Dale farm apply to English Heritage for listing

[robgil]

.....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

I dont see a real problem with that, if two very separate society's live side by side they must live in harmony, harmony being not imposing your laws on the minority.I dont see too many gypsies imposing their laws upon us yet we are quite happy to do it to them, in fact a lot of people would like to see them put into housing and their way of life stamped out altogether, as we have seen at Dale farm.
Perhaps most are just envious of their freedom from the trappings and grind that we have become accustomed to and see as 'normal'.

 

[middi]

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'.

I am not absolutely sure Biff. ( neither is anybodyelse !!). As members of society, and embracing a different culture from the " brick dwelling" folks, they feel that their culture should be recognised and respected by the settled comunity( ie, me and you) as an "ethnic " minority and their customs totally respected. ( ie, "you get planning approval , we don't need one" ).

I know, it's absurd.
It's a bit like saying " pass a law that is an offence not to love travellers).

Middi

 

[Lime]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I ask myself the question would my feelings be any different if Dale Farm had not been inhabited by travellers?
i.e. if Dale farm was owned and populated by folk who live 'in brick'.

The answer is no.
My opinion would remain the same.

What Tesco do or not is immaterial.

 

[philpjuk100]

Like Robert Fidler who built his "castle" behind straw bales without pp?

 

[Pford75]

On a sloghtly different topic...if a council has to undertake an enforcement action, they normally bill the householder. When our wall became dangerous and required rebuilding, I was given 28 days to demolish it and make it safe....or the council would do so themselves....and send me the bill.

Can we assume that the residents of Dale Farm are not being billed for the enforcement action?

 

[MatthewC]

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'.

That "in brick" comment reminds me of an argument my late father-in-law had many years ago with a traveller who came to his door selling something. My father-in-law had strong views on this behaviour and refused him, so the traveller searched for a rude term to end the discussion and eventually came up with "people like you, you ..err... ratepayer!"

 

[robgil]

Like Robert Fidler who built his "castle" behind straw bales without pp?

I could show you half a dozen or more buildings around here without PP, no evictions or bull dozer's though.
I could also show you a very very old thatched cottage whose garden has a lovely , modern housing estate crammed into it,it is owned by a developer who will eventually sell the cottage when he is through with it.
I will try and get a photo during the week, it's really quite sickening.
Some laws are so obviously bent when you know which back to scratch! You never know, perhaps that particular back was someone's relative.

 

[robgil]

On a sloghtly different topic...if a council has to undertake an enforcement action, they normally bill the householder. When our wall became dangerous and required rebuilding, I was given 28 days to demolish it and make it safe....or the council would do so themselves....and send me the bill.

Can we assume that the residents of Dale Farm are not being billed for the enforcement action?

Yes we can, you had a dangerous wall, they didnt. Two very different sets of circumstances.

 

[philpjuk100]

18 October 1995


HOUSE DEMOLITION:


HOUSE DEMOLITION: Council workers bulldozed an 18th-century
18.10.95 cottage in Leicestershire because planning permission for
TX alterations had not been sought.

The owner was billed for the cost of demolition (I doubt he paid though) no local firm would do it so a team from London did it.They were guarded by an armed "swat" force,All a bit like Dale farm.We lived nearby and were quite impressed at the care and detail taken over the restoration from a "ruin"

 

[biffvernon]

Some laws are so obviously bent when you know which back to scratch!

In a truly exceptionally extreme case a few years ago a Lincolnshire Conservative Councillor was actually sent to prison for the actions he took with regard to his own land, development upon it, planning permission and his own position on the Planning Committee. But that was a rare result!

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I ask myself the question would my feelings be any different if Dale Farm had not been inhabited by travellers?
i.e. if Dale farm was owned and populated by folk who live 'in brick'.

The answer is no.
My opinion would remain the same.

What Tesco do or not is immaterial.

Well done Lime - quite agree. I am equally pleased that Robert Fidler and recalcitrant Conservatve councillors in Lincolnshire have had the same actions upheld against them. I guess it shows the law can be even-handed.

This has nothng to do with travellers, gypsies or racism - depste the attempt by some to construct these strawmen. :lol:

The fact that some observers may, unfortunately, view Dale Farm throught a racist or prejudiced prism does not ergo make the action itself racist. It can be a useful crutch to the strawmen to portray it as such, though. :roll:

 

[Flyfisher]

In a truly exceptionally extreme case a few years ago a Lincolnshire Conservative Councillor was actually sent to prison for the actions he took with regard to his own land, development upon it, planning permission and his own position on the Planning Committee. But that was a rare result!

Private Eye's 'Rotten Boroughs' column is full of similar examples of dubious council, er, arrangements - from both sides of the political spectrum

It's sad, of course, to read such things but should we really be surprised that some people break the law? There are some bad people in the world. That's life.

 

[Penners]

At the risk of sounding like a cracked record on this principle, I'll repeat it:

If a law gets broken - with or without impunity - that doesn't automatically make it a bad law. It makes the enforcement questionable and fallible.

If some dodgy planning practices have been allowed to wriggle through the system through error or corruption, don't blame the planning laws. Blame the perpetrators of the practices and/or those who have failed to prosecute them.

 

[biffvernon]

And on the other hand, some things are perfectly legal but far more damaging to humanity and the planet on which we depend. The biggest threat to the long term survival of our species is global warming yet flying is the most carbon intensive activity that most of us partake in. Many period properties are maintained with materials that needlessly imperil the rainforests. These things are legal because it is us who have made the laws and they are made to suit our chosen lifestyle.

When ecocide is made a crime then we may be judged on our carbon footprint. http://www.thisisecocide.com/

 

[JoceAndChris]

Laws are made, or repealed, out of strong evidence their influence might be a good thing, as well as current fashion, and national feeling. Smoking during pregnancy, smacking your kids at home and school, the death penalty - these things are plainly in living memory yet are now regarded with horror by many or most. Do we look back and think that the people who made and acted by those laws were monsters? Not really - you just think how times have changed.

The time isn't right for flying to be considered a heinous crime as the negative impact of it is too intangible for most, and the end of globalisation inconceivable.

 

[biffvernon]

You're wrong and you're right. There is strong evidence that burning fossil fuels will be our downfall - more significant than all the genocidal wars throught the course of history. But, as you say, the negative impact is too intangible for most or, at least, will affect future generations rather than our so we don't care much. We create the laws that are convenient for ourselves. Future generations (and travellers) are not involved.

 

[middi]

" we create laws that are convenient to ourselves". I couldn't have put it better than that, Biff.
( latest failures to highlight the fact that it does not work, such as the the Travellers and Gaddafi.

AS soon as the human race ( if they survive long enough !!) can truly believe and adhere to a terrestrial unwritten law to ensure safety, survival and elimination of ego and greed, peace and serenity among ouselves will be assured. Oddly enough nearly every Religion advocates such a law and, ironically, these same laws have been and are the cause of self inflicted death and destruction.

Let us face it, we humans hate law, (that is the reason why we make a law and then enjoy breaking it :wink: )

Middi

 

[Flyfisher]

There is strong evidence that burning fossil fuels will be our downfall - more significant than all the genocidal wars throught the course of history. But, as you say, the negative impact is too intangible for most or, at least, will affect future generations rather than our so we don't care much.

Unfortunately, I don't think the negative impact of not burning fossil fuels is intangible at all - that's the real problem. People know only too well that in the absence of practical alternatives their standards of living would plummet - as evidenced by the current overwhelming concern about the state of the global economic recession rather than catastrophic climate change. I've not heard any governments saying how good such a recession may be for the environment - imagine how popular that would be!

Meanwhile, we've just made it to 7 billion souls on the planet, so as fast as we manage to reduce our energy consumption there will be plenty of people waiting in the wings to ensure the overall demand for fossil fuels continues to rise - and in the absence of any practical alternatives, who can blame them?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15368276

 

[robgil]

A lot of laws are brought about to gain popularity and/or votes and dont really do any good at all except to make criminals out of other wise perfectly decent human beings.

 

[Lime]

A lot of laws are brought about to gain popularity and/or votes and dont really do any good at all except to make criminals out of other wise perfectly decent human beings.

I agree with that wholeheartedly.
However that is not what I think is in question here.
The Dale Farm issue can be split into two distinct parts.
The first is whether or not action should be taken (in the form of eviction and demolition) for a breach of the Planning laws.
The second is whether the laws are racist in as much they are made by those "in brick" (Gorgers) and not by the travelling community.

Another aspect pertaining to Dale Farm is whether the travelling community remain travellers when they become residents in their own property.
Logic would suggest not.
Even if they remain travellers why does that make them not subject to the law?
What other laws would anyone else consider that travellers are not obliged to obey because they did not have a part in their making?