Topic ID 2923
Has everyone recieved their copies of the East Herts Council 'Link' magazine through their doors. If you have have you read the small but fashionably places artical about the east of england needing 1220 more caravan pitches for gypsies and travellers by 2011. This artical gives the email address www.eera.gov.uk which provides response forms and more infomation about this (dead line 31st 2007 5pm. The people of Hertford should give their views on this.
Reply ID 42546
I Just had chance to look at the website and could not find the response forms, so i am going to email them. If any one manages to find them on there please tell me where!
Reply ID 42554
I have just had a look at the response form and noticed in the small print the following:"this review is a public process and if requested to do so EERA will have to make your full representation and address details available". So watch out for a brick through your window.
Reply ID 42572
quote:What would your response be out of interest?
Originally posted by Sister
Has everyone recieved their copies of the East Herts Council 'Link' magazine through their doors. If you have have you read the small but fashionably places artical about the east of england needing 1220 more caravan pitches for gypsies and travellers by 2011. This artical gives the email address http://www.eera.gov.uk which provides response forms and more infomation about this (dead line 31st 2007 5pm. The people of Hertford should give their views on this.
Reply ID 42576
quote:From whom?
Originally posted by buzz
I have just had a look at the response form and noticed in the small print the following:"this review is a public process and if requested to do so EERA will have to make your full representation and address details available". So watch out for a brick through your window.
Reply ID 42579
quote:Who knows? - you wouldn't have their name and address [;)]
Originally posted by shunt From whom?
Reply ID 42582
I think what Shunt may be alluding to is that some people have an opinion on traveller folk without having had any direct experience of them.
Reply ID 42584
quote:Or they may have an opinion on travellers having had direct experience of them
Originally posted by Steve
I think what Shunt may be alluding to is that some people have an opinion on traveller folk without having had any direct experience of them.
Reply ID 42585
I had the joyous experience of 'travellers' back in '92 when they were led on to the Meads from Cromwell Road with a police escort. Six weeks of hell and mayhem ensued. This was around the same time that Sele Farm was having problems with them too. Suffice to say, I would never wish to endure it again, or be pleased that anyone else should have to go through what we went through then.
Reply ID 42592
Wondering what opinion might be so offensive and to whom, that it leads to the automatic expectation of said brick, actually.
Reply ID 42596
Shunt. For someone who has an interest in a wide range of subjects, as expressed regularly through these forums,with clarity and articulation, I find your apparent naivety regarding opinions that may be held and expressed about travellers something of a conundrum. If someone expresses a negative opinion regarding travellers their name and address can be made public. A person offended by such opinion is not obliged to put their name and address on said brick.
Reply ID 42597
quote:To give an opinion on the nature of a group, or percieved character of people whilst discussing a planning matter would be entirely inappropriate and liablous, so the problem should not arise for anyone of a reasonable intelligence level, but I do see that your post may have been intended to warn others against expressing such prejudices. It might have been better to have not suggested a retalliation in advance of the the insult however, as that in itself is assumptive.
Originally posted by buzz
Shunt. For someone who has an interest in a wide range of subjects, as expressed regularly through these forums,with clarity and articulation, I find your apparent naivety regarding opinions that may be held and expressed about travellers something of a conundrum. If someone expresses a negative opinion regarding travellers their name and address can be made public. A person offended by such opinion is not obliged to put their name and address on said brick.
Reply ID 42607
The problem is that there are a proportion of travellers that just pull there caravans up on a piece of ground wherever they like. And when they eventually leave the whole area is a S***hole. These are the people that give travellers a bad name and fuel public prejudices. There are plenty more travellers that behave much better, but because they never cause a nuisance they go unnoticed. The A414 site causes very few problems and the biggest concerns are when they cut down a few too many trees. There are plenty of non-travellers that behave much worse than that, but because they have a council house rather than a mobile/temporary home that's OK.
Reply ID 42610
quote:Nicely illustrated examples.[:)] The provision of sites is designed to address some of the practical issues which can lead to bad feeling in both directions. It won't solve everything overnight. Many social projects take generations to show their worth, particularly if the status quo is hundreds of years old.
Originally posted by jez_p
The problem is that there are a proportion of travellers that just pull there caravans up on a piece of ground wherever they like. And when they eventually leave the whole area is a S***hole. These are the people that give travellers a bad name and fuel public prejudices. There are plenty more travellers that behave much better, but because they never cause a nuisance they go unnoticed. The A414 site causes very few problems and the biggest concerns are when they cut down a few too many trees. There are plenty of non-travellers that behave much worse than that, but because they have a council house rather than a mobile/temporary home that's OK.
Reply ID 42621
I would be worried that if a site was located near my home that it would de-value my property. Even though the A414 site appears to be no bother there is a large amount of litter strewn around and the entrance and the area around it occationally consists of burnt out cars and caravans. In that case I would fear for my property and even my saftey. especially if the site was located near my actual home.
Reply ID 42624
quote:So you wouldn't mind if it wasn't near you home?
Originally posted by Sister
I would be worried that if a site was located near my home that it would de-value my property. Even though the A414 site appears to be no bother there is a large amount of litter strewn around and the entrance and the area around it occationally consists of burnt out cars and caravans. In that case I would fear for my property and even my saftey. especially if the site was located near my actual home.
Reply ID 42625
quote:Devaluation of your property, whether real or not, is not considered in any planning matter, so including it in any representation you might make would be futile. Why would you fear for your safety or your property?
Originally posted by Sister
I would be worried that if a site was located near my home that it would de-value my property. Even though the A414 site appears to be no bother there is a large amount of litter strewn around and the entrance and the area around it occationally consists of burnt out cars and caravans. In that case I would fear for my property and even my saftey. especially if the site was located near my actual home.
Reply ID 42633
Back in 1992, residents of Cromwell Road and Ware Road that backed onto the Meads were subjected to vandalism,dog-napping, the spectacle of seeing them defecating inj public, used sanitary towels/tampons hung on bushes and trees, the deliberate burning of hedges, intimidation, theft from allotments etc. This lasted for 6 weeks. At the time I was one of many people who made every effort and enquiry towards getting the travellers removed from the Meads,together with Thames Water who own them. Meanwhile, The Mercury picked up on my efforts and plastered my name across the front page. Not only did this bring unwanted attention from the travellers, but I was also subjected to abuse from residents of Sele Farm who felt that I should 'shut up and put up' as their problem was far greater than those suffered by any of us. Having seen the obvious wealth of many of these travllers being blatantly displayed - new 4x4s, quad bikes etc., I would suggest that if they need sites, that perhaps after all the necessary planning procedures have been completed, that these people then contribute to the costs of the site: building costs, maintenance, water etc., in much the same way as the rest of us have to, whether we rent or own our homes. It has been my experience through the nature of my work that many designated purpose built sites last as long as it takes to rip the fixtures out. Likewise, perhaps showing a bit of consideration for their neighbours i.e. not vandalising their property, stealing their dogs, using their gardens as toilets etc, may help them to be more easily accepted.
Reply ID 42634
You should all look at the positives. The competition will mean you can have your front garden tarmacced for next to nothing.
Reply ID 42638
quote:Who exactly are you talking about, or have you lumped all travellers into one? The sites are intended to address exactly the issues you mention, so you should be pleased.
Originally posted by Fish Wife
Back in 1992, residents of Cromwell Road and Ware Road that backed onto the Meads were subjected to vandalism,dog-napping, the spectacle of seeing them defecating inj public, used sanitary towels/tampons hung on bushes and trees, the deliberate burning of hedges, intimidation, theft from allotments etc. This lasted for 6 weeks. At the time I was one of many people who made every effort and enquiry towards getting the travellers removed from the Meads,together with Thames Water who own them. Meanwhile, The Mercury picked up on my efforts and plastered my name across the front page. Not only did this bring unwanted attention from the travellers, but I was also subjected to abuse from residents of Sele Farm who felt that I should 'shut up and put up' as their problem was far greater than those suffered by any of us. Having seen the obvious wealth of many of these travllers being blatantly displayed - new 4x4s, quad bikes etc., I would suggest that if they need sites, that perhaps after all the necessary planning procedures have been completed, that these people then contribute to the costs of the site: building costs, maintenance, water etc., in much the same way as the rest of us have to, whether we rent or own our homes. It has been my experience through the nature of my work that many designated purpose built sites last as long as it takes to rip the fixtures out. Likewise, perhaps showing a bit of consideration for their neighbours i.e. not vandalising their property, stealing their dogs, using their gardens as toilets etc, may help them to be more easily accepted.
Reply ID 42639
Some of the opinions aired on this topic are tantermount to racism. You simply cannot say all people from a certain group are troublemakers. As has been stated before, there are plenty of people who live in houses who create mess, are agressive and anti social.
Reply ID 42642
quote:Similar in effect, certainly. Travellers are aware of the feelings towards them and are unlikely to respect the society which holds those opinions, or wish to join it. Even the lure of proper sanitation, clean water, electricity doesn't make a culture which so obviously hates them attractive.
Originally posted by aubend
Some of the opinions aired on this topic are tantermount to racism. You simply cannot say all people from a certain group are troublemakers. As has been stated before, there are plenty of people who live in houses who create mess, are agressive and anti social.
Reply ID 42644
I think it's a bit more complex than society hating travellers and travellers feeling sorry for themselves about the situation.
Reply ID 42645
We have lived in Bengeo for 24 years, so consider I have a genuine feel of Hertford. I know that in this day and age everyone had to be so very P.C. – but there is a limit. I am not being *racsist* by making any of these comments…I am just having my say. Freedom of speech – call it what you like. I too remember the 1992 problems with the travellers.[:(] I agree with Fish Wife it was - a nightmare. I had friends who had their gardens/hedges used as toilets, leaving excrement and all kinds of intimate female sanitary products around for all to see. In fact, How very unpleasant it was for the toddler who came in, holding a used tampon. Not to mention, other litter and household waste left everywhere. I know this post sounds like N.I.M.B.Y…but who can blame us really? I for one, would not feel happy with a gypsy encampment – official or otherwise to locate next door… or in a close proximity of my home – Exactly the same way I would feel about having a factory/supermarket, or any other building, being built closeby the home which had been chosen, after great pains, for its location. The whole effort and energy of deciding where to live is painful enough. We go to great lengths to have official *searches* done by Solicitors –( at great cost, I might add), making sure that no developments are proposed in the near future. We cannot, however, protect ourselves from the *travelling community* - who sometimes, suddenly appear just outside our homes... I do agree, not every gypsy/traveller acts in an inappropriate/antisocial way, but if these travelling *folk* - wish to be treated as part of a community – I am afraid, IMO, they should try to at least act accordingly.
Reply ID 42646
quote:Yes, of course. After hundreds of years, the behaviours patterns of all and a "them and us attitude" will not change easily. For those who have had bad experiences with travellers, the sites are intended to be a partial solution for you, for your benefit, lessening such incidents of trespass and unexpected conflict. It isn't perfect, but then it's better than Hitler's solution to the same problem.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
I think it's a bit more complex than society hating travellers and travellers feeling sorry for themselves about the situation.
Reply ID 42647
I am not being 'racict' i am having my say. Isn't that what you do with a public consaltation?
Reply ID 42648
Related link: http://www.hertford.net/issues/travellers_millroad.asp (from November 2000)
Reply ID 42649
quote:Yes it is, but bear in mind that, while subjects like drainage, utilities, access etc. are relevent to planning consultations, expressing a view on the likely residents is akin to saying that you object to a developement because the residents may be black, or jewish, or polish, or gay, or poor, or whatever. Your arguments against have to be valid in a planning context.
Originally posted by Sister
I am not being 'racict' i am having my say. Isn't that what you do with a public consaltation?
Reply ID 42652
You can't object because the residents are likely to be Gypsies/Northerners/Black/White/Green/Extra Terrestrial... but you can object to the view from your home being blocked by caravans you can object because the roads are unsuitable to cope with the coming and goings of caravans. etc.
Reply ID 42654
quote:Not quite. You cannot object to a development on the grounds that it blocks your view or changes the outlook from your window. The second example-yes, if you can demonstrate the problem as likely to be real and sufficiently damaging.
Originally posted by jez_p
You can't object because the residents are likely to be Gypsies/Northerners/Black/White/Green/Extra Terrestrial... but you can object to the view from your home being blocked by caravans you can object because the roads are unsuitable to cope with the coming and goings of caravans. etc.
Reply ID 42660
Lets not confuse this consultation with a planning application. From the EERA website: [url="http://www.eera.gov.uk/News.asp?cat=38&id=SXB55E-A77FC5B1"]Views sought on caravan pitches for Gypsies and Travellers[/url]
Reply ID 42664
It is not a formal planning application yet, but the same criteria apply. An objection to the type of person, or a generalisation as to perceived characteristics of an ethnic group would not be considered.
Reply ID 42666
......and could you object to the higher propensity of said development to be damaging to the local environment (littering etc)??? once again, not broad-brushing a group but surely there have been many studies on the impact previously?? don't want to confuse too many issues here, but a lot of takeaway restaurants are subject to some of these types of concerns and pubs etc to noise pollution, aren't they?? On a personal note, I find it so difficult to understand why a travelling community would want a permanent site, doesn't it go against everything they stand for?
Reply ID 42668
quote:There's a few traps here. Environmental impact of caravans is local, temporary and minute compared to one household or business premises. The travellers may not want a permanent site. It's not proposed for their benefit. However, a permanent site does not denote continuous residency. Many travellers would welcome access to sanitation, waste disposal and not being woken by police at 6am to be moved on. These are the lures by which it is hoped to assimilate their culture to ours.
Originally posted by nuts
......and could you object to the higher propensity of said development to be damaging to the local environment (littering etc)??? once again, not broad-brushing a group but surely there have been many studies on the impact previously?? don't want to confuse too many issues here, but a lot of takeaway restaurants are subject to some of these types of concerns and pubs etc to noise pollution, aren't they?? On a personal note, I find it so difficult to understand why a travelling community would want a permanent site, doesn't it go against everything they stand for?
Reply ID 42669
Respect from both sides is all that is needed, but is not always the case!
Reply ID 42676
Shunt, I take all of your points onboard in the way they are intended, as I can understand (I think) the basis of how this is looked at and examined. Unfortunately it is a minority of people who have suffered from a minority part of a minority group (if that makes sense) and they may not feel the impact would be minute. As Shaun says, respect seems to be the key and I guess you can't plan, consult, police that very easily.
Reply ID 42678
quote:That's about it. Whether a solution is ever found depends on the reasonable folks, on both sides, outweighing the extreme views and angry retalliations, on both sides. When I spoke of minute impact, I was only referring to global environmental damage when compared to a normal, modern household.
Originally posted by nuts
Shunt, I take all of your points onboard in the way they are intended, as I can understand (I think) the basis of how this is looked at and examined. Unfortunately it is a minority of people who have suffered from a minority part of a minority group (if that makes sense) and they may not feel the impact would be minute. As Shaun says, respect seems to be the key and I guess you can't plan, consult, police that very easily.
Reply ID 42685
Sister. My father in law came over from Ireland in the 60's and remembers seeing signs outside pubs saying 'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs'. I suppose if you had your way it would still be the same? Your ignorance is highlighted by your attitude and inability to spell.
Reply ID 42686
quote:I am also unable to spell.
Originally posted by aubend
Sister. My father in law came over from Ireland in the 60's and remembers seeing signs outside pubs saying 'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs'. I suppose if you had your way it would still be the same? Your ignorance is highlighted by your attitude and inability to spell.
Reply ID 42690
quote:Incorrect. Of course anyone CAN object and anyone has a right to do so. But it wont shake the system. Planners' directives are governed by Brown and his crew, and as far as development goes, the East Herts Local Plan. However, you are right with the outcome. None of us have 'a right to light' via planning legislation. Providing the application of any development meets the credentials of those set out by Legislation, there is not one ounce of help anyone can get until the application is approved or refused. Thereafter, of course, if the conditions of the decision notice from that application are not adhered to, that is a different matter. The best method is mass demonstration to be honest.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Not quite. You cannot object to a development on the grounds that it blocks your view or changes the outlook from your window. The second example-yes, if you can demonstrate the problem as likely to be real and sufficiently damaging.
Originally posted by jez_p
You can't object because the residents are likely to be Gypsies/Northerners/Black/White/Green/Extra Terrestrial... but you can object to the view from your home being blocked by caravans you can object because the roads are unsuitable to cope with the coming and goings of caravans. etc.
Reply ID 42693
Ok, you can object. You can set fire to your hair and paint your knees blue too.
Reply ID 42707
Aubend- you are getting personal now to me, this is a topic that I bought up and yes there are many oppinionated individuals who place messages on this site. The reason of me starting this thread was to make the community of Hertford aware that this has gone out to public consaltation. I am sure that many people just put this magazine striaght in the recycling bin!!!!! Some one asked MY oppinion and I gave it-you either respect it or you don't, and just because I cannot spell does not mean I am ignorant!!!! You do not know me personally so do not judge me. You have personally offended me with what you have written. How do you know that I am not English, Black or infact who I am!!!!!!
Reply ID 42723
quote:I totally agree with you Nuts, it defeats the object the word travellers, surely means just that, not on a stationery site on prime land in some of the most expensive area's, my husband help build the Gypsy 'camp' at Cheshunt, and within hours the wash basins plumbing, toilets etc, were gone, flogged off! and look at the state of it now! we would all like a nice little country pad overlooking the countryside, why do they get the choice? first time buyers are struggling!
Originally posted by nuts
......and could you object to the higher propensity of said development to be damaging to the local environment (littering etc)??? once again, not broad-brushing a group but surely there have been many studies on the impact previously?? don't want to confuse too many issues here, but a lot of takeaway restaurants are subject to some of these types of concerns and pubs etc to noise pollution, aren't they?? On a personal note, I find it so difficult to understand why a travelling community would want a permanent site, doesn't it go against everything they stand for?
Reply ID 42727
Fair enough Shunt, global impact of most things discussed on this forum is minute (even Bob Hills Motorcycle shop!!!!) But I would have thought the impact on the immediate environment could be demonstrably worse? Hence the concern on this local forum at a local level. So I presume even if analysis of previous schemes elsewhere showed them not to be successful ( either local impact, facilities destroyed/abused, however you could measure it) it would still have no part of any decision? I suppose what that leads me to ask is do such schemes work in any event (putting aside local concern).
Reply ID 42728
quote:I think the answer to that is:- partially and with much difficulty. Social reform takes time. Why try? Well because of the experiences that some people have described with unofficial sites. Static sites are an attempt to destroy an incompatible culture by gradual absorbtion. There will be problems because the sites are static, but those who use them are not, at least, not at first. It takes a long time for a site to stabilise even to the level that the A414 one has. Genocide is not an alternative option and mutual tolerance has failed, so what would you suggest?
Originally posted by nuts
Fair enough Shunt, global impact of most things discussed on this forum is minute (even Bob Hills Motorcycle shop!!!!) But I would have thought the impact on the immediate environment could be demonstrably worse? Hence the concern on this local forum at a local level. So I presume even if analysis of previous schemes elsewhere showed them not to be successful ( either local impact, facilities destroyed/abused, however you could measure it) it would still have no part of any decision? I suppose what that leads me to ask is do such schemes work in any event (putting aside local concern).
Reply ID 42730
Why not section off a big area of land (possibly a whole county) and tell them it is their's to with what they want? Then leave them to it. The general public won't pester them and they can live as free souls not bothering us.
Reply ID 42731
quote:I think that's called a country, not a county.[:D] Think of the Israel example on a smaller scale. What if the county was Hertfordshire? Would you be happy to leave your home?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Why not section off a big area of land (possibly a whole county) and tell them it is their's to with what they want? Then leave them to it. The general public won't pester them and they can live as free souls not bothering us.
Reply ID 42732
quote:what is that meant to mean?
Originally posted by shunt
[quote] Think of the Israel example on a smaller scale.
Reply ID 42733
quote:Maybe you should take your own advice.
Originally posted by Sister
You do not know me personally so do not judge me.
Reply ID 42734
quote:If you allocate land to a people which is already occupied by other people, the previous population are unlikely to be happy with the arrangement.
Originally posted by Bengeobabequote:what is that meant to mean?
Originally posted by shunt
[quote] Think of the Israel example on a smaller scale.
Reply ID 42742
quote:One of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Remember apartheid in South Africa?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Why not section off a big area of land (possibly a whole county) and tell them it is their's to with what they want? Then leave them to it. The general public won't pester them and they can live as free souls not bothering us.
Reply ID 42743
quote:I can't believe you actually took this seriously! [:D]
Originally posted by Andrewquote:One of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Remember apartheid in South Africa?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Why not section off a big area of land (possibly a whole county) and tell them it is their's to with what they want? Then leave them to it. The general public won't pester them and they can live as free souls not bothering us.
Reply ID 42747
quote:The smilies are failing! Eek! Doomed, we're all doomed![:(]
Originally posted by Stevequote:I can't believe you actually took this seriously! [:D]
Originally posted by Andrewquote:One of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Remember apartheid in South Africa?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Why not section off a big area of land (possibly a whole county) and tell them it is their's to with what they want? Then leave them to it. The general public won't pester them and they can live as free souls not bothering us.
Reply ID 42748
quote:Why ridiculous? Give them their own "country" and live as they want within it. All we need to do is find an expanse of land big enough for them. Plenty of Scotland is uninhabited.
Originally posted by Andrewquote:One of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Remember apartheid in South Africa?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Why not section off a big area of land (possibly a whole county) and tell them it is their's to with what they want? Then leave them to it. The general public won't pester them and they can live as free souls not bothering us.
Reply ID 42749
quote:Now come on John. Goading the Scots has never been a good idea. Despite the impression there is nobody at all living there, historically a surprising number suddenly materialise at the promise of a punch up with the English.[B)]
Originally posted by JohnSmithquote:Why ridiculous? Give them their own "country" and live as they want within it. All we need to do is find an expanse of land big enough for them. Plenty of Scotland is uninhabited.
Originally posted by Andrewquote:One of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Remember apartheid in South Africa?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Why not section off a big area of land (possibly a whole county) and tell them it is their's to with what they want? Then leave them to it. The general public won't pester them and they can live as free souls not bothering us.
Reply ID 42764
[IMG]http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/lostthread.gif[/IMG] maybe?? [img]http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/lostthread.gif[/IMG]
Reply ID 42820
Quite agree.
Reply ID 43027
quote:How about the whole of Scotland? That would get my vote.
Originally posted by JohnSmithquote:Why ridiculous? Give them their own "country" and live as they want within it. All we need to do is find an expanse of land big enough for them. Plenty of Scotland is uninhabited.
Originally posted by Andrewquote:One of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Remember apartheid in South Africa?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Why not section off a big area of land (possibly a whole county) and tell them it is their's to with what they want? Then leave them to it. The general public won't pester them and they can live as free souls not bothering us.
Reply ID 43120
Just read through this topic - what a bunch of NIMBYs. "oh, it's alright for travellers to have a site, just not in my town!" Pathetic Firstly, dictionary defintions. Traveller - A member of any of various groups of traditionally itinerate people living especially in Scotland and Ireland. Normally,these people choose to live wherever there is available work. Gypsy (or Romany)- A member of a people that arrived in Europe in migrations from northern India around the 14th century, now also living in North America and Australia. Many Gypsy groups have preserved elements of their traditional culture, including an itinerant existence and the Romany language. To persecute someone for wanting to earn a living or because of their way of life is wrong. Do these people give you grief for living in a brick box? I don't think so. Do they decide where you live? No So why should you decide where they live? They have rights, the same as you or I, so let them live their lives as they wish - and get on with yur own lives
Reply ID 43121
quote:Hold on, why should "they" be allowed to live their lives as they wish but I can't live my life as I wish? Some of us have to live in the real world as opposed to some Utopian paradise where everyone contributes to society and respects their neighbour.
Originally posted by Tazz
They have rights, the same as you or I, so let them live their lives as they wish - and get on with yur own lives
Reply ID 43122
Why should you or I be allowed to decide where Travellers and the Romany can and can't go? The UK is a free country, and people are free to move wherever they like. If you were to move to a new location, would you want a committee meeting to decide that you can move into your new area?
Reply ID 43123
No, but I would a) buy or pay rent for the land that I occupy (i.e. obtain the landowner's permission) b) pay council tax c) pay water rates d) pay income tax to contribute towards the running of the country e) not intentionally cause distress to those who live nearby Since when has the UK been a "free" country? Socialism is a great idea. Unfortunately, there are too many people who take the p*** for it to work effectively.
Reply ID 43124
But do people not have the freedom to go where they want? And would your arguement not also apply to the people who live on boats? This year there is to be a clampdown on those who don't pay mooring fees. Are these people not like the travellers? In all walks of life, there are people who take the p*** out of the system (as you so eloquently put it), so why persecute a minority. This is tantamount to racism
Reply ID 43125
No, people don't have the freedom to go where they want. I don't have the freedom to walk into your house without your permission. It is called trespass. I think you have answered your own question reqgarding those that live on boats - mooring fees. i.e. they PAY to live on and access the waterways. I, and the vast majority of the people who live in this country, have opted in to a system that we feel works. A minority haven't and want to do as they please. Why should the majority be dictated to by the minority?
Reply ID 43126
quote:Though the attitudes are similar to racism, I'm not sure that is all that is at work here. There is a greater problem in that we live in a society based on wealth in the form of property and which is administered by the civil service. Those who choose to live under that system have to pay for it and maintain the power to enforce their will on everybody, or it doesn't work. It has advantages, but also the disadvantage of being oppressive to minorities. It matters not whether there are racial, religious or cultural differences. Providing sites is the system's method of infiltrating and converting a minority to it's influences by gradual absorbsion. Therefor it would make sense for those who would like to see traveller culture totally eradicated to support provision of sites and for those who applaud cultural diversity to oppose the plans. In reality, the opposite seems to be true and it is those with a hatred of travellers who are most obstructive to the plan. One cannot help but wonder what solution they might have in mind as an alternative. Probably nothing.
Originally posted by Tazz
But do people not have the freedom to go where they want? And would your arguement not also apply to the people who live on boats? This year there is to be a clampdown on those who don't pay mooring fees. Are these people not like the travellers? In all walks of life, there are people who take the p*** out of the system (as you so eloquently put it), so why persecute a minority. This is tantamount to racism
Reply ID 43128
Well summed up by shunt. I'm afraid it is one of those "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situations. To be honest, I don't care where they live as long as they respect and contribute to the rest of society. Unfortunately, the travellers' reputation precedes them.
Reply ID 43129
quote:But so does ours, John. We are an oppressive, dictatorial culture. The system we use is very successful, but it is morally flawed in many ways,
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Well summed up by shunt. I'm afraid it is one of those "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situations. To be honest, I don't care where they live as long as they respect and contribute to the rest of society. Unfortunately, the travellers' reputation precedes them.
Reply ID 43132
Morally flawed or not, I pay my way, despite job loss, lack of work, etc, etc. I am struggling but still pay my NI and Income tax.. I object strongly that others should services that I am having to pay for despite my temporary low income at the moment! I too would love to buy a campervan and disappear into the ether.. maybe the Alps but I still have to pay my way.. I am sorry I don't make the society we live in, I just have to live in it and do what everyone else does, get on with it! I have no problems with people roaming around on land they can do that with, but I do have a problem with me expected to pay for every Tom, Dick and harry who hits our shores and get very little back when I need assistance myself! You never ever see a "traveller" in an old caravan/trailer or with an old vehicle.. do you?
Reply ID 43136
quote:Ah, an ideal candidate to ask. I'm perhaps being a little assumptive, but from your text, I gather you are against either official, or unofficial travellers sites. What would you suggest?
Originally posted by Drama Queen
Morally flawed or not, I pay my way, despite job loss, lack of work, etc, etc. I am struggling but still pay my NI and Income tax.. I object strongly that others should services that I am having to pay for despite my temporary low income at the moment! I too would love to buy a campervan and disappear into the ether.. maybe the Alps but I still have to pay my way.. I am sorry I don't make the society we live in, I just have to live in it and do what everyone else does, get on with it! I have no problems with people roaming around on land they can do that with, but I do have a problem with me expected to pay for every Tom, Dick and harry who hits our shores and get very little back when I need assistance myself! You never ever see a "traveller" in an old caravan/trailer or with an old vehicle.. do you?
Reply ID 43138
I don't want official sites at all. Most travellers don't want to use them and when they have used them, there are horrendous cases in Essex of vandalism going into thousands of pounds, with toilet blocks wrecked, rubbish, some toxic, left scattered and damage to fencing etc. Why should my taxes be spent on them? I can think of some elderly folk near me who need money for homecare and such and would rather help them... Sorry I don't want official or unofficial and don't see why I should pay for people who make a choice not to want the lifestyle I have and probably you too. I am happy to support those who deserve it in my community, the young, the old, the disabled.. but sorry not travellers.. Why should I care? They don't give a jot about me, the countryside or leaving the place as they found it.... That's why so many people are up in arms about it all, they don't treat the place nor leave sites as as they found them and we as taxpayers end up footing the bill, normally thousands!
Reply ID 43143
I'm sure Tazz would happily put them up in his back yard.
Reply ID 43144
quote:So, back to my original question. If I was your government representative, what would you ask me to do to address the problems you describe?
Originally posted by Drama Queen
I don't want official sites at all. Most travellers don't want to use them and when they have used them, there are horrendous cases in Essex of vandalism going into thousands of pounds, with toilet blocks wrecked, rubbish, some toxic, left scattered and damage to fencing etc. Why should my taxes be spent on them? I can think of some elderly folk near me who need money for homecare and such and would rather help them... Sorry I don't want official or unofficial and don't see why I should pay for people who make a choice not to want the lifestyle I have and probably you too. I am happy to support those who deserve it in my community, the young, the old, the disabled.. but sorry not travellers.. Why should I care? They don't give a jot about me, the countryside or leaving the place as they found it.... That's why so many people are up in arms about it all, they don't treat the place nor leave sites as as they found them and we as taxpayers end up footing the bill, normally thousands!
Reply ID 43145
quote:Arrest people for criminal damage, fly-tipping, breaching environmental health regulations and trespass (regardless of whether their homes and mobile or not). If you want to be a traveller or gypsy - fine - just obey the law like everyone else and don't expect other people to pay for your lifestyle choice.
Originally posted by shunt
So, back to my original question. If I was your government representative, what would you ask me to do to address the problems you describe?
Reply ID 43147
quote:Once people have an alternative to our law of fly-tipping, our law of trespass and breach of our environmental health regulations, it's easier to arrest them for non-compliance. A case for contribution to services can also be made more easily if they can be persuaded to use them and see them as a benefit. Is it right to charge people for a government system in which they don't have a vote? If they can be persuaded to join, then they can be asked to comply with the rules and conditions of inclusion. Sites which are under our control, not theirs, are a first step. Whilst travellers still exist outside our society, it is difficult to enforce our laws (What are we to do? Imprison every man, woman and child in an entire community?). Some travellers would consider the building of Foxholes estate a greater and more permanent pollution than that which they cause by chucking stuff about for two weeks. Even the modern traveller impacts less on the environment than the average householder, they just don't do it in the way we accept as aesthetically pleasing. Having said that, it would be wrong to assume that all travellers fit one profile. Making that assumption will ensure that eventually they will all become hostile. You can't eradicate the beliefs of hundreds of years by force, however much our culture has tried to, throughout the world, throughout history. Even the more modern Irish traveller (only 200 years of history in some cases) we created by exploitation. These people's ancestors built our roads, our railways and our infrastructure, accepting a dangerous and difficult lifestyle to avoid starvation. Meanwhile, we sold the grain that could have saved millions of their lives so that we could afford the luxuries they built. I reckon a few sites are a small price to pay to bring them back into mainstream after so long. I also see no reason to expect them to trust or respect us, or our motives.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Arrest people for criminal damage, fly-tipping, breaching environmental health regulations and trespass (regardless of whether their homes and mobile or not). If you want to be a traveller or gypsy - fine - just obey the law like everyone else and don't expect other people to pay for your lifestyle choice.
Originally posted by shunt
So, back to my original question. If I was your government representative, what would you ask me to do to address the problems you describe?
Reply ID 43151
Shunt makes an emotive, if incorrect point, by saying that the modern Irish traveller was created by our exploitation. He then goes on to say that these people's ancestors built our roads, railways, etc. Yes, those people actually worked for their livelihoods,which were difficult and dangerous, and no doubt paid their taxes. Their descendants assimilated themselves into the communities and were decent law abiding citizens. Most modern Irish travellers are not descendants of those navvies, but simply itinerants who found they could manipulate our way of life to their advantage, and so took the ferry to the UK. The Australian Prime Minister recently made a statement to the effect that if people wanted to enjoy the benefits of the Australian way of life they were welcome, but they had to abide by the Australian rules which meant accepting that country's laws and paying their dues. If not, they could find somewhere else to live. That philosophy should be adopted by our government with regard to travellers and others who wish to enjoy the benefits of our welfare state,but who make no contribution to it. Most of us accept that there is no such thing as a free lunch; if you want something you have to work for it, or if you're lucky, win the lottery. Why should this minority be any different?
Reply ID 43152
Guess what? If my back yard were big enough, then I would willingly have Romany stay. Or if I were to own a few acres of land then I'd build permanent site. These people have been persecuted throughout history, just because of their nomadic way of life. During WW2 in Warsaw, the Jews were living in ghettoes, but within these ghettoes were smaller ghettoes. These contained Gypsies and Romany, because they were disliked by the Jews. An ex-girlfriend gave up her Romany lifestyle and got herself a flat, purely because of her daughter. Her thinking was "Why should my little girl have to go through school, putting up with the bullying that I had". Her father and brother still live the life, working the land and living in caravans. The father saved money from his wages, after he paid his national insurance and tax, and bought a plot of land. Twenty plus years later, he still cannot get planning permission from his local authority to build a permanent dwelling. The reason his applications keep failing is "because of his ethnic background." Now tell me that isn't racism. The worst racists - NIMBYs
Reply ID 43153
quote:Presumably then, this man who had applications for planning permission refused on the grounds of "his ethnic background" has reported the authorities concerned for an offence under the Race Relations Act, and also consulted the CRE
Originally posted by Tazz
Guess what? If my back yard were big enough, then I would willingly have Romany stay. Or if I were to own a few acres of land then I'd build permanent site. These people have been persecuted throughout history, just because of their nomadic way of life. During WW2 in Warsaw, the Jews were living in ghettoes, but within these ghettoes were smaller ghettoes. These contained Gypsies and Romany, because they were disliked by the Jews. An ex-girlfriend gave up her Romany lifestyle and got herself a flat, purely because of her daughter. Her thinking was "Why should my little girl have to go through school, putting up with the bullying that I had". Her father and brother still live the life, working the land and living in caravans. The father saved money from his wages, after he paid his national insurance and tax, and bought a plot of land. Twenty plus years later, he still cannot get planning permission from his local authority to build a permanent dwelling. The reason his applications keep failing is "because of his ethnic background." Now tell me that isn't racism. The worst racists - NIMBYs
Reply ID 43154
In order to continue to live in a peaceful nation we all need to tolerate each others needs. If a Gypsy/Romany/Nomadic way of life is going to work in this country then there has to be some kind of permanent network of sites/areas for nomadic people to be able to settle albeit temporarily. There should be a fee to use the sites to cover services such as sanitation, healthcare etc. similar to the council tax. All of these things cost money and have to be paid for. What is unacceptable is when people abuse a piece of land and leave it in a mess for somebody else to clear up. This can be the result of a travelling community leaving an area, but far more often it is the result of some lazy git who doesn't want to pay to dispose of their rubbish. I believe it is known as fly tipping. There is still room in the UK for everybody and if we actually engage our brains and start to think rationally then there is very likely a solution.
Reply ID 43155
quote:And the document refusing planning permission actually stated this did it? How many planning applications were there exactly during this 20 year period? And were there any other reasons for refusal? Did he appeal? And these plans for a "permanent dwelling" - were they drawn up by an architect?
Originally posted by Tazz
The father saved money from his wages, after he paid his national insurance and tax, and bought a plot of land. Twenty plus years later, he still cannot get planning permission from his local authority to build a permanent dwelling. The reason his applications keep failing is "because of his ethnic background."
Reply ID 43156
It doesn't always go bad. A settlement of a former grazing field near to where I lived a few years ago met with fierce opposition, insults, poster campaigns and hostility from residents. It's small community of mobile homes is one of the best kept residential estates I've ever seen and it's residents, though still reluctant to mix with the community who called them names, are certainly no trouble to it. Now on it's third generation, it has continued as separate community of about ten/fifteen homes in peace for years. Travellers are designated a "significant minority" but not afforded protection of anti-descrimination law in this country. They are elsewhere in Europe. It is, for instance, still legal to refuse a traveller a job because of background. The only other unprotected group are white males between 24-50.
Reply ID 43161
quote:[:D]
Originally posted by shunt
The only other unprotected group are white males between 24-50.
Reply ID 43163
It seems from all the posts that all or most are of the opinion,have a different lifestyle but tidy up after yourselves and respect it! Respect is not just something we should have living as we do, its a two way street Mr Shunt and this is something that goes across cultures, languages, countries and politics.. and I still don't want a gypsy camp in my back yard and if Mr Shunt is so happy, let them pitch up in his street and see if his opinions change
Reply ID 43165
quote:The site, to which my previous post refers, was next door to my home of the time. I've also had good experiences with the site on the A414 and an unnofficial one in Cumbria. I was once held up at gunpoint by a man of Asian origin. I don't assume every Asian is a violent criminal because they are Asian. If I did, it would be unreasonable for me to expect a friendly response. Of course it's not all rosy. The point is, who is "them"? Every culture has good and bad elements within it. Indeed it is a two way street. The total lack of respect shown for traveller culture, is matched only by traveller's lack of respect in return. Imagine if some of the comments made here had been made about you. Would you feel you owed those who made them any respect, care or courtesy? Remember we are asking them to live like us, because we want it. What they see of "us" is hardly attractive now, or a community which has behaved well or in a trustworthy manner towards them in the past.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
It seems from all the posts that all or most are of the opinion,have a different lifestyle but tidy up after yourselves and respect it! Respect is not just something we should have living as we do, its a two way street Mr Shunt and this is something that goes across cultures, languages, countries and politics.. and I still don't want a gypsy camp in my back yard and if Mr Shunt is so happy, let them pitch up in his street and see if his opinions change
Reply ID 43170
quote:You must be a closet Gypsy![:I]
Originally posted by shuntquote:The site, to which my previous post refers, was next door to my home of the time. I've also had good experiences with the site on the A414 and an unnofficial one in Cumbria. I was once held up at gunpoint by a man of Asian origin. I don't assume every Asian is a violent criminal because they are Asian. If I did, it would be unreasonable for me to expect a friendly response. Of course it's not all rosy. The point is, who is "them"? Every culture has good and bad elements within it. Indeed it is a two way street. The total lack of respect shown for traveller culture, is matched only by traveller's lack of respect in return. Imagine if some of the comments made here had been made about you. Would you feel you owed those who made them any respect, care or courtesy? Remember we are asking them to live like us, because we want it. What they see of "us" is hardly attractive now, or a community which has behaved well or in a trustworthy manner towards them in the past.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
It seems from all the posts that all or most are of the opinion,have a different lifestyle but tidy up after yourselves and respect it! Respect is not just something we should have living as we do, its a two way street Mr Shunt and this is something that goes across cultures, languages, countries and politics.. and I still don't want a gypsy camp in my back yard and if Mr Shunt is so happy, let them pitch up in his street and see if his opinions change
Reply ID 43173
Ironically I was only speaking on the telephone to an elderly gentleman on Friday last week at work, who called at the place I currently work, and said how the Police weren't helping him and his elderly neighbours (all over the age of 70 in sheltered accommodation) in Hoddesdon area with the continued attacks on their sheltered accommodation by the.. wait for it... local travelling community, breaking into the garages, stealing from cars and oh yes the Police know all about this.. Sorry you needed to hear this poor man's heartfelt pleas for help to realise that it aint rosy out there and sorry my views have not been swayed by any emotive Shunt thoughts.. the facts are out here we're not disliking of them for no valid reason.
Reply ID 43174
quote:I also don't approve of people who behave as you describe, but such behaviour is not peculiar to travellers, even if those responsible, in this case, are members of the travelling community.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
Ironically I was only speaking on the telephone to an elderly gentleman on Friday last week at work, who called at the place I currently work, and said how the Police weren't helping him and his elderly neighbours (all over the age of 70 in sheltered accommodation) in Hoddesdon area with the continued attacks on their sheltered accommodation by the.. wait for it... local travelling community, breaking into the garages, stealing from cars and oh yes the Police know all about this.. Sorry you needed to hear this poor man's heartfelt pleas for help to realise that it aint rosy out there and sorry my views have not been swayed by any emotive Shunt thoughts.. the facts are out here we're not disliking of them for no valid reason.
![http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/lostthread.gif[/IMG]](http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/lostthread.gif[/IMG]){kind=link}