Can we not pretend these are law obliging people the majority of the protesters are individusls purely there to cause anarchy. I have zero sympathy for them. The actual families i do feel sorry for- most were told its a settled community and the land is ours- a few may hsve known there actions are illegal its unlikely the wifes and kids were and i.'d ask you consider them before forming opinionsl. Yes it shouldnt have taken 10 years and. 20 million to expell them but that is the laws fault. When i was at school i had a kid in my class from a travellers camp who was bullied constantly, i dont find it suprising travellers dont respect the law when it doesnt protect them from abuse. Mabe imagine they are black...how would be treated then.
It's good to read a better newspaper and read some detail on this "settled community". Their children had effectively their own school as local children had to be removed because they could not learn whilst the travellers children where there - they had such poor education they were years behind. This school has the worst attendance record in Essex, with most of the children attending less than 50% - however the head was quoted as saying "Things are improving though, they now tell us when they are not going to attend as they are travelling". This whole romantic notion of these people just wanting to live a nomadic lifestyle and not be bothered by the rest of society is horse-****. They want to be able to come and go, take whatever they want and not contribute... I'll ask the question again, where were the husbands, fathers and brothers the other day when the OB and bailiffs went in?
Yes BHD, they are separate courts and their jurisdiction applies separately - but if the UK left the EU, we would not be bound by the ECJ and we could choose to apply the ECHR as we as a sovereign country see fit and there would be no-one who could apply sanctions. At the moment we are bound by both. So in the example of the Irish Travellers, the UK could pass legislation that allowed us to deport non-British citizens who refuse to register for National Insurance, Inland Revenue or refused to send their children to school - and nit her the ECJ or the ECtHR could do anything about it. There has been an interesting debate this week and you should read the comments from the Lord Chief Justice - Lord Judge on his on the supremacy of Country vs European Law..
From my experience, and in the opinion of others in this area, that is exactly spot-on! Although, after 'take whatever they want', you could have added 'leave lying around whatever they don't want for others to clear up'. Also from my experience, the observations regarding the education of their children almost mirrors what happens here. So much so that I fail to see why schools are obliged to take them on. In this rural area, school catchment boundaries are rigorously adhered to, very often disadvantaging parents who live in one village but work in another and cannot bring their children to the school in the village where they work - or children living on or near the boundary cannot actually attend the school nearest to where they live. But if a traveller child lobs up at the school doors................ And cloakroom security arrangements have to change - coats, shoes, bags etc have to be locked away else they disappear out the door, teachers are expected, without warning or request, to provide breakfast, playtime snacks and lunch out of their own pockets
Having just read the above comments I remember that last year and into this many people were sent out France despite any EU regulations. It can be done if there is the will to do it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11020429
France interprets every part of the European law to suit itself - Britain which has an old fashioned view of "law" tends to apply the letter of it - usually to our disadvantage
Odd experience reading that story - dated August last year yet right next to it is the headline 'Post-mortem due on Gaddafi body'. Had me confused for a moment
Gypsies and travellers were told in the past by the government that they should look for their own sites, buy their own land and that councils would be helpfull in securing planning permission. In reality 90% of claims for planning permission for travellers are turned down compared to 20% amongst the settled population - what are they supposed to do ?
Are your stats correct Cologne? Where do they come from and which country do they refer to? Maybe they put in poor planning applications without the use of decent architects etc - I don't think stats like that help particularly. What we know at Dale Farm is that across a period of 10 years the authorities who were reluctant to waste £18m on evictions failed to get agreement on any of their offers of alternative sites / homes etc. To be honest - once the likes of the anarchist brigade get involved the whole issue becomes clouded in politics anyway.
I don't know how many travellers there are in Germany, but there are many here who used to come to work in the seasonal jobs such as grape harvesting. They would travel the country to get the work, taxed at source, and most towns still have land set aside for short stays. To a large extent they are honest and hard working, otherwise they would not have work the following year, but they are very different to the ones who have attempted to come and not seek work and have no intention of looking. There are official sites with decent facilities provide in some places for longer stays, but then they have to pay to be there. The problem here, as in England, is the ones who set up camp in lanes and woods and then move on leaving the most unholy mess. I am not sure how these are dealt with, but the unofficial sites are never occupied for very long. It can be quite puzzling to see people with expensive cars and caravans living in such squalid conditions.
Hello Leonardo Statistics are for England, obtainable from www.communities.gov.uk info submitted by local authorities.
It basically says that if there is a real and palpable fear for their life (as with Bangura a few years ago) the country can not deport them. It is under artice 2- the right to life.
Thats partly true yes. If we left the EU we would not be bound by the ECJ, but we would still have to apply the ECHR as we are signed to it and like you said they are separate. If we are signed to the ECHR we have minimal discretion as to how we interpret it. All we can do is just issue a statement of incompatibility under section 19 of the HRA and then change our laws to match the ECHR.
Was aware of that Dan - I just find it strange that such a 'right' exists! It's a funny old world we live in. On the one hand, countries are bound by law to accept refugees and to allow them such rights. When they do, the rest of population get stirred up & agitated about having them in their midst. The obvious answer is to sort out the problems in their home countries so that they wouldn't become refugees in the first place. When attempts are made to do just that, by sending in troops, the rest of the population get stirred up and agitated.......... Sometimes you just can't win.
Point taken, though the segment of the population opposing refugees in their midst is normally a completely different section of people to those in the forefront of anti war demonstrations - your post appears to imply that they are the same people. And, no you can`t win, so you just have to do what seems the most humane in each case.
I do agree BB. This country needs to burn the ECHR and re-write the HRA with the interests of our nationals at the top of the list. Also (no offence here) the Stormont, The welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament need to decide whether they are in the UK or want to go it alone!! You cant have your cake and eat it!!
In Scotland's case, we already have - your illustrious leader won't let us go! Apparently he wants our cake and wants to eat it for us.
Didn't I hear something along the lines that the leader oop there doesn't wish to ask the people just yet as he is not sure of the outcome?
