Slightly off topic, but we run cycling tours in France. A few years ago we used to end a trip in Provence in a village called Les Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, which is a Gypsy pilgramige site. We had to change our itinerary because every time we visited, pockets would be picked, wallets stolen (or attempts made), usually by an old crone operating with a child. This is a way of life, a career, and the attitiude that it's okay to steal from anyone who isn't one of them is engrained. Can anybody tell me that there experience of 'travelling folk' has been markedly different? If 'travellers' don't want the world to think of them as thieving pikey scumbags, well then they should stop being thieving pikey scumbags. What really pisses me off is being called racist because of these opinions, when it is just the natural result of empirical observations.
I think we have two quite distinct themes here which should not run into each other. Gypsies or Roma in general and the eviction which has just happened. As for the real Gypsy question the nomadic life is always held under some suspicion by settled populations -and has been so for many centuries in Europe - now Gypsy populations live in every European country and as far east as Pakistan and India going under various tribal names. The pure nomadic life (If it still exists) is problematic because it entails a different stance towards property ie. you can only actually possess what you can carry with you from one place to another. Thus leading to a belief that if somebody has left something somewhere then it means that they don't need it. I have observed this amongst gypsy children in my role as a teacher in Germany. All unfortunately very difficult to live with, but we are living with the children from parents who had lost all citizenship rights in some, mostly Eastern, European countries - forced sterilization in Slovakia, separation of children from the mother at birth as in Switzerland. In Germany the Nazis stripped the Gypsies of their citizenship in 1939 and, unbelievably, German born gypsies didn`t get German citizenship back until the 1990's. European history has had in all over 700 years to integrate the gypsy and has failed in that time - I do not believe it is all their fault. However the case in Essex is a completely different matter which has nothing to do with Romanies or Gypsies whatsoever - and you are wrong in combining the two. The travellers we are talking about were not born in a nomadic culture even if they call themselves as such. Maybe the name just sounds better than 'Homeless', and if a group of homeless people get together and defy planning permission is this not similar to a hungry person digging and cultivating a field which is not his own ? Not strictly legal but surely understandable ! The other question is, if they initially broke planning laws 10 years ago why was it not dealt with then before their children had settled into local schools etc ?
If, and for legal purposes I emphasise the if, it is indeed true that the travellers were sold the land under the pretence that it was brownfield when it was not, legal responsibility for finding them a suitable site should fall with those who pocketed the money for it. I would also note that Basildon allowed the scrapyard to remain on the site for 25 years, and are alleged to have used the land as dumping ground for un-green-field material themselves. All that said, the law is the law and this was inevitable. I think the fact that the illegal part of Dale Farm lasted ten years + numerous processes shows that their arguments were taken seriously, but also that the system takes far too much time. In fairness to the police and bailiffs, if you refuse to comply with a court order against planning permission, they will forcibly remove it, along with anyone standing in their way. The special thing about this case is that over a hundred people actively resisted, compared to the normal handful. The only problem I have with the eviction itself was the use of tazer. Tazer was specifically brought in as a less-lethal substitute for guns, for use against individual, carefully targetted people who are considered so dangerous that they should otherwise be shot.
For all the bad things that happened in Iraq, not least the decision to go there in the first place, Saddam was dealt with in the ideal way. I'm glad Gaddafi is dead, but the NTC had the opportunity to take him alive pending a trial (which would have inevitably resulted in a death sentence). It's a shame that wasn't taken.
Nothing to do with the thread this - but I'm sorry I can't celebrate anyones death, whoever it was. What I find absolutely disgusting though is how newspapers are allowed to print vivid pictures of dead people (Or was this only in Germany ?) - It has the same function as heads on pikes in the middle ages ! Am I being over sensitive here ?
Sensitivity is not the issue here. The real issue is the rule of law. Gaddafi should have been arrested, tried, presumably found guilty, sentenced and then shot. Unfortunately in a country that has not seen a constitution, a rule of law, functioning parliament etc. etc. the arbitrary termination of Gaddafi was bound to happen. Ultimately it is a pity that he was not taken alive as now it will be far more difficult to establish exactly what did happen in the Lockerbie Bombing, shooting of WPC Fletcher, IRA Semtex etc. On the other hand it does demonstrate graphically to those tyrants in other states who have flouted for so long the natural processes of justice, exactly what they can expect when they are toppled. And as for not celebrating anyone's death, I wonder what your reaction would be if you or members of your family had been imprisoned, tortured or killed without trial over the last 40 years. Or if you had lived in abject fear of the midnight knock on the door by Gaddafi's security police. I suspect Cologne, you would have a very different view.
Quite possibly cologne - or perhaps I'm being 'under sensitive'. What disgusts me more is the reaction from the UN - they demand a full enquiry into his death. Why? He was an evil b*st*rd and they knew it. They knew it when they sanctioned the search for him. They knew what the likely outcome of a trial would have been. So why grizzle that someone, who in all probability suffered at his hands, has gained a crumb of comfort, done the world a favour and rid us of him? And when money is in such short supply around the world - to the extent that in this country even the education of our children has faced massive cutbacks - why waste it on such a pointless exercise as a trial?
Slight misunderstanding, the sensitivity referred to the vivid pictures in some newspapers not to the act itself. As for being a warning to other dictators. Yes it tells us it is not healthy to be a dictator of a country which has mineral or oil resources which the west needs access to. If he had been in the middle of Africa there would have been no western response whatsoever, nor if he had had nuclear weapons North Korean style. Yes, I repeat, I cannot celebrate anyones death, firstly because I am made that way, and secondly who is to judge relative evils. By that I mean who was responsible for more deaths Gaddafi or George Bush - I suspect the latter but I wouldn't celebrate his death either.
How about 2 wars carried out on third world countries based on concocted evidence and lying to the whole World in the process.
I suspect that you're a relatively young person, still with an idealist streak - probably untouched by any real emotion or trauma in your life. Probably cossetted by all the benefits of a reasonably democratic government, rule of law, comfortable housing, transport & social infrastructure that the "west" currently offers. Probably protected from arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture or death that is inflicted on people in so many parts of the world. I take your point about the "west" only being interested in toppling dictators who have mineral or oil resources which it (including you) needs. Sadly that is the way in which "western" civilisation has developed. The alternative as demonstrated by many so-called third world countries (including Afghanistan, Pakistan, sub-Saharan African countries) is usually much worse. At least if the US population needs to get rid of a President, Senator or other political elected person, they have the chance at the ballet box, or through the law courts - however flawed and biased towards the rich it may be. What chance did the Libyans have. And if the "west" was so hell bent on ridding themselves of a dictator of an oil rich country, why did it take 40 years to do it? You may come to realise that it is all too easy to condemn the likes of George Bush, Tony Blair, "western" leaders etc. etc. from your comfortable position without realising your arrant hypocrisy. Who is to judge "relative evils" indeed? Give me a democratically elected and accountable government, an independent judiciary, a (reasonably) incorruptible police force and highly trained and disciplined armed forces from the "west" any day over a power-mad iron-fisted tyrant who preaches one thing, practises another and cannot be removed from position without extreme and destructive force together with a security police answerable to no-one except themselves & the dictator and a motley bunch of militia. You'll learn.......
Ask the folks in the "third world countries" whether they would have preferred the previous regimes to have continued? And I think you mean carrying out wars on regimes, not countries....there is a difference. Remove the beam from your eye before attempting to remove the mote of dust from others. I would go so far as to say that if the UN Security Council could be persuaded, then intervention in many countries with totalitarian regimes could be justified. But then that would mean turkeys (China and Russia) voting for Christmas.
Many thanks for the compliment ! My first game at the Vic. was in 1967 which gives you an idea of my age. Idealist ? definately. Living in a democracy - Yes. Other than that wrong ! If you had been living in a city like Baghdad or Kabul under a sky full of bombers supposedly aiming at military targets, yet in fact hitting anything indiscriminately, you would have just as much hatred against those who ordered it as others have against Gaddafi. Do you not realize that this so called democracy which you quoted, the U.S.A., has a military presence in over 60 different countries in the World, with or without the consent of the locals - all of which contravenes their own constitution ? Do you think those in Guantanamo thought that they where in the safe hands of a democracy ? This democracy that you quoted raised Saddam Hussain to power, and gave him chemical weapons for use against Iran, and supported numerous other dictators in power such as Pinochet for as long as they were usefull as a buffer against communism. For this nation which you quote as a democracy to be taking the high moral ground in framing World politics is laughable. Please think before you speak !
Vic - It's quite simple, if the UK was no longer in the EU we could deport anyone non UK citizens without the effect of the EU restrictions of free movement for EU citizens. Same way as we have to apply to enter Switzerland and Norway....as i said, being able to control our own borders is another benefit of getting out of the EU. Therefore Irish citizens that were not wanted could be booted out without Brussels or Strasbourg sticking their unwelcome noses in...
BTW - Since Ireland joined the EU there is no longer any special status for Ireland in EU law. So if the UK left the EU, Ireland would have exactly the same status as Germany or Italy or.....and about time as well
Actually thats not right, the right not to be deported is given under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which is completely seperate to the EU. The EU is a collection of countries who have agreed to remove all borders and boundaries to goods and services. The ECHR gives you your human rights which are rights given simply on the basis of being human. If we pulled out of the EU we would still be governed by the ECHR and vice-versa.
BHD - No we would not, Switzerland, Norway and many of the small countries within the European geographic area i.e. Monaco do not have to comply with the ECHR and even EU countries that are signed up to the ECHR have a different implementation. For example Italy will deport Albanians without any concerns, yet the UK will not deport convicted terrorists.....you state textbook theory, I am talking about the real world..
They do not have to comply because they have not signed it! We created the God damned thing!! The same way as by signing the Treaty of Lisbon, Ireland is now bound by the rulings of the ECJ and the EU as a whole. The two are completely different things! The ECtHR is in Strasbourg and the ECJ is in Luxembourg. The ECtHR was formed in 1959 intitially and then made permanent in 1998, the ECJ was formed in 1952!! The ECtHR was formed under the European Convention on Human Rights where as the ECJ was created under the Treaty of Paris (1951) as a part of the European Coal and Steel Community. They are different things entirely!! Like Chalk and Cheese!! You can be a member of one and not the other!! Whilst these things do happen the Countries also get tried for the breaches of the law!! In fact i seem to recall Italy being high on the list of countries tried under Art6- Right to a fair trial!!
