Here is an article that I'm sure will make some of you stop and think, then maybe reconsider your positions.*
www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/110930


*Lights blue touchpaper and retreats
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:05, 5 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

That's pretty much always been my position.

(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:08, Reply)

More commie than that unpopular bloke?
I really have no strong feelings on this issue, but I know it causes a bit of foaming at the mouth for some. It's important to have a balanced view though.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:21, Reply)

Basically, I think it's politically motivated while pretending to be a case of law and order.
Call a spade a spade, we're getting rid of them because we don't like them. Then see how many votes you'll get next election.

(probably a lot)
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:23, Reply)

The fact they'd probably be loved for doing just that is quite scary

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:27, Reply)

I think a nice FOI request for internal council emails referring to Dale Farm
will show that it really is racially motivated.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:29, Reply)

Surely someone has done this by now.

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:45, Reply)

I think you are probably right.
I've never really understood the public desire to have hate figures, but I guess they are harder to come by in a more "tolerant society".
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:27, Reply)

It's entirely possible.

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:24, Reply)

Still couldn't give a shit about them

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:11, Reply)

Maybe when I've stopped laughing at the sixth form politics I'll manage a response.
But I doubt i can be bothered.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:16, Reply)

Then they should politicize their rights and bring it to the media's attention.
Instead of just breaking the law. Cause a hoohaa about how they are margenalized and treated badly instead of just furthering the problem of everyone else thinking they are flouting the law that we all follow.
( girlinthehole, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:18, Reply)

Ah, yes I can imagine the Mail giving them a double page spread talking about their human and legal rights.
Even their local paper wouldn't do that.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:21, Reply)

I didn't say it would be easy.

( girlinthehole, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:23, Reply)

There is a good point there about the levels of both institutional and accepted racism
Some of the comments on this board bear this out. hat said I have no idea of the actual legal goings on, so the eviction may be justified and there are clearly knobheads on both sides.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:23, Reply)

If the high court says it's justified then it must be?
I understand about the institutionalized racism but they really aren't helping themselves to turn it around.
( girlinthehole, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:25, Reply)

As someone said yesterday
they're happy to go with the law when it';s working in their favour, but as soon as it goes against them, they're throwing bricks and setting fire to caravans.

And when they move to the other site, the poor bugger whose caravan got torched will have nowhere to live. And will probably complain that it's the police's fault they torched their own home.

Best quote of yesterday came from an irate Irish woman, who said "I hope Tony Cameron's happy with himself right now"
( b3th Not shit. Not mod., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:30, Reply)

Ha ha, gypsies under stress are stupid

(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:31, Reply)

I think it was more that she'd heard some names
and she thought that was how they went together.

Or maybe she was just too angry to stop and think.
( b3th Not shit. Not mod., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:32, Reply)

Or she just understandably got two very similar and equally shit politicians mixed up.

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:38, Reply)

in counterpoint
and I'm arguing devils advocate as much as anything here, when the law is against the government they just change the law, which is one of the reasons travellers have little option to travel any more.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:33, Reply)

Knobhead 'professional' protesters got involved anyway.
I don't like all this 'they'. There are lots of 'them' and each one's an individual. You couldn't say 'they' do this or 'they' do that about black poeple.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:41, Reply)

Glad someone other then the board Commie said this
I agree 100% (on both points).
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:44, Reply)

I have no opinion on the legality because I know nothing about it that Chompy has not told me.
However Courts have been known to make wrong or racially motivated decisions in the past, for example I believe that black people are more likely to be convicted of crimes and to get stiffer sentences than whites when they are.

At the end of the day, legal decisions are still human decisions and humans can be, and often are, consciously or unconsciously biased.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:31, Reply)

The fact it cost £18million to the council to get it through the courts
also suggests it wasn't an open and shut case.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:33, Reply)

They're not a race.

( Kroney, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:33, Reply)

Neither are muslims
but they can still be discriminated against by racists.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:34, Reply)

Because Muslims, on the whole, tend to be a different race
to you and I.
( Kroney, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:35, Reply)

Well it doesn't really matter what your opinion is does it,
because they're recognised in law as an ethnic minority in the Race Relations Act.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:37, Reply)

Thank you!
And to call it 'ethnic cleansing' is a gross abuse of what that term means and the horrors it involves too.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:34, Reply)

This is also true.

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:36, Reply)

^ this ^ x100000

( Fucking hell Jeff I am not a robot, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:44, Reply)

OK, pick a term you're happy with for discriminating against a coherent group that is not racially defined.
They are treated like a racial group both by them selves and by the people who talk about pikeys, gypos and such, so it shares a lot of the same features, but I do take the point they're not a race as such.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:36, Reply)

At best, and even this is stretching it a bit
they're an ethnicity.

By most standards they're just a "group".
( Kroney, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:38, Reply)

missing my point somewhat.
What I mean is even if they are not in anyway and ethnically defined group (and I have no idea if they are) they act as if they are, are treated as if they are and are discriminated against as if they are.

Racism may well not be the right word, but the behaviour is basically the same, call it what you will.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:42, Reply)

Simple bigotry would suffice.
People fling words arounds too readily with little or no idea what they actually mean.

It's probably a mark against me that out of all this, semantics is what's bothering me the most. Oh well.
( Kroney, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:43, Reply)

What confuses me
is that, broadly speaking, bigotry is frowned upon here. But we all hate "gyppos". Are they fair game?
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:47, Reply)

I don't hate gypsies.
I don't like their capacity for using their status of gypsies or travellers as an excuse for trying to dodge the laws of the land, though. I believe that whoever you are, if you don't want to respect the law of the land you're in, you should probably move on, rather than expecting those laws to bend around you.

I expect this is the motivation for most people, rather than bigotry.
( Kroney, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:50, Reply)

I think the point is that, arguably, the laws of the land have been specifically bent against them.

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:52, Reply)

That's a bit chicken and egg though, isn't it?
Because didn't they ignore planning laws in the first place, which was then rescinded, or something?
( Kroney, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:58, Reply)

I meant more historically
Someone put on QOTW the other day, in response the the oft repeated "if they are travellers why don't they want to travel, LOL" that they'd probably love to, but seeing as there are no longer many , legal places for them to go, they are forced to settle in one place.

While I agree in this case they were probably in the wrong, the law in the UK has been changed several times in the last 20 years, specifically to make it harder for them to live the way they used to and probably would still choose to.

I'm just saying that it's not as simple as "abide by the law and you're OK" because sometimes they change the law.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:09, Reply)

Don't get me wrong
I'm not accusing you, or anyone else here, of bigotry. As I said, I find people's attitudes confusing.
My understanding is that they do have a recognised status in law though. And as CQ said, there appear to have been laws bent against them.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:02, Reply)

It would appear they are.
People hate 'gypos' and it's ok because they're not brown so it's not discriminatory or ignorant at all, because my nan's mate knows someone who got mugged off a gypo and I know someone else who got sold a dodgy car off one and I know someone else who saw a dirty gypo kid who could't read, so they're all like that and we can hate them all. Ok.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:52, Reply)

Basically this.
For some reason the rule 'if you judge a whole group by the action of some of it's members, you are being prejudiced', does not apply for some reason.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:55, Reply)

I think it's easy for more nuanced messages to get lost in the side taking and hyperbole.
I want them moved. They live 5 miles from me on an illegal site and they shouldn't be there. There was talk, that does appear to have fallen away, of moving them to a legal site that is closer to where I live. I had no problem with that. As far as I am concerned they can stay anywhere they are entitled to be. But at the moment they are not allowed to be where they are having built what they've built, so they should move.

That's as simple as it is for me. There's no 'racial' motivation, no 'fear of the travellers' or whatever other motives people seem keen to ascribe to any of us that are happy to see them go from Dale Farm.

I don't see all their supporters as mindless anarchist thugs who will move on to the next chance to have some fun regardless of the outcome of this, or mindless too rich and self important for their own good Vanessa Redgrave types, and I resent being lumped in with the undeniable number of racists/bigots/hate-alls that have invariably gathered around my side of the fence.

And I've realised that has risked looking like a rant against you, it wasn't, it was just a rant at the situation as a whole.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:54, Reply)

Planning laws are being broken all the time by those other than gypsies
I do hope this infuriates you as much as this case does, that's all.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:55, Reply)

Lol I've pulled some right stunts in my time, UP YOURS SCARPE !!!

( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:58, Reply)

Actually it does, and especially when it is on such a grand scale.
Which is why I laughed my arse off when Teresa Gorman was prosecuted for making changes to her property.

But even if I drew a line between a few changes to a building or a wall in the wrong place and building a village for 80 people where it shouldn't be, it takes a certain kind of arse to jump from that to cries of 'racist!'
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:01, Reply)

Fair dooz.
You do appreciate that most people are using this to vent their gypsy hatred though, right?
People who smoke pot, people who drive a bit too fast, people who install a conservatory without asking, they're ALL breaking the law but they just don't rile us like those dirty gypos do...
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:04, Reply)

I do appreciate that
which is why I tried to explain exacty what I feel and why I, personally, resent being lumped in with that same group of people.

If that wasn't clear, then that's a fault with how I expressed myself.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:05, Reply)

Yeah, I'm having a go at them, not you.

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:06, Reply)

most boring argument on here ever.

(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:07, Reply)

Ha.
Sorry for trying to be reasonable.

Go and write a 'nuff said' answer on QOTW if you really want to bring out the cunt in me.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:08, Reply)

Apologies If I implied you were a racist Scarpe
of any one on here really. I think it all got a bit Daily mail the other day and said so, but, I don't think anyone in here is actually a racist. It's more that I get annoyed that certain kinds of prejudice seem acceptable in society as a whole.

/backpedal.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:15, Reply)

I fucking hate everyone
so I'm omniracist.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 13:02, Reply)

"Misanthropist"
But I'm pretty sure you know that, what with you being quite clever and all.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 13:05, Reply)

My english is well rubbish
but, yeah, I just liked the invented word. Even though it doesn't actually have "hate" in it
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 13:07, Reply)

People who are arrested for smoking pot and driving too fast
don't then tend to then complain that they are being persecuted for their beliefs, though. In general.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:12, Reply)

Free da weed! Clarkson for Prime Minister!
Er...
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:15, Reply)

Fucking hell
I'm all for a bit of gypsy recognition but I'm not having Clarkson running anything with people in it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:16, Reply)

i hate him and he's ugly
but he's so arrogant i'd probably shag him anyway
( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:26, Reply)

I sincerely hope that you recognise that those are not my opinions.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:41, Reply)

They fucking do!
I've been on at least one Legalise Cannabis march in my yoof and people are forever banging on about speed cameras.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:16, Reply)

That's trying to get the law changed
legitimate protest. That's nothing like the same as being caught for it, and whining that you are being persecuted because of your beliefs. Is it now?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:20, Reply)

Maybe not but I have heard that done in both cases
repeatedly. stop arguing for the sake of it.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:34, Reply)

I'm really not arguing
I think this is an intersting discussion, because it's demonstrating what you've been saying all along, that emotive prejudices blinker public perception of actual facts in this case.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:44, Reply)

I tend to agree.
For the record, I dislike smelly hippies in general, I just dislike Daily Mail readers even more, it's an interesting interplay of prejudice.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:46, Reply)

There is an effort to just stop the whole caravan thing and make them live in houses
If they can buy some shitty land they should be allowed to build a site on it. Developers flout planning laws with greenbelt or protected sites all the time. it IS a way of life, they ARE an ethnic group. Lots of them do apply the proper way and are refused anyway and it's for no other reason than people want them to 'just pack it in and stop being gypos'.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:24, Reply)

see, now this is the problem.
It's a way of life - no problem - but I don't see why their ethnicity is relevant, unless you're arguing they SHOULD be allowed to break laws because of their ethnicity? Because that would be rather silly.

If they want to travel - councils should support that - if they want to settle - they should go through the same channels as everyone else does that wants to build their own house. These particualr people are doing neither.

and "because sometimes a bigger boy does it and got away with it" is hardly a reasonable defence. Unless, again, you're arguing they should be treated more positively because of their ethnic group?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:29, Reply)

I do think they feel rather desperate
as avenues are closing and it's getting harder to be a traveller these days.
I agree what you say about councils should support that, but if they don't, then where are all these people to go? I'm not a gypsy and I don't know how it is, but all of this has just brought out to me how much people despise them, you know, the accompanying comments apart from your sensible opinions on planning law and it makes me feel really fucking bad, so I feel I have to defend them because it's totally not on.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:36, Reply)

that is the problem.
The emotive nature of the issue has totally overridden the actual issue itself (CQ has pointed this out a lot to be fair to the man). All I'm trying to do here is point out that not everyone who believes they should be evicted is a gypsy-hating cunt. I know plenty are, and that's very troubling to me, but there are sound, and fair, legal reasons too.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:43, Reply)

But isn't the point of that article
that this situation arose in the first place because they were not being treated fairly. It's not right, but it is a common reaction that if you are mistreated by the authorities that you will have little respect for the law.
And yes, I am aware that two wrongs do not make a right.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:05, Reply)

Well the laws are such that you can't just 'travel' and stop where you like these days
And one has to wonder when they were sold that shitty piece of crappy land right next to where they'd already built a site, what the fuck the authorities THOUGHT they wanted it for. Of course they wanted it for more caravans. And why not give them bloody permission? I don't see anyone wanting the land. A conservatory in my sunlight is more of a nuisance than some gypsies down the road, but they're never retrospectivally refused and demolished. From whom did they buy the land?
I don't blame them for wanting to at least stay in their trailers and live together the way they do. The alternative is being separated in shitty flats with hypodermics on the stairs. And can you imagine the NIMBYs when some of these 'gypos' that they're so happy to have seen evicted from the site DO accept a council house and then instead of some gypos in a field quite nearby, they'll have them for neighbours, and then their children might catch lice and illiteracy from the gypsy kids. They haven't thought this through. They're getting turfed out of a field, not exterminated, sorry!
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:14, Reply)

Erm, I should point out
that conservatories are regularly retrospectively refused and demolished. Hence why you need proof of planning permission to sell a house with one on. If you changed the windows in my flat without planning permission the council will have your balls on a platter. It is most catergorically not just because they are gypsies
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:18, Reply)

I believe it is.
And the way in which people refer to gypsies and their 'lifestyle choice' tells me so.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:25, Reply)

That's your right
however, courts, luckily, don't work on prejudice. And many, many courts made this decision, not Daily Mail readers.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:32, Reply)

And there couldn't possibly be another agenda?
There could, conceivably.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:39, Reply)

Of course there could.
This is why we have different opinions. I think that the repeated legal analysis would suggest that this group of people are cheating chancers who should be evicted for systematically and repeatedly breaking the law, and the fact that they happen to be gypsies is irrelevant. You believe that because gypies are systematically persecuted in this country and other countries, it is right to stand up for them, because someone should, and this case you believe the eviction itself is persecution.

Without access to court documents, it's impossible to know which of us is correct, as every single news source will have a bias. I genuinely think it's an interesting piece of intelligent debate, to be honest.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:57, Reply)

Conservatories are a piece of piss to obtain under gpdo, unless there's been an art 4 withdrawal

( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:26, Reply)

not in green belt or conservation belt they fucking aren't, trust me.
Now - an argument about whether that land should actually be green belt is a more contentious issue, but right now it is.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:31, Reply)

That'd be the article 4 withdrawal of the gdpo, irrespective the vast majority of housing stock isn't affected by coming under a deemed conservation area, Green Belt, or indeed being listed.
Everyone has a god damn right to a upvc conservatory.
( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:38, Reply)

YEEHAW.
YESSIR. This is my conservatory. There are many other conservatories like this, but this one is mine.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:46, Reply)

Fair do's, in my case it's more that "institutionalised simple bigotry" does not trip off the tongue
It's like how I tend to say I'm vegetarian because it's quicker than saying I sometimes eat fish and possible, in special circumstances, meat about twice a year. Yes, yes, I know this makes me not a vegetarian but there's not a simple word people readily understand.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:49, Reply)

"hypocrite"
:)
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:14, Reply)

"lazy"
would be closer. I keep well off the vegetarian high horse, for this reason and others.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:26, Reply)

Racism in law is not just about the dictionary definintion of a race
it's discrimination due to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.
If it was purely based on the biological definition of race killing a french man for talking funny wouldn't be a racially motivated crime.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:44, Reply)

Or anywhere near as much fun.
sorry
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:50, Reply)

That's not the point and you know it.
Nothing about this case is discrimination due to their race, ethnicity, colour, whether their fucking wedding dresses light up like blackpool, or any of that.

they are being "discriminated" against for breaking the law. All the rest is just the populace and the press being cunts, which I dislike as much as you do, but it doesn't change the facts of the case
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:09, Reply)

See, pretty much everything I've written up there^ in response to Kroney and others.
I haven't the energy to type it all again, but if you don't think there's widespread prejudice against travellers, you live in a different, and much nicer world than I.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:22, Reply)

That's what I said in the last line
There are widespread prejudices. That is very unpleasant. Those prejudices have absolutely nothing to do with the legality or execution of this case. And those that claim they are being evicted because they are gypsies and it's flat persecution, are, frankly, as bad as those that are prejudiced against gypsies in the first place.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:24, Reply)

it does beg the question of WHY so many people hate them though
i have never had any experience with them personally, as i've never lived anywhere near an encampment, although i've had a few clients whose land has been unbelievably trashed afterwards.

is it that their way of living is very unpleasant for the people who live around wherever they have chosen to set up camp? and if so, how much of this is accurate, and how much an exaggeration of a mild inconvenience and fear of the unknown?
( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:30, Reply)

The problem as with all groups of people is that the negative aspects of that group are reported far more than the positive.

( girlinthehole, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:34, Reply)

This
We have a large authorised site in Liverpool and it is completely fine and dandy. There was another unauthorised camp on the site of a former warehouse and some of their dogs escaped and attacked Nana.
She still takes as she finds and realises that they were not nice people who couldn't control their dogs. She didn't judge the whole camp and she's still supportive of the authorised camp and the very nice people who live there. They're a part of our community.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:44, Reply)

*proffers membership of B3ta Communist Party*
Blousie deals with new members
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:52, Reply)

Sorry, getting worn out by replying to this and missed the last bit.
I don't claim it's simple persecution and it was not my intention to make this point.

However, given that this case includes elements of discretion (such as the decision whether to retroactively grant planning permission) it seems a little strong to claim you know for a fact that the people involved were not in anyway swayed be prejudices you agree they may have had.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:31, Reply)

I have a reasonable level of faith in the multiple courts in the UK that have been involved
I'm not saying the council aren't biased to fuck - they're Tory after all - but this decision has been through pretty much every court in the land. That's good enough for me.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:33, Reply)

Glad you're happy.
FWIW, I have a reasonable level of faith in the courts of this country too, I'm just glad I'm not black or any other minotity as the evidence is that is had to go through them, I would not do as well is I were.

Edited for clarity.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:40, Reply)

...except nothing about this case is actually racist
With, I grant you, the caveat that the issue seems to have inspired some significant unpleasantness in the general population about "gyppos".

That Morning Star article is a crock of fucking tinfoil hat shite though.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:07, Reply)

What about essex not providing areas for the travellers?
I thought that is a decent point.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:10, Reply)

Actually, that was the one point that did give me pause for thought.
But I need some time to find out how true it is before I comment, because I've heard from other, equally biased, sources that Essex provides more than any other county in the South East.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:11, Reply)

I really can't be bothered to trawl through Essex council papers to find out
does the board have a pet autism to do that?
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:12, Reply)

I'm sure if we wait long enough.

( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:13, Reply)

I thought you were it.

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:18, Reply)

Except they did. They were offered bricks and mortar accomodation and refused it.


Edit - also, you BELIEVED a piece of information published in the Morning Star? Do you believe in what's printed in EDL pamphlets as well, it's about the same level of blinkeredness?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:13, Reply)

Well the act says specifically sites where caravans can be stationed
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/6/chapter/5/crossheading/accommodation-needs-of-gypsies-and-travellers
If they didn't do that then they were breaking the law in the first place.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:16, Reply)

So?
this row is about whether something was a permanent dwelling or a caravan. I'm not sure I see the relevance of that at all.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:22, Reply)

Because building and stationing caravans on land owned by your comunity illegally
I believe is more justified if the land you're legally entitled to is not provided.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:25, Reply)

You're only more justified in stationing temporary caravans
which is what the council is obliged to provide land for. Temporary caravans are not the problem here.

That doesn't make it any better that the council are failing to provide the land, but it doesn't justify their actions as it's a different issue.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:36, Reply)