Dale Farm

[eFestivals]

But this is the bit YOU clearly do not understand... It does effect all our lives... If green belt land is opened up for any development then the natural beauty and wildlife etc etc of this country will be under threat... So yes, it does effect us...

You said you understood you couldn't have mass uncontrolled development...

Oh FFS

New land - green belt land - is developed with houses all the time.

95% of planning applications for houses are given planning permission, despite the objections (and there's ALWAYS objections) of locals who wish it to remain as it is for whatever reason.

Travellers are not asking for anything different for travellers.

All those travellers are asking is that the need for sites for their caravans is recognised by society as a necessity for travellers to live in, in the exact same way that the need for sites for new houses is recognised by society as a necessity for house dwellers to live in.

Whether a person lives in a caravan or a house, land is occupied by a person's existence. There's no gained land benefit by forcing someone into a house, land is still used.

[5co77ie]

Are they not just evicting/refusing planning permission for the people living on the green belt area of the farm though?

[eFestivals]

Come Friday they won't have a roof... it will be removed / ripped down because it is illegal...

If the council was going to pull down my house for similar reasons and the only offer was a caravan and keep my kid in school or go down the road and build another lllegal house... I would take the caravan....

would you move into that caravan before your house was pulled down?

No, you'd stay in your house and hope with all your heart that something changed before your house was pulled down so that your house wasn't pulled down.

Spot the difference?

[eFestivals]

A caravan is no more a necessity than it is for someone to live in a mansion... What a load of bollocks...

Eh? you wot?

*SOMEWHERE* is a necessity for everyone to live.

It makes no difference whether that 'somewhere' has a house on it or a caravan on it.

So what's the problem with someone living in a caravan, aside from your petty prejudices?

[5co77ie]

A caravan is no more a necessity than it is for someone to live in a mansion... What a load of bollocks...

Edited September 21, 2011 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

I would stay until they point I thought I was on to a loser... So no I don't... Its been clear for quite a while the Dale Farm residents have been onto a loser...

Yeah, as ever, you're 100% spot on an factually accurate.

There's been a ten year legal battle, which even as the bailiffs moved in on Monday the travellers won a legal battle that enabled them to stay - demonstrating that they've not yet lost.

They might lose with today's court case, who knows? You don't know - but that hasn't stopped you saying that you do.

[sifi]

I think most of Dale Farm was actually ripped up long before the travellers got there.

This isn't about planning permission, it's about the locals not wanting these people living in their town. Anyone who can't see that has already been subverted by the anti-traveller propaganda that has been going on ever since cities and towns were created seven thousand years ago.

Prior to that, we were all travellers baby.

[The Nal]

Even the Torygraph has now admitted that's not true - watch video here:

http://www.telegraph...site-owner.html

[eFestivals]

LMAO

You just destroyed the travellers and your own argument..

That was a comment on land being used you moron.

You started off saying "we need to protect green belt land", so I pointed out that the idea of protecting it is passed by for houses, but not for caravans - only because small-minded morons like you think that everyone should live in a house like you do.

What a person lives in makes a no difference - land is used whatever they live in. So general arguments about protecting land from development by not allowing caravans to use land is an irrelevance. Everyone has to use land to live, and land is used whether a person lives in a house or a caravan.

[5co77ie]

Fair enough cheers for that. So not a green belt then really.

The majority of the travellers there seem to be Irish right?

Edited September 21, 2011 by 5co77ie

[abdoujaparov]

Fair enough cheers for that. So not a green belt then really.

The majority of the travellers there seem to be Irish right?

[eFestivals]

and a point of fact - 20% of planning applications by non-travellers are rejected

actually, of those 20% that are rejected, 75% of those are granted on appeal - which means that only 5% of planning applications by non-travellers are rejected.

[The Nal]

I wonder how in reality some of you lot would react to one of these sites next door

[eFestivals]

I wonder how in reality some of you lot would react to one of these sites next door

Like just about everyone, my preference would be for green fields next door.

But if I had to have neighbours, then it doesn't matter one jot what their housing is like. It doesn't affect me, I'm not the one living in it.

There's of course the matter of what the people are like, but I've met the same proportion of scumbags living in houses as I have that travel.

And it could be worse. I might end up with a Gypsy hating racist living in the house next to me. I certainly wouldn't want that.

[eFestivals]

LMAO... So you wouldn't want them either... Class

You highlight the same concerns as others have highlighted and been called racist for... Priceless...

It must be great being as mindless as you.

I've said fuck all to even remotely imply what you're thinking.

I was simply pre-empting your come back, by pointing out that, yes, I might end up with a scumbag I detested next door, but that having a scumbag next door was just as likely if it were a house-dweller as if it were a traveller. There's certainly nothing racist about that.

Your own comments in this thread get to clearly show that it's not just travellers who might have objectionable traits.

[abdoujaparov]

Like just about everyone, my preference would be for green fields next door.

But if I had to have neighbours, then it doesn't matter one jot what their housing is like. It doesn't affect me, I'm not the one living in it.

There's of course the matter of what the people are like, but I've met the same proportion of scumbags living in houses as I have that travel.

And it could be worse. I might end up with a Gypsy hating racist living in the house next to me. I certainly wouldn't want that.

[5co77ie]

oooo look Barry must have been on the train:

"I’m not racist, but you wouldn’t want them living near you, would you? They bring house prices down."

[sifi]

Funny. I thought Oaf worshipped a bloke who spent his life travelling from place to place, who lived outside normal society of the time and encouraged a different lifestyle.

[The Nal]

Billy Connely ?

[abdoujaparov]

Listening to Radio 5 today and they are talking about the council stopping some women living in a shed in her parents garden... While she saves up to buy a house...

Racism ?

[eFestivals]

Listening to Radio 5 today and they are talking about the council stopping some women living in a shed in her parents garden... While she saves up to buy a house...

Racism ?

Try opening your tiny mind to look at the bigger picture, rather than looking to find exceptional happenings to justify discrimination.

Houses get planning permission. Travellers don't. Both are use of land for somewhere to live, so what's the difference outside of blatant discrimination that causes one to almost always get permission while the other almost always does not?

No one - not even the travellers at Dale Farm - are saying that travellers should always get planning permission in all cases. What is a reasonable expectation is that houses and travellers should both be considered on the same basis, given that both are use of land for residing on.

The fact that they are not treated on that equal basis gets to prove that the system of operating in a discriminatory way.

[eFestivals]

I personally think if we are going to surrender green belt land then housing is a better choice than caravan pitches... That isn't anything to do with racism and everything to do with thinking its a better use of the land.

We DO 'surrender' green belt land to housing all the time, so that's not really any part of anything - apart from the fact that the same isn't applied for caravan pitches for travellers.

How are houses "a better use of land"? In both cases it's land being used to put a roof over people's head. So there's no difference in what the land is used for.

The only difference is the structure that's put on that land.

[eFestivals]

The council can only reject planning applications on planning infringements. Complaints have to be on the grounds of planning you realise and not on the grounds of neighbours moaning they don't like travellers.

1. if you really think that nimby-ism never comes into things you're very daft. It very definitely comes into the permissions that are granted for houses, and hugely more so for travellers.

The proof of this can be seen by the fact that the vast majority of 'posh' housing ends up next to existing 'posh' housing, while the low-end houses end up next to other low end housing. Drive thru any small village, and you'll notice that any council housing in that village is at the rougher end of that village - proving that the 'posh' people (who invariably includes the majority of councillors who grant the permissions) don't want the oiks sited next to them.

2. the "grounds of planning" come from any town's formal future development plans - plans where they accept the need for new housing in their locality, but where they hardly ever accept the need for sites for travellers. So because sites for travellers are not in their formal future plans, an application falls outside of their grounds for planning, and so is able to be refused. It's catch 22.

[eFestivals]

Our elected government has developed many planning rules and building regulations for a reason. Green issues, Health and Safety issues, Street Scene Issues, Provision for Vehicles, Correct use of materials...

You might think its all a load of rubbish but some of us think differently and want the rules applied to all developments...

The development at Dale Farm must breach these...

As I've just posted, those planning rules don't generally include provision for travellers - and so provision for travellers can't happen within the rules. That all stems from their initial discrimination against travellers.

Building regs only apply to fixed buildings - so they have nothing to do with planning permissions for travellers.

Green issues are better met by dwellings that don't semi-permanently scar the land - which is what fixed buildings do, and caravans don't.

Health & safety issues are not any relevant part of things. Those are met just as adequately in a caravan as a house.

"Street Scene Issues" - yep, that's a big part of things. Types liked you don't want to see caravans, because of your prejudices.

"Provision for Vehicles" - easily met with both.

"Correct use of materials" - of no relevance to caravans, tho used as an excuse to not-allow them, because of the discrimination against the need for sites for caravans that exists within a town's formal plans.

Do you think that travellers spend lots of their money putting together planning applications without any regard to what is expected from planning applications (such as provision for vehicles)? They meet the local planning expectations as much as they possibly can, within the fact that they live in caravans and so (for example) "use of materials" might not be of relevance to them.

If you start with a set of discriminatory rules that are designed to not provide sites for caravans, then what you get out of those rules is, unsurprisingly, discrimination.

Nothing of those rules takes into account that people do live in caravans, and that there's no good reason why they shouldn't continue to live in caravans.

And so you see, if you put discrimination in to those rules you get discrimination out of those rules. That's the whole bleeding point, that's what's being used against the people at Dale Farm.

[eFestivals]

Nothing of those rules takes into account that people do live in caravans, and that there's no good reason why they shouldn't continue to live in caravans.

^

Barry Fish - this is the pertinent point here.

Unless you're able to give a good reason why people shouldn't live in caravans if they wish to, then anything you might chuck in falls flat.

So: why shouldn't people live in caravans if they wish to??