I was just watching a report on BBC news, about the Dale Farm eviction. It made me wonder what the site actually looks like.
However, it seems that a courageous Google driver took a trip down there
g.co/maps/htjqe
|
|
Live news coverage should brighten up a potentially dull day
|
I thought this was going to be a thread about yoghurt!!
www.dalefarm.co.uk/pages/dale_farm/Home
|
>> it seems that a courageous Google driver took a trip down there
Before 10am in the winter, judging from the angle of the sun and the lack of leaves on the trees.
No wonder he escaped, they were all still in bed.
Near-live updates in the comments section of IG's blog, as usual. Could be messy.
|
The site looks very clean.I don't want to argue the rights or wrongs of the case.It's gone on for ten years.
But is this the answer removing women and children out of their homes and their belongins and the problem will end up some where else.
|
Pan left to see the rubbish in the hedgerow. Very clean is pushing the meaning abit.
Hopefully they will go back to Ireland to the houses they own.
|
Maybe not SS I pick enough rubbish up from people who are the so called model citizens.
You could be right or you could be not..
|
If I built a permanent structure on land without (a) planning permission and (b) owning the land... I'd get into trouble.
Some of the caravans are mobile - so they can shift them easily. Some are static caravans but they too can be moved. In fact most of the site can be moved apart from the illegally built structures.
The concern for those nearby is where will they go - not in my back yard I would assume they say. So would I.
|
Wherever they end up it will be peace shattering for their victims, and a huge cost to those who contribute to the council in the region.
|
>> If I built a permanent structure on land without (a) planning permission and (b) owning
>> the land... I'd get into trouble.
>>
>>
>>
The council have brought this trouble on themselves by letting it go on for 10 years.
Ten years in which the numbers have been allowed to grow, families settled, children raised and started school, old people become hard to move.
More recently they have allowed the case to become a cause celebre, with lots of publicity, opportunities for activists to get on the bandwagon and turn it into a show-piece confrontation.
The incompetent councillors should be surcharged for the whole costs of the operation.
|
>>The council have brought this trouble on themselves by letting it go on for 10 years.
I understand the illegal residents have managed to drag it out this long by repeated legal action, appeals etc. I heard they're in the high court this morning. I wonder who pays their legal bills?
|
|
Probably the Gypsy Council, a self and well funded organization.
|
...I wonder who pays their legal bills?...
I've not checked this thoroughly, but I have the impression the woman leading the challenge may be representing herself.
If not, in cases such as this, there will often be a human rights lawyer who will take the case on for free as a reputation builder.
And if the lawyer wins, he will be able to recover his costs from the other side.
|
It is really most simple.
The law is there for all of us to comply with, if we don't, then we should expect enforcement. That applies to all..no exceptions.
If some think that they have an ace up their sleeve...and can use it to get away with things...then it is only right for them to know that they cannot.
We are one of the most civilised country's on this planet, our welfare system is second to none...thetre is no reason why a 73 year old with breathing difficulties or children cannot be properly catered for....nevertheless, up the road they must go.
Why on earth would anyone think that some in our society should be able to circumvent what the rest of us have to comply with...particualrly as many in that social grouping contribute very little to our society.
|
>>The law is there for all of us to comply with, if we don't, then we should expect enforcement. That applies to all..no exceptions.
Westpig, sorry I am not one to normally jump on the bandwagon but why, when I watch these Road Wars type programs, have I seen on several occasions that someone has fleed into a travellers camp and the police have not taken it any further?
Most recently one on Police Interceptors last week where a driver of a van had led the police a nasty chase, battering their cars several times in the process?
|
>> Westpig, sorry I am not one to normally jump on the bandwagon but why, when
>> I watch these Road Wars type programs, have I seen on several occasions that someone
>> has fleed into a travellers camp and the police have not taken it any further?
>>
>> Most recently one on Police Interceptors last week where a driver of a van had
>> led the police a nasty chase, battering their cars several times in the process?
>>
Because many of those places are virtual 'no go' areas. If you do need to go in there, you need to go in mob handed...and that would mean having appriopriately equipped officers, maybe even riot trained.
The local Duty Officer, (Inspector), would need to weigh up whatever else they will need to drop that day, to achieve that...then there will be the inevitable rumpus that ensues, along with the complaints etc...so it goes on the 'too difficult' pile.
Believe me, it riles the odrinary officer as much as it does the public...but if you've got most finite resources, you have to use them wisely.
|
That is the impression I get too. Also on those programmes you will see that the police are often desperate to end the chase before they get to the travellers site. Very often if the chase has been going on for some time and it ends up being close to a site, the police will guess they may be heading there.
Now if you excuse me, I am going to buy some cheap agricultural land in Cheshire and stuck a static on it. Lets see if I can drag it out for ten years.....
|
I understand the frustrations but it does mean that
"That applies to all..no exceptions."
doesn't seem to apply in these cases.
|
>>Before 10am in the winter, judging from the angle of the sun and the lack of leaves on the trees<<
You're not related to Hercule Poirot by any chance are you?
|
|
Only half of the site is actually illegal. The part bordering Oak lane pictured form the road was granted planning permisssion by Basildon council and is not contested. It is only the part that was originally used as a scrap yard (about 50% of the overall site) which is contested as it has no planning permission.
|
I'd like to know why that planning permission has been repeatedly refused.
Surely it's better to allow them to be alongside their own type sooner than try and place them somewhere else.
Pat
|
|
They are travellers, so let them travel.
|
Why? So they can upset someone elses neighbourhood?
Pat
|
They are foreigners from outside the UK – let them go back to whence they came if they want to put down roots.
if they want to stay here, they will have to abide by the laws of this country or we’ll have every Tom, Dick and Mick here doing the same.
|
>> or we’ll have every Tom, Dick and Mick here doing the same.
I thought that was already happening.
|
For me it's not about nationality, lifestyle, ethnic background, social class... it's all about flouting planning laws and living decently within a community. Normal house dwellers have to go to a great deal of time and expense to alter or build their home in contrast to those who would just set up anywhere.
We were lucky to sell up from a local drove a few years back when we sensed it was about to become a mild version of Dale Farm. Previously it was a quiet 1 mile walk to a river and nature reserve with all but 2 fields quietly farmed, the exceptions being horses peacefully grazing.
Then farmers started selling the 2, 4 & 8 acre plots to anyone with the cash who'd pay a premium over agricultural value. Soon each field sported an old caravan, a few abandoned cars, an old lorry container and other items of tat. The drove became a frequently traffic'd mudbath/dustbowl with angry dogs, reckless kids on quads and even more reckless hard faced dads. Ruined the area for ever.
The Dale Farm people very likely do have alternatives but it's all one big game to them and their supporters.
|
and their supporters.
>>
Who conveniently live no where near them or their kind.
Same as always, whilst we who pay for it all are daft enough to put up with it long will it continue, and the rest of the 'uman rites welfare jungle mess.
|
This BBC article seems to set out the history reasonably objectively.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14955767
I assume the scrappy who sold the land in 1996 knew what he was letting the area in for.
|
When asked where they'd be going once evicted, one replied (I think, I didn't have subtitles on) 'we'll come and stop outside your house'.
That'll endear them to everyone!
|
It may well prove the point that they would be less trouble allowing them to apply for retrospective planning permission and stay where they are:)
Pat
|
I hadn't realised that they had actually bought the land, and that this was simply a planning permission issue.
What a stupid waste of time, and abuse of the planning permission laws.
Technically they have breached the law, but where is the common sense here? We don't just clamp down on every single breach, we apply common sense.
It would make more sense if they had just plonked themselves down in the middle of a previously scenic location, but there is an adjoining legal site and they own the land, so what real difference down the bit next door make? Who exactly is it affecting? You apply laws to prevent some harm, but I don't see what harm there is here.
But you've got to enforce the rules, eh? Well you do if you don't like the look of the inhabitants!
I can see why the UN has been claiming that this is an abuse of the law and discrimination.
|
All the reports have said that the site was formerly a scrap-yard (albeit on green-belt land), and on that basis you would think a travellers site might not be such a problem. But reading the BBC report it says that the scrap-yard owner sold the site when he was "denied permission to carry on his business." This suggests the scrap-yard use was illegal, and paints rather a different picture on the whole saga!
Rules are rules. Letting them get away with it would be the thin end of the wedge, and ignorance of rules would lead to anarchy (which pretty much seems to be the case on Dale Farm at present).
|
that the scrap-yard owner sold the
>> site when he was "denied permission to carry on his business.
I imagine he's laughed his socks off ever since, might have been tempted to do the same.
They recently outed one of the best scrapyards in the county on the outskirts of Kettering, proper scrappy, get your gumboots on and get stuck in, charged peanuts...for many years before that, long as i can remember it was one of Cohens yards.
It's now an empty multi use retail/hotel/leisure site, been like that a couple of years.
|
|
GB, I presume you have at some point clocked that place to the north of Desborough on the road to Stoke Albany - they have tidied up the site in the last year but its still full of old, rusty, interesting things. Im sure the council must 'love' that place.
|
>> GB, I presume you have at some point clocked that place to the north of
>> Desborough on the road to Stoke Albany -
Handy to know it's still there then, haven't been down that particular road for years.
|
I dont really know what they do there, but theres plenty of rusting old trucks and Landrovers, plus other agricultural bits and pieces.
They have taken some trees down lately and it looks less overgrown, no idea if it was imposed or by choice.
|
>> Rules are rules. Letting them get away with it would be the thin end of
>> the wedge, and ignorance of rules would lead to anarchy (which pretty much seems to
>> be the case on Dale Farm at present).
"Rules are rules" is a terrible reason for enforcing them.
Any rule has an underlying reason/intent for its existence, and that underlying reason/intent is what is important, not the rule itself.
What is the underlying reason/intent here? Who, or what, is not affected by the legal section of the site, but somehow affected by the illegal section? What problem is caused by the illegal section, but somehow not caused by the legal section?
The spirit of the law is what is important, not the letter of law.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 19 Sep 11 at 15:24
|
>> The spirit of the law is what is important, not the letter of law.
But the letter becomes important when there is a question of infractions of the law, law enforcement or someone trying to exploit the law against its spirit to their own material or moral advantage. As we all know the spirit of the law is often ignored or deliberately flouted in practice.
Let us take for example the spirit of the law or set of new regulations that closed down the good nice pfd breakers' yards some years ago. There are still sources of cheapish secondhand parts, but they are much harder to get at. You can't put on an old pair of trousers, drive a couple of miles and get what you want from the bottom of a tottering pile of trashed jalopies lying in the mud with a goose trying to sneak up and peck you from behind and needing to be rapped smartly on the beak with a spanner. The spirit of those regulations was to stimulate the secondary repair sector and the car industry proper by sending the easily discouraged back to the main dealer. The letter and the ostensible spirit were about elf'n'safety and public health. Load of hypocritical hogwash.
As for gipsies and travellers I have nothing to say. Like all these isues it is more complex than people sometimes think. The gipsy diaspora is as fragmented and radically variable as say the African or Jewish diasporas. Generalizations are nearly always wrong somewhere. You could say though that nomadism has been frowned on and oppressed by settled communities, and in countries like ours where every inch of land belongs to someone it is hard to work out how it has survived so long.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 21 Sep 11 at 00:33
|
>> >> The spirit of the law is what is important, not the letter of law.
>>
>>
>> But the letter becomes important when there is a question of infractions of the law,
>> law enforcement or someone trying to exploit the law against its spirit to their own
>> material or moral advantage. As we all know the spirit of the law is often
>> ignored or deliberately flouted in practice.
Ah-ha, I thought this thread might temp you back. Good to see you again.
There is the issue of making sure that the law is obeyed, but that has to be removed from the question of whether the letter of the law should be applied in the first place.
Here I would suggest that it shouldn't have been applied, when the intent seems to have been ignored.
If the courts insist, then yes the eviction must go ahead, but that doesn't mean that it was right to apply the letter, rather than the intent, in the first place.
There is a question here of who is exploiting the law. If the council are trying to enforce it, when the initial intent is not in play, then they must have their own intent, and are abusing the law by using the letter of it to support their current intent, rather than the original intent.
EDIT: As for the travellers, they are perhaps contravening the letter, but not the intent.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 19 Sep 11 at 16:03
|
SS,
We elect people to enact law's via parliament.
We should all respect those laws and comply with them. If we disagree with them, we should ask our elected oficials to change them.
Minor infractions often do get ignored..(e.g. me and speeding in some circumstances. However, if caught I take the consequences, pay my dues and shut up).
If we allow anyone to openly flout the law, it can easily lead to others doing the same..and there lies a slippery slope. Then there's ignoring a court, that's even worse.
Lastly, there's fairness. It is not right that anyone in society can hide behind something* to get away with breaking the law, when millions of others do not.
We are a liberal enough country as it is.....trying to extract a load more out of it is taking the 'p'.
* them claiming this is racism, is absolute piffle
|
WP,
It's not as simple as that, and it's not just about minor infractions.
It is about whether the intent of the legislation is being flouted or the letter of the legislation. When the legislation in enacted, there is an intent on behalf of the lawmaker. This has to be enacted in writing, and may not completely convey the intent.
It cuts both ways. If people at Dale Farm had set up a caravan site in, say, Trafalger Square, and had then found some loophole in the legislation that allowed them to stay there (therefore relying on the letter, but not the intention of the law) people would rightly be up in arms, saying that the legislation could never have intended that, and the courts and parliament might intervene to make sure that the intent was complied with.
The current situation is just the other way around.
If the whole site did not have permission, I think that the council would have more of a case. They could claim that the intent of the legislation was to keep the area pristine, and that the site would go against that intent.
However, as there is already a legal site there now that argument is weakened, because the illegal bit makes little, if any, difference to the area.
It's impossible to say whether discrimination is involved here, but if the council is not trying to uphold the original intent, then they are either acting blindly, or are trying to uphold a different intent.
Given that travelling communities are not popular to mainly, it is not a massive stretch of the imagination to suggest that there could be some discriminatory angle to that intent, but it's impossible to say.
Certainly it seems that the UN have chipped in, to suggest that there is an abuse of law and possible discrimination here.
When you rely on the letter of the law, and ignore the intent, then you are into the area of loopholes.
When billionaires use tax loopholes to pay less tax than a paperboy, or criminals use loopholes to get off, we are up in arms. When councils use loopholes to get rid of travellers, in seems that many aren't bothered, and demand on the letter of the law being applied.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 19 Sep 11 at 18:19
|
>> It's not as simple as that, and it's not just about minor infractions.
>>
I think it is as simple as that. The law says local authorities decide planning issues. If we disagree we can appeal..or even vote out those that make the decisions..we should not be disobeying them however.
It's the same principle as people disagreeing with our Govt...vote them out if you don't like something, otherwise respect the fact that in a democracy other people have voted them in.
We cannot have a situation where people habitually flout our laws. What's next? So it matters not a jot that there are some travellers legally there on a part of the site anyway...the democratically elected local authority wanted to close down a scrap yard and has continually opposed further development on that site..in the same way that if you wanted to extend your house and the LA said 'no', you couldn't do it.
It's called doing as you are told....and some people have difficulty doing it.
|
Can follow the first bit WP and broadly agree. If we don't agree with a planning (or tax, or parking) decision we can appeal or try and cmapaign vote for an alternative.
But I don't follow the second line asbout disagreeing wth our Govt. We have a system where the FPTP voting mechanism, whipped voting in the elected legislature and a PM who appoints his own cabinet. Together these make this country what can too easily be an elective dictatorship. Judicial Review and latterly the Human Rights Act give us some counterweight. They can and should be used to ensure we're not walked over.
|
>> and latterly the Human Rights Act give us some counterweight.
>>
Personally, I don't want someone in Brussels being my country's counter weight.
|
>> Personally, I don't want someone in Brussels being my country's counter weight.
Nothing to do with Brussels.
The Convention which sets out the rights was largely authored by the British lawyer David Maxwell Fyffe. Tha HRA is a UK act and most cases are decided by our own judges up to and including the Supreme Court. The foreign element if it comes into play is in Strasbourg.
|
>> Nothing to do with Brussels.
>>
I'm grateful for the knowledge up date...but nevertheless don't want overseas courts ultimately ruling on British issues.
Furthermore the HRA has become a Frankenstein
|
The whole point is is that this country has brought the HRA home so to speak with the Supreme Court
|
>> I think it is as simple as that. The law says local authorities decide planning
>> issues. If we disagree we can appeal..or even vote out those that make the decisions..we
>> should not be disobeying them however.
That's not accurate. They can't simply decide whatever they want, they have to define their own rules and they have to stick within a legal framework too.
At all stages, intent is what is important, not the letter.
>> It's the same principle as people disagreeing with our Govt...vote them out if you don't
>> like something, otherwise respect the fact that in a democracy other people have voted them
>> in.
I'm not sure if you mean disagreeing with, or challenging the government.
Certainly you should be able to challenge the government, via the courts, rather than having to vote them out.
Being a member of the government, or a local council, is never carte blanche to do whatever you want, with the only recourse to be voted out.
As mentioned above, that is why we have the separation of the executive and the judiciary.
>> We cannot have a situation where people habitually flout our laws.
Who is flouting the law here? If they council are not acting within the intent of the law, then it is they who are flouting it.
The will of the council is not the law.
|
SS,
If the council had failed to stick within the principles or the intent of the law...then presumably at one of the numerous court actions...that would have been pointed out to them...and the matter halted there and then.
Presumably our court system agrees with the council's view point.
|
>> SS,
>> Presumably our court system agrees with the council's view point.
>>
I think that's roughly where we are now in the Basildon case. High Court found for travellers, Court of Appeal reversed. Leave to go to Supreme Court presumably sought but declined.
New point raised yesterday seems to be about whether Council's actions are wholly in terms of Court's earlier orders. Court gave directions to both sides and told them to come back on Friday where matter can be fully addressed.
|
>> >> SS,
>> >> Presumably our court system agrees with the council's view point.
>> >>
Forgot to add...'as do I'.
|
>> If the council had failed to stick within the principles or the intent of the
>> law...then presumably at one of the numerous court actions...that would have been pointed out to
>> them...and the matter halted there and then.
>>
>> Presumably our court system agrees with the council's view point.
Yes, evidently the judges involved have agreed with the council.
That doesn't mean that the council have abided by the intent of the law or the planning rules, it could be that they have simply abided by the letter, and the courts have not been prepared, or able, to prevent that.
The same with the hypothetical tax-avoiding billionaire, or the numerous criminals that get off on technicalities.
If that billionaire avoids the tax, have the judges agreed that he has complied with the intent of the law, or the letter?
Aside from that, judges are not some homogeneous blob, that will all make the same decision, give the same circumstances. It could be that different judges would have decided the matter differently. So, it is a bit much to say that "our court system" agrees. Rather the individual judges that have addressed this case have sided with the council, many other might not have done.
After all, the other half of the site was found to be legal and permission given.
Council, and courts, and other bodies, often give out conflicting decisions.
My original point, that we don't just enforce the letter of the rules blindly, rather than look for the intent, still stands.
People trumpet "the rules are the rules" and "the letter of the law", when they are happy with the outcome it gives.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 20 Sep 11 at 17:47
|
The law is the law SS...just because you interpret it your way, doesn't mean you are right. You might be, you might not.
If a law needs changing, then our legislators need to be requested to change it, not individuals all putting their own slant on things...and when being caught out, refusing to do as they're told.
It.. might.. be acceptable to bend it if you think you are right, but wholly another to ignore a court direction completely. That's anarchy.
|
|
Whilst I agree with Westpig - remember the Courts can alter legislation (or its interpretation) by Caselaw as well.
|
Here we go...I'm back to having to Google words again:)
Pat
|
|
Don't worry pda you're not the only one!
|
There is some countryside near me called the Mersey Valley, occasionally travellers settle on the land for a week or so but the police just take a very hard line and they soon clear off. The difference is though it is public land.
I do think the planning laws are over the top in this country, and it contributes to the housing crisis. However I understand why we need them and we cannot let everybody just do what they want.
I don't have any sympathy because I know if I bought some cheap land and plonked a caravan on it I would get told to shift it more less instantly.
My uncle used to own a farm house and a a lot of land, he put a caravan on it so they kids can stay in there when they visit, probably was a breach of planning permission but it was next to the house so nobody really cared, it wasn't doing any harm.
|
So ... there we were eating our evening meal, wifey watching judge judy, and me reading through this thread (welcome back Lud)
I read a post out to wifey and she said " Fran (work colleague) said you are more travellers than they are,
the amount of times you move house"!
:-)
|
>> I hadn't realised that they had actually bought the land, and that this was simply
>> a planning permission issue.
There were similar problems in Didcot, Oxfordshire a few years ago as well.
tinyurl.com/63c5y5r
tinyurl.com/62zunpj
Both link to www.oxfordmail.co.uk
|
.........and now some stupid beak has given the wasters another stay of eviction.
What the hell is wrong with our judiciary?
|
|
The Judiciary is what keeps you and me apart from the excesses of the Executive. You should be proud to live in a country where that is still the case.
|
>> The Judiciary is what keeps you and me apart from the excesses of the Executive.
>> You should be proud to live in a country where that is still the case.
+1
|
...The Judiciary is what keeps you and me apart from the excesses of the Executive. You should be proud to live in a country where that is still the case.
True, but as Judge Craig Munroe (wisely) said:
"Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments by ordinary men - (Lord Atkin in Ambard v. Attorney-General).
"It is prima face legitimate to criticize a judge’s conduct in a particular case or to criticize any particular decision or series of decisions given by the courts if done without casting any aspersions on the motives of the judge or court, and without abuse.
"The courts are not above criticism."
www.realjustice.ca/articles/071002Craig.htm
|
|
Well, iffy, they certainly get their fair share of that. Which certainly isn't the case in certain countries.
Last edited by: R.P. on Mon 19 Sep 11 at 20:35
|
...Which certainly isn't the case in certain countries...
Also true, but other countries are outside Judge Munroe's bailiwick.
|
Judge Craig Munroe
"Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer scrutiny and respectful,
even though outspoken, comments by ordinary men.
"It is prima face legitimate to criticize a judge’s conduct in a particular case or
to criticize any particular decision or series of decisions given by the courts if done
without casting any aspersions on the motives of the judge or court, and without abuse.
Roger
.........and now some stupid beak has given the wasters another stay of eviction.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 19 Sep 11 at 20:42
|
Been reading this thread with some interest. Son-in-law's parents live just down the road from Dale Farm. They've got more cameras outside the house than Dixons. Anything that isn't bolted down, they'll have it away, electronic gates or not.
Unfortunately, there aren't any judges living in the parish.
|
Report here sets out the judge's reasoning www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14978942
Not sure it's anything more than a chance to ensure all dotting and crossing is in place.
|
...Not sure it's anything more than a chance to ensure all dotting and crossing is in place...
It wouldn't be the first time a judge has made an interim decision knowing fine well what the final one will be.
|
The excesses of the Executive.
Ever dealt with customs the black gang? We've had them on board in the past they make the Gestapo look like boy scouts.They could sniff a bit of Samson.Not Deliah.;)
|
|
Welcome back A.C. Mijnheer zegt alles is goed.
|
I'm struggling to understand some points of view.
So it's alright to knowingly buy a piece of land and illegally develop it and then expect the authorities to ignore the fact???
There has been case were greenfield sites have been purchased and infrastructure fitted over a Bank Holiday to avoid the inspectors, This demonstrates an awareness of the illegallity of the act.
Allowing the flouting of the regulations by any group sets a dangerous precedent. And if you want to bang the discrimination drum. Is it not discrimanation against those that conform to the planning regulations and are penalised for trying to do the right thing?
|
>> Allowing the flouting of the regulations by any group sets a dangerous precedent. And if
>> you want to bang the discrimination drum. Is it not discrimanation against those that conform
>> to the planning regulations and are penalised for trying to do the right thing?
>>
+ 50
|
>>There has been case were greenfield sites have been purchased and infrastructure fitted over a Bank Holiday to avoid the inspectors, This demonstrates an awareness of the illegallity of the act.<<
This wasn't a grenfield site though, it was an old scrap yard. The ground would be aoaked in waste oil and battery acid, with small metal parts embeded in it.
Would you want to see the cost of returning this to a grass fiels, and then the cost of keeping the travellers off it come from your council tax?
The question is one of whether the council were correct to refuse the planning applications that have been made.
If you look around on the google map link there are a number of bungalows behind very opulent gates BUT all have a transit and a caravan behind those gates! So obviously some have had plans passed.
To allow this to go on for 10 years is in my opinion, shows negligence by the local council at the very least.
If their case is watertight it should have been put to bed long before now.
Pat
|
Planning is notoriously a situation where the domino theory holds true. You allow one new house on the edge of a village. What's so different about allowing another one?
You allow an extension of this size - what would really matter if it were just slightly larger?
But if a council by neglect, bureaucracy or incompetence have allowed a creeping situation to develop over decades, where is the law's intention by the time it gets to this stage?
The story now emerges that the original scrapyard was illegal. So after turning a blind eye to it for years, the council finally evicts the scrap man. But that didn't mean the council returned the site to green fields. They apparently decided that although a scrapyard was unacceptable, a traveller's site (doubtless with its own semi-scrapyard) was.
And now by apparent incompetence and lack of will the council are finally forced to face up to unpleasant action.
I don't see that they have a choice. They made the choice 10 or 20 years ago when they allowed a farm to become a scrapyard to become a traveller's site. They have manoeuvred themselves into a position where they are wrong whatever they do.
Just suppose they suddenly backed down and granted planning permission. Supposing you were a neighbouring farmer. Wouldn't you be tempted to sell them a bit more land? Then there would be another, small, extension to the site. Would that matter? How would you ever set a limit, if you can argue that every incremental bit is merely in the spirit of the original permission?
|
>>To allow this to go on for 10 years is in my opinion, shows negligence by the local council at the very least. <<
It took that long because the correct legal processes were followed, which is hardly the fault of the council, they can only follow the letter of the law, they dont make the law though.
The travellers have simply exploited every avenue legally available, presumably in the hope of delaying it indefinately.
|
|
Have the Council really being working on this for ten years? Slight impression that there ws a new political broom, perhaps elected on a 'sort out Dale Farm' ticket.
|
>>If you look around on the google map link there are a number of bungalows behind very opulent gates BUT all have a transit and a caravan behind those gates! So obviously some have had plans passed.
Pat. The presence of a building doesn't mean it has planning permission.
|
If you have a look around there on Google maps you'll see the ones I mean.
These are not the statics that are actually on the site, which are the ones in question.
Pat
|
|
The other factor that can confuse is half the development being a legitimate Romany site.
|
- - - - > Mijnheer zegt alles is goed < - - - -
Sounds like double Dutch to me!
:-D
|
|
Send them out to Afganistan plenty of room for them there.
|
Here's an example of a planning row enforcement which went badly wrong:
www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/crime/9093478.Still_haunted_by_the_day_I_saw_a_man_killed_in_cold_blood/
The reporter is not me, by the way, although I do know him and several of the hacks who were there.
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 20 Sep 11 at 10:00
|
|
Plenty of room for them in Éire where they came from.
|
|
That article just about sums it up, I'd luv to be able to sell this place for c£300k and build a log cabin in the wilds of Exmoor but the law stops me doing that, or should I just go ahead and do it anyway and to hell with the law!
|
|
Dog, Im sure you can convince the looney left that you part of a distinct ethnic group, something travelling based mixed with some local culture that would be 'lost' if your culture is not respected, thus your cabin in the woods is morally sound as part of your 'way of life'. Get building and while your at it, id tarmac Exmoor, in the name of culture.
|
I am part of a distinct ethnic group Stu - Cornish Cockney :)
A wodhes kewsel Kernewek? and Ple'ma an bysva?
|
|
Well all you need to do is add traveller to it, get the Transit warmed up and buy that cheap bit of land. Might be a fantastic idea to buy something next to the Redgrave household...
|
>>Well all you need to do is add traveller to it, get the Transit warmed up and buy that cheap bit of land<<
I've actually considered that Stu, many many times but - legally!
Buy an acre of land somewhere nice, stick a static caravan on it, and use it as a sort-of retreat + live in it from Friday evening until Sunday evening (might even let the missus use it now and again as well)
:-)
|
Let's be honest here and look at a few facts.
They keep having the word 'Travellers' thrown at them with the remark being made that they should 'travel'.
The reason for calling them travellers is because it's no longer PC to call them Gypsies or Tinkers for some reason.
If any one of us owned a bit of land and wanted to build on it but was refused permission when other applications had been passed very close by we would also use every means in our grasp to obtain that permission.
Surely it's better for them and us to have them on a piece of land among their own type?
If not, then they have to go somewhere so do you really want them in a field near you?
And while I'm on my soapbox, what is the BBC doing broadcasting live from Dale Farm for two days on the trot?
This is just glorifying the whole thing and giving the high profile people who have arrived there to protest, the publicity they crave.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Tue 20 Sep 11 at 12:29
|
>> Surely it's better for them and us to have them on a piece of land among their own type?
Sorry, Pat, but that sounds uncomfortably like Apartheid.
>>If not, then they have to go somewhere so do you really want them in a field near you?
No. Rather than just shuffle the problem around, we desperately need to do something about dysfunctional people in our society, but neither the right or the left can see beyond their own prejuduces.
Last edited by: Londoner on Tue 20 Sep 11 at 12:47
|
...but that sounds uncofortably like Apartheid?...
Apartheid became a highly-charged word following events in South Africa, but all it means is segregation.
If people of different types cannot live happily together, the logical answer is not to ask them to, but to separate - ie segregate - them.
|
If people of different types cannot live happily together, the logical answer is not to ask them to, but to separate - ie segregate - them. Iffy.
But that causes Apartheid Iffy.I have driven in parts of Leeds where I didn't see a white face.
So you end up with segregated communitys which caused all the riots in Bradford.
|
>> Apartheid became a highly-charged word following events in South Africa, but all it means is
>> segregation.
Apartheid was much more than just segregation. Human beings were restricted in ttheir movement and habitation according to racial characteristics. A policy of 'seperate development' specifcally designed to keep the Afrikaner on top.
|
Not all Afikaners kept on top Bromptonaut.South Afika's history is fraught with suffering.White South Afrikaners where trown in camps by the Brits.Then the Boer war what was not a equal battlte.
Britain was a world power.When the Dutch arrived in South Africa the only people they came across where Zulus a moving tribe.The first settlers had to work the land to make it fruitfull.
And what has changed in South Africa.These human beings still live in poverty conditions.
When you are a boer work has to be done everyday you can't work the land when you feel like it.Look what has happend in old Rhodesia the farmers have moved and no food on the table.Ruled by a nutcase.Nothing is black or white we all have history.
|
Dutchie,
I've read the history of early immigration to SA and recall particularly David Dimbleby's BBC series on 'The White Tribe of Africa' from the seventies. The English, and it was mostly the English rather than the wider British, were awful colonists. We need look no further than Ireland for proof of that thesis.
My comments were based specifically on the Malan/Verwoerd/Forster etc years and the policies effected in that time.
Iffy,
I'm not geting into an argument with a wordsmith on the semantics of capitalisation. Segregation by racial characteristics is odious whatever the initial letter.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 20 Sep 11 at 14:43
|
...Segregation by racial characteristics is odious whatever the initial letter...
Of course it is, but getting back on topic, there's no point in pretending these travellers will fit seamlessly or even at all well into a mixed community - the last few years prove that.
|
...Apartheid was much more than just segregation. Human beings were restricted in ttheir movement and habitation according to racial characteristics. A policy of 'seperate development' specifcally designed to keep the Afrikaner on top...
Apartheid with a capital 'A', in South Africa, means what you say it does, apartheid with small 'a' does not.
All we are talking about with regards to travellers is segregation, living separately.
|
>> All we are talking about with regards to travellers is segregation, living separately.
>>
Ah! you mean the original Venetian concept of the Ghetto.
|
>> Surely it's better for them and us to have them on a piece of land
>> among their own type?
>> If not, then they have to go somewhere so do you really want them in
>> a field near you?
No i don't, nor do i expect the long suffering residents of the area to have to put up with it any longer.
The whole episode has diverted the real issue though, these people flit around causing real problems wherever they turn up, like other groups when they get massed they are a nightmare.
The preferred method of dealing with them seems to be let them do their worse, and shift them on as soon as possible to inflict hell on the next poor sods.
Of course the local ratepayers then have to pay the council to clean up afterwards, and the legal bills to get them shifted on in the first place.
High time the old bill were given sufficient resouces and judicial and government back up to sort them out for good.
Given their type's thieving record there's a good possibility a lot of them should be doing porridge and not laughing at the rest of us and the bill.
If they visit shops, counrty fairs etc and send their kids in to steal, nick 'em, and nick the parents for encouraging them and jail the blighters, or fine them properly.
Leaving them there is attractive to Pat and me, they're 75ish miles away from us and that's great, but they are someone's problem.
I wouldn't mind if they contributed something useful to the country but i'm struggling to think of anything.
|
Having lived in Cornwall for 15 years, a particular road name orften would crop up time and time again in the local press in connection with crimes committed in said Duchy,
I ofetn pondered the question of why that particular country lane?
Then I found out ~ g.co/maps/wcyqy
N.I.M.B.Y
|
In a link of Rogers further up this thread a local resident was quoted as saying
>>local resident, Jane Thompson, said: "I've got nothing against people who roam the countryside while not leaving a horrible mess and being really nice to everybody. I would gladly grant them planning permission in my heart.
"But some of them have been at Dale Farm at least 10 years. Forgive me for saying so, but they don't seem to be very good at travelling."<<
If they had caused the local residents too much trouble I think we would have heard about it given the opportunity Jane Thompson had.
Pat
|
In related news, the UARS 7 ton satellite is due to re-enter on Friday.
Maybe it could re-enter right into the travellers site.
That would be handy.
TV coverage is already there.
|
...TV coverage is already there...
It's the squashed hacks I would feel sorry for, although others may think it all of a piece.
|
>> It's satire..
Well, of course - it IS the Daily Mash!
|
I have been to the Stockwood Park few times and it is the nicest place in Luton. This park has a nice museum and garden as well. But looks like now it will be a troubled spot going forward!
Why the council is just not preventing them from entering the park with caravans???
|
>>Why the council is just not preventing them from entering the park with caravans???<<
What about their human rights!
(joke)
|
Amazing, in super surviellance state Britain you can secretly move a convoy of obvious caravan dwellers from under the noses of the media 70 miles, break into a public park and get them on without anyone having a clue whats going on or doing anything to prevent it....how did they get there, timewarp?
Is this why we pay so much tax and rates.
This country is finished, sack every blighter in charge and recruit some with a full set.
|
>>in super surviellance state Britain you can secretly move a convoy of obvious caravan dwellers from under the noses of the media 70 miles, break into a public park and get them on without anyone having a clue whats going on or doing anything to prevent it<<
Ah, but - could plod be under instruction to leave them be, for now, so as to begin the eviction tomorrow at Dale Farm - then they will move them on from the Luton 'site'.
Victory in WW2 was largely brought about by intelligence ;)
|
>> Ah, but - could plod be under instruction to leave them be, for now, so
>> as to begin the eviction tomorrow at Dale Farm - then they will move them
>> on from the Luton 'site'.
Sorry D, i'd quite forgotten the job for life and job creating aspects of keeping these types of people moving about as they like, lawyers, police, diversity co-ordinators, social workers, council repairmen and clean up crews, to mention but the tip of the iceberg.
Maybe we should recruit more anti social groups, growth industry, recession over, kerching.
|
|
Stockwood park used to be my playground when I was a kid. I'd walk across it to watch the M1 being built: g.co/maps/fgjbr
|
Maybe we should recruit more anti social groups, growth industry, recession over, kerching.
Maybe they should do evening underclasses..
|
evening underclasses..
>>
Very good..;)
|
>>lawyers, police, diversity co-ordinators, social workers, council repairmen and clean up crews<<
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease don't mention s/workers!
:-(
|
>>
>> Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease don't mention s/workers!
>>
>> :-(
>>
After the ordeal they will need - wait for it -
counselling. :)
|
...counselling. :)...
The travellers and the social workers.
|
Further hold up. Today's judgement delayed and two further challenges lodged.
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/23/dale-farm-eviction-delayed
But I sense the judge is trying to manage excpectations. Some things might move in the margins or for individuals but he's pretty clear it's about how not when.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 23 Sep 11 at 15:28
|
This reminds me of:
the UK planning system and
The b***** Sunday Enquiry
Why ?
Because they all last a long time.. far longer than any sane person would consider reasonable.
They cost a great deal of money.
Almost all that money is paid to lawyers.
It would have been far quicker and easier to say we are going to compensate the people involved very generously on the basis that ALL have to agree not to object as one objection would kill the deal.
So the result would be the money paid to lawyesr goes to those affected by the planning/killing/eviction and it all takes place harmoniously.
Anyone trying to take advantage of such generosity in future by being b minded could be prevented by suitable safeguards.
We end up with the worst of all worlds.
huge fees to lawyers
long delays
payments anyway (not in this case but the Council could have saved a fortune by offering incentives to leave)..
Byt then in most cases, I expect the ones offering advice were lawyers!
|
|
Looks like a young Tony Blair? or one of the Krays?
|
>> Looks like a young Tony Blair? or one of the Krays?
Is there a difference?
|
Dale Farm - R.P.
