Dale Farm

Greg T

Clever Pun wrote:

Has their been and vids of white middle class kids with dreads getting tasered yet?

that's what this thread needs... more taser.

I'd "pay per view" to watch that on Sky.

cornerblock

Greg T wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Has their been and vids of white middle class kids with dreads getting tasered yet?

that's what this thread needs... more taser.

I'd "pay per view" to watch that on Sky.

Even better would be a ' Press Red Button' option to activate taser.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

This is what I mean: "hard and early", "get heavy". You keep claiming that its political correctness or liberal sensitivities that are preventing the authorities from what you suggest to be the right thing, when in actual fact its the law or simple logistics. The riots couldn't have been dealt with more efficiently by using rubber bullets or water cannons, and these travellers couldn't have been dealt with better by simply ignoring process and bulldozing their houses.

If it were "the law or simple logistics" which caused the long running dispute then each and every planning application would take 10 years to resolve. Of course that isn't the case. The fact remains that this has gone on for a decade - why? Because of namby-pambyism right at the start. You or I would not be afforded the same treatment, I can assure you.

I'm not proposing that laws are broken or due process isn't followed to deal with this problem. On the contrary, I'm suggesting that additional leniency was given to the travellers - in effect the exact opposite of what you think my position is.

You don't know that though, do you? You're just speculating that that *must* be the case, because it fits your view. Your 'we would not get the same treatment' line is also silly....you can't compare a loft conversion or conservatory to the eviction of hundreds of people from their homes. No doubt their status as travellers/gypsies influenced the process, which seems entirely sensible....it is not a normal planning dispute!

sketchley

The reason it went on for 10years is that the travellers had the money and legal resources to keep fighting the decision. You and I would have had to give up after first appeal. They knew exactly what they were doing 10 years living there is a result for them.

I don't think it has anything to liberalism at all.......

notsoblue

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

This is what I mean: "hard and early", "get heavy". You keep claiming that its political correctness or liberal sensitivities that are preventing the authorities from what you suggest to be the right thing, when in actual fact its the law or simple logistics. The riots couldn't have been dealt with more efficiently by using rubber bullets or water cannons, and these travellers couldn't have been dealt with better by simply ignoring process and bulldozing their houses.

If it were "the law or simple logistics" which caused the long running dispute then each and every planning application would take 10 years to resolve. Of course that isn't the case. The fact remains that this has gone on for a decade - why? Because of namby-pambyism right at the start. You or I would not be afforded the same treatment, I can assure you.

I'm not proposing that laws are broken or due process isn't followed to deal with this problem. On the contrary, I'm suggesting that additional leniency was given to the travellers - in effect the exact opposite of what you think my position is.

You don't know that though, do you? You're just speculating that that *must* be the case, because it fits your view. Your 'we would not get the same treatment' line is also silly....you can't compare a loft conversion or conservatory to the eviction of hundreds of people from their homes. No doubt their status as travellers/gypsies influenced the process, which seems entirely sensible....it is not a normal planning dispute!

Indeed. Also its worth making the point that we would probably be afforded the same treatment, but wouldn't want to push it that far.

As a general point I think its wrong to assume that minorities and the "undeserving poor" get preferential treatment in matters like this. Its much easier to get what you want out of local government bureaucracy if you speak with a middle class accent.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

This is what I mean: "hard and early", "get heavy". You keep claiming that its political correctness or liberal sensitivities that are preventing the authorities from what you suggest to be the right thing, when in actual fact its the law or simple logistics. The riots couldn't have been dealt with more efficiently by using rubber bullets or water cannons, and these travellers couldn't have been dealt with better by simply ignoring process and bulldozing their houses.

If it were "the law or simple logistics" which caused the long running dispute then each and every planning application would take 10 years to resolve. Of course that isn't the case. The fact remains that this has gone on for a decade - why? Because of namby-pambyism right at the start. You or I would not be afforded the same treatment, I can assure you.

I'm not proposing that laws are broken or due process isn't followed to deal with this problem. On the contrary, I'm suggesting that additional leniency was given to the travellers - in effect the exact opposite of what you think my position is.

You don't know that though, do you? You're just speculating that that *must* be the case, because it fits your view. Your 'we would not get the same treatment' line is also silly....you can't compare a loft conversion or conservatory to the eviction of hundreds of people from their homes. No doubt their status as travellers/gypsies influenced the process, which seems entirely sensible....it is not a normal planning dispute!

Indeed. Also its worth making the point that we would probably be afforded the same treatment, but wouldn't want to push it that far.

As a general point I think its wrong to assume that minorities and the "undeserving poor" get preferential treatment in matters like this. Its much easier to get what you want out of local government bureaucracy if you speak with a middle class accent.

I fear you're both being serious.

6 years ago a temporary "permission" was granted to seek to find an alternative site. Would any other group have been offered this? No. If I'm denied planning pemission should I expect the council to find me somewhere else to live? of course not! Why should this be any different?

3 years ago Essex CC actually paid for a community centre to be built on the site - would anyone else have been treated like this? No.

Even that chap who hid his house behind hay bales was enforced against in only 3 years - and that had genuine issues of when the clock started ticking for enforcement. The Dale Farm case is much, much simpler - it should never have taken 10 years to sort out, except for very specific steps taken due to the nature of the people involved, which you, me or any other group would simply not enjoy.

As to the fact that they had the money to fight for 10 years - why didn't they spend that on a site that they could develop? Because they wanted to do things on the cheap - even to the extent that they attempted to "persuade" BCC to "buy" their land for less than th enforcement cost. In other words, ransom it.

tailwindhome

W1 wrote:

3 years ago Essex CC actually paid for a community centre to be built on the site - would anyone else have been treated like this? No

Yes actually.

Every estate in the country with a community centre

tailwindhome

Is Dale Farm just a dairy brand in Northern Ireland?

Everytime I see the thread title I fancy a nice bit of Vanilla

[/img]