Dale farm apply to English Heritage for listing

[JoceAndChris]

For example, Rob?

I think we're pretty lucky to live in beautiful period properties in a hugely tolerant and fair country, in a peaceful and prosperous era. I'd have been hanged, stoned and had important bits removed in other places, but here, I seem to have got away with a misspent youth (part of which involved living in a van and realising that most of the bad things said about travellers are unfortunately true).

 

[Penners]

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.

I don't.

Yes, there are laws on the statute books that have probably been formulated mainly as vote-winners, but I find the assertion that these serve only to make criminals out of decent people very questionable.

Rob, if there are a lot of these laws, please could you list some of them, to enlighten me?

 

[Flyfisher]

I think we're pretty lucky to live in beautiful period properties in a hugely tolerant and fair country, in a peaceful and prosperous era.

Very true.
Context is all-important and it's easy to lose sight of such things during the daily grind - though it can be very cathartic to have a good old moan. :wink:

 

[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.

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

I don't.

Yes, there are laws on the statute books that have probably been formulated mainly as vote-winners, but I find the assertion that these serve only to make criminals out of decent people very questionable.

Rob, if there are a lot of these laws, please could you list some of them, to enlighten me?

That would only serve to fuel an entirely different debate Penners that isnt really a debate I wish to enter.The laws in question were not designed to make criminals out of decent people, that is just the end result of a law that is brought around to gain popularity and/or votes.

 

[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.

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?

I dont think it was a decision based on racism, I think it was based on the locals not wanting gipsies in the area. I think a lot of us here can imagine the mentality of small village folk, I am sure a lot of us can say they have experienced it first hand.
A lot of them claim the gipsies abused them, frankly I am not at all surprised.

 

[Penners]

That would only serve to fuel an entirely different debate Penners that isnt really a debate I wish to enter.

But it's a debate that you seemed prepared to initiate, with your statement above. Might one infer that you're having trouble supporting your own assertion?

 

[robgil]

That would only serve to fuel an entirely different debate Penners that isnt really a debate I wish to enter.

But it's a debate that you seemed prepared to initiate, with your statement above. Might one infer that you're having trouble supporting your own assertion?

Nope, nor did I initiate any debate, I simply pointed out a fact, you seem to be the one perusing the debate.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

That would only serve to fuel an entirely different debate Penners that isnt really a debate I wish to enter.

But it's a debate that you seemed prepared to initiate, with your statement above. Might one infer that you're having trouble supporting your own assertion?

Nope, nor did I initiate any debate, I simply pointed out a fact, you seem to be the one perusing the debate.

I think we're all perusing the debate, Rob; but only some are also pursuing it! 8) :wink:

 

[robgil]

It would probably take us that far off topic even Fred Drift would get confused .

 

[biffvernon]

Rob, if there are a lot of these laws, please could you list some of them, to enlighten me?

Well, with no fear of controversy, how about starting with the law that makes smoking cannabis, which kills approximately nobody, illegal while allowing the smoking of tobacco that kills approximately zillions.

Or what about the law that prevents people walking naked down the street? I may not wish to do it myself (you'll be relieved to hear) but I don't see why it has to be illegal.

Of course when it comes to period properties the civil law of Buildings Regulations throws up plenty of bizarre situations. I'm making some windows for a room in an old house. One, at the rear of the house, MUST be double glazed to conform with Part L while the other, front-facing, MUST be single glazed to conform with Listed Buildings Consent.

I'll not bother listing all the contraventions of Buildings Regulations that I and my customers may or may not have committed over the years.

Sometimes, as Mr Bumble observed, the law is an ass.

 

[robgil]

I think we're all perusing the debate, Rob; but only some are also pursuing it! 8) :wink:

Damn sp3ll check, and to top it off my note book ran out of warranty 7 days ago and the keyboard packed up, I am using the on screen keyboard, which is very frustrating.

 

[robgil]

Rob, if there are a lot of these laws, please could you list some of them, to enlighten me?

Well, with no fear of controversy, how about starting with the law that makes smoking cannabis, which kills approximately nobody, illegal while allowing the smoking of tobacco that kills approximately zillions.

Or what about the law that prevents people walking naked down the street? I may not wish to do it myself (you'll be relieved to hear) but I don't see why it has to be illegal.

Of course when it comes to period properties the civil law of Buildings Regulations throws up plenty of bizarre situations. I'm making some windows for a room in an old house. One, at the rear of the house, MUST be double glazed to conform with Part L while the other, front-facing, MUST be single glazed to conform with Listed Buildings Consent.

I'll not bother listing all the contraventions of Buildings Regulations that I and my customers may or may not have committed over the years.

Sometimes, as Mr Bumble observed, the law is an ass.

There goes the original topic. :lol:

 

[biffvernon]

There goes the original topic. :lol:

Oh you have to get a Period Property mention in every couple of pages of any thread or admin might close it down

 

[JoceAndChris]

I think we're all perusing the debate, Rob; but only some are also pursuing it! 8) :wink:

Damn sp3ll check, and to top it off my note book ran out of warranty 7 days ago and the keyboard packed up, I am using the on screen keyboard, which is very frustrating.

Never mind your peruse/pursue conundrum; I'm just delighted (as an ex-English teacher) that you have cracked the capital I. We'll soon have you onto semi-colons.

 

[robgil]

We'll soon have you onto semi-colons.

Ooooh matron.
Bagsy not penners colon, what with his bad back and all. :lol:

Edit = I somehow read that as into semi colons.

 

[biffvernon]

Now this is thread drift up with which I will not put.

Let's hear it for the gypsies.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Never mind your peruse/pursue conundrum; I'm just delighted (as an ex-English teacher) that you have cracked the capital I. We'll soon have you onto semi-colons.

Joce, I'm perplexed. Which nationality have you now become? Or are you actually an ex-teacher of English?

I think we should be told.... 8)

 

[JoceAndChris]

Oops! there was a superfluous hyphen there, I'm forced to admit.

 

[Penners]

the law that makes smoking cannabis, which kills approximately nobody, illegal while allowing the smoking of tobacco that kills approximately zillions.

Or what about the law that prevents people walking naked down the street? I may not wish to do it myself (you'll be relieved to hear) but I don't see why it has to be illegal.

Well, firstly, there is no law that makes smoking tobacco legal. There is simply a lack (largely for historical reasons) of a law that makes it illegal - except in a large number of places. In the case of cannabis, the deleterious effects of it are not yet completely understood, but it has been shown to have an adverse effect on brain function, problem solving, learning and memory, with the strong indication that in certain people its repeated use can lead to psychosis (this happened to the son of friends of ours, who ultimately committed suicide).

I carry no brief whatsoever in support of tobacco, but let's not promulgate the ill-informed view that cannabis is harmless. I don't see that the legality of tobacco makes (to refer back to Rob's original point) a criminal out of anybody. The illegality of cannabis has certainly made criminals out of suppliers, and with some good reason.

As for walking naked down the the street, isn't it illegal to scare the horses?

Really, Biff, if those are the best you can come up with as a canon of laws that support Rob's original assertion*, I suggest that you're scraping the bottom of a very shallow barrel.

* "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."

 

[Penners]

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.

Nope, nor did I initiate any debate, I simply pointed out a fact

Ah - so you have the right to respond to and argue with posts by others, but yours are unarguable facts. Have I got that right?