Dale Farm

[old.Tohtori]

Not quite Toht. the travellers do own the land, they just don't have the right to build on it. S*snip* built on it anyway.

They had the right (and planning permission) to build on some of it. They just didn't bot*snip*they rock up is going to go through all this all over again and seems like a waste of time but no one wants them living next door as it devalues ones property.

Ah right.

What's the usual response to such event? Tear down the unlawful houses?

If so, then that's pretty much the law. Ofcourse needs to provide temporary shealter etc if it's the case in other non-contract housing.

 

[Embattle]

Aaaargh, fucking edit time! Aaanyway:



Doing nothing about a problem you're never going to solve is cheap.


As for hospitals - I used it because it was an obvious analogy. Exactly how they are funded doesn't really matter in the example unless we're now going to descend into pedantry to support our arguments.

Seems solved to me, costly but solved in a way although I would like to see the process improved.

It appears to be a heartstrings analogy, it would simply be local services if any thing which the locals can decided is right or wrong with their next vote.

Ah right.

What's the usual response to such event? Tear down the unlawful houses?

After the normal court action yes.

 

[Scouse]

Seems solved to me

How, exactly?

Have they made them disappear? Have they all miraculously changed their minds or ways of life?

Or have they just been moved on? Probably to different areas so there'll have to be multiple actions taken against them in their next places - rather than an eggs-in-one-basket scenario which was much more easily managed...

Solved. Lol!

 

[Raven]

What we need is some sort of solution.

 

[Gwadien]

What we need is some sort of solution.

A sticky solution....

 

[Embattle]

How, exactly?

Have they made them disappear? Have they all miraculously changed their minds or ways of life?

Or have they just been moved on? Probably to different areas so there'll have to be multiple actions taken against them in their next places - rather than an eggs-in-one-basket scenario which was much more easily managed...

Solved. Lol!

Basildon Council has achieved what it wanted to and thus has solved the problem, if you want to talk about technicalities you could phrase it as solving the immediate problem but not solving the longer/wider term problem but then that was never Basildon Councils objective.

 

[Gumbo]

Believe me if you lived near to Dale Farm and had to suffer the stinking thieving scum living in your area, you'd be very pleased that your council taxes were being spent to evict them.

Money well spent.

The problem is that there were too many avenues for them to exploit to drag the whole thing out.

A breach of planning regs should be a simple matter of -

1. Make retrospective planning application, to cater for those who build stuff in ignorance of the need to get permission first, if retrospective permission is granted, job done. In the event it isn't, step 2

2. You're given 28 days to remove the structure, or lodge an appeal with your County Court. County Court hearing must take place within 28 days of the original 28 days ending, cost of bringing the appeal to be borne by the person bringing the appeal, not the council who has already considered the retrospective application. If the appeal fails, 28 further days to remove structure, if it passes, job done. In the event of the appeal failing and the structure not being removed, on the 29th day, the bulldozer removes it for you, you get the bill (which a pikey will never pay, but heyhoe, it's all done in 3 months)

No fucking human rights crap, no appeal to be heard higher than the County Court.

If you didn't apply before you built it, it's on your head, and your wallet, to sort your mess out.

Unfortunately it isn't that straightforward and with enough legal aid you can spin the whole thing out for 10 years. It's a system that needs to change, now.

There is no reason for pikeys to build things without permission apart from the fact they don't think they should pay for anything. The rest of us do pay, and I for one don't think they should be allowed to get away with it.

 

[Gwadien]

We should've all the left the country, and moved to Denmark for a week, and see what they'd do.

 

[rynnor]

If I was the council I would have re-zoned it to brownfield (which it is really) and then granted them planning permission.

Everything else is just silly - I have no sympathies for the pikeys but the reality is they are living in a large rubbish dump not some pristine greenfield location.

Big waste of money for no gain.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

And you're afraid, of the terrorists???. Seems like the UK is turning it into a witchhunt after the city riots. Just like USA went into war after 9/11.

The amount of random shit you post is incredible. Where the fuck do you get this from? It bears no relevance to ANYTHING!

Am I going mad or has he really just brought 9/11 as a response to me saying Scouse doesn't like authority? This is baffling

 

[pez]

That is the story of councils everywhere. A friend is currently having a running battle between the council about a residents permit parking scheme on his street. The council want single yellows. He's got the local MP and 100% of the street backing him on the parking scheme as it will 1) still achieve all of the councils objectives, 2) make all of the locals happy and 3) it's cheaper.

I live in Bristol. While the rest of the country riotted over new trainers the people of Bristol rioted three times over the fact that the council ignored, steamrolled or sidestepped every legal attempt that the local community made to stop a Tesco opening.

And they wonder why the youth feel disenfranchised about modern democracy...

 

[throdgrain]

My argument is pretty simple Throd - and your faux "what are you on about" is amusing. But to humour you - I'm "on about" this:

1) It costs a lot of money to do this.
2) We've not got much - spend on this means no spend elsewhere (hospitals-lives)
3) We can't win - if we move them on we get the same problem elsewhere.


So. We could spunk a LOAD of cash, which would be BETTER SPENT ELSEWHERE, endlessly chasing these fuckers around the country.

Or we could spend it on something else. Like cancer drugs and life saving operations.


Pretty fucking simple. Or are you going to ignore the fact that we only have finite resources?

No seriously, what lives are you on about??

The fact is gypos are lifetime criminals, your suggestion is just let them get on with it then we can save some mystical lives somewhere. Fact is, they are in the wrong, but they wouldnt admit it, and they wouldnt back down, so now they have to be made to back down. Good.

 

[rynnor]

modern democracy...

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[pez]

Believe me if you lived near to Dale Farm and had to suffer the stinking thieving scum living in your area, you'd be very pleased that your council taxes were being spent to evict them.

Money well spent.

The problem is that there were too many avenues for them to exploit to drag the whole thing out.

A breach of planning regs should be a simple matter of -

1. Make retrospective planning application, to cater for those who build stuff in ignorance of the need to get permission first, if retrospective permission is granted, job done. In the event it isn't, step 2

2. You're given 28 days to remove the structure, or lodge an appeal with your County Court. County Court hearing must take place within 28 days of the original 28 days ending, cost of bringing the appeal to be borne by the person bringing the appeal, not the council who has already considered the retrospective application. If the appeal fails, 28 further days to remove structure, if it passes, job done. In the event of the appeal failing and the structure not being removed, on the 29th day, the bulldozer removes it for you, you get the bill (which a pikey will never pay, but heyhoe, it's all done in 3 months)

No fucking human rights crap, no appeal to be heard higher than the County Court.

If you didn't apply before you built it, it's on your head, and your wallet, to sort your mess out.

Unfortunately it isn't that straightforward and with enough legal aid you can spin the whole thing out for 10 years. It's a system that needs to change, now.

There is no reason for pikeys to build things without permission apart from the fact they don't think they should pay for anything. The rest of us do pay, and I for one don't think they should be allowed to get away with it.

This is all very well but from a complete outsiders point of view this is what I see.

1 site. Half has planning permission. Half doesn't. How did this happen?

I refuse to believe that the people there have fought for 10 years to avoid applying for planning permission for usage identical to usage 50 yards away, just because they feel they are 'above the law.'

The feeling I have is that the local council do not want them there and would therefore refuse what appears, to an outsider, a perfectly reasonable use for the land.

 

[rynnor]

The feeling I have is that the local council do not want them there and would therefore refuse what appears, to an outsider, a perfectly reasonable use for the land.

Exactly.

 

[Tom]

It isn't difficult to see from the posts in this thread exactly who's had pikeys living near them, and who hasn't.

 

[Himse]

They don't deserve all this shit they get, that's for sure.

Sorry to quote you all the time, but ROFL.

You must have no clue about pikeys at all, they are horrible people, and they are known for it.

 

[Keitanz]

It's horrible to generalise like that though, I'm sure some are lovely people and they don't deserve any of this crap they get, but yeah a lot of pikeys are scum etc...

 

[Himse]

It's horrible to generalise like that though, I'm sure some are lovely people and they don't deserve any of this crap they get, but yeah a lot of pikeys are scum etc...

Yeah you may get the odd one, stereotypes do generally fit though.

 

[Access Denied]

It isn't difficult to see from the posts in this thread exactly who's had pikeys living near them, and who hasn't.

I don't often agree with Tom, but...THIS! Where I used to live was an ecclectic mix of council and private houses. Actually a proper nice area to grow up in. Until I was 17, when the council moved 4 families of pikeys into the estate. Within a week there was rubbish all over the place and quarterly crime figures showed thefts and burglaries shot up 60%!

If the local council refused planning permission based on prejudices then it's a problem. However, those prejudices are two-sided. Think about it. Pikeys move into an area, crime goes up. Property values fall and people move away. No one moves in because of the crime figures and the local economy goes down the drain.

It may be a case of a minority ruining the image of the whole but from my experience it's a fucking large minority!

 

[Scouse]

OK - this...:

Basildon Council has achieved what it wanted to and thus has solved the problem, if you want to talk about technicalities you could phrase it as solving the immediate problem but not solving the longer/wider term problem but then that was never Basildon Councils objective.

...means that Basildon Council has beauracratically shuffled the problem to another council, at the cost of 20million quid.

The local residents will be pleased because:

Believe me if you lived near to Dale Farm and had to suffer the stinking thieving scum living in your area, you'd be very pleased that your council taxes were being spent to evict them.

However, because nothing has been solved, just expensively moved. Hence:

Believe me if you lived near to Pikeyland near Coventry and had to suffer the stinking thieving scum living in your area, you'd be very pleased that your council taxes were being spent to evict them

and:

Coventry Council has cunted the pikey scum out of town. Yayz! If you consider the horrendous waste of money the additional twenty million sponders to move the problem on, to a new council and a new twenty milion quid problem a mere "technicality" you're clearly barmy Emb!

Hmmm. Some getting used to this new getup

 

[Embattle]

As said, problem solved for Basildon no matter how much you try and expand it.

Plus I didn't say either parts of the last quote.

 

[Scouse]

Jeesus Emb. If a load of immigrants left Italy for France and then France for England you wouldn't say that Italy and France have solved the problem - you'd say that they'd moved the problem along.

Inter-country shuffling is even more ridiculous. No problem has been solved and we will just keep on wasting money.

But if you can't admit the plainly obvious there seems little point in "talking" about it.

 

[Kahland]

It's not like they will stop living there because they got evicted, they will just set up camp instead.

 

[Ch3tan]

I don't like the fact that it's taken so long and so much money for this to be resolved, Scouse is also correct. It's a pointless solution, forcing them to apply for planning permission, making them pay fines, forced demolition of property where planning was still not granted, or changes not made and fines not paid, that would have been a real solution.

 

[Aoami]

the stuff they couldnt get permission for is green belt land, so its quite right that their houses built on get torn down.

 

[Embattle]

Jeesus Emb. If a load of immigrants left Italy for France and then France for England you wouldn't say that Italy and France have solved the problem - you'd say that they'd moved the problem along.

Inter-country shuffling is even more ridiculous. No problem has been solved and we will just keep on wasting money.

But if you can't admit the plainly obvious there seems little point in "talking" about it.

You asked how it was solved and I told you, the fact you don't like the answer and thus keep continuing to expand the problem beyond Basildon isn't really that surprising. I have also acknowledged that the wider problem technically still exists and also I inferred that the much much wider issue of how such issues are dealt with are too long winded and costly and should be dealt with a lot quicker and cheaper where such basic rules of law have been breached.

The fact that again you fail to read or understand another persons point of view is hardly that surprising, in that way you are right and might as well not bother "talking" about it.

 

[rynnor]

the stuff they couldnt get permission for is green belt land, so its quite right that their houses built on get torn down.

It was a rubbish dump - its really a brownfield site that resides in a green belt not some pretty field full of daisies.

 

[Gumbo]

It isn't difficult to see from the posts in this thread exactly who's had pikeys living near them, and who hasn't.

Luckily enough not living near me, but have had experience of them through places I have worked. They are truly an underclass. They contribute nothing to society, and take everything they can. The way they treat even their own is abhorrent. It is not a way of life which should be in any way protected. It is not harmless to the rest of us. It's not a bunch of hippys living in a yurt in a field in Wales and causing no harm. These people live to steal, and steal to live. Move em on, move em on, and move em on. Maybe eventually they'll get the message that their 'lifestyle' is not tolerable to the tax paying, respectable public, and they'll give it up. If they don't, they can just keep getting moved on.

The problem is simply giving them so many opportunities to delay it because of hand wringing liberals.

 

[rynnor]

It isn't difficult to see from the posts in this thread exactly who's had pikeys living near them, and who hasn't.

We have an official site and a few years back they invaded a public park nearby and trashed it so I'm not a fan of Pikeys but what Basildon have done is no solution.

There's 2 parts to this - not liking pikeys and wanting to prevent their lifestyle - evicting them doesnt do this - they are just moving a mile or two down the road to another legal site where they will blight some other neighbourhood.

2- 'the greenbelt' - it was a rubbish dump - I think reclaiming brownfield sites for residential use is actually something the government wants to encourage and they already had permission for half the site I cant see how they couldnt get permission for the other half of a rubbish dump?

Overall a big waste of money and does nothing to tackle the problem of travellers.