Wake-Up :!:

Until we all come to terms with the fact that this country is essentially corrupt at the highest level... expenses scandal.... phone hacking...some of hierarchy in the Metropolitan Police...money for questions...£5000 to get your interest heard at the highest level....James Murdoch's daughter has for a godfather Tony Blair (kind of fits doesn't it), political parties bought by vested interest, bonuses in the financial sector for failure, etc, etc, etc,
Get this lot in order and setting an example might, just might start to send some sort of signal to the rest of our colorful and mixed society.
Dale Farm is just one small manifestation of what is fundamentally gone wrong in this country so may be the venom that has been expressed here could be better directed towards an area that has far more impact on the rest of our lives.
:roll:

Redhog14

Comments regarding the use of Napalm or torpedos should be removed IMO. They are not contributory to the debate and are only harmful, they can never be construed as humourous or tongue in cheek.
I would cite the issue in Scotland where we have had an underlying religious bigotry for years and whilst it had begun to fade, internet forums have resulted in it being re-ignited to the point where a hate campaign against Celtic Manager Neil Lennon was so widespread he received letter bombs and bullets in the post. This is becuase of the feeling of anonymity that people get from forums allowed them to say things they wouldn't say in public and then others were emboldened by this.

rhext

Thinkg that makes me smile is that all the traveller representatives so far interviewed have claimed that they can't take advantage of the council's offer to make sure that anyone who needs it gets rehoused 'because it's against their culture'. And yet the protest is because they're being evicted from land upon which they've established permanent dwellings. I really don't get this at all.

I've always been inclined to be sympathetic to the 'plight' of travellers. I can accept that their way of life is nomadic. I can even accept that if council after council runs down formal provision for them then they may have little option but to set up camp illegally. But I've now experienced two occasions where travellers have set up camp locally, in both cases on public ameneties (park and sportsfield). Not only did they render those sites no-go areas while they were there, they trashed the sites so badly it took weeks before they could be restored to use.

To my mind, they're generally speaking caught in a trap of their own making. We can call it prejudice and racism that local residents would rather pull out their own fingernails than allow a traveller settlement near them. But having seen the mess and disruption they cause, you'd have to be a saint not to want them gone. I sometimes wonder if the reason that travelling is so deeply ingrained in the culture is because it only takes them a week or so to trash a location so thoroughly that they have no choice but to move on.