Topic ID 6143
I saw the police blocking this site earlier on my way home from work. Not a great deal can be done by the looks of it at the moment. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Travellers-move-into-Birch-Green-field-30082011.htm
Reply ID 82930
quote:My sister lives there and they're worried that with the eviction happening at midnight tonight in Essex they may find their way to Birch Green!
Originally posted by James007
I saw the police blocking this site earlier on my way home from work. Not a great deal can be done by the looks of it at the moment. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Travellers-move-into-Birch-Green-field-30082011.htm
Reply ID 82932
quote:I don't think actual evictions are undertaken at midnight. The deadline to leave may be midnight but I imagine any evictions will take place during daylight hours.
Originally posted by Firedupinside
My sister lives there and they're worried that with the eviction happening at midnight tonight in Essex they may find their way to Birch Green!
Reply ID 82950
Judging by the lack of any action by Essex in Dale farm over 10 years and the huge media presence I don't doubt that Essex CC have a huge problem in trying to sort the mess out... Sorry gone off topic!
Reply ID 82951
Now a group (gang?) of people acting outside of the law and wasting police time - where else have we seen that sort of behaviour recently? I'm assuming they must own the land? There is nothing in the Mercury report saying otherwise and I'd have thought it was an important detail.
Reply ID 82953
they do own the land yes. And it's no surprise they chose a bank holiday weekend to do the work - giving them an extra day's grace. It's not clear how long the police will maintain their presence. Even if they are evicted i dont see what will stop them returning when the police leave.
Reply ID 82959
Wanting to develope land for residential use, doesn't really fit the description "travellers". "Settlers" perhaps?
Reply ID 82970
There was an article in bbc news about that. You're right - they do want to settle - they dont want to live on the road. However; They want to retain their cultural integrity - and a key part of that is living in a group with many families. They dont want to be moved into council housing, in fact many refuse the option if even given it. Whats not clear; How do they get things like fresh water? And generating power from generators must be a very inefficient way of doing it with petrol prices so high!
Reply ID 82975
I too would also have loved to have stayed close to my family. Unfortunately house prices and a lack of work in the area I grew up in meant I had to move away. At no point did I ever feel I could just dig up the farm land at the back of my parents' house.
Reply ID 82976
i'm not saying it's right or wrong - i'm merely saying that they want to live in a different way to us. They are culturally different people, whatever their name is.
Reply ID 82978
Different is good, makes life interesting. Digging up land, leaving rubbish and total disregard for planning laws (and allegedly other laws as well) is not good. They live as they like and I pay for it. Why should I? I know someone who faces potential compulsory purchase of his green belt land that he can not build on, to provide traveller accomodation including shower/toilet blocks. How come? How is this fair in anyone's mind?
Reply ID 82979
quote:Fine by me if they want to do that. As long as they pay their council tax, declare earnings to HMRC, not influence local crime rates, integrate into the community, etc. Oh.
Originally posted by shunt
Wanting to develope land for residential use, doesn't really fit the description "travellers". "Settlers" perhaps?
Reply ID 82983
I was recently on a holiday with an Irish girl who put me straight on the so-called "Travelling Community" and lets put it like this, most of Ireland doesn't want them.. and she didn't paint them as put upon gypsys/romanys who wanted a different way of life, they were, in her and most of her communities views, scallys out for what they can get, legal or not. Maybe that's a sweeping statement, but the "travelling community" haven't exactly persuaded me that they wish to live an alternative lifestyle by the fly tipping and such like that is going on and the behaviour of thinking they have a god-given right to do what they want wherever they want... they dont, and nothing of the behaviours locally of "travelling communities" has persuaded me otherwise, they don't help themselves or endear themselves to other citizens in the community.
Reply ID 82985
I believe now would a good time to point out that Romani people are completely different set of people to those that are being discussed :)
Reply ID 83029
So no-one who lives in a house or flat has ever committed a crime? Or evaded tax? Or dropped litter? Well I never, you learn something new every day.
Reply ID 83031
The police are leaving on Monday apparently, and have not been preventing access as they did at first since late in the week.
Reply ID 83036
quote:Where on this thread has it been suggested that people who live in a house or a flat have never committed a crime, etc.? I think you will find, however, that when travellers move into an area crime statistics reflect their presence. Furthermore, if you had ever had the misfortune to have them move onto land next to your property you might have a different viewpoint.
Originally posted by aubend
So no-one who lives in a house or flat has ever committed a crime? Or evaded tax? Or dropped litter? Well I never, you learn something new every day.
Reply ID 83079
I know that this is a complex issue to do with the all too common problem of flouting planning laws, but it does make me wince when an entire ethnic group or community are singled out as being undesirable. Here's food for thought: http://www.jewify.org/
Reply ID 83104
No police there today. Maybe the settlers have bunged them a few quid to clear off ?
Reply ID 83108
quote:This, of course, is very wrong. However......I have few experiences of genuine travellers, those who turn up on a site for a short period with no intention of a long term stay and then move on whether by their own accord or forceably. Those I do recall, one on the A414 just after the WGC roundabout, another on the B1000 and another on the Mundells roundabout in WGC, were a disgrace. Frankly I don't care what ethnic culture, race or religion they were. They could have been all Chinese or Icelandic, groups of travelling Sikhs or Buddhists, one-legged atheists from Japan..........I don't care. But the mess they left behind was a disgrace. Replace the word 'travellers' with 'jew' in this article and would I feel any different? http://www.jewify.org/ Just as if I replaced it with 'Christian' or 'Sikh'. What's tarnished this issue is the behaviour of the minority not their culture.
Originally posted by dennismoore
I know that this is a complex issue to do with the all too common problem of flouting planning laws, but it does make me wince when an entire ethnic group or community are singled out as being undesirable. Here's food for thought: http://www.jewify.org/
Reply ID 83110
quote:Well said dennismoore. Comment on a specific problem is very different from blanket condemnation of an entire group or culture. We are, as a society, very bad at this. Your "jewify" model works for other groups too. Take any tabloid and try the same experiment of title substitution and you'll find our attitude to the poor, the unemployed, immigrants and the socially housed, not much different. Paying a mortgage does not entitle one to condemn those who do not, or cannot.
Originally posted by dennismoore
I know that this is a complex issue to do with the all too common problem of flouting planning laws, but it does make me wince when an entire ethnic group or community are singled out as being undesirable. Here's food for thought: http://www.jewify.org/
Reply ID 83111
I don't think anyone is singling out travellers on this forum because of who they are. They're being criticised for what they do. This is very different. When a group of people unlawfully develop a plot of land and suddenly cry racist when they're asked to move on, it annoys me that they're making a mockery of laws that are designed to make the UK a fairer place.
Reply ID 83126
quote:The critisism should be of what is being done, not expressed as "what they do". It is not that these particular people are asked to not use their land as residential, or that they are prevented from contravening law, but the language, generalisations and assumptions which are potentially "racist". Comparisons between this group and any other are irrelevent, unless they are precisely the same people. That would be the same as assuming that all Welsh people are muggers, because you know of some Welsh persons who are. There has been an incident in which a local businessman was suspected of contravening planning law, discussed on this very forum. His alledged actions were rightly condemned, but it was never suggested that his sole reason for acting as he had was his social group or genetic background. Of course it's a complex issue. Gypsies, in their various forms and under various names, have been condemned throughout history, but their culture survives and is international. They live outside our society, or we live outside thiers, and both sides are suspicious and have little respect for each other's moral values.
Originally posted by james
I don't think anyone is singling out travellers on this forum because of who they are. They're being criticised for what they do. This is very different. When a group of people unlawfully develop a plot of land and suddenly cry racist when they're asked to move on, it annoys me that they're making a mockery of laws that are designed to make the UK a fairer place.
Reply ID 83127
Shunt I don't think we're talking about Gypsies here but travellers who have taken on an itinerant lifestyle, I believe there is a difference. They are not a race so there can be no racism, indeed there are also many 'cultures' involved as travellers develop their own cultures. Personally I have had three bad experiences with Irish travellers in the past year so they don't live outside of 'our society'.
Reply ID 83129
quote:It may be hard to differentiate when the distinct act of moving onto land, sometimes illegally, and then moving on and leaving waste for the council to clear up is predominantly by one social group. I'm not saying that all travellers do this but let me ask why is this acceptable? What if I rolled down to a genuine travellers site and dumped my waste and expected them to clear it up? What if some locals found some land that was owned by a 'traveller' and used it as a dump and then the council forced the landowner to remove the waste at his own cost? It's not racism. The group in Birch Green may be completely different and I hope they are.
Originally posted by shuntquote:The critisism should be of what is being done, not expressed as "what they do".
Originally posted by james
I don't think anyone is singling out travellers on this forum because of who they are. They're being criticised for what they do. This is very different. When a group of people unlawfully develop a plot of land and suddenly cry racist when they're asked to move on, it annoys me that they're making a mockery of laws that are designed to make the UK a fairer place.
Reply ID 83133
quote:Me too, but many others have been positive. This is why I put "racist" in inverted commas. Race is not determined by biological genetics alone and largely a perception of difference by others. My own view is that there are few distinct biological races, that people should endevour to assimilate into the culture of the country they in which they live and that majority culture should be flexible to a much lesser extent to allow it, but those are just my values. This is what these people appear to be attempting. They are just not doing it in a way that is acceptable or takes into account our culture of leaving land deliberately unused as an aesthetic or recreational space. I'm not prepared to indentify any sector of humanity as worthy of blanket condemnation on the evidence of actions by individuals though. All this assumes that the people in question are part of any identifiable group. "Travellers" doesn't indicate any particular trait or behaviour, other than mobility to me. Gypsies though, whether they speak with Romanian, Irish, Spanish, or Polish accents, do have a distict cultural identity and arguably are more of a race (pairing within a relatively small group for generations)than many we identify as such. It is the cultural differences which leads to conflict and that conflict maintains the cultural difference.
Originally posted by Golden
Shunt I don't think we're talking about Gypsies here but travellers who have taken on an itinerant lifestyle, I believe there is a difference. They are not a race so there can be no racism, indeed there are also many 'cultures' involved as travellers develop their own cultures. Personally I have had three bad experiences with Irish travellers in the past year so they don't live outside of 'our society'.
Reply ID 83134
Sorry shunt, but thats baloney. In your world, you might understand the above to accuse you of verbosity, nay, grandiloquence, and logorrhea. The point being that we can all write complicated and flowery things on the internet, and perhaps it is the case that you consider yourself to be rumpole of the bailey- but your posts on this issue smacks of obfuscation. Write a university dissertation on the surrounding issues if you wish but your pontification adds nothing to the issue at heart (imo). my o.02p's worth, the people in essex have proved themselves to be very unpleasant people and should be removed without further reference to them. I would approach any issues in the locality in a similarly robust way.
Reply ID 83135
quote:I agree. You seem to have missed my point in your efforts to impress. There is a difference in being robust in dealing with offenders and assuming a wider group are automatically criminal or malicious in intent. Caution and automatic condemnation are not the same.
Originally posted by exiled_in_Reading
Sorry shunt, but thats baloney. In your world, you might understand the above to accuse you of verbosity, nay, grandiloquence, and logorrhea. The point being that we can all write complicated and flowery things on the internet, and perhaps it is the case that you consider yourself to be rumpole of the bailey- but your posts on this issue smacks of obfuscation. Write a university dissertation on the surrounding issues if you wish but your pontification adds nothing to the issue at heart (imo). my o.02p's worth, the people in essex have proved themselves to be very unpleasant people and should be removed without further reference to them. I would approach any issues in the locality in a similarly robust way.
Reply ID 83137
Surely if they are "travellers" they don't want to settle anywhere so why buy land, I have never understood how they can count themselves as travellers when they stay in one place fpor 10 or 20 tears. If they want to buy land and stay in one place then surely they should abide by the same rules as anyone else who wants to build/live on land
Reply ID 83141
I said before - travellers is a bad name - and doesnt indicate what they want. There are groups within this community, perhaps the birch green ones, perhaps not, who do not want to live on the road, but DO want to live in a large family group as is their culture. So they want a relatively permanent site, but at the same time they want to retain some aspects of their culture. That is why they buy the land. (Oh; And of course it gives them more rights because it means there is no trespass involved) Now; Perhaps we can keep this discussion on topic, and only discuss issues about the specifics of those in Birch Green! What is slightly odd, is that if I was buying land to live on, I certainly wouldnt buy it right next to a very noisy dual carriageway!
Reply ID 83142
Ok forget what they are called. They have bought the land in Birch Green that's fine and legal but they surely can't expect not to have to abide by the same rules as anyone else who could have bought that land. Why do they think they can just turn up and build/live on it without permission.
Reply ID 83143
Wanting to live in large family groups is simply human nature. It's not a trait that's exclusive to travellers. Culturally they're a mixture of English and Irish with Roman Catholic beliefs. And that doesn't make them that different to anybody else.
Reply ID 83146
quote:Maybe not, but their complete disregard for the rules and the impact they have on local communities does.
Originally posted by james
Wanting to live in large family groups is simply human nature. It's not a trait that's exclusive to travellers. Culturally they're a mixture of English and Irish with Roman Catholic beliefs. And that doesn't make them that different to anybody else.
Reply ID 83147
Exactly.
Reply ID 83152
the good people in Essex admit that they basically want to have their cake and eat it: At paragraph 7 of the judgment of Basildon District Council v McCarthy & Ors EWCA Civ 13 (22 January 2009) it says: “For the claimants, Mr Luba QC accepts that the claimants have reached the end of the road in their attempts to regularise their position by obtaining planning permission or temporary planning permission. That has been considered on a plot by plot basis. The extreme difficulty involved in obtaining planning permission for caravan and trailer sites in the Green Belt is acknowledged. Mr Luba accepts that the claimants are on the land unlawfully and that, even if the appeal is dismissed, they will still be on land unlawfully. He accepts that the most recent planning decisions of the Secretary of State reflect the planning situation. He accepts that the council could lawfully evict each and every one of the claimants provided they lawfully and appropriately direct themselves.” They have had a decade in which to rectify the situation. They have had some eighteen months since the dismissal of their last serious legal challenge. (I discount the attempt this week to gain a High Court injunction. That was mere legal frippery.) The travellers themselves admit that they are breaking the law and we should not feel sorry for them on that score either." Whether it be in Essex or Hertford - these people dont give a toss about the rules or how their behaviour affects the people around them. Sorry if this makes me a "racist" but there it is. The police need to approach these situation without much mercy, tow and impound any vechicles that arent taxed, insured and MOT'd, go through their property with a fine tooth comb to ascertain whether there are any ill gotten gains, and seek to destroy and remove any unlawful buildings. I dont give a monkeys where these people are from or what values or culture they claim to subscribe to - and I certainly dont wish to become involved in a semantic debate about their sitution or lifestyle choices on a sociological level - if you are in the UK you play by the rules. I have to say that it is *absolutely* disgusting that the travellers in essex have attempted to use the HRA to circumvent their choice to brazenly break the law and justice was done and seen to be done when they were thrown out of the high court on their arse. If they had got away with it in Essex, they would have got away with it in Hertford, or anywhere else with a bit of green belt. You make excuses for their choices (as some have done in a veiled way here) then you will end up with the environment that you deserve imho.
Reply ID 83156
Perhaps the police should take a similarly draconian line with Starbucks here in Hertford. Planning rules get ignored all the time, often by a kind of feral overclass who can get away with it by paying a fortune in legal fees and no one takes much notice. But when it's done on a small scale by a group of travellers in Essex, the media seems to go into a frenzy of abuse aimed at an entire community.
Reply ID 83157
good question marilyn! exiled in reading - yes it would be nice if the police would do that, but they're refusing to at the moment. They had plenty of options to harass these people, but they chose not to. For example - there was/is an untaxed vehicle - the police "reported it". !!! The ONLY reason for the police presence was to prevent a lynch mob from the village turfing them out (a-la a breach of the peace)
Reply ID 83158
do me a favour Dennis, the Essex people had Jan Luba of queens counsel acting for them (paid for by legal aid). They had more than a fair crack of the whip.
Reply ID 83159
and whilst we are at it, lets not pretend that this was an illegal wendy house in someones back garden. nor that they wanted anything other than to either cause trouble: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-14017865 or to make a few quid out of it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-14017865 so please dont embarrass yourself by attempting to paint these people as either hard done by or doing no harm.
Reply ID 83160
quote:"Feral overclass" [:D] (I realise that was your intended meaning, of course, but it's an astute juxtaposition)
Originally posted by dennismoore
Perhaps the police should take a similarly draconian line with Starbucks here in Hertford. Planning rules get ignored all the time, often by a kind of feral overclass who can get away with it by paying a fortune in legal fees and no one takes much notice. But when it's done on a small scale by a group of travellers in Essex, the media seems to go into a frenzy of abuse aimed at an entire community.
Reply ID 83162
quote:Whose trying to paint them "as hard done by or doing no harm?" You'd better read my post again. All I'm doing is highlighting the hypocracy of their treatment compared to others, including large and 'respected' companies.
Originally posted by exiled_in_Reading
and whilst we are at it, lets not pretend that this was an illegal wendy house in someones back garden. nor that they wanted anything other than to either cause trouble: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-14017865 or to make a few quid out of it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-14017865 so please dont embarrass yourself by attempting to paint these people as either hard done by or doing no harm.
Reply ID 83163
EIR gets my vote!
Reply ID 83164
quote:Yes, I suppose it is. I first heard it in relation to MPs and bankers.
Originally posted by Stevequote:"Feral overclass" [:D] (I realise that was your intended meaning, of course, but it's an astute juxtaposition)
Originally posted by dennismoore
Perhaps the police should take a similarly draconian line with Starbucks here in Hertford. Planning rules get ignored all the time, often by a kind of feral overclass who can get away with it by paying a fortune in legal fees and no one takes much notice. But when it's done on a small scale by a group of travellers in Essex, the media seems to go into a frenzy of abuse aimed at an entire community.
Reply ID 83197
Why is an unrelated incident in Essex being discussed on a Hertford forum? When Starbucks or a company contravenes planning law, the discussion can legitimately turn to the same company's activities elsewhere, but not when the perpetrators are private individuals who have no known connection. When a local entrepreneur was suspected of knocking a house down we didn't assume a connection to a remote person or persons in another county. A local person I know of who repeatedly contravened planning on his luxury house, much more locally than Essex, would be a better comparison, or a certain garden centre, but somehow it's Essex. Why is that?
Reply ID 83199
quote:Because the origin of the Essex issue was a small group of travellers settling on a small piece of land adjacent to other residential properties and subsequently turning it into a large encampment that has/will cost tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers money to resolve. The connection is at the beginning of the piece - hopefully that is where it will end.
Originally posted by shunt
Why is an unrelated incident in Essex being discussed on a Hertford forum?
Reply ID 83221
http://www.selebspy.com/2011/02/tabloid-press-gypsies-are-scum/ [:D]
Reply ID 83222
That would be relevant apart from the fact that I never read the tabloid press nor do I watch crap reality TV freak shows.
Reply ID 83223
It makes no difference what you call them or any personal opinions, the law is the law and in this country everyone should be made to work to the same laws and planning rules. They knew when they bought the land it had no permissions so they knew what would happen when they arrived.
Reply ID 83226
quote:My humble effort to lighten the mood a little can be marked as a dismal failure, it seems.[B)]
Originally posted by Golden
That would be relevant apart from the fact that I never read the tabloid press nor do I watch crap reality TV freak shows.
Reply ID 83228
Well, I enjoyed it. [:D]
Reply ID 83229
quote:Wrong thread? http://www.hertford.net/yoursay/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=3170&whichpage=1 [;)]
Originally posted by Marilyn
It makes no difference what you call them or any personal opinions, the law is the law and in this country everyone should be made to work to the same laws and planning rules. They knew when they bought the land it had no permissions so they knew what would happen when they arrived.
Reply ID 83234
quote:Much as I don't agree with what happend with that thread and have never used the place on principal I think this is much more serious as it is actually affecting many more people where they live and actually setting up dwellings without permission wher they currently do not exist, at least that shop was already built!
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:Wrong thread? http://www.hertford.net/yoursay/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=3170&whichpage=1 [;)]
Originally posted by Marilyn
It makes no difference what you call them or any personal opinions, the law is the law and in this country everyone should be made to work to the same laws and planning rules. They knew when they bought the land it had no permissions so they knew what would happen when they arrived.
Reply ID 83337
Latest news on this issue. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Council-continues-fight-against-Birch-Green-travellers-16092011.htm
Reply ID 83340
there's more than that. There's actually a court hearing regarding contempt of court at the high court - this is in the next couple of weeks. More importantly - what will happen / what will the council / police do when all the dale farm evictees turn up tomorrow?
Reply ID 83341
quote:Unless the connection is assumed, which would be entirely unsafe, they will have to deal with each development as it occurs. Like coffee shops, garden centres and Victorian houses which mysteriously collapse in Railway Street, the response must be measured, fair and legal.
Originally posted by codek2
there's more than that. There's actually a court hearing regarding contempt of court at the high court - this is in the next couple of weeks. More importantly - what will happen / what will the council / police do when all the dale farm evictees turn up tomorrow?
Reply ID 83567
Decisive action taken. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Dad-jailed-over-Birch-Green-traveller-site-battle-04102011.htm
Reply ID 83568
wow, thats incredible. Other news; Children from the site have been accepted and already started at the school in birch green.
Reply ID 83569
I love the judge's comment: "But today, it's Pentonville" [:D]
Reply ID 83576
I drove past an hour ago and they've gone...[:p]............. .......to the field on the other side of the road [:(!]
Reply ID 83580
quote:Four months imprisonment sounds like a lot. Is that what usually happens to people who ignore a court order?
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Decisive action taken. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Dad-jailed-over-Birch-Green-traveller-site-battle-04102011.htm
Reply ID 83584
quote:Contempt of court is a pretty serious offence.
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:Four months imprisonment sounds like a lot. Is that what usually happens to people who ignore a court order?
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Decisive action taken. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Dad-jailed-over-Birch-Green-traveller-site-battle-04102011.htm
Reply ID 83586
quote:I understand that, but when does ignoring a court order, which would seem to be quite common, become contempt? Is there a difference between the two or is it down to the judge or magistrate's discretion to call it that? I genuinely don't know. [:)]
Originally posted by Stevequote:Contempt of court is a pretty serious offence.
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:Four months imprisonment sounds like a lot. Is that what usually happens to people who ignore a court order?
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Decisive action taken. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Dad-jailed-over-Birch-Green-traveller-site-battle-04102011.htm
Reply ID 83590
the court takes a very dim view of people breaching their orders - particularly injunctions. this sentence sounds about right.
Reply ID 83622
It may sound about right to you, but is four months in prison a typical punishment for breaching a court order? To me it sounds both harsh and vindictive.
Reply ID 83623
ignoring a court order undermines the notion of the rule of law which is the cornerstone of a civilised society. the court doesnt like it and hands down robust sentences when they are disobeyed - and quite rightly so imo.
Reply ID 83628
quote:Harsh & vindictive? I think not! Might prevent a "Dale Farm" situation arising..........or are you ok with that?
Originally posted by dennismoore
It may sound about right to you, but is four months in prison a typical punishment for breaching a court order? To me it sounds both harsh and vindictive.
Reply ID 83634
quote:Spot on as usual Shunt. People on here are quick to jump on travellers' backs. It is a form of bigotry at best and racism at worst. I don't know travellers as acquaintances but I know people who do and they are proud and moralistic in some ways. I would imagine the percentage of law abiding travellers is roughly equivalent to those living in flats/houses.
Originally posted by shunt
Why is an unrelated incident in Essex being discussed on a Hertford forum? When Starbucks or a company contravenes planning law, the discussion can legitimately turn to the same company's activities elsewhere, but not when the perpetrators are private individuals who have no known connection. When a local entrepreneur was suspected of knocking a house down we didn't assume a connection to a remote person or persons in another county. A local person I know of who repeatedly contravened planning on his luxury house, much more locally than Essex, would be a better comparison, or a certain garden centre, but somehow it's Essex. Why is that?
Reply ID 83636
quote:It must be wonderful to live on your little planet!
Originally posted by aubendquote:Spot on as usual Shunt. People on here are quick to jump on travellers' backs. It is a form of bigotry at best and racism at worst. I don't know travellers as acquaintances but I know people who do and they are proud and moralistic in some ways. I would imagine the percentage of law abiding travellers is roughly equivalent to those living in flats/houses.
Originally posted by shunt
Why is an unrelated incident in Essex being discussed on a Hertford forum? When Starbucks or a company contravenes planning law, the discussion can legitimately turn to the same company's activities elsewhere, but not when the perpetrators are private individuals who have no known connection. When a local entrepreneur was suspected of knocking a house down we didn't assume a connection to a remote person or persons in another county. A local person I know of who repeatedly contravened planning on his luxury house, much more locally than Essex, would be a better comparison, or a certain garden centre, but somehow it's Essex. Why is that?
Reply ID 83637
quote:So I assume the answer to my question is no, four months in prison is not a typical punishment for ignoring this kind of court order, I can think of plenty of far more serious breaches of a court order where the offender may get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.... if they're unlucky. Inconsistencies in sentencing also undermine the rule of law, the cornerstone of a civilised society etc. etc. In the wake of the goings on at Dale Farm, the point has been made again and again that we all have to abide by the same laws. But how are travellers supposed to respect the law when the law treats them differently to everyone else?
Originally posted by exiled_in_Reading
ignoring a court order undermines the notion of the rule of law which is the cornerstone of a civilised society. the court doesnt like it and hands down robust sentences when they are disobeyed - and quite rightly so imo.
Reply ID 83638
quote:Imagine away dear aubend. The travellers that you are referring to (those that move from a different site to a different site to a different site, all illegally) are thieving scum. They destroy everything in their wake and have contempt for anyone who challenges them. They don't work legally, do not pay any tax or any nhs stamp. As for dennismoore's comment as the sentence being harsh, take your lilly livered liberal scarf off and imagine this: how you would feel if one was polite enough to offer you £1500 to park on your driveway for maybe just a couple of weeks? [^] ? Thought not.
Originally posted by aubendquote:Spot on as usual Shunt. People on here are quick to jump on travellers' backs. It is a form of bigotry at best and racism at worst. I don't know travellers as acquaintances but I know people who do and they are proud and moralistic in some ways. I would imagine the percentage of law abiding travellers is roughly equivalent to those living in flats/houses.
Originally posted by shunt
Why is an unrelated incident in Essex being discussed on a Hertford forum? When Starbucks or a company contravenes planning law, the discussion can legitimately turn to the same company's activities elsewhere, but not when the perpetrators are private individuals who have no known connection. When a local entrepreneur was suspected of knocking a house down we didn't assume a connection to a remote person or persons in another county. A local person I know of who repeatedly contravened planning on his luxury house, much more locally than Essex, would be a better comparison, or a certain garden centre, but somehow it's Essex. Why is that?
Reply ID 83647
Travellers are probably moral people in a lot of ways but (and I don't know any, this is all from the media and friends of friends etc): They treat women as chattels, wife beating is considered normal When they do leave the site, they leave disgusting rubbish which is also a health hazard which is dealt with using our council tax which they do not pay When their children do attend the local school they are aggressive and foul mouthed and refuse discipline as it against their 'uman rights innit. They build on green belt land where we would not be allowed a small shed They drive large 4x4 but do not have insurance or tax Theft rises immeasurably I do not have a problem if someone wants to live the traditional nomadic lifestyle but you need to treat the laws and people with respect. If they travelled and did not foul the countryside and lived within our society's laws, then I would have no problem. But they simply don't.
Reply ID 83648
whooa! Massively off topic. However the facts here are - They broke the law, and whether or not they had a criminal record before, they certainly do now. They have then broken the law AGAIN by moving the van onto the village green by the memorial. No doubt there'll be another injunction and another court hearing for that. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. The judge did effectively say, move your vans, and you'll be let out. Simple... Plus; At the end of the day - no one does even as much as half their sentence these days. So he'll be out within a month or two. *update* oh yes; I guess that last comment is off topic too. How ironic :)
Reply ID 83655
quote:What's "lily livered" about expecting the law to treat everyone equally? Would you rather it pandered to ignorance and prejudice when handing down sentences?
Originally posted by James007quote:Imagine away dear aubend. The travellers that you are referring to (those that move from a different site to a different site to a different site, all illegally) are thieving scum. They destroy everything in their wake and have contempt for anyone who challenges them. They don't work legally, do not pay any tax or any nhs stamp. As for dennismoore's comment as the sentence being harsh, take your lilly livered liberal scarf off and imagine this: how you would feel if one was polite enough to offer you £1500 to park on your driveway for maybe just a couple of weeks? [^] ? Thought not.
Originally posted by aubendquote:Spot on as usual Shunt. People on here are quick to jump on travellers' backs. It is a form of bigotry at best and racism at worst. I don't know travellers as acquaintances but I know people who do and they are proud and moralistic in some ways. I would imagine the percentage of law abiding travellers is roughly equivalent to those living in flats/houses.
Originally posted by shunt
Why is an unrelated incident in Essex being discussed on a Hertford forum? When Starbucks or a company contravenes planning law, the discussion can legitimately turn to the same company's activities elsewhere, but not when the perpetrators are private individuals who have no known connection. When a local entrepreneur was suspected of knocking a house down we didn't assume a connection to a remote person or persons in another county. A local person I know of who repeatedly contravened planning on his luxury house, much more locally than Essex, would be a better comparison, or a certain garden centre, but somehow it's Essex. Why is that?
Reply ID 83663
the guy has been freed now anyway. and supposedly the caravan on the green is being moved. .. Although most likely to another green nearby!
Reply ID 83665
Yup bigoted and racist.
Reply ID 83671
quote:In your opinion. I would suggest the term "realistic" sums up some of the opinions you are opposed to. You state that you "do not know travellers as acquaintances" So, from what platform do you speak? I don't know any as acquaintances either, but I do know them from professional contact, and can endorse everything that James 007 says.
Originally posted by aubend
Yup bigoted and racist.
Reply ID 83673
quote:The law treats everyone equally. If you and aubend decide to move on to Hartham Common and live there and call everyone names, you will get moved on. The law is showing the situation as it should do. This isn't about race, creed, colour, blah blah blah. It is about rules, legal rules, and they have been broken.
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:What's "lily livered" about expecting the law to treat everyone equally? Would you rather it pandered to ignorance and prejudice when handing down sentences?
Originally posted by James007quote:Imagine away dear aubend. The travellers that you are referring to (those that move from a different site to a different site to a different site, all illegally) are thieving scum. They destroy everything in their wake and have contempt for anyone who challenges them. They don't work legally, do not pay any tax or any nhs stamp. As for dennismoore's comment as the sentence being harsh, take your lilly livered liberal scarf off and imagine this: how you would feel if one was polite enough to offer you £1500 to park on your driveway for maybe just a couple of weeks? [^] ? Thought not.
Originally posted by aubendquote:Spot on as usual Shunt. People on here are quick to jump on travellers' backs. It is a form of bigotry at best and racism at worst. I don't know travellers as acquaintances but I know people who do and they are proud and moralistic in some ways. I would imagine the percentage of law abiding travellers is roughly equivalent to those living in flats/houses.
Originally posted by shunt
Why is an unrelated incident in Essex being discussed on a Hertford forum? When Starbucks or a company contravenes planning law, the discussion can legitimately turn to the same company's activities elsewhere, but not when the perpetrators are private individuals who have no known connection. When a local entrepreneur was suspected of knocking a house down we didn't assume a connection to a remote person or persons in another county. A local person I know of who repeatedly contravened planning on his luxury house, much more locally than Essex, would be a better comparison, or a certain garden centre, but somehow it's Essex. Why is that?
Reply ID 83675
You're missing the point James. On one hand a man is sentenced to four months in prison for the heinous crime of refusing to move his caravan when told to do so by a court, whilst at the same time what amounts to a blind eye is shown to both corporations and individuals who habitually ignore court orders and whose original 'offence' very often involves far more serious repercussions, for example, denying a child access to one of its parents, or ignoring local planning laws. So no, the law does not treat everyone equally. Why do you think that is in this case? Could it just be that it's open season on "thieving scum" travellers at the moment?
Reply ID 83676
It's all getting horribly out of hand here as people's predudices show. The basis of our law is that each person is treated individually, not as a type. It doesn't always work like that. The reality is that judges and police do not act impartially, nor ever will, because nobody does and access to law requires wealth. It's the principle of fairness and the striving to achieve it which matters. It must never be OK for one person to be treated more harshly under law because of the group to which they are presumed to belong or vice-versa or that they will act in a certain way. This man's contempt of law, police and court is far less serious than a certain white/female/company director I know, who has received not so much as a reprimand, also because of the perception of the group she aspires to. A big house and a well paid job, or a caravan in a field does not denote the morality, honesty, or malicious intent of the persons within and there are many types of theft and anti-social behaviour. Anyway, it seems this has been resolved whilst we've all bickered over it and the man is now reunited with his family. That is surely a good thing.
Reply ID 83677
access to law does not require wealth, and to suggest otherwise is complete and utter rubbish
Reply ID 83681
quote:In what context does it not?
Originally posted by exiled_in_Reading
access to law does not require wealth, and to suggest otherwise is complete and utter rubbish
Reply ID 83682
quote:I wonder if you're getting mixed up between various legal instruments. Unless I'm mistaken, there are different types of court order, of which an injuction is one of the more serious. Anyone with more knowledge care to clarify?
Originally posted by dennismoore
You're missing the point James. On one hand a man is sentenced to four months in prison for the heinous crime of refusing to move his caravan when told to do so by a court, whilst at the same time what amounts to a blind eye is shown to both corporations and individuals who habitually ignore court orders and whose original 'offence' very often involves far more serious repercussions, for example, denying a child access to one of its parents, or ignoring local planning laws. So no, the law does not treat everyone equally. Why do you think that is in this case? Could it just be that it's open season on "thieving scum" travellers at the moment?
Reply ID 83684
quote:But the point still remains, if there is some kind of 'de luxe' court order/injunction that allows for such a harsh sentence, then why was it used in this case and not in more serious ones?
Originally posted by Stevequote:I wonder if you're getting mixed up between various legal instruments. Unless I'm mistaken, there are different types of court order, of which an injuction is one of the more serious. Anyone with more knowledge care to clarify?
Originally posted by dennismoore
You're missing the point James. On one hand a man is sentenced to four months in prison for the heinous crime of refusing to move his caravan when told to do so by a court, whilst at the same time what amounts to a blind eye is shown to both corporations and individuals who habitually ignore court orders and whose original 'offence' very often involves far more serious repercussions, for example, denying a child access to one of its parents, or ignoring local planning laws. So no, the law does not treat everyone equally. Why do you think that is in this case? Could it just be that it's open season on "thieving scum" travellers at the moment?
Reply ID 83689
shunt - this is far from resolved. there is still a caravan on the green, next to the war memorial, which is illegal. and AFAIK there is still 1 caravan on the original site.
Reply ID 83692
I wonder how many of those on here who are up in arms about the "harsh" treatment of 'travellers' are willing to offer them a place to park their caravans in their own gardens? Anyway, if they are travellers, why aren't they travelling?
Reply ID 83695
classic mistake buzz - as i've been banging on about, travellers is a poor name for their community. Tricky to know what they should be called! they don't all necessarily want to travel at all, some just travel in the summer. The key difference of their community is simply they don't want to live in a house ( err, not sure why!) and that they want to live in a large family group. (As I see it anyway) And that they don't want to be involved in any other communities. The fact their kids are in the school gives evidence of their intentions.
Reply ID 83696
quote:If they don't want to travel then why live in a caravan? And if they want to live in a large family group buy a large property or a number of properties close to each other. I don't understand some of the points on here. If I lost my home tomorrow and decided to buy a caravan or campervan and then parked it in the drive or garden of those supporting the 'travellers' on this forum, then decided to stay there for as long as I liked how would that be received? Ignore the comments about increased crime and dumping rubbish. But if I just rolled up onto your property and decided to live there how would that be welcomed? I can't foresee the bunting being pinned up and a welcome sign being hung. I don't think there'd be drinks on the lawn and access to the utilities in the house. More likely agression and court action to get me removed as soon as possible. So what is the difference? Some people are so quick to stand to defend the rights of 'travellers'. But why are their rights different to mine? If I decided tomorrow that I was a 'traveller' and wanted to behave in the same way as the 'traveller' community why would I be different to them just because I wasn't brought up in the same 'culture'? What stops me behaving the same way? If they have rights then I have the same rights. Some of the 'travelling community' own land. Okay. So what would happen if I went on that land and built on it without their permission or even decided to live on it in a caravan. How tolerant would they be? Hmmmmm. How long before I was aggressively removed? It is not an argument about acceptance. The 'travellers' want to be accepted for what they are by the community but are not willing to accept what entails being part of that community.
Originally posted by codek2
classic mistake buzz - as i've been banging on about, travellers is a poor name for their community. Tricky to know what they should be called! they don't all necessarily want to travel at all, some just travel in the summer. The key difference of their community is simply they don't want to live in a house ( err, not sure why!) and that they want to live in a large family group. (As I see it anyway) And that they don't want to be involved in any other communities. The fact their kids are in the school gives evidence of their intentions.
Reply ID 83697
I'm not defending them, or saying they have different rights. I'm stating facts, and trying to improve peoples understanding, which in a lot of cases is either incomplete, or plain wrong. (Not helped by the daily mail and the like) The birch green situation is at least simple and straight forward. they broke the law - end of. The police reaction has been pretty poor however. Dale farm is different because of the fact it's been going on so long, and things like the council accepted payment of rates/council tax etc.
Reply ID 83702
quote:The same reason people live on boats yet never leave their moorings, maybe.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
If they don't want to travel then why live in a caravan?
Reply ID 83713
I think the thing is they can live however they wish sherever they wish as long as the abide by the same laws as everyone else. If you buy land and want to live on it you need permission whatever sort of dwelling it is house/ caravan and they always seem to try to live on land WITHOUT getting permission, no one else would get away with it why should they. I may be wrong here and stand to be corrected but I believe if you want some one to live in a caravan in your garden you would need permission for that as well.
Reply ID 83714
quote:This is not a viable comparison. The boat dwellers are limited and while they do have options to move on elsewhere they tend to buy the boats with the intention of long term legal mooring in a single place. The 'travellers' do not do this. The intention appears to be to move around at will and to use the local resources and facilities for their period of stay and move on. They have access to roads as opposed to waterways and these are vastly more extensive than waterways. 'Travellers' move from site to site at will and expect to utilise local resources and to be accepted. Boat owners do not do this, as far as I am aware. Their moorings are governed and as far as I am aware they abide by the rules. if this were not the case I'm sure we would here plenty about the issue on this forum as we have residential boats in Hertford.
Originally posted by Stevequote:The same reason people live on boats yet never leave their moorings, maybe.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
If they don't want to travel then why live in a caravan?
Reply ID 83715
quote:Indeed you would and this is just such a case of a caravan being used residentially by the owner of the land, but without proper permission. You may remember a similar case at the garden centre on the B158 last year. I don't think anybody on here is in support of lawbreaking.
Originally posted by Marilyn
I think the thing is they can live however they wish sherever they wish as long as the abide by the same laws as everyone else. If you buy land and want to live on it you need permission whatever sort of dwelling it is house/ caravan and they always seem to try to live on land WITHOUT getting permission, no one else would get away with it why should they. I may be wrong here and stand to be corrected but I believe if you want some one to live in a caravan in your garden you would need permission for that as well.
Reply ID 83716
quote:Exactly. I have to abide by rules and laws regardless of where my parents are from, my upbringing or my culture. We live in the same society as others. I do not accept that others should have different rights because of their 'culture'.
Originally posted by Marilyn
I think the thing is they can live however they wish sherever they wish as long as the abide by the same laws as everyone else. If you buy land and want to live on it you need permission whatever sort of dwelling it is house/ caravan and they always seem to try to live on land WITHOUT getting permission, no one else would get away with it why should they. I may be wrong here and stand to be corrected but I believe if you want some one to live in a caravan in your garden you would need permission for that as well.
Reply ID 83718
quote:Actually there is widespread unauthorised use of Cruising licenses for virtually static residential boats on bankside moorings. It is something the environment agency is tightening up on at this very moment, having just achieved charity status and needing to get some money in. The principle difference is the limitations of the canal system and where a boat can go. Otherwise it is very similar. Canal dwellers are also "of no fixed abode".
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:This is not a viable comparison. The boat dwellers are limited and while they do have options to move on elsewhere they tend to buy the boats with the intention of long term legal mooring in a single place. The 'travellers' do not do this. The intention appears to be to move around at will and to use the local resources and facilities for their period of stay and move on. They have access to roads as opposed to waterways and these are vastly more extensive than waterways. 'Travellers' move from site to site at will and expect to utilise local resources and to be accepted. Boat owners do not do this, as far as I am aware. Their moorings are governed and as far as I am aware they abide by the rules. if this were not the case I'm sure we would here plenty about the issue on this forum as we have residential boats in Hertford.
Originally posted by Stevequote:The same reason people live on boats yet never leave their moorings, maybe.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
If they don't want to travel then why live in a caravan?
Reply ID 83724
quote:'Tricky to know what they should be called!' Think James has hit the nail on the head on this one.
Originally posted by codek2
classic mistake buzz - as i've been banging on about, travellers is a poor name for their community. Tricky to know what they should be called! they don't all necessarily want to travel at all, some just travel in the summer. The key difference of their community is simply they don't want to live in a house ( err, not sure why!) and that they want to live in a large family group. (As I see it anyway) And that they don't want to be involved in any other communities. The fact their kids are in the school gives evidence of their intentions.
Reply ID 83736
quote:Indeed this a group in uncomfortable transition between their culture and ours. Its unlikely to go smoothly or happen in a single generation, but there are signs that many more the group we know as travellers are attempting integration more than they once did whilst some from traditional housing backgrounds are rejecting bricks and mortar or alternatve lifestyles such as floating homes. How it is handled on both sides will determine if that continues or regresses to the previous polarised conflicts of identity.
Originally posted by buzzquote:'Tricky to know what they should be called!' Think James has hit the nail on the head on this one.
Originally posted by codek2
classic mistake buzz - as i've been banging on about, travellers is a poor name for their community. Tricky to know what they should be called! they don't all necessarily want to travel at all, some just travel in the summer. The key difference of their community is simply they don't want to live in a house ( err, not sure why!) and that they want to live in a large family group. (As I see it anyway) And that they don't want to be involved in any other communities. The fact their kids are in the school gives evidence of their intentions.
Reply ID 83745
well there's now 2 caravans on the village green by the war memorial. not really sure why it's taking to so long to get them evicted.
Reply ID 83763
There was a digger in the field & 2 police vans at the entrance when I drove past. Anyone know what is going on?
Reply ID 83767
Mr. Cash has been ordered (and agreed!) to remove the hard standing - so they are allowing him onto the field to do this work. I hope they will be watching closely to make sure it is removal, and not adding more!
Reply ID 83772
quote:... 'uncomfortable transition between their culture and ours'? 'the group we know as travellers are attempting integration more than they once did'? What an absolute load of rubbish! These people don't pay income tax. These people don't pay council tax. These people don't pay VAT. These people don't work. These people steal. And you are telling us that they 'are attempting integration more than they once did' by attempting to move on an agricultural field for residential occupation?
Originally posted by shuntquote:Indeed this a group in uncomfortable transition between their culture and ours. Its unlikely to go smoothly or happen in a single generation, but there are signs that many more the group we know as travellers are attempting integration more than they once did whilst some from traditional housing backgrounds are rejecting bricks and mortar or alternatve lifestyles such as floating homes. How it is handled on both sides will determine if that continues or regresses to the previous polarised conflicts of identity.
Originally posted by buzzquote:'Tricky to know what they should be called!' Think James has hit the nail on the head on this one.
Originally posted by codek2
classic mistake buzz - as i've been banging on about, travellers is a poor name for their community. Tricky to know what they should be called! they don't all necessarily want to travel at all, some just travel in the summer. The key difference of their community is simply they don't want to live in a house ( err, not sure why!) and that they want to live in a large family group. (As I see it anyway) And that they don't want to be involved in any other communities. The fact their kids are in the school gives evidence of their intentions.
Reply ID 83780
not nit picking, but yet again a sweeping generalisation which doesnt help. In the dale farm case they _do_ pay council tax. (some of them do anyway) - in fact I think most of those on legal sites do pay some form of rates. Also; I'm not entirely sure how they can avoid VAT. I know when I walk into Tesco or Esso, paying VAT is not an optional extra. As for income tax - well if you're living in a caravan, how much income do you really need? I would guess they could well be living below the tax threshold anyway.
Reply ID 83782
quote:And you have evidence of this? Take it to the police.
Originally posted by James007 These people steal.
Reply ID 83788
quote:I would guess they could well be living below the tax threshold anyway. You really don't live in this world do you?
Originally posted by codek2
not nit picking, but yet again a sweeping generalisation which doesnt help. In the dale farm case they _do_ pay council tax. (some of them do anyway) - in fact I think most of those on legal sites do pay some form of rates. Also; I'm not entirely sure how they can avoid VAT. I know when I walk into Tesco or Esso, paying VAT is not an optional extra. As for income tax - well if you're living in a caravan, how much income do you really need? I would guess they could well be living below the tax threshold anyway.
Reply ID 83810
quote:Which people? I was not aware that you knew this about the family in question. How did you find out?
Originally posted by James007quote:... 'uncomfortable transition between their culture and ours'? 'the group we know as travellers are attempting integration more than they once did'? What an absolute load of rubbish! These people don't pay income tax. These people don't pay council tax. These people don't pay VAT. These people don't work. These people steal. And you are telling us that they 'are attempting integration more than they once did' by attempting to move on an agricultural field for residential occupation?
Originally posted by shuntquote:Indeed this a group in uncomfortable transition between their culture and ours. Its unlikely to go smoothly or happen in a single generation, but there are signs that many more the group we know as travellers are attempting integration more than they once did whilst some from traditional housing backgrounds are rejecting bricks and mortar or alternatve lifestyles such as floating homes. How it is handled on both sides will determine if that continues or regresses to the previous polarised conflicts of identity.
Originally posted by buzzquote:'Tricky to know what they should be called!' Think James has hit the nail on the head on this one.
Originally posted by codek2
classic mistake buzz - as i've been banging on about, travellers is a poor name for their community. Tricky to know what they should be called! they don't all necessarily want to travel at all, some just travel in the summer. The key difference of their community is simply they don't want to live in a house ( err, not sure why!) and that they want to live in a large family group. (As I see it anyway) And that they don't want to be involved in any other communities. The fact their kids are in the school gives evidence of their intentions.
Reply ID 83820
The police have circulated a note saying they are taking no further interest, until a criminal act occurs. At the moment this is being treated as a purely civil problem on private land. The council had a meeting last night - hopefully there'll be some news from that later.
Reply ID 83825
Would it be a criminal act to hook their caravans up to a Landrover and tow them several miles away?
Reply ID 83834
quote:To where though? Making them go somewhere else won't make the problem go away. I don't know how many traveller's sites there are locally, but I do know that in the present climate of tabloid led hatred towards travellers, the coalition has pulled back from the last government's commitment to create more nationally.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Would it be a criminal act to hook their caravans up to a Landrover and tow them several miles away?
Reply ID 83838
quote:I think you'll find that it's not "tabloid led hatred", but more peoples personal experience of having to put up with the mess, crime and general unpleasantness that "travellers" create. Furthermore, why should government, national or local, provide sites for these people who contribute nothing to society?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:To where though? Making them go somewhere else won't make the problem go away. I don't know how many traveller's sites there are locally, but I do know that in the present climate of tabloid led hatred towards travellers, the coalition has pulled back from the last government's commitment to create more nationally.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Would it be a criminal act to hook their caravans up to a Landrover and tow them several miles away?
Reply ID 83841
quote:So what would you actually do with them, keep moving them on until they fall into the sea? Give them scarce council accommodation? I can see the tabloid headlines already! And how do you know that "these people" contribute nothing to society? Travellers in designated sites have to pay taxes like everyone else. Edited to add: It's wrong to brand an entire community as being responsible for "mess, crime and general unpleasantness". There's far more of that going on outside of the traveller community than in it. Where there is wrongdoing the law needs to act, but to act without discrimination, which consistently appears not to be the case when it comes to travellers.
Originally posted by buzzquote:I think you'll find that it's not "tabloid led hatred", but more peoples personal experience of having to put up with the mess, crime and general unpleasantness that "travellers" create. Furthermore, why should government, national or local, provide sites for these people who contribute nothing to society?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:To where though? Making them go somewhere else won't make the problem go away. I don't know how many traveller's sites there are locally, but I do know that in the present climate of tabloid led hatred towards travellers, the coalition has pulled back from the last government's commitment to create more nationally.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Would it be a criminal act to hook their caravans up to a Landrover and tow them several miles away?
Reply ID 83845
quote:And you can evidence this?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:So what would you actually do with them, keep moving them on until they fall into the sea? Give them scarce council accommodation? I can see the tabloid headlines already! And how do you know that "these people" contribute nothing to society? Travellers in designated sites have to pay taxes like everyone else. Edited to add: It's wrong to brand an entire community as being responsible for "mess, crime and general unpleasantness". There's far more of that going on outside of the traveller community than in it. Where there is wrongdoing the law needs to act, but to act without discrimination, which consistently appears not to be the case when it comes to travellers.
Originally posted by buzzquote:I think you'll find that it's not "tabloid led hatred", but more peoples personal experience of having to put up with the mess, crime and general unpleasantness that "travellers" create. Furthermore, why should government, national or local, provide sites for these people who contribute nothing to society?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:To where though? Making them go somewhere else won't make the problem go away. I don't know how many traveller's sites there are locally, but I do know that in the present climate of tabloid led hatred towards travellers, the coalition has pulled back from the last government's commitment to create more nationally.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Would it be a criminal act to hook their caravans up to a Landrover and tow them several miles away?
Reply ID 83846
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83847
quote:I'd have thought that the harsh justice given in this case is evidence enough, but I mainly mean things like planning applications. I spotted this, which relates to the quarter up to December 2010, on another forum: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1876333.pdf 61% major applications are granted for Gypsies versus 79% in general 53% of minor applications are granted for Gypsies versus 71% in general.
Originally posted by buzzquote:And you can evidence this?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:So what would you actually do with them, keep moving them on until they fall into the sea? Give them scarce council accommodation? I can see the tabloid headlines already! And how do you know that "these people" contribute nothing to society? Travellers in designated sites have to pay taxes like everyone else. Edited to add: It's wrong to brand an entire community as being responsible for "mess, crime and general unpleasantness". There's far more of that going on outside of the traveller community than in it. Where there is wrongdoing the law needs to act, but to act without discrimination, which consistently appears not to be the case when it comes to travellers.
Originally posted by buzzquote:I think you'll find that it's not "tabloid led hatred", but more peoples personal experience of having to put up with the mess, crime and general unpleasantness that "travellers" create. Furthermore, why should government, national or local, provide sites for these people who contribute nothing to society?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:To where though? Making them go somewhere else won't make the problem go away. I don't know how many traveller's sites there are locally, but I do know that in the present climate of tabloid led hatred towards travellers, the coalition has pulled back from the last government's commitment to create more nationally.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Would it be a criminal act to hook their caravans up to a Landrover and tow them several miles away?
Reply ID 83848
quote:I'm asking you to get real buzz. No-one is saying that criminality should go unpunished, but what would you do with travellers who're guilty of no crime, apart from continually moving them on?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83850
quote:So it seems the crude stereotypes are accurate, there's no smoke without fire. We can tar them all with the same brush. Coppers are in fact all brown envelope-trousering, thuggish, half-witted bigots. Every one of them a Gene Hunt clone, dishing out ear-clips and planting evidence because if the scrote isn't guilty this time he will have been in the past. Scoffing burgers in the panda car. Creative statement writing in a warm canteen rather than walking the beat. They're all the same, every last one of them. Ridiculous of course, as are all stereotypes. As for "pleasant middle class Englishman". You're playing a caricature buffoon, no?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83854
quote:
Originally posted by Enoughofthatquote:So it seems the crude stereotypes are accurate, there's no smoke without fire. We can tar them all with the same brush. Coppers are in fact all brown envelope-trousering, thuggish, half-witted bigots. Every one of them a Gene Hunt clone, dishing out ear-clips and planting evidence because if the scrote isn't guilty this time he will have been in the past. Scoffing burgers in the panda car. Creative statement writing in a warm canteen rather than walking the beat. They're all the same, every last one of them. Ridiculous of course, as are all stereotypes. As for "pleasant middle class Englishman". You're playing a caricature buffoon, no?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83856
quote:I would respectfully suggest that it is you who needs to get real. Guilty of no crime? How about contempt of Court or breaching an Injucntion? Is that not a crime?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I'm asking you to get real buzz. No-one is saying that criminality should go unpunished, but what would you do with travellers who're guilty of no crime, apart from continually moving them on?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83857
quote:
Originally posted by Enoughofthatquote:So it seems the crude stereotypes are accurate, there's no smoke without fire. We can tar them all with the same brush. Coppers are in fact all brown envelope-trousering, thuggish, half-witted bigots. Every one of them a Gene Hunt clone, dishing out ear-clips and planting evidence because if the scrote isn't guilty this time he will have been in the past. Scoffing burgers in the panda car. Creative statement writing in a warm canteen rather than walking the beat. They're all the same, every last one of them. Ridiculous of course, as are all stereotypes. As for "pleasant middle class Englishman". You're playing a caricature buffoon, no?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83858
quote:I have had experience of dealing with "travellers" in real life. What is your experience with them?
Originally posted by buzzquote:
Originally posted by Enoughofthatquote:So it seems the crude stereotypes are accurate, there's no smoke without fire. We can tar them all with the same brush. Coppers are in fact all brown envelope-trousering, thuggish, half-witted bigots. Every one of them a Gene Hunt clone, dishing out ear-clips and planting evidence because if the scrote isn't guilty this time he will have been in the past. Scoffing burgers in the panda car. Creative statement writing in a warm canteen rather than walking the beat. They're all the same, every last one of them. Ridiculous of course, as are all stereotypes. As for "pleasant middle class Englishman". You're playing a caricature buffoon, no?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83864
quote:I was asking you about travellers in general, or are all travellers criminal by definition in your book? But the same question applies with the ones at Birch Green; where would you expect them to go?
Originally posted by buzzquote:I would respectfully suggest that it is you who needs to get real. Guilty of no crime? How about contempt of Court or breaching an Injucntion? Is that not a crime?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I'm asking you to get real buzz. No-one is saying that criminality should go unpunished, but what would you do with travellers who're guilty of no crime, apart from continually moving them on?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83867
quote:There is a difference between criminals and those yet to be caught...
Originally posted by dennismoore I was asking you about travellers in general, or are all travellers criminal by definition in your book? But the same question applies with the ones at Birch Green; where would you expect them to go?
Reply ID 83869
quote:Do you know what. I don't actually give a monkeys where they go, so long as it's NIMBY. These people choose to live their life in that way. Why should I be concerned where they go?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I was asking you about travellers in general, or are all travellers criminal by definition in your book? But the same question applies with the ones at Birch Green; where would you expect them to go?
Originally posted by buzzquote:I would respectfully suggest that it is you who needs to get real. Guilty of no crime? How about contempt of Court or breaching an Injucntion? Is that not a crime?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I'm asking you to get real buzz. No-one is saying that criminality should go unpunished, but what would you do with travellers who're guilty of no crime, apart from continually moving them on?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83880
quote:it's very easy to hold warm and fuzzy champagne socialist views such as this - when you live in a nice house, tucked out of the way in Bengeo. I suspect your view point might shift significantly if they set up shop next to your property.
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I was asking you about travellers in general, or are all travellers criminal by definition in your book? But the same question applies with the ones at Birch Green; where would you expect them to go?
Originally posted by buzzquote:I would respectfully suggest that it is you who needs to get real. Guilty of no crime? How about contempt of Court or breaching an Injucntion? Is that not a crime?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I'm asking you to get real buzz. No-one is saying that criminality should go unpunished, but what would you do with travellers who're guilty of no crime, apart from continually moving them on?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83885
I have had experience of dealing with "travellers" in real life. What is your experience with them? But you don't have have experience of "travelers". You have experience of individuals who have broken the law who were from the traveling community. Just as you have experience of individuals who have broken the law from the settled community. It's a critical subtly that the bluntness of the bigoted mind can't perceive.
Reply ID 83886
quote:You haven't answered my question.
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
I have had experience of dealing with "travellers" in real life. What is your experience with them? But you don't have have experience of "travelers". You have experience of individuals who have broken the law who were from the traveling community. Just as you have experience of individuals who have broken the law from the settled community. It's a critical subtly that the bluntness of the bigoted mind can't perceive.
Reply ID 83890
Anyway, back on topic and to stop all this inane griping - a Tow truck and police are now on the green. Expect fireworks and action and likely arrests shortly..
Reply ID 83891
quote:Oh goody........
Originally posted by codek2
Anyway, back on topic and to stop all this inane griping - a Tow truck and police are now on the green. Expect fireworks and action and likely arrests shortly..
Reply ID 83892
impressively the council have found them a pitch at a legal site. so now they do have somewhere to go. If they dont go then the vans get seized and they have nowhere to live. So presumably they'll go!
Reply ID 83894
oh, apparently they've just moved to a "picnic" spot in hertford. Doh!
Reply ID 83895
quote:You're quite right. I don't have experience with "travelers". I have experience of "travellers". As for a bigoted mind, I suggest you descend from whatever planet you're living on and try living in the real world.
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
I have had experience of dealing with "travellers" in real life. What is your experience with them? But you don't have have experience of "travelers". You have experience of individuals who have broken the law who were from the traveling community. Just as you have experience of individuals who have broken the law from the settled community. It's a critical subtly that the bluntness of the bigoted mind can't perceive.
Reply ID 83900
quote:Strange this. Because there was a large police presence at the picnic spot in thieves lane at 08.30 this morning. I wonder if the police had gathered there to help evict the travellers and they got wind of it and decided to relocate there or its where they took the
Originally posted by codek2
oh, apparently they've just moved to a "picnic" spot in hertford. Doh!
Reply ID 83905
So have they been moved to Chesher's/Lady Hughes Wood area? If that is the case then that is not a very clever move by the police. A grade 2* listed wood nearby with lots of space to park up out of public view.
Reply ID 83909
quote:I don't have open space next to my property but if they moved into the house next door, caravan and all, I hope I'd welcome them as I would any other new neighbour, regardless of their ethnic or social background. If one of my neighbours started acting antisocially then of course I'd act upon it like anyone else would, but I certainly wouldn't assume it of them before I'd even met them. If challenging prejudice, questioning the way the law has dealt with travellers or simply asking where they should go if no one wants them in their own back yard, makes me a "fuzzy champagne socialist", then I'm more than happy to be one. Cheers comrade.
Originally posted by exiled_in_Readingquote:it's very easy to hold warm and fuzzy champagne socialist views such as this - when you live in a nice house, tucked out of the way in Bengeo. I suspect your view point might shift significantly if they set up shop next to your property.
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I was asking you about travellers in general, or are all travellers criminal by definition in your book? But the same question applies with the ones at Birch Green; where would you expect them to go?
Originally posted by buzzquote:I would respectfully suggest that it is you who needs to get real. Guilty of no crime? How about contempt of Court or breaching an Injucntion? Is that not a crime?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I'm asking you to get real buzz. No-one is saying that criminality should go unpunished, but what would you do with travellers who're guilty of no crime, apart from continually moving them on?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 83911
quote:email me your address and I will be happy to pass it on to them.
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I don't have open space next to my property but if they moved into the house next door, caravan and all, I hope I'd welcome them as I would any other new neighbour, regardless of their ethnic or social background. If one of my neighbours started acting antisocially then of course I'd act upon it like anyone else would, but I certainly wouldn't assume it of them before I'd even met them. If challenging prejudice, questioning the way the law has dealt with travellers or simply asking where they should go if no one wants them in their own back yard, makes me a "fuzzy champagne socialist", then I'm more than happy to be one. Cheers comrade.
Originally posted by exiled_in_Readingquote:it's very easy to hold warm and fuzzy champagne socialist views such as this - when you live in a nice house, tucked out of the way in Bengeo. I suspect your view point might shift significantly if they set up shop next to your property.
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I was asking you about travellers in general, or are all travellers criminal by definition in your book? But the same question applies with the ones at Birch Green; where would you expect them to go?
Originally posted by buzzquote:I would respectfully suggest that it is you who needs to get real. Guilty of no crime? How about contempt of Court or breaching an Injucntion? Is that not a crime?
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:I'm asking you to get real buzz. No-one is saying that criminality should go unpunished, but what would you do with travellers who're guilty of no crime, apart from continually moving them on?
Originally posted by buzz
Dennismoore. I am sure that you are a pleasant middleclass Englishman, full of principles, but lacking a bit in knowledge about travellers. Their belief, believe me, is that the "settled population" is there for their benefit to exploit in whatever way they can. Who, for instance, do you think is responsible for the high level of thefts of drain covers, electrictity cables etc.? To give you an example of how they behave. Some years ago I was Station Sgt at Watford Central Police Station (this was before "Custody Officers"). A couple of gypsy/traveller children were arrested for shoplifting. Their parents were traced and attended the Police Station. The boy was obviously about 14 years old. On arrival, the mother pulled down the boys trousers and pants exposing his genitals. "Look, Sir, " she said, " No hair he's not 10" She knew that 10yrs old was the age of criminal responsibility, so they had shaved the boys pubic hair in an attempt to show he was not over 10yrs old. That is the reality of how they behave. As for taxes, yes they probably do have to pay local taxes, but you try getting one to tarmac your drive and provide you with a VAT invoice. Please, get real!!
Reply ID 84399
Shifting the travellers from Birch Green has cost £44,000. Apparently Mr Thomas Cash (one of the offending travellers) has incurred legal costs of £19,900. Is Mr Cash going to cough up is the leading question. Does Mr Cash have a bank account or just a heap of fifties under his bed? Should we law abiding citizens incurr legal costs and fail to pay up we would doubtless receive a visit from the bailiff and ultimately end up with our telly, DVD player and what have you disposed of for a few pounds. It is unlikely we would be made homeless. Doubtless Mr Cash would state that his prime asset is his home and in this case his caravan. Do the bailiffs take his caravan and effectively make him homeless ? Does he go back to prison and his wife will state that she has no VISIBLE means of support ? Now there's a conundrum !
Reply ID 84402
One must be careful when looking at the costs of enforcing the law in situations like this. It is a fundamental point in this country that the law must be enforced regardless of cost. However; Who incurred that cost? The county council? Or the district? I guess not the parish - Given their budget is in hundreds :)
Reply ID 84671
The main traveller, Mr Cash has now submitted a planning application for 3 mobile homes at Birch Green as well as 3 touring caravans. The application is cleverly timed to end on the 22nd December 2011 which is the Thursday before Christmas weekend. Anyone want a wager that during the period between Christmas and New Year that the field gains a few more occupants? Just a logical thought of course. Interestingly, the contact address for his agent is a PO Box address, but google Murdoch Planning and you will find cases that have been placed before the courts and the local councils elsewhere. [url="http://online.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/11/1511/FP&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=340589%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=662199%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=340589%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E"]Change of use of land to a private Gypsy and Traveller caravan site comprising 3 no. mobile homes, 3 no touring caravans, associated, hardstanding and installation of septic tank[/url]
Reply ID 84677
Thats gonna go down well with the locals!! What's wrong with using the traveller site at Holwell?
Reply ID 84678
actually this application was already known about. It is a retrospective application for the work already done. It was all part of the standard behaviour from travellers that once an application is made it is harder to evict them until the application has been decided upon. In this case they were evicted anyway because they broke a separate injunction. Obviously if it gets rejected, and they go back onto the land then they'll get another injunction and jailed again. If it gets approved, then expect a birch green lynch mob! :)
Reply ID 84683
[img]http://www.futurecrimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/simpsons_torch_mob-300x255.jpg[/img]
Reply ID 84684
lol exactly. now where does one get one of those burning torches from...?
Reply ID 84689
quote:Would these do? [img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41cgT3E2G0L._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/img] [url]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41cgT3E2G0L._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/img]
Originally posted by codek2
lol exactly. now where does one get one of those burning torches from...?
Reply ID 84700
quote:Molotov cocktail, with bamboo launcher.
Originally posted by Joequote:Would these do? [img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41cgT3E2G0L._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/img] [url]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41cgT3E2G0L._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/img]
Originally posted by codek2
lol exactly. now where does one get one of those burning torches from...?
Reply ID 85289
They are now appealing the enforcement notice, and requesting a time period of 1yr not "as soon as possible" to remove the hard standings. So what takes 2 day to create, takes 1yr to remove! Anyway the appeal will be heard in feb some time it sounds like. By then they'll presumably have an answer on the planning application itself, and probably will be appealing that too!
Reply ID 85290
quote:Travellers acting exactly like many others when it comes to planning matters then. In their own interests and using legal challenge.
Originally posted by codek2
They are now appealing the enforcement notice, and requesting a time period of 1yr not "as soon as possible" to remove the hard standings. So what takes 2 day to create, takes 1yr to remove! Anyway the appeal will be heard in feb some time it sounds like. By then they'll presumably have an answer on the planning application itself, and probably will be appealing that too!
Reply ID 85292
quote:Why don't we dig it all up and see what happens?
Originally posted by codek2
They are now appealing the enforcement notice, and requesting a time period of 1yr not "as soon as possible" to remove the hard standings. So what takes 2 day to create, takes 1yr to remove! Anyway the appeal will be heard in feb some time it sounds like. By then they'll presumably have an answer on the planning application itself, and probably will be appealing that too!
Reply ID 85303
because as you well know James007, that would be a criminal act, and they own the land. they'd win if we did that.
Reply ID 85497
interesting article in the mercury today about the police attacking east herts council handling of this matter. Some good work by the mercury on this one with various FOI requests etc.
Reply ID 85500
quote:It says a great deal about the paranoia surrounding travellers when you get words like "the crisis, the emergency" and even "war" used in relation to a caravan parked in the corner of a field.
Originally posted by codek2
interesting article in the mercury today about the police attacking east herts council handling of this matter. Some good work by the mercury on this one with various FOI requests etc.
Reply ID 85506
I would suggest it says more about the vaguaries of our pathetic legal system in this area! It should be simple - break the law (which they did), and police will sort it out. Dont know why it's not like that.
Reply ID 85512
quote:Because it is a civil matter, not a criminal one as the family own the land. Hence why the council obtained an eviction order rather quickly and one of the family went to prison.
Originally posted by codek2
I would suggest it says more about the vaguaries of our pathetic legal system in this area! It should be simple - break the law (which they did), and police will sort it out. Dont know why it's not like that.
Reply ID 85513
i'm talking about when they were on the village green by the war memorial though. was that not criminal?
Reply ID 85514
quote:No, that too is a civil matter.
Originally posted by codek2
i'm talking about when they were on the village green by the war memorial though. was that not criminal?
Reply ID 85519
Judging by the information that I have read in the Mercury, Mr Speed was scorning about the speed of the response on the Bank Holiday weekend from both Herts County Council, local authorities and the parish council.
Reply ID 85523
so why are the police so annoyed with the council then one wonders. It still shows we have a stupid system. They broke the law - the police should act. I guess coming from IT I can't understand things like legal systems, which are just completely illogical because of their organic growth nature! Actually the village green could have been deemed to be criminal in the end, because they did damage it.
Reply ID 85532
quote:Oh come on! There's a lot like that in IT too! [:D]
Originally posted by codek2
I guess coming from IT I can't understand things like legal systems, which are just completely illogical because of their organic growth nature!
Reply ID 85539
not in my world! I remove all that organic crap and replace it with lovely nice open source stuff! [:D]
Reply ID 86130
Planning permission rejected last night, now awaiting the appeal.
Reply ID 86134
So the crisis continues. And now not only do we have a caravan parked in a field, but there's a van parked selfishly at Tesco. Difficult times indeed.
Reply ID 86139
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory Still. As long as you are alright mate and that caravan isnt parked outside your house, thats all that matters.
Reply ID 86175
Ironically just had a knock at my door. Sunday evening, road full of snow. Two men who said they were from Watford, Durham accents, looking for a man called 'Dan the electrician' and 'does he live here'. I shut front door and casually went outside and asked them why they are knocking on my door at 7.30pm on a Sunday. Just through pleasant conversation one told me they were travelers and had to 'drop some tools off to Dan the Electrician' which they kindly showed me in the back of the empty van (a tool box). Both white males; 5'9, dark hair, one had a bad stutter. Had a good chat with them as they searched the street knocking on all the doors whilst I walked along with them. Number plate SG61 BTO, silver transit van. We managed to establish that Dan lives further down the road and I have his address. B*llocked by the missus for getting involved as I could have been stabbed apparently.
Reply ID 86183
quote:Always get involved unless it looks dangerous.
Originally posted by James007
Ironically just had a knock at my door. Sunday evening, road full of snow. Two men who said they were from Watford, Durham accents, looking for a man called 'Dan the electrician' and 'does he live here'. I shut front door and casually went outside and asked them why they are knocking on my door at 7.30pm on a Sunday. Just through pleasant conversation one told me they were travelers and had to 'drop some tools off to Dan the Electrician' which they kindly showed me in the back of the empty van (a tool box). Both white males; 5'9, dark hair, one had a bad stutter. Had a good chat with them as they searched the street knocking on all the doors whilst I walked along with them. Number plate SG61 BTO, silver transit van. We managed to establish that Dan lives further down the road and I have his address. B*llocked by the missus for getting involved as I could have been stabbed apparently.
Reply ID 86189
quote:Surely a tranquilized dart fired from your wristwatch and an exploding cigarette case would have soon put paid to their dastardly plans... :-)
James007
Reply ID 88099
They are back. I have just seen three or maybe four caravans parked up on the grassy area next to the A414 roundabout at Cole Green.
Reply ID 88101
Oh no. What with chavs drinking in the White Horse, these are dark days for our town.
Reply ID 88113
Are they eating our swans?
Reply ID 88217
not surprised they were back, it was the hearing in court in hertford the other day. Presumably they had to attend. Gone now again though. and no news from how it went at the court!
Reply ID 95756
I see that the plot is now up for sale on ebay either as a whole or smaller plots with "with potential for DEVELOPMENT" http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/111170514266
Reply ID 95758
Phone the number and apparently the asking price is 250k. Which for a piece of land which has various (now endless) stop work injunctions and has already been proved to not be able to get planning seems steep! Altho what a fair price for 2 undevelopable acres would be around here i dont know? Probably still 50k or something?
Reply ID 95759
I notice that I thought it must be that site...........................wondered how they can put "with potential for DEVELOPMENT" . Just hope any considering buying it checks!
Reply ID 95760
Surely it's a joke? Not my land it's Mr brians and blrch green etc etc!!!
![http://www.futurecrimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/simpsons_torch_mob-300x255.jpg[/img]](http://www.futurecrimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/simpsons_torch_mob-300x255.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
![http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41cgT3E2G0L._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/img]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41cgT3E2G0L._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/img]){kind=link}