Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Dale Farm loses the last shred of the legal fight - now for the illegal one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-14728042

-.-

I completely support the gypsies on this one. A lot of anti-gypsy attitude stems from bigotry - the simple fact that they have a different culture means they are a target and looked down upon.

Yes, the land was illegally built on, but I personally couldn't care less. The fact that the land was gypsy owned, and that it would have just been a rubbish tip if the houses had not been built on it, just goes to show that this is just about regulative nonsense. It's destroying their lives, and stable homes, just because they didn't jump through some pathetic council hoops.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

milkytea

I'm actually distantly related to some of the families living at Dale Farm. I personally have mixed feelings about the whole scenario - ultimately the law is the law - but I agree that travellers receive a lot of discrimination that is unacceptable and screams of double standards considering the tolerant attitudes most people now have to many minorities. I think it'd be better for everyone if they were allowed to stay and integrate somewhat into their community. If they're evicted they'll just move to somewhere else. It's a waste of money to move them in honesty. On the other hand, I can't see why traveller families don't simply decide to try and change their lifestyle to the conventional one. That's what my grandfather did I am eternally grateful to him for it. There's so much more opportunity and so much less discrimination for our family now. I know culture is important for them but I tend not to think of culture as such a rigid thing, as most do. It's something that can adapt, and sometimes that's for the better.

Reply 2

soutioirsim

So you'd be ok with some gypsies coming and living on your land while being completely unfriendly? :pierre:

Reply 3

Selkarn

Original post by soutioirsim

gypsies coming and living on your land

it's gypsy owned land, not someone else's

next

Reply 4

DarylDonnes

Let's be honest, they're not hurting anyone.

The planning permission in this country is just ridiculous.

It's THEIR land. They should be able to build on it.

They are welcome in my eyes.

inb4 neg for supporting families that need help in order to not become homeless.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 5

DarylDonnes

Original post by Algorithm69

Crusty Jugglers!

The people living there seem like complete scum who only live to make other people' lives a misery. But it's their land and they should have been granted planning permission I suppose.

There is scum living in council housing too, but crimes commited by a minority aren't reflective of a population.

Reply 6

j09

Why do the gypsies and apparently a fair few others think that they are above the law that applies to everybody else in this country?
If I wanted to build a second house in my garden I wouldn't be allowed, would I?
Why should it be any different for the gypsies?

Reply 7

Manitude

Original post by DarylDonnes

Let's be honest, they're not hurting anyone.

The planning permission in this country is just ridiculous.

It's THEIR land. They should be able to build on it.

They are welcome in my eyes.

I agree with you that people should be able to build whatever they like within reasonable limits on their land, but it seems that at least local governments turn a blind-ish eye to planning laws.
I live in the green belt and it's almost impossible to get any kind of building work done unless you're on the planning council or friends with someone that is.

However, yesterday I heard of a proposal to build a permanent government funded (i.e. tax funded) gypsie site about two miles down the road. Such a facility would never get considered if an individual(s) were to propose it for their own use. However it seems a different policy applies to travellers.
One of the reasons they cited was that they are obliged to provide such facilities to travellers, though they said on the news today in the story about Dale Farm that this was not the case and hadn't been for quite some time.

Reply 8

DarylDonnes

Original post by Algorithm69

Nowhere did I state otherwise and my post is quite clearly in support of the people of Dale Farm.

And no where did I state you did. You mentioned an issue which I wished to address.

Reply 9

Selkarn

Original post by j09

Maybe because you aren't a close knit community of travelling families with many young children who need a place to live and an education. :rolleyes:

Reply 10

lonelykatana

Original post by Selkarn

I love the idea of a gypsy owning land, what a novel idea! What next, static caravans? Houses?
Disgrace to the gypsy culture I tells yeh

Reply 11

Ocassus

Original post by Selkarn

Maybe because you aren't a close knit community of travelling families with many young children who need a place to live and an education. :rolleyes:

So tell me, why don't they switch to a more conventional lifestyle?

Reply 12

kpwxx

My personal opinion on the matter is: I believe the council are correct in evicting the occupants. It is green belt land, and the rules are there for a reason. As some guy said on the news earlier, if they were to allow it in this case then how can they regulate it in future, they can't make one exception to the rule because then it's unfair on other people who want to build/live on green belt land and aren't allowed. Regarding the fact that originally they were advised they would get planning permission, that's unfortunate and a very big error on whoever gave the advices part, but it doesn't change the rules.

On the news a lot of the residents there are saying 'We would rather die than be forced on to the road again'. Not even mentioning that this doesn't make very much sense, I would disagree that they are being 'forced on to the road' as such- they have several options. Looking for a place in an existing, legal site, buying some different land which they can get permission for, moving in to a fixed property (either privately rented or a council property). I accept that these options may all take time to sort out but in a way, they have an advantage in that they will not be left homeless until it is sorted, even if it's not the ideal situation for them.

Of course I'm not denying many people are unfairly discriminated against for being Gypsies or travellers; there are big issues which need to be dealt with here, mainly to do with people complaining about sites purely because of their own biases and also bullying in schools. This is of course wrong, and I'm also not denying that some of the people who are against the residents of Dale Farm may have that stance due to these 'bad' reasons. But that doesn't change the fact that this situation is about the law being broken.

xxx

Reply 13

Selkarn

Original post by Ocassus

So tell me, why don't they switch to a more conventional lifestyle?

Why don't you switch to their lifestyle?

This is exactly the type of cultural imperialist I was talking about.

"These people have a different way of life than me, therefore they should either switch to my way of life or suffer"

Makes me sick. :rolleyes:

Reply 14

Ocassus

Original post by Selkarn

Why don't you switch to their lifestyle?

->Majority of electorate votes in a government which, on their behalf, executes legislation with their active support.
->All individuals in country are expected to obey law.
->Therefore majority of electorate supports their extradition in this case. End of.

IN regards to me adopting their lifestyle? Well, lets think about it, I'm far more likely to contribute to British and International society with my current lifestyle than their lifestyle. Other benefits include, gaining more skills, holding down a job, not being stigmatised relentlessly.

This is exactly the type of cultural imperialist I was talking about.

Everything is imperialism. It becomes inverted cultural imperialism if we're expected to abide by their ways instead of ours, and as the majority of the country, we'd rather not...

"These people have a different way of life than me, therefore they should either switch to my way of life or suffer"

"These people have a different way of life to me, but still theoretically live within the laws that bind all people in this country, they therefore need to obey the law. If it is easiest to adopt my lifestyle, who the laws are predominately made for, then that is their decision."

THEY are not OUR responsibility. But they have to obey the law like everybody else, deal with it.

(What you're demonstrating is sanctimonious, moral imperalisation. Hypocrite)

Reply 15

Tateco

Original post by Selkarn

it's gypsy owned land, not someone else's

next

I actually agree they should be allowed to stay, but if they're allowed to ignore planning permission and get away with it what's stopping me from putting a wind farm in my back garden?

Reply 16

Selkarn

Original post by Tateco

I actually agree they should be allowed to stay, but if they're allowed to ignore planning permission and get away with it what's stopping me from putting a wind farm in my back garden?

Like I said to someone else

You are not a close knit community of travelling families with many young children who need a place to live and an education.

Reply 17

Selkarn

Original post by Ocassus

->Majority of electorate votes in a government which, on their behalf, executes legislation with their active support.
->All individuals in country are expected to obey law.
->Therefore majority of electorate supports their extradition in this case. End of.

IN regards to me adopting their lifestyle? Well, lets think about it, I'm far more likely to contribute to British and International society with my current lifestyle than their lifestyle. Other benefits include, gaining more skills, holding down a job, not being stigmatised relentlessly.

Everything is imperialism. It becomes inverted cultural imperialism if we're expected to abide by their ways instead of ours, and as the majority of the country, we'd rather not...

"These people have a different way of life to me, but still theoretically live within the laws that bind all people in this country, they therefore need to obey the law. If it is easiest to adopt my lifestyle, who the laws are predominately made for, then that is their decision."

THEY are not OUR responsibility. But they have to obey the law like everybody else, deal with it.

(What you're demonstrating is sanctimonious, moral imperalisation. Hypocrite)

Don't give a flying **** if it's the law, I believe it is wrong and should be changed, or at least evaluated on a case by case basis.

300 years ago it was the law in the USA that blacks were property to be owned, would you have said "the law is the law and everyone is expected to obey it"? :rolleyes:

Reply 18

Ocassus

Original post by Selkarn

Don't give a flying **** if it's the law, I believe it is wrong and should be changed, or at least evaluated on a case by case basis.

The LAW is the LAW, morality doesn't come into it.

If it did, then we'd have so many frickin loopholes that our justice system would be in tatters. A court ruling has decided that they are going to be evicted, it is going to happen. You believe it is wrong? Hoorah, majority of country disagrees with you, nobody cares.