Dale Farm
Comments
-
http://newsthump.com/2011/10/19/travell ... ravelling/
&
http://newsthump.com/2011/10/18/dale-fa ... passports/--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Interesting reports are suggesting the violence is not being carried out by the travellers but rather protesters who don't even live on the site. :shock:--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
If a policeman is injured by one of these protesters can they then claim damages from them? Or is it just protesters who get to claim for injuries caused by police action?0
-
-
Although stones were being thrown at police, he added, they were being chucked from well behind where the man was.
What is the British press coming to using such colloquial language? :shock:0 -
-
-
0
-
Makes me laugh this gets dredged up again.
All you going about how hard done by these 'travellers' have them roll up next to your property and tell me you won't be on at the local authority and police to shift them on after a few days.
As said in this thread earlier most of them left there are a rent-a-mob and deserve a tasering in my book. Most 'travellers' would have moved on as they don't want to get on Police radars. They'll now be causing havoc on the common, village green etc they have turned up on.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:The prejudice and misunderstanding about travellers - the term and travellers - the culture is astounding.
It's like saying "You're black why are you brown".
Firstly, yes, without planning permission they shouldn't have built.
Travellers do move around, fact. They are by nature transient. Quite often they'd have a main base and travel around a Country and on occasion return to said main base (note I didn't say home). This Country has done numerous things to demonise Travellers and hinder their ability to enjoy their culture in this country. Not recognising them as a people, possible genuine ethnicity and culture are one of those things.
This is the latest in a long line of unreasonable actions to villanise the Travelling/Romany Gipsy culture. Yes, at times their near seperatist culture doesn't help themselves.
It would have cost Basildon Council LESS money to help the Travellers find a suitable site than the 18million to evict them. That money could have gone to schools, NHS or any other public service.
This type of thing happens up and down the Country where Councils rather evict than help embrace and accomodate their way of life.
Are you really this naiive in real life, or jut whilst in your superman outfit posting on the internet?0 -
W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:The prejudice and misunderstanding about travellers - the term and travellers - the culture is astounding.
It's like saying "You're black why are you brown".
Firstly, yes, without planning permission they shouldn't have built.
Travellers do move around, fact. They are by nature transient. Quite often they'd have a main base and travel around a Country and on occasion return to said main base (note I didn't say home). This Country has done numerous things to demonise Travellers and hinder their ability to enjoy their culture in this country. Not recognising them as a people, possible genuine ethnicity and culture are one of those things.
This is the latest in a long line of unreasonable actions to villanise the Travelling/Romany Gipsy culture. Yes, at times their near seperatist culture doesn't help themselves.
It would have cost Basildon Council LESS money to help the Travellers find a suitable site than the 18million to evict them. That money could have gone to schools, NHS or any other public service.
This type of thing happens up and down the Country where Councils rather evict than help embrace and accomodate their way of life.
Are you really this naiive in real life, or jut whilst in your superman outfit posting on the internet?
Sorry DDD but this is true. 0 -
I love the idea rolling through this thread that if it costs money to enforce well-established and widely accepted laws then we probably shouldn't bother and in effect give up on law enforcement as, yer know, it like just costs so much money that we could be spending on err old people, and schools, and hospitals yah?
Laws - planning, speeding, red lights? They're not optional, so we're always being told on here. If you don't want to come out of an escapade looking like an outlaw, don't break the law. It just makes the rest of society hate us. I mean them. No us. Them what RLJ I mean. Obviously.
I'll keep out of this anyway. We've had dealings with our travelling friends on the farm on a few occasions. I wouldn't like to be banned from here. Yet.0 -
CiB wrote:I love the idea rolling through this thread that if it costs money to enforce well-established and widely accepted laws then we probably shouldn't bother and in effect give up on law enforcement as, yer know, it like just costs so much money that we could be spending on err old people, and schools, and hospitals yah?
Laws - planning, speeding, red lights? They're not optional, so we're always being told on here. If you don't want to come out of an escapade looking like an outlaw, don't break the law. It just makes the rest of society hate us. I mean them. No us. Them what RLJ I mean. Obviously.
I'll keep out of this anyway. We've had dealings with our travelling friends on the farm on a few occasions. I wouldn't like to be banned from here. Yet.
Yeah, because stand-offs, people being tasered and mobilising a significant number of riot police and bailiffs is the way forward.
This should have been managed better from the very start.
The press etc have come into this at step 9, when it was already too late.
You have to think that there was, somewhere down the line, a better solution than this one.0 -
Re the crazy cost of evicting them....although it seems madness to spend that money, it is quite important to be seen to uphold the law on planning...even if it does not make financial 'sense'. The results of not doing so can be seen in Ireland....just go there and drive around the countryside there....it is a total f'ing mess of half built one story pebble dash houses stuck on every decent vista. Every small village town sprawls out into the surrounding country with random bungalows dotted anywhere people decide to stick them. It is awful.0
-
I think the total cost being quoted to evict them includes 10 years of legal fees. They would have not imagined this figure when they started.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Are these travellers the same cheeky chappies who meander along English Summer lanes on horse-drawn caravans, whittling clothes pegs from twigs while whistling cheerful tunes?0
-
As for money could of been spent finding them an alternative, while undoubtedly true the same could be said for the money spent by the travellers on legal fees to appeal the planning decisions, they could have spent this to find somewhere else, trouble is land suitable for building residential properties would have cost them a lot more. Do we want a scenario where you can buy a piece of green belt cheap because you cannot build on it and then hold the council to ransom by saying buy me a more expensive plot of land that I can build on because it will be cheaper than legal fees to stop me here. Everyone would be doing that if they did.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Gussio wrote:Are these travellers the same cheeky chappies who meander along English Summer lanes on horse-drawn caravans, whittling clothes pegs from twigs while whistling cheerful tunes?
We'll have none of your stereotypes round here thank you very much.....--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sewinman wrote:
Sorry it's taken my a while to respond, I had to pick myself up off the floor.
I can't really correlate this with your view of illegal direct action elsewhere, but I'm not going to argue!0 -
Police are there to uphold order. The council couldn't realistically send in one bailiff; a couple of dozen is more like it but there'll be at least a couple of em who fancy themselves a bit when it comes to enforcing the courts wishes, as well as a few travellers with a similar outlook on life & dealing with the authorities. So there's almost bound to be trouble; chuck in the rent-a-mob protesters who see a chance to be involved and PC Plod's presence en masse is pretty much guaranteed. It's a shame the RUC aren't still around. They had a few who enjoyed mixing it up a bit when the chance arose. Their only problem would be in knowing where to start if they were here.Rick Chasey wrote:Yeah, because stand-offs, people being tasered and mobilising a significant number of riot police and bailiffs is the way forward.
String em up, all of em. Protesters, travellers, rent-a thug, any copper not doing his utmost to enforce the law as directed by HM Courts. That's what we want to see on the six o'clock news tonight, not a line of shiny new Transit vans all sans VED quietly trundling off down the lane with eviction notices flapping on the dashboards. Go on. Chuck em out.
Bye all. Nice knowing you.
0 -
W1 wrote:Sewinman wrote:
Sorry it's taken my a while to respond, I had to pick myself up off the floor.
I can't really correlate this with your view of illegal direct action elsewhere, but I'm not going to argue!
I can see what you are getting at but I don't think squatting and building illegally is correlated to direct action for a political cause. I can't see the cause they are furthering. Plus, remember I was not that bothered about a few smashed windows...it wasn't really that big a deal as much as people tried to make it. Obviously everyone was outraged at the time and looking to win internet arguments. Occasionally its good for a few windows to go in.
But please, lets not start that up again!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:CiB wrote:I love the idea rolling through this thread that if it costs money to enforce well-established and widely accepted laws then we probably shouldn't bother and in effect give up on law enforcement as, yer know, it like just costs so much money that we could be spending on err old people, and schools, and hospitals yah?
Laws - planning, speeding, red lights? They're not optional, so we're always being told on here. If you don't want to come out of an escapade looking like an outlaw, don't break the law. It just makes the rest of society hate us. I mean them. No us. Them what RLJ I mean. Obviously.
I'll keep out of this anyway. We've had dealings with our travelling friends on the farm on a few occasions. I wouldn't like to be banned from here. Yet.
Yeah, because stand-offs, people being tasered and mobilising a significant number of riot police and bailiffs is the way forward.
This should have been managed better from the very start.
The press etc have come into this at step 9, when it was already too late.
You have to think that there was, somewhere down the line, a better solution than this one.
Indeed, they should have issued and carried out enforcement proceedings 9 years ago. There is no reason for this carry-on to have lasted 10 years - with all the associated costs - except the namby-pamby fear of causing offencing and being labelled racist. So 10 years were spent pacifying, rather than enforcing. You or I would not benefit from the same treatment - not only would the planning laws be enforced, but if we didn't comply the council would knock unlawful developments down and then send us the bill. I hope the same happens here - tax payers is Essex should not be footing the bill for this.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:This is the latest in a long line of unreasonable actions to villanise the Travelling/Romany Gipsy culture. Yes, at times their near seperatist culture doesn't help themselves.
You've missed off the bulk of the community - the Irish tinkers who trade off the back of the Romany culture to justify their illegal businesses. These are the people in the innappropriately titled Big Fat Gypsey wedding programmes. Nothing to do with Gypseys at all; just people who don't like paying taxes. No 'culture' there.
Moderately interesting (IMO) are the increasing number of traditional horse drawn Gypsey wagons I see on my bike rides around the plain of York. Usually one or two together. Still seem to make a hell of a mess though.Faster than a tent.......0 -
I'm going to avoid this thread. The usual wind ups are strong today.
Suffice to say, a non-force solution is almost always the best one, and should certainly be aimed for.
The solution is not this but 9 years earlier, nor is it to let it slide.
The solution was to manage everyone's expectations sooner and earlier, and take control of the situation. The more aggressively you approach a problem, the deeper those on the other side of the argument will dig, and the more crystallised the divide will become.
It's important to keep things fluid and open. From what I have read, the dialogue from either side never was.
This is more than an issue about upholding law. At least, it was until this morning.
As for having a go at protesters - I can't even begin to get involved in that, else I'll foam at the mouth with rage.0 -
RC, Just because people don't agree with your incredibly liberal views (on a matter that doesn't directly affect you I might add) doesn't make it a wind up, They shouldn't be there and they know they shouldn't be, watch the coverage you won't see one 'gypsy' man it's women, children dogs and professional protestors fighting a cause they long ago forgot. Join the grown up world this is the way it works, they should have been moved on years ago, but as others have said Political Correctness rules and the end result is a big bill to taxpayers that could have been used on improving local servicesAll lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:I'm going to avoid this thread. The usual wind ups are strong today.
The travellers themselves have handled this very very badly. You just can't try to subvert or ignore the law for that long and get away with it, especially not in a country like the UK. Their lifestyle is by definition counter-cultural, and thats what everyone is reacting to. Its incredible how many people have come out of the woodwork on fora all around the internet to give there 2p about how much they hate travellers/gypsies. Its totally unreserved because to them whats happening at Dale farm justifies their prejudices.
The Daily Mash article really sums this up the best...0 -
bianchimoon wrote:RC, Just because people don't agree with your incredibly liberal views (on a matter that doesn't directly affect you I might add) doesn't make it a wind up, They shouldn't be there and they know they shouldn't be, watch the coverage you won't see one 'gypsy' man it's women, children dogs and professional protestors fighting a cause they long ago forgot. Join the grown up world this is the way it works, they should have been moved on years ago, but as others have said Political Correctness rules and the end result is a big bill to taxpayers that could have been used on improving local services
What the hell has Political Correctness got to do with this?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I'm going to avoid this thread. The usual wind ups are strong today.
Suffice to say, a non-force solution is almost always the best one, and should certainly be aimed for.
The solution is not this but 9 years earlier, nor is it to let it slide.
The solution was to manage everyone's expectations sooner and earlier, and take control of the situation. The more aggressively you approach a problem, the deeper those on the other side of the argument will dig, and the more crystallised the divide will become.
It's important to keep things fluid and open. From what I have read, the dialogue from either side never was.
This is more than an issue about upholding law. At least, it was until this morning.
As for having a go at protesters - I can't even begin to get involved in that, else I'll foam at the mouth with rage.
Oh give over - it's people with your sort of attitude that let things get to this level in the first place - liberalism and hand-wringing just means that people will take the p!ss if you give them the chance, pure and simple. This is a great example. Again, the naiivity you display is staggering.
Manage expectations? Jeez. The only expectation that there should have been was that enforcement should have been done immediately, not 10 years and £20m quid later.
The protesters have nothing better to do than chuck bricks at the police - if that's the game they want to paly, a little tazering is hardly unexpected.0 -
W1 wrote:Oh give over - it's people with your sort of attitude that let things get to this level in the first place - liberalism and hand-wringing just means that people will take the p!ss if you give them the chance, pure and simple. This is a great example. Again, the naiivity you display is staggering.
I don't understand this... How would you have done things differently?0
