Support the Dale Farm Travellers
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Jason Pettitt
Established Member
Among other ways though unsympathetic changes in planning policy - sites for travellers are increasingly non-existent, residential moorings for boat dwellers likewise.
There's no twaddle. The law - planning law relating to green belt in this instance - is intended to provide checks and balances between the pressure from overwhelming commercial incentive for development and rural character. That Dale Farm is falling foul of those laws is an example of the law being too crude in this case to properly accommodate anything that doesn't fall in to one or other of those two instances. That's not a reason to engage in triumphalism at what is effectively pulling the rug from under dozens of families and making them homeless.
Dodge
Established Member
RogerS":14z2vvk2 said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Good One
Lons
Established Member
edited as duplicate
Lons
Established Member
Another damn duplicate ? Edited
Lons
Established Member
studders":2mqkhw05 said:
I think the bulk of the cost must be going to those guys in wigs acting no win no fee :? Unless the LA have followed usual practice of employing so called specialists to "assess" and report :roll:
I stand to be corrected but as far as I can see, the vast majority of "homes" are traveller vans which can be just towed away and the rest are not houses but rather purpose built mobile homes (google Omar Homes who are the leading manufacturer). These are delivered to site by lorry in 2 halves, completely decorated and furnished. They have a chassis and wheels and they are bolted together and supported on jacks on site. THEY ARE RELATIVELY EASILY REMOVED AND RELOCATED. (i speak from industry experience).
I do have some sympathy but they are breaking the planning laws and cannot be allowed to get away with it - if they don't like it then they can push off to Ireland where they'll be allowed to park almost anywhere.
And as far as recouping the costs from them - not a hope in hell - they contribute absolutely nothing to the local authority (our money) now!
Bob
Unless any of you ladies and gents live less than 2 miles from these non-travelling travellers, I am the closest one here. No-one wants them living in their back yard, and I'm certainly sick of them living (almost) in mine. They should have been kicked off 10 years ago. Wouldn't have cost £18.5 Thousand, let alone £18.5 Million.
The fear around here though is 'where will they go?'. The council have already made it clear that once they are 'escorted' onto the Southend Road they're on their own... free to 'land' on some other poor law-abiding tax-paying hard-working bloke's doorstep. AND the lovely council have made it clear that if and when your uninvited guests do turn up your on your own. YOU can fight them in the courts. YOU can fund your own eviction.
They should be 'escorted' all the way back to Wolverhampton, where a large % of them already have council houses!!! But is that fair to the law-abiding tax-paying hard-working people who already live there?
Jason and Jacob.... I HOPE THEY LAND ON YOUR DOORSTEP. ALL 400+ OF THEM!
NIMBY???????????
The fear around here though is 'where will they go?'. The council have already made it clear that once they are 'escorted' onto the Southend Road they're on their own... free to 'land' on some other poor law-abiding tax-paying hard-working bloke's doorstep. AND the lovely council have made it clear that if and when your uninvited guests do turn up your on your own. YOU can fight them in the courts. YOU can fund your own eviction.
They should be 'escorted' all the way back to Wolverhampton, where a large % of them already have council houses!!! But is that fair to the law-abiding tax-paying hard-working people who already live there?
Jason and Jacob.... I HOPE THEY LAND ON YOUR DOORSTEP. ALL 400+ OF THEM!
NIMBY???????????
Mark A
Established Member
Anyone else just had a bit of déjà vu? :lol:
Personally I don't see what the fuss is all about - they breached planning laws so have to face the consequences. If anyone else built an extension on their home without planning permission then there would be a possibility that they would have to demolish it. Also without planning, who knows if the buildings comply with building regs as they wouldn't have been inspected? Going by some of the block paving I've seen which has been done by "travellers" I doubt that the buildings entirely comply with the regs. Don't quote me though because it's been a couple of years since I looked into planning and building regs for our house.
However, as doorframe said, where will they all go? It will cost much more that £18.5 million to re-house them all. Then will they be intitled to benefits as well? Can't win.
Mark
Personally I don't see what the fuss is all about - they breached planning laws so have to face the consequences. If anyone else built an extension on their home without planning permission then there would be a possibility that they would have to demolish it. Also without planning, who knows if the buildings comply with building regs as they wouldn't have been inspected? Going by some of the block paving I've seen which has been done by "travellers" I doubt that the buildings entirely comply with the regs. Don't quote me though because it's been a couple of years since I looked into planning and building regs for our house.
However, as doorframe said, where will they all go? It will cost much more that £18.5 million to re-house them all. Then will they be intitled to benefits as well? Can't win.
Mark
studders
Established Member
That's the problem, at least the main one as far as I can see, all very well evicting them, though I'm not sure where/why the eviction bit comes in for all of them, but what's the point if they drive a mile down the road and set up camp there?
RogerS
Established Member
Jason Pettitt":3pnren31 said:
No triumphalism...just a reality check. They knew the planning laws as well as the next man. Just that they were being opportunistic and came unstuck. So tough sh*t. They should be made to pick up the tab for their eviction. After all, if I built something without planning permission and had to pull it down then that would be at my expense. Same goes for them. They get no sympathy from this quarter.
devonwoody
Established Member
I dont mind if they relocate to "The Mall" or Hyde Park, would be nice, good for their horses as well I should think. :wink:
After all they seem to think its alright to put down where they like.
After all they seem to think its alright to put down where they like.
bugbear
Established Member
Jacob":3tigxhc9 said:
Nah. I think Doctor Bob had you right the first time.
BugBear
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
:roll:
DFTT!
DFTT!
I think the real issue here, is the fear of setting precedents and that if this is allowed then anybody will be able to buy a plot of land and do what ever they want with it?
But what is wrong in this case, is that the Council allowed the occupation to go on for all these years – they should have taken action when they first started the development. Now that they have become established it has grown to a bigger problem.
I have had to deal with Travellers (Gypsies, Irish Tinkers, Romas etc) over many years and they are frankly, their own worst enemies.
The Gypsies of old have nearly all but disappeared – they used to travel about in single or small groups and generally leaving little or no evidence of their occupation. Although people where wary of them they were generally tolerated and left alone?
The modern Traveller is a different problem all together and where they do move from place to place (generally illegally) they leave a trail of disruption, damage and devastation costing tens of thousands to clean up.
I can give a recent example – in the next village to ours a group of travellers broke into the village playing fields and “took it over”. They were evicted after a week but left behind vast amounts of rubbish etc that took £30k to clear up, but the worst thing to my mind was that they used the children's play area as a toilet!
During the 80's when the Government’s Gypsy Policy was in existence, I was involved in constructing a number of Permanent Gypsy Sites ( 2 in Berkshire and 1 in Hants). I could write a book about what happened during the works but suffice to say they were used for a number of illegal activities like animal baiting, bare knuckle fighting, car/lorry stealing and breaking up etc etc. They all suffered from encroachment onto enjoining land and the one in Hampshire was closed down due to vandalism, infighting and thefts from nearby properties.
I have yet to see a poor Traveller – their caravans/mobile homes are generally luxurious and immaculately maintained and they all have very splendid motors to get about in. One can only guess as to where their money comes from?
I could go on and on with numerous other examples but as I said they don't set a very good example, even when facilities are provided for them and no wonder people don't want them anywhere near them?
Rod
But what is wrong in this case, is that the Council allowed the occupation to go on for all these years – they should have taken action when they first started the development. Now that they have become established it has grown to a bigger problem.
I have had to deal with Travellers (Gypsies, Irish Tinkers, Romas etc) over many years and they are frankly, their own worst enemies.
The Gypsies of old have nearly all but disappeared – they used to travel about in single or small groups and generally leaving little or no evidence of their occupation. Although people where wary of them they were generally tolerated and left alone?
The modern Traveller is a different problem all together and where they do move from place to place (generally illegally) they leave a trail of disruption, damage and devastation costing tens of thousands to clean up.
I can give a recent example – in the next village to ours a group of travellers broke into the village playing fields and “took it over”. They were evicted after a week but left behind vast amounts of rubbish etc that took £30k to clear up, but the worst thing to my mind was that they used the children's play area as a toilet!
During the 80's when the Government’s Gypsy Policy was in existence, I was involved in constructing a number of Permanent Gypsy Sites ( 2 in Berkshire and 1 in Hants). I could write a book about what happened during the works but suffice to say they were used for a number of illegal activities like animal baiting, bare knuckle fighting, car/lorry stealing and breaking up etc etc. They all suffered from encroachment onto enjoining land and the one in Hampshire was closed down due to vandalism, infighting and thefts from nearby properties.
I have yet to see a poor Traveller – their caravans/mobile homes are generally luxurious and immaculately maintained and they all have very splendid motors to get about in. One can only guess as to where their money comes from?
I could go on and on with numerous other examples but as I said they don't set a very good example, even when facilities are provided for them and no wonder people don't want them anywhere near them?
Rod
Richard T
Established Member
Just heard the news this morning... Blimey Jacob, have you been lobbying the U.N.?
RogerS
Established Member
That's very well put, Rod, and it's good to hear from someone with first hand experience.
I agree with all that you have said. I live in Worcestershire, a relatively empty county. When the crime demographics website was released, out of curiosity I had a look at our county. There were the usual hotspots in the cities, Worcester etc but what I did find surprising were two hotspots in separate parts of the surrounding rural areas. Bang in the middle of nowhere. I mentioned it, in passing, to a friend of mine who is a retired police sergeant and asked him if he could suggest why these two hotspots were there. He laughed and told me that at the centre of each of these areas was a traveller's site.
I agree with all that you have said. I live in Worcestershire, a relatively empty county. When the crime demographics website was released, out of curiosity I had a look at our county. There were the usual hotspots in the cities, Worcester etc but what I did find surprising were two hotspots in separate parts of the surrounding rural areas. Bang in the middle of nowhere. I mentioned it, in passing, to a friend of mine who is a retired police sergeant and asked him if he could suggest why these two hotspots were there. He laughed and told me that at the centre of each of these areas was a traveller's site.
bugbear
Established Member
Harbo":1p7qukul said:
Those aren't crimes. Those are legitimate expressions of a distinctive cultural identity.
BugBear
gnu
Established Member
The country has vast swathes of land used for defence and land always seems to be found for factories, supermarkets so why cannot a few acres be found for these travellers. Also where I live in Wales it seems to be very easy to get planning consent for ugly caravan and motorhome parks etc. The fact is that nobody wants the travellers because there is no money in them and they don't quite fit into the norms of the so called settled community. Were many gypsies involved in the rioting and looting?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Absolutely.gnu":3kj5pt7k said:
In fact much of rural Britain has become a playground for the well off with empty farms turned into holiday lets and 2nd homes, some villages more than 75% empty most of the year, shops, pubs, schools closed, nothing in the fields except horses. Not just a Welsh problem it's everywhere.
Victor Burgin "a promise of tradition"
RogerS
Established Member
Jacob":7jl3ose8 said:
Where Do you make all these fairy stories up, Jacob. Come on..you're always asking us to produce evidence. Now how about you?
You say 'much'. How much and where is the evidence. Where is the evidence for all these 'empty farms' turned into holiday lets and 2nd homes? Which villages are empty 75% of the year? Mmmmm? Thought not. Figments of an overly fertile (febrile ?) imagination.
