So they own the land?
I had assumed it was someone else's, hence the eviction.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:16, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

They did own the land and about half of the houses had planning permission, the other half didn't

(PsychoChomp, Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:17, Reply)

So it's a planning permission thing then?
Sorry to appear stupid, not been following the story and Goggling is not throwing much info on the legal side.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:18, Reply)

Yeah pretty much,
there was a small area set aside in the green belt for the travellers, it grew until now it's the biggest in Europe.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:20, Reply)

So is it beacuse they went over the boundaries in to other people's land, of just because they built without permission?
I though building with out permission just meant they knocked your house down, not kicked you off the land.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:25, Reply)

I think they did both, but I'm not really sure.
Either way, yes they were wrong but I have little sympathy for a council that couldn't get a handle on it for 10 years, that's just incompitant.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:27, Reply)

there is a certain irony to misspelling incompetent
that is only rivalled by the spelling of dyslexia.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:29, Reply)

How have they not had a handle on it?
They applied for the court to grant an eviction order, they did, the travellers appealled and the appeal was turned down, so they kept appealing to higher and higher courts citing the fact that their human rights weren't being considered. It's taken this long so that he council can amply demonstrate that they have taken all these things into account.

Don't for a moment think I'm suggesting there is something wrong with them insisting their human rights be taken into consideration, but to demonstrate this effectively in the eyes of the law takes time.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:30, Reply)

ah the human rights act
you have to give old tony credit for a law that his wife just happens to make millions from...
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:51, Reply)

Yes, it's one of the few things you might want to give him credit for
It's an incredibly important bit of legislation in my view. By attacking the human rights act you are saying that only certain people are worthy of having rights, and by implication that only certain people are worthy of being classed as human.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:55, Reply)

this is very true, some people are not worthy of being classed as human
i should know, i've dated them.

the only problem with the human rights act is that it is open to abuse from some quarters and you end up with farcical claims. but the principal tenets are obviously too important not to have it; that's a no-brainer.

however i still think it stinks that cherie just happened to become an expert in it. if it had been a sale of shares, there'd be some insider dealing going on there.

much as i cannot bear that woman, i hear from colleagues that she is an outstanding lawyer.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 19 Sep 2011, 13:08, Reply)

OK, cheers, this gives me a reasonable handle on it.
it's remarkably hard to sift the fact out of the sentiment (on both sides) in this story.

Appreciate your help.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 19 Sep 2011, 12:31, Reply)