They dont want to travel Mark. They have said they want to settle down now and they are happy at Dale Farm. However, they are not willing to pay for a council house so refuse to move.
They want the benefits of society without the obligations - I would have no problem with them "travelling" or living a lifestyle of their choice so long as they do not then take benefits from those that pay for them
Nail, Hit, Head Lenny - some observations from this whole debacle: - For so called families, i have never seen a man being interviewed or quoted in the papers. Where are all the fathers, husbands etc. - Where do all the bleedin' heart supporters and activists get the means to live there for all this time? Who is paying them? - If they want to travel, why don't they f*** off back to Ireland? - During this whole saga the BBC has sort to pose both sides of the argument and interviewed both sides - pity they don't interview some old grannies that have been forced to pay a couple of grand for a "new roof" AKA having their gutters cleaned out.. They are just scum bags who take as much as they can and all they contribute is the piles of ****e they leave behind - another reason to quit the EU and deport them back to whence they came!
vic, I was under the impression that due to tightened security at all harbours and airports, you have to show some sort of documentation - I have to show it if I'm flying from here to donkey-land (Guernsey). See the culture section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey Don't get me started on the UK, offshore islands, EU and Portugal.
To fly from norway to anywhere in norway all you need is your fore finger! and of course your credit card!
Is there any documentary evidence to prove that a significant number of them are of Irish origins ? The way I see it we have a police operation which cost the tax payer 18 Million Pounds to evict 400 squatters. Half of the Dale Farm Site is already owned by so called travellers - the other half (the 400) do not have planning permission. They have been offered another possible site and where hoping that eviction would not take place until planning permission had been finally made for the other site. Instead of which we have an expensive, and , by all accounts extremely violent dawn raid by the police which could have been avoided by waiting a few weeks. As a result 400 people are homeless and their children, who have been at Schools in the area for several years, have seen their education disrupted. I wish that when we have political debates on this forum that they could be carried out by looking at all sides of the question. Also avoiding the assumption that all our problems have a foreign origin ie. Irish or EU. Having said that we are about the only football forum which has these types of debate, which is great !
I have found this Dale Farm situation to be one of the most frustrating things EVER!!! There was a "resident" of Dale Farm shouring at the TV cameras, "SHAME ON YOU. You sent in riot police against women and children. Shame on you." This was just after you saw a group of young men in boiler suits throwing bricks at the police. I know it is often difficult to identify "ladies" of this type, but seriously?! Then you get the mandatory placards reading "OUR HOME". No. No it isn't "your home". If anything, being a tax paying individual, it is more my home. Then you have the people who are claiming this is breaching human rights. What human rights?! Since when was it against human rights to prevent someone from doing something illegal?! And then on to yesterday. You see these people going nuts at the police, as if this has all come out of the blue. They have had 10 years to prepare for this!!!!! And finally, the cost. I couldn't give a Damn if it is costing the tax payer £18m. I pay my taxes to fund the police so they can put a stop to criminals. They put a stop to criminals, and deter others from committing similar crimes, meaning that (hopefully) fortunes will not need to be spent again.
Since when did being homeless or leading a nomadic lifestyle (One very often leading to the other) qualify for the description 'criminal`?
There is a lot being made here of whether someone resident in one place for a longish period can still be regarded as a "Traveller". Obviously a period of 10 years is too long to still consider the individual a traveller. Do they benefit from the local services, probably. Where do the children go to school, are the approaches to this site lit, etc? Again I would say they are benefitting. Do they contribute to these costs? Of course not, they are travellers after all. Why do they ALL talk with Irish accents and why have the Poles, Hungarians et al not been called travellers as they have moved a lot further to come to our fiscally welcoming isle? If as it appears these people are of Irish descent or extraction and are travellers why do they not travel somewhere else to see the world or reurn to their traditional touring grounds. Unhappily none of you will convince me these people are of benefit to the community they have pitched up in. I'm sure if they made a contribution in any shape or form they would be tolerated, if not welcome, but to keep banging on about their human rights is a bit beyond the pale, what about their responsibilities and the human rights of the people they have imposed themselves upon. A fair point is that these people own this land, but which of them actually have their names on the paper, and being a landholder immediately stops them being a traveller as you then have a home base. If, also as is claimed, they were refused planning permissin for the structures they have built why were efforts not made to remove said structures as would be the case for any law abiding citizen? If this is covered above forgive me but I got into rant mode.
Firstly, the definition of "nomadic" a member of a group of people who have no fixed home and move according to the seasons from place to place in search of food, water and grazing land. Now, I am no meteorologist, but I am pretty sure seasons last less than 10 years. Also, a fixed home is home that is not made out of bricks and mortar. Secondly, they weren't homeless. This can be backed up by the homes they illegally built, without planning permission, on land they did not, and do not own. Thirdly, to build structures on land they do not own, without planning permission, is against the law, thus making it a criminal activity.
Cologne asks "Since when did being homeless or leading a nomadic lifestyle (One very often leading to the other) qualify for the description 'criminal`?" - the answer is the criminal activity is illegally flouting the planning laws - illegal = not legal = not lawful = flouts planning law. I have to get planning permission for any building work I want to do - why should others be allowed not to?
Possible alternative sites have been found and the issue of planning permission for them is being looked at. The travellers (For want of a better word) had indicated that they where prepared to move. Common sense should have prevailed and Basildon Council could have postponed their eviction order without any major inconvenience to themselves. Instead of this we have a confrontational approach which does not help anyone. I am not saying that erecting something without planning permission is o.k. just that the response has been hugely out of proportion when the alternative would have meant only waiting a couple of weeks. You are of course right in saying that planning permission exists for a purpose, but at the same time if you or I build a construction in our gardens without permission it may lead to a case being taken against us - but it will not lead to us waking up to hundreds of heavily armed riot police at dawn !
True, but then I'm sure that you , or even Leo , would not have spent the previous few years engaged in an ongoing saga of aggression towards the locals, theft, vandalism, wanton destruction of property etc etc. Or have you
Thank you BB It is of coursenot a questionof wait a few weeks - their obstructive tactics have so far lasted 10 years - they were never planning to move on
