Dale Farm

[Ed209]

yeah but the same could be said for countless scenarios throughout human history, you've just decided to use the most extreme case as your comparison.

[worm]

All stereotypes are unhelpful. They serve only to seperate us from them.

[abdoujaparov]

yeah but the same could be said for countless scenarios throughout human history, you've just decided to use the most extreme case as your comparison.

[worm]

yeah but the same could be said for countless scenarios throughout human history, you've just decided to use the most extreme case as your comparison.

Edited September 20, 2011 by worm

[abdoujaparov]

It's a valid comparison. Not because of what ultimately happened to the Jews, but because of what was said about them to bring about their end - they were made to be scapegoats for the problems in society.

[lost]

I find the suggestion that because a group has been persecuted in the past we should be more accommodating to their needs or turn a blind eye to indiscretions doesn’t really work. The way the world has dealt with the Israeli / Palestine situation is a key example. You can probably find an example through history where every group has been discriminated against, the aristocracy were blamed for societies problems during the French and Russian revolutions and murdered, but when the time came we banned fox hunting even though it had been going on for generations and a key part of their culture because society saw it as cruel and no longer relevant.. to suggest that was the slippery slope on the way to rounding up all the toffs and shooting them seems quite silly..

This is surely a simple case of going against planning reg’s which many middle class people have done in the past and had their home torn down by the council making them homeless? I don’t see any ethnic cleansing going on.

Edited September 20, 2011 by lost

[abdoujaparov]

I find the suggestion that because a group has been persecuted in the past we should be more accommodating to their needs or turn a blind eye to indiscretions doesn’t really work. The way the world has dealt with the Israeli / Palestine situation is a key example. You can probably find an example through history where every group has been discriminated against, the aristocracy were blamed for societies problems during the French and Russian revolutions and murdered, but when the time came we banned fox hunting even though it had been going on for generations and a key part of their culture because society saw it as cruel and no longer relevant.. to suggest that was the slippery slope on the way to rounding up all the toffs and shooting them seems quite silly..

This is surely a simple case of going against planning reg’s which many middle class people have done in the past and had their home torn down by the council making them homeless? I don’t see any ethnic cleansing going on.

[lost]

Setting aside all of this, what's happening at dale farm is pretty irrational. The UK has a severe housing crisis. Homeless rates have increased significantly. But the authorities are spending £18m evicting families from homes, on land they own, and thereby remdering them homeless and in some cases landing the local authority with a duty to house them. That's mad.

[abdoujaparov]

its probably more to do with what the government expect would happen if it turned a blind eye to building on green belt when an arce of greenbelt sells for around £4k whilst an arce of land with planning permission sells for £1 million. The majority of the value of a house is in its land, this value is an asset on a banks balance sheet when granting a mortgage and for some reason our government agreed to underwrite these assets a few years ago.

[Ed209]

indeed, well put

[eFestivals]

This is surely a simple case of going against planning reg’s which many middle class people have done in the past and had their home torn down by the council making them homeless? I don’t see any ethnic cleansing going on.

that's the top-level story - and by itself, it's not something I support the travellers over. But it's not all there is to this.

It becomes (low level) 'ethnic cleansing' because the law in practice doesn't allow the continuation of their 'ethnic' lifestyle.

The law in theory allows them to buy land and get planning permission. The law when operated in practice gets to mean that getting the planning permission is near impossible.

(It's worth pointing out that, in comparison, 80% of all planning applications are passed at the first attempt; of the 20% that are refused, 75% of those are passed on appeal. The stats for planning applications for travellers sites don't get remotely close to those).

Their 'ethnic' lifestyle is 100% harmless - no different to house dwelling, yet it's crushed by society at large simply on the basis of "we don't like travellers, they should travel somewhere else to live", but with there being no "somewhere else" where they can go and live.

The crux of the matter is this: travellers have no less moral right to continue to live the lifestyle they know than you have to live the lifestyle you know.

So the law in practice needs to recognise that, and support their applications for planning permission against objections no less than planning permission for houses is supported by the law against the objections that draws.

That's not me saying that they should necessarily now get planning permission for Dale Farm, that's me saying that things need to change so that they're able to get planning permission somewhere and not nowhere.

[5co77ie]

... the Guardian learned that the government has blocked attempts by the United Nations to help negotiate a deal between Travellers at the Dale Farm site and Basildon council, which is set to send in bailiffs to evict 86 families from their homes. As an estimated 200 protesters and Travellers blocked the site's entrance on Monday to prevent bailiffs from entering, it emerged the government had refused offers of help from the UN high commissioner for human rights in Brussels.

Jan Jarab, Europe representative of the commissioner, said the government had unofficially made it understood that the UN commission would not be welcome at the Dale Farm site.

....Jarab said: "We offered to be part of a negotiation to try and arrive at a less dramatic solution at Dale Farm. There was communication between the British government and our headquarters but it was made clear to us that we would receive a letter that that offer was rejected.

"It is terribly sad and I am disappointed. A forced eviction is a dramatic event for the people concerned."

The proposed evictions would send the wrong signal to other councils in the UK and other countries in Europe, he added.

"It is actually very symbolic: this is the largest Irish Traveller site in the UK and it sends the message across the UK and also across the European Union that the government is putting its weight behind an eviction-based approach."

[5co77ie]

From my first link:

the leader of Basildon council, Tony Ball, has said the council already had 113 authorised pitches and could "absolutely not" accommodate the 52 families that will be forced to leave Dale Farm.

[abdoujaparov]

If "travellers" want some land to set-up on so they can live in their caravans... Why don't they buy a house with a drive way, park up their caravan and then they are good to go ? You know like most caravan owners do in the United Kingdom... And pay the council tax like we all do

Just a thought...

[The Nal]

presumably because they dont want to buy a house and park a caravan on the driveway...they want to liove in a caravan

Edited September 21, 2011 by The Nal

[abdoujaparov]

yes it was, and he didn't resort to calling people idiots or hedgehogs.

I still don't like the comparison, but i'll get over it.

[5co77ie]

For balance I saw one of the travellers being interviewed on Sky News on Monday and she said she had been offered a four bedroom council house as alternative accommodation but was turning it down because she didn't want to live in a house.

I don't know how many other similar offers where made but it does highlight that some of them have turned down offered alternatives to keep those children in the schools...

[eFestivals]

For balance I saw one of the travellers being interviewed on Sky News on Monday and she said she had been offered a four bedroom council house as alternative accommodation but was turning it down because she didn't want to live in a house.

I don't know how many other similar offers where made but it does highlight that some of them have turned down offered alternatives to keep those children in the schools...

If you - a traditional house dweller - was offered a tent as alternative accommodation to accommodation you already have and aren't going to lose (but would lose the site for), how would you feel about that?

You'd say "I have a house, I don't need a tent. I'm used to a house, I don't want a tent".

Your view of things is being squewed because a house to you is completely normal, it's how you live your life. It's completely different for someone who has never had any affinity with a house because they live their life in a different way.

It's not your place or the council's place to decide that a person's life culture cannot continue for no particular reason aside from that's the only alternative they're able to offer.

(But meanwhile, the govt has just changed the housing rules, so that councils can now offer the homeless caravans and boats as a place to live rather than houses [as it's always been until now] .... it's going to be highly amusing to see how people with your attitude feel about being given a caravan at odds with their culture and not a house. Here's betting that the acceptance of that cultural change doesn't match how you think it should work for travellers )

[eFestivals]

If "travellers" want some land to set-up on so they can live in their caravans... Why don't they buy a house with a drive way, park up their caravan and then they are good to go ? You know like most caravan owners do in the United Kingdom... And pay the council tax like we all do

Just a thought...

As ever, a thought of the stupid.

The exact same planning permission issues exist with that as exist with Dale Farm. The planning permission for house only allows the actual house to be the permanent residence. If a person is to permanently reside in a caravan then they need to get planning permission to be able to do so legally.

[eFestivals]

Well why dont they buy or rent some land then like everyone else and put their caravan on that?

That's *EXACTLY* what the people at Dale Farm have done.

It is only legal to do so if there's also the necessary planning permission, which rarely gets granted for travellers (much less than 10%, against about 95% for all planning applications).

[eFestivals]

They sound more like prisoners to their way of life in that case...

No more than you are.

If a law was passed that forced you to have to live in a caravan, you'd kick up the biggest stink possible, and fight it every inch of the way.

Why do you think it works differently for people coming from the opposite direction to you?

I would put my child's education ahead of the unreasonable demands and expectations of friends and family...

yeah, of course you would. You'd accept that caravan like a shot. PMSL.

Ultimately they had a choice and choose the option which would lead to issues in their children's education... The council tried to house them. I don't really expect much more from the council.

if "the council tried to house" you in a caravan when you already had a perfectly servicable house, you'd take that caravan, wouldn't you? ;lol:

FFS. Try plugging in the part of your brain marked 'empathy', rather than your default of stupidity.

[eFestivals]

As a farther my concern is to put a "roof above my child's head"... The exact nature of that roof comes down to nothing more than my financial means.

I would prefer a house but if required, I would accept anything that kept my child dry and warm...

Those travellers already have a roof. Their children are kept warm and dry.

What part of that are you failing to understand???

You have a house: would you accept being forced into a caravan despite the fact you already have a house? No you wouldn't.

So why expect of others what you'd not accept for yourself?

[eFestivals]

Ok... How about a compromise... Live in the house and "travel" in the Caravan... You might have noticed the HOUSES the TRAVELLERS built at Dale Farm

They're not houses as you or I know houses to be.

Their style of 'house' is engrained in their culture no less than you style of house is engrained in yours.

It might surprise you to know it, but not everyone want to be like you. And for once I'm not talking about being as stupid as you.

There's no reason why they can'ty continue with their traditional lifestyle. That lifestyle by itself is no more harmful to society than your own lifestyle is to society.

What part of that can't you get? Why do yuou think that everyone must be a clone of you when there's no good reason why they should?

[eFestivals]

I never said they shouldn't campaign for changes to the law....

which they've got as much chance of success with as blacks did when racism was at its height, or gays did when homophobia was at its height.

There is no reason why they can't continue with their life as it .... apart from the baseless prejudices of people like you who think that everyone should live in the exact same way as you do.

They do you no harm by living in a caravan just as you do no one any harm by living in a house.

Society has allowed you a place to site your house. Why won't society allow travellers a place to site their caravans?

Where's the difference??

[The Nal]

That's *EXACTLY* what the people at Dale Farm have done.

It is only legal to do so if there's also the necessary planning permission, which rarely gets granted for travellers (much less than 10%, against about 95% for all planning applications).