Dale Farm eviction

Jonny7

Well its starting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8735956/Bailiffs-and-police-plan-move-on-Dale-Farm-traveller-site.html

"Two thousand protesters, including student groups, human rights activists and anarchists are expected to defend the site in a violent stand-off"

Looks like its going to get messy

mikemac

I had it in the other thread but the media, well realy the comments sections of online papers are calling for them to go back to Ireland, not wanted in Essex

But some of them have been there since the seventies and most of the children were born there

Pat Kenny had a spokeswomen on and just about all had UK passports

Born in England, UK passport, lived there for decades but go back to Ireland

How do you become English? Live there for two hundred years?

bmaxi

2000 protesters/400 residents? Could they not have a raffle to take one of the residents home with them? Win/Win IMO.

Jelle1880

Just saw the pictures on the Telegraph website.
'No ethnic cleansing at Dale Farm' :rolleyes:

KeithAFC

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Just saw the pictures on the Telegraph website.
'No ethnic cleansing at Dale Farm' :rolleyes:

Sounds like an episode from emmerdale. Hopefully this gets resolved soon.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

mikemac wrote: »

I had it in the other thread but the media, well realy the comments sections of online papers are calling for them to go back to Ireland, not wanted in Essex

But some of them have been there since the seventies and most of the children were born there

Pat Kenny had a spokeswomen on and just about all had UK passports

Born in England, UK passport, lived there for decades but go back to Ireland

How do you become English? Live there for two hundred years?

Whilst agreeing with your sentiments why do an awful lot of people of Irish decent still claim to be Irish over there then can't have it both ways

irishh_bob

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Whilst agreeing with your sentiments why do an awful lot of people of Irish decent still claim to be Irish over there then can't have it both ways

tinkers like to seperate themselves from the irish when it suits them aswell , i feel sorry for those locals in essex , having to put up with those tinkers for so long

My name is URL

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Just saw the pictures on the Telegraph website.
'No ethnic cleansing at Dale Farm' :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's outrageous isn't it? I mean look at some of the comments on the various websites carrying the story, calls for them all to be 'sent back' to Ireland or milled out of it with bulldozers. There's a vast amount of people that would like nothing more than to see the place 'cleansed' of travellers, regardless of whether or not they are law abiding people.. so it's not so ridiculous to see signs like the one you mentioned after all.

LondonIrish90

My name is URL wrote: »

Yeah, it's outrageous isn't it? I mean look at some of the comments on the various websites carrying the story, calls for them all to be 'sent back' to Ireland or milled out of it with bulldozers. There's a vast amount of people that would like nothing more than to see the place 'cleansed' of travellers, regardless of whether or not they are law abiding people.. so it's not so ridiculous to see signs like the one you mentioned after all.

It is absolutely ridiculous due to the fact that they are being evicted due to them building on green belt land. This is something that is not allowed without planning permission and a law that applies to EVERYONE who lives in the UK, gypsy folk and non gypsy folk alike. Why should they be allowed to build there? Because they are a different ethnic group?

Jelle1880

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

It is absolutely ridiculous due to the fact that they are being evicted due to them building on green belt land. This is something that is not allowed without planning permission and a law that applies to EVERYONE who lives in the UK, gypsy folk and non gypsy folk alike. Why should they be allowed to build there? Because they are a different ethnic group?

'Because they've lived there for decades' will probably be the answer.
Which doesn't make a difference, since you're right in saying that they shouldn't live there in the first place.

My name is URL: There's a difference between what some morons on a website say and what's actually being done.

Callan57

I'm not terribly well up on this but I thought I heard someone on radio say they actually own the land and that it was subsequent to their purchasing it that it was re-designated as green belt ... the implication being made was that the re-designation was deliberate to prevent them building. Not sure if that is the truth.

IrishMark

irishh_bob wrote: »

tinkers like to seperate themselves from the irish when it suits them aswell , i feel sorry for those locals in essex , having to put up with those tinkers for so long

This could be applied to many different groups. 2nd+ generation Americans spring immediately to mind, but also true the world over.

LondonIrish90

Jelle1880 wrote: »

'Because they've lived there for decades' will probably be the answer.
Which doesn't make a difference, since you're right in saying that they shouldn't live there in the first place.

My name is URL: There's a difference between what some morons on a website say and what's actually being done.

Yeah, that is the argument I've seen on the news time and time again. "They've been there for 10 years, they should be able to stay"!

The jews were discriminated against all over Europe since the dark ages, so presumably these left wing student groups would have no problem with us continuing to abuse jews? (saying that, these groups hide their hatred of jews as a hatred of Israel, but occasionally they let their tongues slip!)

Einhard

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Yeah, that is the argument I've seen on the news time and time again. "They've been there for 10 years, they should be able to stay"!

The jews were discriminated against all over Europe since the dark ages, so presumably these left wing student groups would have no problem with us continuing to abuse jews? (saying that, these groups hide their hatred of jews as a hatred of Israel, but occasionally they let their tongues slip!)

I don't think it's as black and white as you make out. The authorities, both here and in Britain, have been moving travellers along from roadside encampments for years now. I've nothing against this, but once they do so, they provide absolutely no alternative for those travellers who desire to remain in caravans, and aspire to a semi-nomadic existence at least. They proclaim respect for the cultures and identity of minority groups, and in most cases, they back this rhetoric up (indeed, often to extremes- see multi-culturalism), yet when it comes to the travelling community, the end game seems to be to get them all into houses, and basically eradicate a rather unique way of life.

Also, just to clarify, before the travellers arrived, Dale Farms wasn't some pristine bucolic paradise, but a scrap yard.

My name is URL

The UN have stepped in it seems

http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/0E8E1A5B7DC300CFC12578FF00325986?OpenDocument

LondonIrish90

My name is URL wrote: »

The UN have stepped in it seems

http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/0E8E1A5B7DC300CFC12578FF00325986?OpenDocument

Not exactly stepping in, are they? They can make a statement but hopefully the law of the land will be upheld.

Basildon Council versus the UN. Stand firm men of Basildon!

Meirleach

I've heard several times that the land was designated as green belt after the travellers bought it, however I can't seem to find any info about this myself.

Anyone know if there's any truth in this?

goose2005

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think it's as black and white as you make out. The authorities, both here and in Britain, have been moving travellers along from roadside encampments for years now. I've nothing against this, but once they do so, they provide absolutely no alternative for those travellers who desire to remain in caravans, and aspire to a semi-nomadic existence at least.

Why should they provide an alternative? Travellers have money and could set up communally-owned halting sites with it, rather than endlessly scrounging.

Callan57

goose2005 wrote: »

Why should they provide an alternative? Travellers have money and could set up communally-owned halting sites with it, rather than endlessly scrounging.

Pardon me but is that not exactly what they did?

Steodonn

goose2005 wrote: »

Why should they provide an alternative? Travellers have money and could set up communally-owned halting sites with it, rather than endlessly scrounging.

You mean like they did in Dale Farm

Einhard

goose2005 wrote: »

Why should they provide an alternative? Travellers have money and could set up communally-owned halting sites with it, rather than endlessly scrounging.

Well, as others have pointed out, that's exactly what they did. More pertinently though, the state in Britain and Ireland caters for various different lifestyles. Settled people are provided with schemes that facilitate their sedentary existence, from mortgage interest relief to council houses, and everything in between. Religious groups are exempted from paying taxes, whilst all manner of minorities receives funds from the exchequer to promote their causes. With travellers however, the state demands that they move from the side of the road, provides them with no alternative, and then reacts with evictions when travellers take the initiative. The impression one gets is that the state simply wants to see the traveller lifestyle eradicated. I mean, how hard would it be to provide some macadam lay-bys in some areas, with a connection to water mains? We (rightly) provide tunnels for badgers, and nests for bats at a cost of millions, yet when it comes to a rather unique group of humans, we basically them that they're living the wrong way, and that they have to stop. At least we should have the courage of our convictions to tell them that straight, rather than hide behind Health and safety, and the legal code as the Brits are doing at the moment. For now at least, travellers are damned at every turn- unless they abandon their ways entirey, and become like us.

Callan57

Einhard wrote: »

Well, as others have pointed out, that's exactly what they did. More pertinently though, the state in Britain and Ireland caters for various different lifestyles. Settled people are provided with schemes that facilitate their sedentary existence, from mortgage interest relief to council houses, and everything in between. Religious groups are exempted from paying taxes, whilst all manner of minorities receives funds from the exchequer to promote their causes. With travellers however, the state demands that they move from the side of the road, provides them with no alternative, and then reacts with evictions when travellers take the initiative. The impression one gets is that the state simply wants to see the traveller lifestyle eradicated. I mean, how hard would it be to provide some macadam lay-bys in some areas, with a connection to water mains? We (rightly) provide tunnels for badgers, and nests for bats at a cost of millions, yet when it comes to a rather unique group of humans, we basically them that they're living the wrong way, and that they have to stop. At least we should have the courage of our convictions to tell them that straight, rather than hide behind Health and safety, and the legal code as the Brits are doing at the moment. For now at least, travellers are damned at every turn- unless they abandon their ways entirey, and become like us.

The bit you omit is the lack of respect many (though not all) travellers show for the settled community and the cost of cleaning up after them falling all the time on the tax paying settled community. There are numerous examples of hard work done by communities wiped out over night by a group of travellers who show no respect for anyone else. Respect has to be mutual.

Einhard

Callan57 wrote: »

The bit you omit is the lack of respect many (though not all) travellers show for the settled community and the cost of cleaning up after them falling all the time on the tax paying settled community. There are numerous examples of hard work done by communities wiped out over night by a group of travellers who show no respect for anyone else. Respect has to be mutual.

I left it out because it wasn't particularly pertinent to the theme of the thread. But since you brought it up, I agree entirely. There are many issues such as you mention that have to be contronted with, and by, travellers, head on. Respect, as you say, has to be mutual. But, at the moment in Britain, there seems to be a drive to eradicate the traveller way of life by stealth. And it's happening in Ireland too. Now, I'm not a huge fan of how travellers live, but I am a fan of diversity, and respecting differences (within reason obviously), and I don't like the way the legitimate lifestyle of a group of people is being threatened. Surely you can see that it's not equitable to prohibit a roadside existence, whilst providing no suitable alternative, and then labelling as lawbreakers those who take the initiative for themselves? The message from the British government seems not so much you can't live on the side of the road, and more, you're lifestyle is entirely illegitimate, and we will stamp it out.

RandomName2

goose2005 wrote: »

Why should they provide an alternative? Travellers have money and could set up communally-owned halting sites with it, rather than endlessly scrounging.

It would be preferable if they didn't just trespass and break local bylaws in the setting up of such communes in the first place. Couldn't they just buy homes? Integrate with neigbourhoods? They could - but it would bring them more into the fold of civil society, thus damaging their imagined ethnic and cultural image and also leave vulnerable their deliberate attempts to separate their community from as many of the laws of the state as they possibly can.

jbkenn

Einhard wrote: »

With travellers however, the state demands that they move from the side of the road, provides them with no alternative, and then reacts with evictions when travellers take the initiative. The impression one gets is that the state simply wants to see the traveller lifestyle eradicated. I mean, how hard would it be to provide some macadam lay-bys in some areas, with a connection to water mains?

Simply not true, while you might not be totally happy with the level and quality of halting sites they do exist, unfortunately various traveller families regard the site as theirs and have issues with other traveller families moving in. I have the pleasure of living in an area with a halting site, now in fairness the residents don't trouble us that much, except for constant patrols in the Hiace, but, according to our Community Garda "they have our colleagues in the Louth/ Meath Garda Division plagued"
In one area of the city the Council provided new mobile homes at a cost €48k per unit, one of the mobiles "disappeared" and later "surfaced" on a seaside mobile home site.

At least we should have the courage of our convictions to tell them that straight, rather than hide behind Health and safety, and the legal code as the Brits are doing at the moment. For now at least, travellers are damned at every turn- unless they abandon their ways entirey, and become like us.

Agreed, time to call a halt to this "Indigenous Ethnic Minority" nonsense, they are citizens of the State, and, as such, should be expected to behave as citizens of the State and respect their fellow citizens.
In my view, they make no effort whatsoever to contribute to the wellbeing of the State and their fellow citizens.
Some years ago a well known family of travellers arrived to the area where my elderly widowed mother lived, they had moved from another town because of a traveller "feud", it was Christmastime and they had found what you desired "macadam lay-bys ,with a connection to water mains, a fire hydrant, and electricity, a street light", what followed was a three year reign of terror for the residents, I will not go in to the detail, but it was not a happy experience for their fellow citizens who had to fund, and continue to fund, their lifestyle.
I am given to believe, and, am open to correction, that the family involved in the site in Basildon, are Sheridans from Rathkeale, if that be so, I suggest to take a trip to Rathkeale in County Limerick to view the palatial mansions they own there, it will be an eye opener for you.

Wolfe Tone

Any truth to the claim that it was re-designated as green belt after they purchased it to try and stop the travelers setting up shop?

laoch na mona

ten years they have a right to stay unless they are engaging in serious criminal activities
there is a lot of anti traveller sentiment on this thread i wonder how many actually know any travellers

goose2005

laoch na mona wrote: »

ten years they have a right to stay unless they are engaging in serious criminal activities

The only reason they've been there ten years is because of an endless legal battle that they were never going to win. You get the same trick in Ireland all the time.

AlekSmart

goose2005 wrote: »

The only reason they've been there ten years is because of an endless legal battle that they were never going to win. You get the same trick in Ireland all the time.

Interesting....I there any suggestion as to how this Legal Process is being funded or by whom ?

dlofnep

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Any truth to the claim that it was re-designated as green belt after they purchased it to try and stop the travelers setting up shop?

Would also be curious to hear this. This is probably the most important question.

AlekSmart

dlofnep wrote: »

Would also be curious to hear this. This is probably the most important question.

I wonder....sure that's all part of the modern planning process....just ask Colm O Rourke and his fellow investors

Buy a development site off a vendor and then have the same lad object to your planning application...how Irish is that ?

Jelle1880

About the debate regarding the green belt.

From what I gather the site is made up of two parts: 1 where they have a planning permission for, and one where they don't.
The latter is the part of the site which is being classed as a green belt, this was already the case before the travellers arrived (and the reason why the permission was never granted).

Callan57

AlekSmart wrote: »

I wonder....sure that's all part of the modern planning process....just ask Colm O Rourke and his fellow investors

Buy a development site off a vendor and then have the same lad object to your planning application...how Irish is that ?

Isn't that why people make a purchase subject to planning permission?

dlofnep

Jelle1880 wrote: »

About the debate regarding the green belt.

From what I gather the site is made up of two parts: 1 where they have a planning permission for, and one where they don't.
The latter is the part of the site which is being classed as a green belt, this was already the case before the travellers arrived (and the reason why the permission was never granted).

Do you have a source or confirmation for the above?

Jelle1880

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you have a source or confirmation for the above?

Only what I gathered from news pieces about it.
Could be spin put on it by the media, though.
The fact the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the town council seems to prove this.

But we're actually still waiting for proof that this isn't the case, as was first claimed

paul71

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Any truth to the claim that it was re-designated as green belt after they purchased it to try and stop the travelers setting up shop?

I would also like to know this.

Additionaly I would like to know if the figure of 90% failure of retrospective planning for travellers in the UK as opossed to 40% for the settled community is true. I read that juicy figure on a travellers rights website a few days ago but can't find any backup source for it, so at the moment I am taking it with a small grain of salt.

OS119

paul71 wrote: »

I would also like to know this.

Additionaly I would like to know if the figure of 90% failure of retrospective planning for travellers in the UK as opossed to 40% for the settled community is true. I read that juicy figure on a travellers rights website a few days ago but can't find any backup source for it, so at the moment I am taking it with a small grain of salt.

it may well be true - but there's a distinct difference between me extending my kitchen into the back garden, for which i need planning permission, but which probably isn't going to effect anyone but me, and someone putting 10 static caravans and a hardcore road on a field. one is a rather more serious planning issue than the other.

the objections to a particular request will also have an impact - someone may object to my extention because they don't want a skip on my drive for a month, or they think that the back of my house looks better as it is, these are, by and large, not serious objections - having someone build a new village generates some very serious objections.

Grumpypants

Its very simple you can't build a building without planning permission.

paul71

Grumpypants wrote: »

Its very simple you can't build a building without planning permission.

Not as simple as that it seems, retrospective planning permission does exist.

Pompey Magnus

Callan57 wrote: »

The bit you omit is the lack of respect many (though not all) travellers show for the settled community

The disrespect works both ways. Is the proportion of travellers who disrepect the settled community any greater than the proportion of the settled community who disrespects travellers?

OS119

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The disrespect works both ways. Is the proportion of travellers who disrepect the settled community any greater than the proportion of the settled community who disrespects travellers?

i might say 'fcuking gypo's' as the fourth untaxed, unroadworthy scrap metal thief dealer of the day drives around my estate with his 'any old iiiirrronnn' megaphone blairing, but i don't leave another community with bills running into hundreds of thousands of pounds to clear up my mess, i don't intimidate people, and i don't claim to be part of society when i want something - benefits, hospital treatment, education for my children(ha!) - and then claim that because of my 'heritage' i shouldn't have to pay tax, register my vehicle with the DVLA, or be accountable to the law when i have 30 strong fist and knife fights on the common.

does the 'settled community' have a lack of respect for the 'travelling community'? yes it does, but that lack of respect is nothing compared to what the 'travelling community' display towards the 'settled community'.

they are, i fear, reaping what they have sown. not nice, but utterly predictable to anyone who can tie their own shoelaces.

nuac

from experience of travellers in Ireland I agree with OS19 post.

LondonIrish90

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Any truth to the claim that it was re-designated as green belt after they purchased it to try and stop the travelers setting up shop?

I would guess that it is untrue seeing as the whole Basildon area of Essex is firmly within the designated green belt surrounding London and has been for many, many years.

Even if it is the case, I don't see why it would be a problem. If the council don't want you to build, then you do not build. Anyway, an eviction date has finally been set so with any luck the good people of surrounding area will have 50% less travellers on their doorstep soon which is a step in the right direction.

Grumpypants

paul71 wrote: »

Not as simple as that it seems, retrospective planning permission does exist.

It is to be used in very rare senario's not as a cop out letting people build what they want and apply for planning afterwards. If you don't have planning the council have every right to make you remove the building at your own cost.

This is just another case of the law being implemented properly and fairly but the travellers playing the minority card.

AlekSmart

Grumpypants wrote: »

It is to be used in very rare senario's not as a cop out letting people build what they want and apply for planning afterwards. If you don't have planning the council have every right to make you remove the building at your own cost.

This is just another case of the law being implemented properly and fairly but the travellers playing the minority card.

Ás Gaeilge,it's knows as "gettin a bit of retention" on it,and is a highly successful method for developers to drive a coach and 4 by 4 through stuffy oul regulations and the like.

Perhaps our best example of Retention Man would be Mr Mansfield of Citywest fame...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7034837.ece

The college will be based in a retail centre that never quite took off. A change-of-use planning application has been submitted to South Dublin county council, with a decision not due until March 7. The Daily Mail reported last week that “work on the site has been under way for weeks as electricians, plasterers and tilers transform a block of apartments into the new college”. That’d be Jim; build first, sort out the planning permission later.

The other notable feature of Weston was that, as with many Mansfield projects, it flirted with the planning regime. He bought it for €13m in 2000 and began to modernise the dilapidated facility without getting full permission. In May 2005, Weston applied for retention.

The pattern was repeated several times, most notoriously with the enormous conference centre that Mansfield constructed at Citywest. Building had to stop halfway through, and it stood as a shell for several years while a planning and legal battle raged. The venue, which can hold 4,000 people, finally got retention in 2008 and is due to open later this year.

So there you have it,the basis for a nice little cottage industry perhaps...although some might find it a little ironic to hear of folks such as the Basildoner's seeking to "retain" things..?

irishh_bob

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The disrespect works both ways. Is the proportion of travellers who disrepect the settled community any greater than the proportion of the settled community who disrespects travellers?

have you ever heard the saying , he who pays the piper , calls the tune , as soon as tinker taxes start paying for roads , hospitals , schools and public spending in general , its up to them to adapt

A Dub in Glasgo

It would appear that the travellers are willing to sell their 'heritage' for £6m

Dale Farm: Essex travellers' leader wanted £6m to leave

Then they go and do it all again somewhere else!

JabbaTheHut

Richard Sheridan, Gypsy Council president, is leading the fight against evictions from Dale Farm, Basildon.

I thought they only wanted to be called travellers,and that "Gypsy" was taken as an insult?

Callan57

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It would appear that the travellers are willing to sell their 'heritage' for £6m

Dale Farm: Essex travellers' leader wanted £6m to leave

Then they go and do it all again somewhere else!

Well what a surprise :mad:

paul71

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

I thought they only wanted to be called travellers,and that "Gypsy" was taken as an insult?

The title reflects the fact that it is made up of several different groups in the UK, not just Irish travellers. It also includes Scots Gypsy groups, English Gypsy groups, New age travellers, and Roma.

the_syco

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It would appear that the travellers are willing to sell their 'heritage' for £6m

Same old tricks then, as they use here.

So I think the county council there should use the same tricks as we use here: surround their place with boulders and muck and not allow them out until they bring their caravans and mobile homes with them!