Dale Farm

[Barry Fish]

Just heard some "traveller" on Sky News saying...

"They aren't going to ruin our culture. We are travellers and this is how we want to live. They won't force us to live in houses."

What by building permanent settlements ? What by building houses ?

I kind of have sympathy with them and think they get treated fairly poorly by people in a racist way (although having personal experience of them while growing up they certainly don't help themselves) but its hard to understand their argument when they are contradict it so clearly...

What do people think ?

Edited September 19, 2011 by Barry Fish

[eFestivals]

I saw a photo the other day that had some banners on it, something about racists trying to destroy their culture, alongside a big banner saying that they won't move. The irony of their own protest is clearly lost on those 'travellers'.

All the same, the result of moving them off land they own will be them moving onto land they don't own, and where they'll have no more rights in law to reside there than they do at Dale Farm.

Ultimately tho the issue comes back to travellers having very few rights to live their traditional existence than those that live a more conventional lifestyle. If the Caravans Act had been properly enforced and not then abolished - which placed an obligation on councils to provide transit sites for travellers - then there wouldn't be this issue, and it's pretty clear that this issue has been 'chosen' to remain by successive govts so that travellers can be forced into houses where they come under better control by the state.

Hitler would be proud.

[The Nal]

I saw a photo the other day that had some banners on it, something about racists trying to destroy their culture, alongside a big banner saying that they won't move. The irony of their own protest is clearly lost on those 'travellers'.

All the same, the result of moving them off land they own will be them moving onto land they don't own, and where they'll have no more rights in law to reside there than they do at Dale Farm.

Ultimately tho the issue comes back to travellers having very few rights to live their traditional existence than those that live a more conventional lifestyle. If the Caravans Act had been properly enforced and not then abolished - which placed an obligation on councils to provide transit sites for travellers - then there wouldn't be this issue, and it's pretty clear that this issue has been 'chosen' to remain by successive govts so that travellers can be forced into houses where they come under better control by the state.

Hitler would be proud.

[Katster]

Absolutely every single time I’ve crossed paths with a traveller (and its happened a lot in my 32 years) its been a negative experience. Every. Single. Time.

[eFestivals]

Sorry, I know there are good guys out there, but they majority, and their culture have zero interest in integrating with the rest of society. They say it when it suits them to say it.

I don’t see why the “settled” community and authorities (and my taxes!) should go out of their way to accommodate a group of people who have no interest in integrating unless it 100% on their terms.

I'll ignore the rest of what you say - after all, it's not like those who live in houses are angels either - and concentrate on the relevant parts of what you say which are a part of what's going on at Dale Farm.

Why do you think it's the responsibility of travellers to be "integrating with the rest of society", and not the responsibility of the rest of society to be integrating with travellers?

We are all, together, 'society'. We all have as much moral right to our place within it than anyone else, and it's the responsibility of all of society to integrate with all of the rest of it. Yet there's never been any accommodation made by 'normal' society of the travellers - they are kept on the outside, and via that the impression is given that they and their lifestyle is somehow abnormal.

And yet their lifestyle pre-dates all of what we like to regard as 'normal' society; it's in fact 'normal' society that is abnormal if either can be.

The 'settled' community has never properly tried to allow the integration of travellers (there was a little brief and unenforced tokenism with the Caravans Act). Until there is some sort of acceptance that the land is all of ours and that no person has the absolute* right to exclude another from any land then there is no accommodation which can be made in either direction.

(* I'm not saying that travellers should have the absolute right to occupy any bit of land that they fancy, I'm saying that they have the absolute right to occupy a bit of land somewhere. While 'normal' society might like to think it allows them the right to be somewhere, that 'somewhere' is always 'somewhere else than near me'.)

Edited September 20, 2011 by eFestivals

[t8yman]

dodgy anecdotes aside (and I've a few myself) the people at Dale Farm are breaching planning regs (if my understanding is correct) and are now endangering life with the protests. I'm all for peaceful protests, and in some rare cases I can condone the less peaceful. but to call yourselves a traveller community when you dont even travel is a bit rich. as much as planning regs can be infuriating for many many reasons, they are there for a purpose.

i hope a compromise can be reached, because I reckon this could get really messy.

[eFestivals]

Majority rule... init... The majority set what is "normal" etc....

there was some 70's film (was it Death Race 2000?) which demonstrated how bloody stupid the whole idea of majority privilege is.

If we go with majority privilege, then violent racism gets to be legal forever, vigilantes are the rule of law, and a huge number of other such stupid things.

A civilised society is one which is able to take the idea "there goes I but for the grace of god" - an idea that holds true for everyone outside the accident of the circumstances of their birth - and work that idea into a stable whole, where everyone has the right of existence, and the stupid do not have the right of life and death over others simply by the fact of their numbers.

Regarding "a space"... I would agree... The Caravan Act makes sense, why did it fail ? Just typical Tory nastiness ?

Tory nastiness, and small-minded people nastiness.

Within that law there was an obligation for all councils to provide transit sites, but because they didn't exist those councils had a number of years to create them - a point that kept being pushed back, and so many councils never actually created them anyway.

Then the govt made an executive ruling of who exactly classed as covered by that law - and yet no other law is written in the way "this law is only applicable to X, Y & Z", because we have the idea that justice is common to all - meaning that many travellers weren't then able to access the few sites that existed.

And because there weren't enough sites, and those that there were excluded some who had need of them, the govt then said "this law is not working" and used that as an excuse to abolish it.

The 'alternative' the govt said should happen in its place was for travellers to buy their own land to reside on.

Of course, the problem along the way for those councils who did try creating transit sites was, the same as ever, "not in my back yard", which is the exact same problem as exists around the traveller-owned Dale Farm - people grudgingly accept that travellers have to reside somewhere, but that 'somewhere' is always somewhere else.

And laughingly, with the same lack of joined up thinking of govts and stupid people everywhere, if those travellers went the way that small-minded society says and moved into permanent homes and lived a 'normal' lifestyle, there'd be even fewer houses available than there are currently, meaning that more houses would need to built in people's back yards - and so we end up in the exact same place we can never get away from whichever way we try and resolve the problem .... aside from via a change in people's small minded attitudes (or the gas chamber for all travellers and gypsies ).

[eFestivals]

the people at Dale Farm are breaching planning regs

yep, they are.

If you or anyone else wants to tell them where there's a bit of land they can buy where they'll get the necessary legal permissions I'm sure they'll be off there like a shot!!

And is anyone so stupid as to think that they won't be committing the same breech of planning regs (and probably other things too) wherever they move to? So what's achieved by the eviction if nothing changes for the better by doing it?

I don't agree with anyone breeching planning regs, but the planning laws have to allow a reasonable and workable solution in cases like this, because these people can't and won't simply disappear when they're moved on from Dale Farm. All that happens is that the problem is moved to another place.

The problem is ultimately the small-minded nimby attitudes that are widespread in this country, and not those travellers breeching planning regs.

[eFestivals]

I watched the Channel 4 documentary last night on the Dale Farm issue...

The travellers complained the sites which are provided are in poor locations and are poor maintained. The council pointed out to how badly the travellers treat the facilities they provide and the level of abuse they face when they do try to fix them.

This is an irrelevance to Dale Farm.

The travellers at Dale Farm have taken the route that the govt suggested, and bought themselves their own land to reside on, but the govt and 'the law' won't allow them to do what the govt has suggested.

It's no good saying "well, buy land in a place that will be allowed", because so very few places will allow it.

[eFestivals]

I am 100% positive that "NIMBYS" would be fine with travellers have areas to stay if the 99% of problems that come with them where not a reality.

that's proven as complete bollocks by the fact that those same nimbys wouldn't want 'houses for nice people' to be built near them any more than they want travellers sited near them. The objections made against every planning application prove this beyond any doubt.

The fact is that the planning authorities accept the need of normal housing and so force it onto the nimbys - but the same thing only very rarely happens with the need for travellers to be sited somewhere.

Edited September 20, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

It isn't an irrelevance... There current options for relocation where very much relevant and the piss poor conditions that exist...

It's an irrelevance.

You have the choice of an almost infinite number of places to reside, that you can reside at by either buying or renting.

As far as renting a site for travellers goes, there's less than 1% of the needed pitches, so renting is no realistic option.

If they buy land, then they're deemed as unsuitable owners of that land (no matter how well they might maintain that land).

In both cases they know - because it's ALWAYS the fact of the matter - that sooner or later they'll get shat on and forced to move, so it's hardly surprising that they care as little back as they're cared for.

When was the last time you were forced to move with no realistic possibility of being able to stay where you moved to for any amount of time - on the basis only that society doesn't like you? I guarantee it's never happened to you.

But if it did, then the attitudes you currently hold wouldn't be the attitudes you'd have.

[eFestivals]

The council forcing those new houses on the residents doesn't result in them losing their seats... If they forced the travellers on them then they would lose their seats... Its the problems they bring, fact...

In an awful lot of cases it DOES result in councillors losing their seats. But luckily for those people needing houses, it rarely results in the approved planning permission being revoked.

(and of course, a huge part of the planning process operates on corruption anyway)

But ultimately, despite the nimby attitudes, there's a realisation that houses are needed for people like them, so there's an amount of acceptance of the necessity of those houses - the same acceptance doesn't exist with travellers, because the nimbys aren't travellers and know they never will be.

"The problems they bring" applies no differently with many people on what get called 'sink estates' - yet we still build enough of those 'sink estates' to house all of those 'problem' people.

A different attitude is applied with travellers, with their difference in lifestyle used as the justification for that difference in attitude.

As ever, your "facts" are flying pigs. And they're being used by you as a cover for your own racism here.

Edited September 20, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

It hasn't happened to me because I live within societies boundaries...

PMSL - and so do they you numpty, because society is all of us, not just those who you deem worthy enough to include.

You are basically saying "if they're not like me then they're not good enough to join the club I belong to". But you're not being racist here, oh no.

Edited September 20, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Would it be racist for me to come and take a shit in your back garden, throw a ton of rubbish over your fence and then claim you are being racist when you get pissed ? Grow up...

It would be racist of you to think that only a traveller would do something like this.

The very fact that you've decided to post this in here and suggest it's what all travellers will do gets to show your racism as clearly as you ever could do.

I don't think expecting people to largely live by the law, don't litter, keep their area tidy, don't foul in the bushes and so forth is being racist... but if it is, fine... It is what it is...

If you'd like to tell me how living a traditional lifestyle that by itself causes no one any bother is kept outside of the possibilities that the law in practice allows isn't racist, you might have a point.

Littering is always a problem at traveller sites even for the most tidy traveller, because of active racism - the active racism of councils who normally won't give those travellers the same refuse services as they give house dwellers. The fact of this makes it a given, but also makes it something outside of the control of those travellers.

As for shitting in the bushes, you're just showing your ignorance and your racism again. FFS!!!

It's not 'travellers' who shit in the bushes at many festival sites, for example. But I guess in your racist mind it's only them.

[The Nal]

Why do you think it's the responsibility of travellers to be "integrating with the rest of society", and not the responsibility of the rest of society to be integrating with travellers?

[eFestivals]

The only thing clear is is you inability to read what I wrote earlier... That it clearly isn't JUST travellers who do this but how those sections of society are also disliked...

right, so now we've established that people like bad acts but that anyone can do those bad acts but not everyone does - travellers included, care to tell me what relevance people doing bad acts everywhere has to do with Dale Farm outside of your failed attempt at condemning them via your racism?

The issue is where they live, and how they're able to find somewhere to live, nowt else - and certainly not your racist twaddle.

[jump]

Does anyone know what the £18m+ that is being spent to get them evicted is actually being spent on? I take it's not just simply going towards bailiffs, court fees and police?

[The Nal]

The issue is where they live, and how they're able to find somewhere to live, nowt else - and certainly not your racist twaddle.

[eFestivals]

Because the majority of the rest of society live their lives in a way that contributes to society rather than harming it.

I've no idea what the score with these things is in Ireland (tho I suspect it's little different), but there's no need for you to go mirroring Oaf, is there?

Shall we drive the unemployed into the sea along with travellers? Cos they certainly "don't contribute", while many travellers do .... fuck knows how my missus would have got to work today without a motorway, for example.

Funny how you only hear about racism etc from travellers when they want something i.e. to live somewhere for free.

What you say here is nothing to do with Dale Farm - they own the land, they pay council tax. They don't live "for free".

But actually what's going on there is that 'normal' society has no interest in them unless it's to drive them away. Once they're out of sight they're out of mind.

If I pulled a caravan up on council property I would have no arguement whatsoever about being asked to leave if it wasn't my land and I had paid or contributed nothing to the people who own/run the land.

so not a jot like Dale Farm then - the travellers own the land, they pay council tax.

But anyway ... you with your caravan: what do you do with it - your HOME!!!! (not just 'a caravan') - when you not only can't park it on council property but you can't park it on land you own either?

I can only guess that the answer is to make it waterproof and sail off into the sea, or to make it fly.

Their lifestyle is abnormal.

In every historical sense it's more 'normal' than your own.

[eFestivals]

Imagine if everyone stopped paying tax,

many travellers pay tax: I happen to know of one who paid over £100k in tax one year.

That aside, if people - in houses or caravans - don't pay the tax that they owe then the law should be applied to collect it. It's nothing to do with travellers.

Travellers are not banned from using normal toilets or bringing their rubbish to the dump are they?

Do you shit in your bed? Then don't fall for the myth that travellers do too.

Do you have to take your daily rubbish to the dump, or do you have someone come and collect it for you? So who is in the wrong when councils won't collect it?

This is not a stereotype, its scientifically proven - travellers suffer from Galactosemia at a disproportionate rate in comparison to settles people. Why? Inbreeding within their community. Sorry, its a fact.

Just having looked it up, it says it's most specific to Irish travellers rather than all.

That aside, they're still less inbred than those people who so many worship - the UK's 'royal' family.

And that aside, if 'outsiders' were always c**ts to you, you'd probably marry your sister.

No its not. In theory, “normal society” progresses along side medicine, personal hygiene, science, awareness for the environment etc. The travelling community do not. Also, so what if it pre dates “normal society” (which in any case, it doesn’t). That’s an unquantifiable point. Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Normans and Vikings were all progressive peoples.

then lets string up 40%+ of the yanks first - who reject science and awareness of their environment.

It is up to settled people to do all the work? Or should the travelling community do a bit? Im all for a compromise but I just dont see it,

ever wondered where the UK's canals, railwaysa, and roads came from - and still come from?

ever wondered why the environment isn't littered with rusting metal?

ever wondered how houses 'miraculously' appear?

Etc, etc, etc.

FFS.

Yep. If I lived next door to you and was burning rubbish, littering the place with all my rubbish and using the back garden as a toilet would you tolerate it? I hope not.

My next door neighbours burn rubbish weekly or more.

They have regular garden parties, where there's never been an occasion when I've not seen one of them or their guests pissing in the garden.

You might think that unusual, but it's not. Burning rubbish is a weekly 'pastime' for many gardeners, and when youngsters have parties that spill out into the garden, pissing out their lager is what kids do.

The owners of Dale Farm have rights too you know!

but not the right to keep living in a caravan within the law, at least not in any practical sense.

[eFestivals]

Yes but their behaviour is a factor in where they live surely?

if it is, it's an an after-the-event factor.

People don't complain that "travellers make a mess" as their initial complaint, they complain just that they're there within that complainant's sight. They complain before they've had a chance to make a mess.

And they don’t help themselves. They don’t help themselves one bit.

t

that's a line that can be applied against every person that's ever lived.

The simple fact is that even the the cleanest and most polite travellers get a very similar number of complaints to the very worst - which gets to expose the myth that the complaints are about what they do and not who they are.

It's "Love Thy Neighbour" revisited, ya honkey. ... "if you want a nigger for as neighbour vote Liberal or Labour" (that's a genuine Tory election slogan from the late 1960s).

18m?! Christ, didn’t see that. No idea what that’s being spent on. Presume that has to be a projected total cost to the government and not just a cash outlay so to speak?

more than enough to build every one of the 40 Dale Farm inhabitants mansions that they could be given for free, and which would make the problem go away forever.

Which gets to expose that the action isn't about trying to make the problem go away, but to (laughingly - cos it will only fail) make the travellers themselves go away.

Edited September 20, 2011 by eFestivals

[Chas]

Don't they already have planning permission for around two thirds of Dale Farm, so why are they trying to evict them all? Surely a compromise would be to only evict those that don't have planning permission for their plot, or have I missed something somewhere?

Living in an area which has a large number of traveller families living in permanent homes, as well as pitched caravans, I personally have never encountered any problems with them. However you can't help but be aware of the general attitude of people towards them which seems to be more based on hearsay rather than actual first hand experience, and sadly it does appear to come down to simple prejudice. You do occasionally read negative stories in the local press but then you read a hell of a lot more about so called normal settled folk.

[The Nal]

You do occasionally read negative stories in the local press but then you read a hell of a lot more about so called normal settled folk.

[Chas]

"Don't they already have planning permission for around two thirds of Dale Farm, so why are they trying to evict them all? Surely a compromise would be to only evict those that don't have planning permission for their plot, or have I missed something somewhere?"

Just been back to read up on the evictions and it does seem to only involve the 51 illegal plots, so ignore that part of my post.

[fred quimby]

It would be racist of you to think that only a traveller would do something like this.

The very fact that you've decided to post this in here and suggest it's what all travellers will do gets to show your racism as clearly as you ever could do.

.