Page 1 of 4
#1
Well this might be an issue to many people in the UK since travellers are quite spread out. Here is the story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14967627

Basically some travellers are getting evicted because they are breaking the law. And people are calling it ethnic cleansing and it is ridiculous.

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#2
How can they be evicted if they're travellers? They can't be very good at travelling if they've set up a permanent residence.
#4
Ridiculous, isn't it. I don't have a problem with the Legal half of the camp, but the stuff that is there illegally should be torn down and the residents evicted.

Shouldn't even be a question. They're there illegally, they should be evicted.
Quote by Kensai


Awesome guy right here
#5
The law they are breaking is that they didn't get the proper planning permission before placing homes on their own land over a decade ago.

The reason they couldn't get planning permission was because the council considered it as 'Green Belt' land... even though up to that point the council themselves used the land for dumping waste tarmac and rubble from roadworks.

Personaly, I think the council should just let it go, because the alternative is to either house the travellers themselves (which is either going to cost the council money, which many would see as wasteful, or is going to make the council money in rent fees, which could then cause the evictions to be construed as a 'money making scheme' for the council. Either way, it's bad for the council) or have them return to their travelling lifestyle, which will mean them squatting on other people's land illegaly and their children never getting a proper education because they have to constantly change schools when their family move on to a different area.

Bottom line, in my opinion, the council were completely unreasonable in not allowing planning permission in the first place, they should own up to that and put it right before they cause many more problems just so that they can save face.
#6
Quote by SG_dave
Fucking gypos.


+1

The only time I like to see a gypo is when they're coming to spin my carriage when I'm riding the Waltzer.

Quote by GLP_Arclite
Pooping is well good though, to be fair.


I've got a handle on the fiction.

I'm losing my grip, 'cos I'm losing my fingers.
#7
Apparently some of them own expensive houses back home in Ireland, there's a hell of a lot of discrepancies between what they claim to have and what they do.
#8
i think the "art student", lentil munching, neckbearded virgins are actually worse than the pikeys.

Mind you, some retard has set himself in either concrete or expanding foam filler (just his arm but still), either way he's ****ed
Such is posting in Soviet Russia
#9
I live in the area near it but the travellers have a bad reputation around here....

They don't pay their council tax, they shoplift and burgle and commit car theft and do loads of crime in the area.

I don't see why they should be able to break the law without consequences, if I put up a massive gate in front of my house without planning permission the council would be on us in 10 seconds, travellers should get the same treatment.

Plus comparing getting evicted to ethnic cleansing is ridiculous and insulting to those who have been through actual ethnic cleansing.

All the left wing middle class people on the travellers side are just idiots.

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#11
I always lol at the fact that nearly everyone can agree that they don't like travellers, regardless of how irrational it is.

In this case I remember reading that they actually wanted to buy up the land, so the council maybe could've handled this differently. But I can understand the hate when there is a perception of travellers ignoring rules and laws that everyone else usually adheres to.

Quote by SlackerBabbath

Personaly, I think the council should just let it go, because the alternative is to either house the travellers themselves (which is either going to cost the council money, which many would see as wasteful, or is going to make the council money in rent fees, which could then cause the evictions to be construed as a 'money making scheme' for the council. Either way, it's bad for the council) or have them return to their travelling lifestyle, which will mean them squatting on other people's land illegaly and their children never getting a proper education because they have to constantly change schools when their family move on to a different area.


Councils/associations usually offer housing and travellers always turn it down, that's what I've heard from colleagues who work in housing support. The reasons tend to be down to having to register for national insurance and tax etc.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#12
I think one of the travellers is undertaking a £22 million housing development in Ireland. Correct me if i'm wrong. A lot of travellers have a bob or two. It just annoys me that often they don't pay their way whatsoever, and have a blatant disregard for rules and regs.

Now I know that not all travellers are like that, some do pay for where they stay, but there are a lot who don't.
455 75 34 88


(´・ω・`)


Quote by strait jacket
Do you like being sigged or, like me do you feel strangely violated?
#13
Quote by EndTheRapture51
I live in the area near it but the travellers have a bad reputation around here....

They don't pay their council tax, they shoplift and burgle and commit car theft and do loads of crime in the area.

I don't see why they should be able to break the law without consequences, if I put up a massive gate in front of my house without planning permission the council would be on us in 10 seconds, travellers should get the same treatment.

Plus comparing getting evicted to ethnic cleansing is ridiculous and insulting to those who have been through actual ethnic cleansing.

All the left wing middle class people on the travellers side are just idiots.


Seeing as how I'm the only one here that's supported them so far, I take it That last line refers to me.
Actualy, I'm not left wing, I'm more liberal than anything, nor am I middle class, I live in a poor area and am from working class stock.

I just can't see the sense in moving them on.

Yes, there may well be thieves among them, but that's why we have prisons, for people who steal things. The point is, by keeping these people where they are, we have a chance to influence them and their children and to hopefully make them into better people and responsible members of society, move them on and you just move the problem on instead of actualy addressing it and attempting to find an answer.

But I do agree that comparing getting evicted to ethnic cleansing is ridiculous, it's just sensationalism.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 19, 2011,
#14
Travellers is a pretty shitty politically correct name for Gypsies. Surely Gypsy isn't offensive any more?
#15
Quote by Butt Rayge
Travellers is a pretty shitty politically correct name for Gypsies. Surely Gypsy isn't offensive any more?

Actual Romany Gypsies would probably sue.

Edit: wiki says they don't associate themselves with romany and call themselves travellers.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#16
I don't bloody understand this. Surely the idea of being a traveller is that you travel? They live in caravans. Just move the fooking caravans somewhere else. Thought that was the whole idea in the first place.
#17
Quote by Butt Rayge
Travellers is a pretty shitty politically correct name for Gypsies. Surely Gypsy isn't offensive any more?


Gypsie refers to a particular ethnic group i believe. Its used as a catchall term incorrectly.
#18
So apparently racism towards travellers is the last acceptable racism in this country. If it was a settlement of Asian people and you called them "Pakis" you would be racist, but it's ok to call them "Pikeys"?

On the eviction issue, I think it is easier to just let them stay there.
#20
Quote by theguitarist
I always lol at the fact that nearly everyone can agree that they don't like travellers, regardless of how irrational it is.

In this case I remember reading that they actually wanted to buy up the land, so the council maybe could've handled this differently. But I can understand the hate when there is a perception of travellers ignoring rules and laws that everyone else usually adheres to.


Councils/associations usually offer housing and travellers always turn it down, that's what I've heard from colleagues who work in housing support. The reasons tend to be down to having to register for national insurance and tax etc.


I don't dislike them. I may do one day but at the moment I don't know enough about them to dislike them (these thoughts do not extend to the Romanian 'Gypsy' travellers, whom I dislike greatly). I just don't see the issue they have with moving their homes, which are on wheels, elsewhere from time to time.

If my house where on wheels i'd be moving all over the damn place.
#21
Quote by Blayney
rioters v gypos live on tv please


Quote by GLP_Arclite
Pooping is well good though, to be fair.


I've got a handle on the fiction.

I'm losing my grip, 'cos I'm losing my fingers.
#22
I'm supporting the travelers. They own the land and their application for placing permission has been unreasonably withheld. All they're asking for is to add water and electricity facilities. A dump is an acceptable use of greenbelt land but basic water and electricity provisions are wrong.

Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#23
Quote by Mistress_Ibanez
So apparently racism towards travellers is the last acceptable racism in this country. If it was a settlement of Asian people and you called them "Pakis" you would be racist, but it's ok to call them "Pikeys"?

On the eviction issue, I think it is easier to just let them stay there.

What do you expect? People are fucking idiots.
"If God exists, there's no way he is French" - Andrea Pirlo

S A D B O Y S
#24
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Seeing as how I'm the only one here that's supported them so far, I take it That last line refers to me.
Actualy, I'm not left wing, I'm more liberal than anything, nor am I middle class, I live in a poor area and am from working class stock.
.


I don't think you're an idiot because you've made some fair points, but on Twitter there are just loads of annoying people supporting the travellers just cos it's the anti-establishment thing to do.

Also the people at the protest camp are just idiots.

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#25
Quote by Lemoninfluence
I'm supporting the travelers. They own the land and their application for placing permission has been unreasonably withheld. All they're asking for is to add water and electricity facilities. A dump is an acceptable use of greenbelt land but basic water and electricity provisions are wrong.


If they own they land I don't see how they're doing anything wrong. I understand it's a zoning issue, but it seems like a pretty ridiculous one, considering they've been there long enough to make permanent residencies.
#26
Its an interesting situation when anarchists and the like who mostly support ecological causes are supporting the people who are illegally building on Green Belt land, tarmacing over the green land. Not a criticism of any political views, just a strange situation i'm observing.

Personally, a small amount of people were granted rights to live there, not the amount of people who live there now. Because of this, only the original amount should remain, the rest are illegally living there. If they don't pay council tax, they shouldn't be living there.
#27
Quote by logboy
Its an interesting situation when anarchists and the like who mostly support ecological causes are supporting the people who are illegally building on Green Belt land, tarmacing over the green land. Not a criticism of any political views, just a strange situation i'm observing.

Personally, a small amount of people were granted rights to live there, not the amount of people who live there now. Because of this, only the original amount should remain, the rest are illegally living there. If they don't pay council tax, they shouldn't be living there.

I thought that pretty interesting, too. I think only the ones who bought the land have any real right to be there. As far as the environment goes, I think the damage has already been done.

Also, why sell the land in the first place if you just have to let it be? And why buy it?
#28
Quote by Mistress_Ibanez
So apparently racism towards travellers is the last acceptable racism in this country. If it was a settlement of Asian people and you called them "Pakis" you would be racist, but it's ok to call them "Pikeys"?

On the eviction issue, I think it is easier to just let them stay there.


It's not really 'racism' as such, more a kind of cultural prejudice. In my experience, the English can be like that towards Irish people in general, not just the traveling ones.

I for one am unsure about the matter. The actions of the council are quite obviously not as a result of prejudice, they are a result of the travelers not following the law which we all have to follow. If they don't pay taxes and they don't actually 'travel', it's starting to look to me like a large group of people just trying to find an extra cheap way to live, regardless of social convention/law, and largely at our expense.
#29
Quote by logboy
Its an interesting situation when anarchists and the like who mostly support ecological causes are supporting the people who are illegally building on Green Belt land, tarmacing over the green land. Not a criticism of any political views, just a strange situation i'm observing.

Personally, a small amount of people were granted rights to live there, not the amount of people who live there now. Because of this, only the original amount should remain, the rest are illegally living there. If they don't pay council tax, they shouldn't be living there.

If it is such important green belt land, why was the council dumping tarmac, etc there? They're hypocrites, plain and simple.
"If God exists, there's no way he is French" - Andrea Pirlo

S A D B O Y S
#30
duty of government to respect, protect and fulfill the right to adequate housing.
forced evictions shouldnt happen.


the community should also pay their tax too though. and really they shouldnt be there. but they are so is it right to knock peoples houses down because it doesnt fit with the law...
now extra flamey
Last edited by Ikey at Sep 19, 2011,
#31
Quote by I.O.T.M
If it is such important green belt land, why was the council dumping tarmac, etc there? They're hypocrites, plain and simple.


Green Belt laws are about controlling the spread of urban living; as far as I know they don't mention dumping. Furthermore, if what the council did is wrong then what the travelers are doing is also wrong. If the actions of both are okay, then that's a pretty pointless argument other than to say that the council is hypocritical, which is a bit ridiculous considering that the council is not a person but a group which passes its decisions by vote. You're assuming the people who voted to dump the tarmac are the exact same people who voted to remove the travelers.
#32
I live near there and they are a menace to those who live near them. I would like to clarify something... They are not a race! They are from a mixed background, if anyone knew anything about them they would know they are just playing the race card. They make a mockery of the general public and when they live near a real town they essentially harvest the locals by ripping them off, stealing from them, shitting in their gardens and stealing the lead of church roofs.

They are misogynistic, uneducated and violent.


I believe those who need protection because of true racial persecution should receive it, but with gypsies making a mockery of these human rights debasing the real need of those who genuinely require it.

I honestly cannot think of an acceptable method of disposing with them. They truly deserve the title - 'scum of the earth'.
Yeah, now you're gonna die wearing that stupid little hat. How does it feel?

Help me to live.


I make custom guitar wiring harnesses and I'm pretty damn good at it!
Last edited by flyingmarlin at Sep 19, 2011,
#33
Quote by Pagan-Pie
It's not really 'racism' as such, more a kind of cultural prejudice. In my experience, the English can be like that towards Irish people in general, not just the traveling ones.

I for one am unsure about the matter. The actions of the council are quite obviously not as a result of prejudice, they are a result of the travelers not following the law which we all have to follow. If they don't pay taxes and they don't actually 'travel', it's starting to look to me like a large group of people just trying to find an extra cheap way to live, regardless of social convention/law, and largely at our expense.


Well that's still serious.

In my experience, when you have traveller children at school they will get severely bullied and will only interact with other traveller children, because the others call them "pikey" and throw things in the playground and act in a very vulgar way towards them. Is that going to help their education and help them strive for a better future than what is expected of them?
#34
Quote by flyingmarlin
I live near there and they are a menace to those who live near them. I would like to clarify something... They are not a race! They are from a mixed background, if anyone knew anything about them they would know they are just playing the race card. They make a mockery of the general public and when they live near a real town they essentially harvest the locals by ripping them off, stealing from them, shitting in their gardens and stealing the lead of church roofs.

They are misogynistic, uneducated and violent.


I believe those who need protection because of true racial persecution should receive it, but with gypsies making a mockery of these human rights debasing the real need of those who genuinely require it.

I honestly cannot think of an acceptable method of disposing with them. They truly deserve the title - 'scum of the earth'.

You deserve the title - 'Ignorant fuckwit'
"If God exists, there's no way he is French" - Andrea Pirlo

S A D B O Y S
#35
Quote by Mistress_Ibanez
Well that's still serious.

In my experience, when you have traveller children at school they will get severely bullied and will only interact with other traveller children, because the others call them "pikey" and throw things in the playground and act in a very vulgar way towards them. Is that going to help their education and help them strive for a better future than what is expected of them?


Possibly, but I have no idea if any of that actually happens regularly. It seems perfectly plausible that traveler kids could bully as well. Even then, I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand.
#36
Quote by Pagan-Pie
Possibly, but I have no idea if any of that actually happens regularly. It seems perfectly plausible that traveler kids could bully as well. Even then, I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand.


On average they don't, they just "keep to themselves" due to all the prejudice they face.

Anyway, it's related to the issue at hand because this eviction is clearly racially motivated by hatred towards travellers, and forcibly evicting these people from their homes means the children aren't going to get educated properly, have to go to a new school with new people who hate them for something they can't change, with teachers who treat them badly, etc.

It's just blatant discrimination.


Well-educated Mr. Such-and-such from Suffolk doesn't get his house demolished if he doesn't get the right planning permission for putting plumbing in his barn, does he?
#37
....Its the fact they built permanent residences without permission, hence the demolishing of those buildings. The other "houses" which were built legally arent being touched.


And yes it would have to be removed if Mr Well Educated was to do the same.

1977 Burny FLG70
2004 EBMM JP6
2016 SE Holcolmb
#38
Quote by Mistress_Ibanez
Well-educated Mr. Such-and-such from Suffolk doesn't get his house demolished if he doesn't get the right planning permission for putting plumbing in his barn, does he?


If the guy in your example had built his barn without planning permission, then yes, it'd be demolished.

Your analogy doesn't match up.
Quote by GLP_Arclite
Pooping is well good though, to be fair.


I've got a handle on the fiction.

I'm losing my grip, 'cos I'm losing my fingers.
#39
Quote by Tom 1.0
....Its the fact they built permanent residences without permission, hence the demolishing of those buildings. The other "houses" which were built legally arent being touched.


And yes it would have to be removed if Mr Well Educated was to do the same.

but would planning permission have been rejected if mr well educated applied?

Although the law gives authority to this eviction, that doesn't mean the law is just. The land was a dump before they cleaned it up. It was ok for people to use the land as a dump, but it's out of the question to have water and electricity facilities on the land?

how does that make any sense?

Someone mentioned the purpose of greenbelt land being to stop the spread of urban living. yes it is that but only to the extent that it stops communities merging into each other. That's not necessarily its purpose but more likely its effect.

The previous use of the land is more than enough to indicate to me that the refusal is ridiculous. Half of the land is already residential and if it was previously being used as a dump, what is the harm of having residential facilities in its place?
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#40
Quote by Mistress_Ibanez
On average they don't, they just "keep to themselves" due to all the prejudice they face.

Anyway, it's related to the issue at hand because this eviction is clearly racially motivated by hatred towards travellers, and forcibly evicting these people from their homes means the children aren't going to get educated properly, have to go to a new school with new people who hate them for something they can't change, with teachers who treat them badly, etc.

It's just blatant discrimination.


Or these people could buy houses or land and live legally, pay taxes and contribute to society. Then their children would be educated. This has nothing to do with race because they aren't a 'race', and nothing to do with traveling because these people aren't travelers. They're freeloaders.


Well-educated Mr. Such-and-such from Suffolk doesn't get his house demolished if he doesn't get the right planning permission for putting plumbing in his barn, does he?


If you build something illegally, it gets demolished. That's how the law works. "Race" doesn't really come into it.

THAT SAID, I don't think I agree with the eviction, as it doesn't seem like a constructive or intelligent long term solution. That does not mean that I sympathise with these particular 'travelers'.
Page 1 of 4