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, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

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)