So you don't think that building it illegally
claiming ignorance of the law and then trying to resort to shady legal loopholes to protect yourself later might be, oh, what's the phrase, massively fucking hypocritical, leaving you with not a single tiny moral leg to stand on? just out of interest?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 16:26, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

You haven't even mentioned horse theft.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 16:31, Reply)

I really don't see the case for destroying an established community
based on planning regulations.
If the council were doing their job properly they should have stopped the buildings when the first thing got put up there. Now they're settled and occupied it seems to me more important to protect the people living there that had nothing to do with building the stuff. The children and extended family members. Rather than take a stand for the sacred green belt.
It's the facts on the ground, they took a leaf out of the Jewish settlers book.

I don't see the big importance of planning permission anyway, the council would probably love a caravan park with nice middle class white people in the same place. That's not what it's about it's about gypsies living there.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 16:45, Reply)

So you're happy to have one rule for people who are willing to just ignore all rules and regulations for years
and another for those who want to do things by the book.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 16:49, Reply)

Well that's an oversimplification isn't it.
I'd rather a government (even local) even with the consent of the majority can't just get rid of people it doesn't like.
I'd rather a justice system that is flexible and independant rather than just sticking to the letter of the law.
And I'd rather people didn't get didn't get evicted from their homes pretty much ever.

I'd also like local councils to be able to actually do something competently without taking years and it costing millions, but I'm a dreamer.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 16:55, Reply)

Again, you're blaming the council for the fact that the irish people are using solicitors, paid for by you and me
to find loophole after loophole, every single one of which to date has been ruled to be incorrect by judges.

Why are you not blaming these people for not actually using solicitors paid for out of their own pocket to ensure they were legally allowed to build on their land?
(Bazongaloid, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 17:00, Reply)

Because I believe that everyone should get legal representation, innocent or guilty.
From that article though; the problem the judge had with the notices was that they were too vague. The fact they didn't classify the "chalet type structures" and didn't specify fences gates and other built structures seems like the notices were badly drafted.
I also agree that claiming you can do "anything that is reasonably necessary" is far too wide for a legal document.

If you're doing something this high profile you have to be accurate and specific. Otherwise it gets picked apart in court. That's not a loophole. The fact it wasn't caused this delay, and the people at fault for that are the council and their legal team. Otherwise the judge would have dismissed it all.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 17:11, Reply)

It's always easy to criticise anything that's written down after the fact.
These are tiny points which are not going to change the fact that these people are still most likely to be evicted.

If they were still protesting the original question of whether or not their applications were wrongly rejected I would be more on your side, but they aren't they are delaying the inevitable.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 17:32, Reply)

omg how woolly can you get
community my arse, they knew it was wrong when they built it. they should be glad they've eked it out for 10 years, not crying because they couldn't be arsed to follow the law and now the law is following them.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 17:47, Reply)