Bay 12 Games Forum
Finally... => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chattox on October 19, 2011, 02:31:43 am
-
Is anyone watching this? I'm keeping track of it live, and I have to say I don't really know where I stand. With stuff like this, both sides of the argument will do stupid things that they shouldn't have done, so it'll end up as a shit-flinging contest in the end. But for now, how do you think it's going to go?
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Dale farm is the biggest traveller site in the UK, with thousands of people "unlawfully" living there. There has been a legal battle going on for months trying to get them evicted, which has cost the taxpayer thousands if not millions of pounds. On the one hand you have the council, who want to get rid of these "illegally placed" travellers, but on the other hand, you have innocent families with nowhere else to go (who can afford a house these days?)
-
thousands of people "unlawfully" living there
get rid of these "illegally placed" travellers
What's with the "s? There's no question about if they are legal or not, the law is quite clear. The occupancy of that site has been at least partly illegal for several decades. This is not something out of the blue, this is the culmination of years of effort to get them removed from the site.
-
I also have mixed feelings about this. My parents found themselves in a tough situation just after my birth and spent some time living on land illegally. They had no money, had nowhere to go, and the local counsel was not sympathetic. I pass the place every so often and there are still people living there but everything gets cleared out once or twice a year.
I agree that neither side is ever exactly blameless but the travelling community has been having a progressively harder time over the last couple of decades at least; A real sense of exclusion and an "us and them" attitude has been fostered. I do dislike the way they often manipulate the law to their advantage, especially when it comes to planning permission, but many besides them are guilty of that.
-
What's with the "s? There's no question about if they are legal or not, the law is quite clear. The occupancy of that site has been at least partly illegal for several decades. This is not something out of the blue, this is the culmination of years of effort to get them removed from the site
We might start with the fact that only half the site lacks planning permission, and the half that doesn't is directly adjacent to an existing traveller site and was previously occupied by a scrapyard before the travellers purchased it to expand their living space. The only reason they've been denied planning consent is because they're travellers.
-
What's with the "s? There's no question about if they are legal or not, the law is quite clear. The occupancy of that site has been at least partly illegal for several decades. This is not something out of the blue, this is the culmination of years of effort to get them removed from the site
We might start with the fact that only half the site lacks planning permission
I recognized that in my post - look at the acronym. Besides, I would call 49 of 54 plots significantly more than 'half'
and the half that doesn't is directly adjacent to an existing traveller site and was previously occupied by a scrapyard before the travellers purchased it to expand their living space.
It doesn't make what they're doing suddenly legal.
The only reason they've been denied planning consent is because they're travellers.
Until you can back it up, that's speculative bollocks.
Also, is it just me or is the name 'traveller' starting to look a little inaccurate?
-
Does "traveller" mean Romani (In Sweden they used to be called "the Travelling Folk", that's why I assume it)? Or is it just a word for homeless? I can't tell from context.
Not all people can see those things.
-
From what I've read (which is 90% wikipedia) the travellers are indeed Romani. A subgroup, I believe. Seems that people discriminate against them greatly in Ireland.
-
Does "traveller" mean Romani (In Sweden they used to be called "the Travelling Folk", that's why I assume it)? Or is it just a word for homeless? I can't tell from context.
All they've been saying on the news is 'Traveller'. Some people that they have been interviewed say that, as some people have been living there in excess of twenty years, they should no longer be called 'travellers', though.
Not all people can see those things.
My bad.
By the way, BBC news has a live stream of the eviction attempt.
-
Seems that people discriminate against them greatly in Ireland.
This is a bit of a generalising statement, but in travellers in Ireland, and Irish travellers in England, are known as Tinkers. They have a reputation (accurate or not) of being thieves and extortionists, the kind of people who offer to tarmac your drive, do a half assed job and then threaten you until you pay them the agreed price and then some.
Also, is it just me or is the name 'traveller' starting to look a little inaccurate?
Well, they're kind of stuck, really. They're penalised for travelling, so they try to settle down, but then just get cleared out again as we are seeing here.
-
From what I've read (which is 90% wikipedia) the travellers are indeed Romani. A subgroup, I believe. Seems that people discriminate against them greatly in Ireland.
AFAIK, they're not the same thing.
-
"Travellers" in the UK are usually of Irish descent, sometimes white British. They're not Roma.
-
And FYI there is generally a fair amount of bad blood between the two groups.
More on topic, if they've been there for a couple of decades why not just leave them be?
-
The main argument that I've heard from the (so-called, and YMMV but I'm going to call them that, anyway) Travellers about their breaching of clear Green Belt laws is that the site involved (the aforementioned scrapyard) is obviously not 'green'.
The main trouble with that being that the scrapyard ceased operating prior to settlement (though there's dispute about what this "green" land was used for, and by whom, in-between that and the settlement proper.
The Travellers own the entirety of the site, but mere ownership of the land does not convey the right to use that land for any purpose, even outside of Green Belt zones. There are rules to be followed and much as there are people who try to get around them[1], to allow the Travellers to have broken them sets a bad precedent and encourages a lot of others to try to creep in under the radar. (This is the case in the UK, at least, but from another recent post on this forum on an unrelated issue, I know there are some areas where permissions are more relaxed. Even so, there's few places I would expect a chemical factory to put down roots without some involvement of local, national or international authorities in granting permissions. If there aare any such freeform ones, they're going to be in one of the Bond Villain's traditional backyards, whether that be tundra, inside of the a mountain or undersea, I suspect.)
I have sympathy with all those looking to settle down, but it looks like mistakes were made by some of those residents being involved (which affected the rest) and I can't see backing off to be a good solution.
There's a housing situation in the UK at the moment (some blame Thatcher's selling of council assets to their tenants without using the funds to build replacement homes for those still needing 'social housing', something the latest resurgent version of this initiative is specifically going to be designed to avoid) but I believe honest efforts were made to offer housing for the illegal residents, elsewhere... The problem being (with reasonable or unreasonable grounds for objection, according to your POV) that they were elsewhere, and not in the community. But compare with the 'nativel' residents of the nearby towns and villages where the children either have to continue to live with their parents (or their in-laws, upon marriage) or move out of the area.
It would be nice if everyone could be given their Carte Blanche to settle where they want (within nominal land-ownership possibilities, of course) but while there may well be a thought-crime level of discrimination against the Travellers, to give them a right that others do not get is equally discriminatory. The balance point may not be at the point where the current line in the sand has been drawn, but it's a line that those involved should have been aware of.
It is a point of note that the "legal half" was applied for, and obtained as, residential buildings and the council (although not necessarily the local residents) have had no problems with that. What is at dispute is the area for which the cpermission was refused and (as already said) building (and/or parking, of semi-permanent housing) on that area might have been better dealt with a lot earlier, but I suspect that a mix of unofficial sympathies, not wishing to appear heavy-handed and (at least in part) the settlement activities going unnoticed by those who really should have known (being essentially camouflaged by the existing housing and activity) is the root of the problem. Maybe if Google Earth-type images had been as easily available, back then, this would not have come to pass. So it's obviously Google's fault. :)
[1] There was a case of someone who built an unauthorised house on his countryside plot, but hid it behind a haystack for enough time that when he finally dismantled that and objections were raised, it was beyond the notional time limit for objections and he (I think, I've not heard if it went otherwise since then) had to be allowed to keep it there. I think, from half-remembered details, that a lot of the legal confusion recently applied to Dale Farm's structures might be regarding which permanent structures pre-date the cut-off, and what is permanent structure and what is temporary[2] and thus subject to differing rules.
[2] There was another supposed story about a picnicing couple being charged for erecting a temporary structure without appropriate permissions... i.e. a windbreak. I only half-remember the details, it was a silly-season type story, anyway, so probably humorously represented in some way to make a Jobsworth employee of the authority even more ridiculous-looking.
-
Wouldn't money be better spent giving them a place to go? IE, homeless shelters?
-
From what I've heard (but please feel free to consider the press coverage I got this through to be biased), re-housing solutions have been offered. And rejected.
It would, of course, mean the separation of their community (both "legal" and "illegal" halves being separated and even the illegal section would not find itself all in the same neighbourhood. I can see why they don't want that, even while they consider it possible to resist the eviction, but it would be a big ask for the council (or whoever) to supply a unified alternate destination.
Surprisingly, or not, there are often calls from councils (including the one involved) for land-owners and communities to offer up "Traveller Sites". Even if landowners come forward, there's often resistance by the neighbouring (and not-so-neighbouring) populations that usually puts the lid on such proposals. Rightly or wrongly. Again, YMMV.
-
From what I've heard (but please feel free to consider the press coverage I got this through to be biased), re-housing solutions have been offered. And rejected.
To clarify, when the solutions were rejected, it was rejected by the travellers (the way you worded that could be interpreted to mean that the government rejected proposed re-housing plans), including another site just a couple hundred metres away.
-
Damn I get my info wrong. Guess I should read more before saying anything.
-
Written by a friend in rebuttal to an argument with someone, but pretty relevant I think. Be warned, towering monolith of text.
The matter at hand is not whether or not the individuals occupying the Dale Farm site are in violation of United Kingdom or English law - we know this to be the case. Irrespective of whatever our opinions of these particular facets of Union and national law and our sentiments on when and how they should be enforced may be, any sane and reasonable person - who has taken the time to educate him or herself about the facts of the matter - can recognise that this "eviction" is entirely unnecessary and a blatant violation of Human rights. You know, those things that are supposed to the basis of the modern laws you cherish so dearly.
Basildon District Council, despite its claims, has repeatedly and persistently - with the consent and assistance of Her Majesty's Government in Westminster - resisted finding a peaceful solution to the problem. The real issue is not necessarily the relocation itself, but the manner in which it is being carried out. I don't pretend to be an expert on the matter either, but a few key things I think must be keept in mind:
(1) The United Nations has condemned and rejected the eviction as being in violation of Human rights legislation at national and international levels. It has insisted the eviction be stopped. The Government has prevented the appropriate UN organisations, despite repeated requests, from sending mediation and guidance teams to help the situation.
(2) The European Commission has, for the last few years, vehemently and repeatedly demanded the cessation of forced mass evictions or deportations of Roma and Traveller persons. This year, the UK Government is actually being ordered - under European law - to draw up evidence that it has a clear and consistent plan for the integration of such individuals into British society by 2022. It is all ready failing miserably in this regard.
(3) The Basildon MP - Angela Smith (Labour) - has been refused, repeatedly, by Basildon Council (Conservative majority) whenever she has offered to intervene and help mediate the situation.
(4) Weeks before the decision to evict was taken, the independent Homes and Communities Agency (an NDPB) advised Basildon Council that it was capable of rehousing all Dale Farm residents in the local area, in legal and affordable housing, within reasonable commuting distance of one another and - crucially - the school the children on the site all attend. This offer was rejected unilaterally by Basildon Council. No other steps have been taken to rehouse the majority of the residents, potentially in violation of European laws and directives.
(5) The Government has refused to publish the Cdl'E report into the legality of the evictions with regards to Human rights, made earlier this year. It is well established that the European Commission is staunchly opposed to such evictions - I'm sure you're all ready familiar with the judgements of the European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship on the matter.
(6) The region's MEP has been denied permission to the visit the site so long as the residents of it - his constituents - are still living there, and when he attempted to do so today to observe the eviction, he was forcefully ejected on the order of Basildon Council, ostensibly on the grounds of safety.
(7) By evicting these individuals and failing to make provisions for their rehousing in the immediate area, Basildon Council is potentially failing to meet its legal obligations to provide essential education and medical services to the former residents of the site, given the extreme difficulty Roma and Traveller individuals often have in accessing these services due to their lack of a permanent address. Without Council support, it is often extremely difficult for these individuals to find legal housing thanks to racial discrimination, if they can even afford such housing.
(8) The majority of the 10 year "effort to find a peaceful solution" took the form of the Council taking it case to various courts to gain approval for eviction. The residents of Dale Farm were denied permission to follow their appeals up and appeal to higher courts, including the ECHR.
There was absolutely no need for this brutal eviction to take place - Basildon Council has NOT met its legal obligations, is potentially itself in violation of the law and, most importantly, has systematically rejected all efforts by third parties to reach a peaceful solution and to make provisions to ensure the safety and security of these persons after they are removed from the site. THAT is absolutely unacceptable. Regardless of what you think of the legality of Dale Farm's existence, the fact of the matter is the people who lived there are European Citizens with rights under British and European law - rights that have been denied in contravention of that law. I remind you that European law is not only binding in the UK - it takes precedence over domestic law in all but a handful of very explicit circumstances.
-
Also, the council has spent slightly over £80 million over the last decade getting this eviction organised. Needless to say, this has been a gigantic waste of funds as well as a rather unpleasant episode in love/hate relationship we brits have with the traveling community. Incidentally, the census this year was the first time any government has admitted to the existence of travelers, giving them a box to to tick in the ethnic group section.
Oh, one last thing. Traveler's are gypsys. Generally speaking it can cover either "white" or "Irish" travelers, who are the decedents of the first gypsys to, well, travel about in the UK and Romany gypsys, who are mostly from Romania and it's surrounding countries and tend to be slightly darker, as they haven't had generations of interbreeding with us pasty anglo-saxons. Basically, "Traveler" is a politically correct term brought in to replace "fucking gypos" and similar. If you ever meet one, they are most likely to refer to themselves as a gypsy.
-
Kinda reminds me of the occasional legal struggles with the Rainbow People in the USA over occupancy of national forest land and other public places. With hippies not having permits and officials not wanting to approve them, ect.
Although, as far as I know the US government has never forcefully removed them from anywhere and the Rainbow People actually travel from place to place and don't just set up camp and stay there for decades on end.
Anyways, they are not very similar to the like gypsies in Europe, these people are more like hippies and homeless people getting drunk in the woods or whatever.