Dale farm apply to English Heritage for listing

[Lime]

So how do you propose to make a flexible law?

The problem has been that the decision has not been made on sound planning lines but has instead been influenced by who the applicants are. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that all travellers are criminals, eat hedgehogs and would steel your children. But let us also remember that that is not material grounds for a planning decision.

Complete and utter fantasy.

The planning procedures and decisions in this case have been gone through with a fine tooth comb several times over and everything is correct and legal.
claiming the decision is based on prejudice is an attempt by you to discredit a system that protects our countryside from illegal, speculative development.
The encampment next to a legal travellers site was exactly that, illegal, speculative development, no more no less.

The council are to be applauded for taking the care that they have.

 

[Penners]

Come on now Penners , your just being silly.

I'll confess to being a bit flippant, Rob, but if anything's silly it's your suggestion that laws could be flexible. An act is either legal or illegal - you can't have a law which is sometimes applied and sometimes not.

the law is flexible. In the case of the shop in my town the original decision to not grant retrospective planning permission was reversed. This shop was on an industrial trading estate away from the town centre in an area where the policy is not to have small retail units as it is regarded a detriment to the town centre.

You really need to understand the concept of legality. If the law specifies that a development which has planning consent is legal, then - once planning consent is granted (beforehand or retrospectively) - the development is legal. Whether you and/or others regard the planning decision as right is nothing to do with its legality.

 

[robgil]

Sorry Penners , I disagree, laws can be flexible, or certainly punishment can be flexible.

For instance, my friends dad is a police man, he was caught doing 35 in a 30 zone and all he got was a warning letter sent through the post , you or be would have had points on our licence.
Tony fighting his illegal wars , most p[people would be put through the grinder for the crimes he has committed.


So , those who make and enforce the laws can indeed bend them.

Ids there a law that says a council cannot make a whole community homeless?

 

[Penners]

Sorry Penners , I disagree, laws can be flexible, or certainly punishment can be flexible.

Sorry, Rob, but you're confusing offence and punishment.

The law cannot be flexible. Punishments can - because the law says they can. Most offences carry a punishment of "from... to ...." (e.g. from 6 months to 3 years). The judge is given the legal right/duty to decide how serious any specific example of the offence may be, hence how far up the specified scale the punishment should be applied.

 

[CliffordPope]

The law cannot be flexible. .

But the decision whether to enforce a law is infinitely flexible. The decision whether to prosecute or enforce a breach depends on the proportionality, the public interest, the chances of getting a conviction, and the cost.
It also often depends on public opinion of the moment.
And political opportunism. It's illegal to bribe foreigners to buy our goods. But not if they are Saudi Arabians.

 

[Pford75]

I've stayed out of this as much as possible, but there are a few myths to dispel....

1. The travelers are not being made 'homeless', many of them own property back in Ireland (see the BBC news report)
2. All of them were offered bricks and mortar accommodation - it is a fallacy to suggest that this doesn't meet with their 'cultural needs' since they haven't been travelling for the past 10 years anyway.
3. The local council is an elected body - if there really is such strong opposition to what the council has done, then they will lose the next election...democracy in action. If the majority of the populace supports their actions, then they should be applauded for representing the people.
4. Many of the 'activists' are just professional troublemakers and violent hooligans. I think it's safe to assume that at least some of them are claiming benefits, paid for by the rest of us whilst 'protesting'.
5. You suggest that they weren't harming anyone. That is not the case. Local residents have been constantly harassed and abused to the point that many are too intimidated to speak out any more

 

[biffvernon]

All the talk about flexibility of law, prosecution and punishment rather misses the point that planning is not part of criminal law. We're only talking about planning decisions. :roll:

Pford75, your points 1 to 5 are not relevant to a planning decision. #5 is an allegation of criminal behaviour and I, for one, would welcome the full force of the criminal law in all its majesty being brought to bear upon people found guilty of a criminal offence.

But do let's keep the strawmen out of it.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

All the talk about flexibility of law, prosecution and punishment rather misses the point that planning is not part of criminal law. We're only talking about planning decisions. :roll:

Wrong Biff. Plain and simply, wrong.

Contravention of planning law is not a criminal offence, you're right. However, failure to comply with an enforecement notice is a criminal offence. It's section 179 of the TCPA if you'd like to check. Penalties are upto £20k fine at maigsitrates court and unlimited upon indictment (Crown court conviciton).

Dale Farm residents contravened planning law. The law was questioned and upheld. When they failed to comply with those enforcement notices/actions, they then committed criminal offences.

This has nothing to do with prejudice against travellers - it is simply the enforecement of planning decisions that have been through all the appropriate scrutiny processes and been confirmed as correct and lawful.

Those who are suggesting this is about prejudice, cultural insensitivity, or making whole communities "homeless" are those who are making strawmen arguements.

Can we please move on to something more substantial?

EDIT - Interestingly, a quick bit of research shows that if the non-compliance has led to the contravener making money from the contravention (eg unscrupulous developers building flats without permission), then they can (and have been on occasion) be pursued under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; failure to cough up at that stage is an imprisonable offence.

 

[Flyfisher]

However, failure to comply with an enforecement notice is a criminal offence.

Indeed. That was the point in my previous post about Herts council acting quickly to prevent illegal occupation of a site:

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Birch-Green-traveller-freed-by-judge-06102011.htm[/url]"]

A FATHER of three jailed for defying a court order barring him from occupying a field in Birch Green was freed today (Thurs Oct 6) after he promised a judge he would do “whatever you want me to do” to show his remorse.

Thomas Cash, 29, was jailed for four months on Monday (October 3) by Judge Richard Seymour QC for failing to obey an injunction issued over the August bank holiday, directing that the site off the Old Coach Road be cleared.

The order was granted to East Herts Council by Mr Justice Parker on the August Bank Holiday weekend, just as council officers feared that travellers were moving onto the land.

When the order was served on him, Mr Cash was so stunned by the speed of the court process he thought it was a joke, London's High Court heard.

He was hauled before Judge Seymour on Monday for failing to comply with the injunction and spent three days in Pentonville Prison before his case returned to court today as he applied to “purge his contempt” and secure his release.

Mr Cash told Judge Seymour he was “really sorry for not going with the injunction” and promised to remove half of the laid ground on the site as soon as possible, and to ensure no more caravans move onto the plot.

The judge agreed to release him, but warned: “What you did was to defy the court, that’s what brought about your present situation. You now know that the court never sleeps."

“Whatever you want me to do, I will do straight away,” said a contrite Mr Cash.

 

[biffvernon]

Wrong Biff. Plain and simply, wrong. Contravention of planning law is not a criminal offence, you're right.

Love it

It's the planning law I was talking about, not the contempt of court. :roll:

 

[biffvernon]

This blog piece is probably applicable to some on this forum: http://mattpearson.org/2011/10/20/dale-farm-racists-and-the-law-must-be-upheld-brigade/

 

[FamilyWiggs]

It's the planning law I was talking about, not the contempt of court. :roll:

Yeah - whatever Biff. I think we know what you were talkng about. We only have to read the whole thread to see.

This blog piece is probably applicable to some on this forum: http://mattpearson.org/2011/10/20/dale-farm-racists-and-the-law-must-be-upheld-brigade/

This really is getting tedious now, Biff.

The law is the law and should be upheld equally. If Tescos or the pensioners' developer do not have planning permission, then equally the law should apply. It is utterly irrelevant whether the transgressors are Tescos, developers who've sold on to pensioners, or travellers.

However, if the planning application is judged differently on appeal, then they have had the same opportunities as Dale Farm and have been very lucky to get a decision in their favour. As Penners explained earlier, retropsective approval makes them legal (and lucky).

Personally, I would do away with retrospective approval. That would discourage anyone chancing it.

Dale Farm is history. Now, can we please move on to something a little more substantive and important?

 

[skier-hughes]

I must be a racist as I can't stand smokers puffing their smoke at me, so I have to breathe it and get lung cancer and die.
Although, if Tesco had their applications declined I'd be just as happy to say they should remove their car park, or make their store smaller.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I must be a racist as I can't stand smokers puffing their smoke at me, so I have to breathe it and get lung cancer and die.
Although, if Tesco had their applications declined I'd be just as happy to say they should remove their car park, or make their store smaller.

Graham - and you can spell "breathe" differently to "breath" which is more than the author of Biff's article! :roll:

 

[middi]

I have been somewhat indirectly involved with the problems at dale farm and the travellers. ( my wife has been dealing with the travellers issue for a number of years answering public concerns evenings, weekends and even when we have been on holiday abroad).

The council made one massive cock up by letting the travellers " overspill" onto land that had no planning permission by not taking prompt action, and spend a few tens of thousands, to move the travellers on to where they were supposed to be going, ie TRAVELLING !!!!!, They must have decided it would be better to spend tens of MILLIONS!!! ten years later.
The Fact remains, the travellers have broken a law for which we all have to abide by but the relevant council is only guilty of inefficient political wrangling and stupidity for wasting tax payers money.

The travellers are on the wrong side of the law and they know it, they also know that most of the time they operate on the wrong side of the law and get away with it ( not law abiding tavellers of course).

I also know that when I had to accompany my wife ( with other councillors) at 11 pm on some sites where she had to give notice to travellers to move on ( must be done within 24 hours otherwise legal , and terribly expensive !!, proceedings are required), the children were send out to tug at my wife's skirt to please let them stay. Ironically the only two travellers I know are really nice people and one of them is a bailif on one of our fishing lakes.
I see the whole situation as a failure of humanity for not been able to reconcile the different needs and customs and live in harmony.
The story of our life I'm afraid.

Middi

 

[robgil]

Lets just clear up the 'travellers not travelling' thing, the term 'travellers' is a term we gave to gypsies, gypsies do not have to be constantly travelling to be gypsies, the whole travellers not travelling argument is born out of ignorance towards the gypsies culture.

 

[middi]

Let us get things straight mr R.

"Travellers" with horse and cart or " Gypsies" with cart and horse means the same thing. They ALL had that nomadic lifestyle and " travelled" along what used to be dirt roads and living off the land which was not necessarely theirs by deed. NO fixed abode was their way. Absolutely nothing wrong as to how some individuals choose to live, procreate and evolve into small comunities.
The problem is that as mankind has evolved, so have the " travelling" fraternity. Their horse and carts have been replaced by trucks and 4x4's, better hospitals, proper schools etc. etc. The word " traveller" is something they are quite happy to associate themselves with as long as they contribute ( as traditionally existed) "naff all" to share in the benefits wich the majority of the population has to pay to sustain. They have decided that if they buy land they can do what they like with it, after all their forefathers lived off the land when it wasn't even theirs !!!. As they now own land and like the " trappings " of our society they want to be refered to as "travellers" but reside on their land so they can benefit from that part of lifestyle which the non traveller pays for. The situation is, as you appreciate, a lot more complex, but put in a nut shell they want the "cake and eat it".
They have a massive argument to substantiate their case, such as " it is not our fault you tarmacked the roads which we were using" or " we didn't need drains, we were quite happy to p!$$ and $^^t along the verge".( but, thanks for the drain covers, they fetch good price :wink: )
THeir Downfall is to blatantly build cosy settlements without permission to do so and to be recognised as travellers, and have no intention of integrating within a society that has a set of rules and law to abide by. They have their own set of rules
We do not call them " travellers", they want to be known as " travellers".
Good luck to them. As they are part of "OUR" society we have a responsability for their wellfare ( that's how we operate),
The problem ( and rift ) we have is that they will only accept help if it fits in with their rules.

Middi

 

[middi]

.....Actually, I have just been informed ( by my wife !) that they want the word "TRAVELLER" to be ofiicially recognised as a sector of comunity with their own set of rules and to not be assimilated with the rest of society !!!.

( I bet they will succeed.., and good luck to them, as long as they abide by the officially recognised laws of status)

Middi

 

[biffvernon]

What does "officially recognised laws of status" mean?
Which laws did Travellers or Gypsies ever have a hand in making? Every law in the land was made by folk who live 'in brick'.

 

[robgil]

omany gypsies have a very interesting history, one full of prejudice and ignorance towards their way of life, they are only a part of our society because we leave them no choice, dictatorship?
'Travellers' as we like to call them and there for has become a common descriptive term for someone who prefers to live their lifestyle at one time in our very recent history would park up on designated land on the outskirts of villages to do seasonal agricultural work, as the work dried up so did the halting sites, society no longer needed gypsies.
I would recommend anyone with an interest or opinion on the gipsy culture to actually do some research beyond listening to bs stories about theft etc and bad press to fuel 'news' paper sales , I would hazard a guess that most who are happy to form an opinion on the gipsy culture probably have never even spoken to a gipsy regarding the subject.