Dale farm apply to English Heritage for listing

[worms]

I would want to triangulate any info I got from Wikipedia before being certain it was correct!

I believe that the closer you get to the North Pole, the less reliable triangulation becomes anyway. :wink:

:lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

For contentious issues such as this, I would want to triangulate any info I got from Wikipedia before being certain it was correct!

I entirely agree and was offering the wikipedia info as an alternative viewpoint rather than a definitive one. I feel sure that any dispute that has managed to rumble on for 10+ years is unlikely to have clear-cut origins or, perhaps, outcomes. Did I mention before that it's a right old mess?

 

[biffvernon]

They've broken the law.

I'm not sure that that in itself is a strong argument. Bad laws, such as those that discriminated on grounds of sex, get tend to get changed after people break them. Good laws, such as speed limits on roads, get broken by almost all motorists.

That's as spurious an argument as I've heard in a very long time. The reasons why laws get changed, and the extent to which people break laws, are irrelevant. The law hasn't been changed, so these people are breaking it.

If the law that these people have broken was bad, then by your argument, it would have been changed. God knows it's been broken often enough.

If motorists are caught breaking the speed limit, they get prosecuted. It's the law in action.

Leaving aside for a moment the merits, or lack thereof, of the Dale Farm case, when a law is bad it sometimes takes a long time to be seen as such and then a further long time for it to be changed. Think about women's votes. A lot of people breaking the 70mph limit on motorways law has minded the government to change the law. (Wrongly, in my estimation.)

 

[Flyfisher]

My bet is that the recently announced government review won't result in a change the 70mph speed limit. Everyone (well you know what I mean) drives at over 70mph on our motorways and 80mph is the de facto limit in practice, so there's no real need to change anything. If they do decide to increase the limit to 80mph then everyone will be driving at 90mph.

My apologies for the Daily Mail link but it was the first one I found: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375049/New-speed-camera-guidelines-allow-drivers-86mph-escape-fines.html

Personally, I can't get too agitated by people driving at 80mph on a dual carriage way, though I do find myself increasingly annoyed about people driving fast in towns. There are times when 20-25mph is more than enough.

 

[Penners]

when a law is bad it sometimes takes a long time to be seen as such and then a further long time for it to be changed.

So what exactly is the bad law that you feel should be changed? The law that says people can't set up up caravan encampments, houses, factories, airports...etc. without planning permission?

By the way, I quite agree with you about the 70 mph speed limit.

 

[biffvernon]

So what exactly is the bad law that you feel should be changed?

Ah, if only it were so simple. This isn't a case of one bad law that needs changing. We have, over the centuries, developed a legal framework of land tenure that discriminates against nomadic communities, marginalising travellers and gypsies.

 

[LadyArowana]

So what exactly is the bad law that you feel should be changed?

Ah, if only it were so simple. This isn't a case of one bad law that needs changing. We have, over the centuries, developed a legal framework of land tenure that discriminates against nomadic communities, marginalising travellers and gypsies.

I am a lot more nomadic than any of these so called travellers and I don't seem to have a problem.

 

[Penners]

a legal framework of land tenure that discriminates against nomadic communities, marginalising travellers and gypsies.

You mean that, on a very small, overcrowded island, all of the land is owned by somebody? That's hardly surprising is it?

The vast majority of the population accedes to this by participating in the system. We've created the legal structure by popular, democratic consent and - for the most part - we live by it. If we want somewhere to live, we buy or rent it. If we want to build a structure to live in, we seek the necessary consents to do so.

If I decide tomorrow that I fancy six months living in Shropshire, I don't have the automatic right to park a caravan on Farmer Blenkinsop's land and live in it. If I were to term myself "nomadic", why should I then gain that right?

It's inherent in any civilised society that we can't all just do anything that we want to do.

 

[LadyArowana]

Don't go to Shropshire, I am sure if you ask Joce very nicely she would let you and the esteemed Mrs P have a little holiday in her field. There must be plenty of tasks around BC that you could both help out with by way of recompense.

 

[Penners]

Attractive though the proposition may be*, Yer Ladyship, Joce's permission would rather negate the thrust of my argument!


*Except for the prospect of a caravan holiday. Definitely not my idea of fun.

 

[biffvernon]

I'm not especially interested in defending the behaviour of the Dale Farm residents, but I do think that the travellor issue should be looked at carefully.

You say that all of the land is owned by somebody. A surprising proportion is owned by a very small number of people and may, or may not have been obtained lawfully. One might consider how, in the 13th century, the Duke of Northumberland came by some of his land. Murder prevailed over law. It is doubtful that the enclosure movement and it's various constituted Acts could be described as the outcome of democratic consent. Much land was given to the Crown, as we know, by God. My ancester, Vernon de Vernon of Normandy was given Surrey, by William I, but somehow it was frittered away on a millenium of wine, women and song. I try to uphold the family tradition.

And then there is some land owned by local councils who happen to have a statutory obligation to provide sites for travelling folks.

If the fact that all land is owned by somebody is surprising it's more because we've got used to it rather than because of some fundamental ancient right. Land has been taken, claimed, occupied and the laws have been made by the landholders to vest themselves with legal protection for what they hold. Democracy has never had a look in.

And finally, democracy puts small minorities at a disadvantage. They don't get a look in when democracy stamps its seal of approval on undemocratic laws.

 

[Feltwell]

Don't go to Shropshire

Oy! What's wrong with Shropshire then? Lovely green place it is, one of England's least populated counties, plenty of room!

Actually, we have something of a history of dealing with invaders. We spent long enough trying to keep the Welsh out :wink:

(and vice versa, to be p.c.)

My ancester, Vernon de Vernon of Normandy was given Surrey, by William I, but somehow it was frittered away on a millenium of wine, women and song. I try to uphold the family tradition.

A fair sized chunk of Norfolk bears my name. Alas, I've yet to find the deed giving me ownership and Lordly powers.

 

[biffvernon]

We spent long enough trying to keep the Welsh out :wink:

Yeah, like history tends to be written by the winners. The Celts were in Shropshire first and got driven out by Angles, Saxons, Vikings and, it appears, settlers from Norfolk. If the Welsh tried re-invading it was just to claim their lost heritage.

Further reading:
http://www.who-owns-britain.com/

About the book
Who Owns Britain is the first detailed look at landownership in Britain in modern times. It:

Tells the story of the 'Lost Doomsday', the return of Owners of Land of 1872, until now the only comprehensive record of landownership in Britain ever compiled
Updates and examines who owns what in all 118 counties of Britain and Ireland
Compares landownership in Britain and Ireland then and now, highlighting how in Britain 70% of land is still owned by less than 1% of the population
Reveals the immovable vested interests of Britains landed aristocracy

This extraordinary investigation of Britain's best-kept secret also exposes:

The myth behind the alleged sarcity of land - less than 8% of the country is under concrete
The ongoing failure of the Land Registry - 76 years on, up to 50% of the land in England and Wales remains unregistered
The scandalous undervaluation of the Crown Estate and its role as the next great Goverment sell-off
How the Church of England has 'mislaid' 1.5 million acres it owned 100 years ago
The startling accumulation of land by the Royal Family, who now own or control the equivalent of an average-sized county in England

 

[Moo]

Try as I might, I still don't understand a lot of things in this discussion.
The obvious one is, of course, the identity of the 'travellers' themselves.
They all seem to be Irish - are they British citizens, or do they still have Irish passports?
They have bought land in this country, and many of them own property in Ireland as well - how do they afford it, and do they pay income and council taxes?
They cll themselves Travellers, but seem to be fighting for the right to live in a static community so that their children can have continuous schooling and their sick and elderly can receive appropriate medical care.
They and their supporters talk about 'our way of life' - could someone explain what this is, and how it differs from the rest of us?

and, on the topic of laws that don't cater for minorities: regarding the proposed speed limit - should there be special dispensation for motorists who own cars (Ferraris and the like) that are happiest when travelling much, much faster than the specified limit?

 

[Feltwell]

it appears, settlers from Norfolk.

Blimey - that's pretty bang up to date, I've only been here for 5 years. I had no idea my influence was such it would go in the history books.

 

[biffvernon]

regarding the proposed speed limit - should there be special dispensation for motorists who own cars (Ferraris and the like) that are happiest when travelling much, much faster than the specified limit?

No! Apart from all the other reasons, Ferraris and the like are still bound by the same laws of physics as other cars. Momentum = mass x velocity or, put another way, fast cars cause more damage when they crash. More people will be killed.

 

[biffvernon]

They all seem to be Irish - are they British citizens, or do they still have Irish passports?

Now there's a thing. The English invaded Ireland, subjugating all the people to the will and whim of the British Crown. In exchange they became British citizens but most of them thought that a poor deal so fought a war to regain their independence. Of course it was a rather half-hearted war with a half-hearted outcome, leaving the Irish in charge of part of Ireland with a right to reside in what remained of Britain. That was just as well for the English who benefited from cheap Irish labour that built much of the transport infrastructure and contributed widely to the construction industry.

(The people described as 'Travellers' are mostly of Irish descent, whilst 'Gypsies' or 'Romanies' are something completely different.)

 

[biffvernon]

They and their supporters talk about 'our way of life' - could someone explain what this is, and how it differs from the rest of us?

A significant difference is that they don't live 'in brick'. The rest of British society tends to live in small family units, or individually, in permanent buildings and tend not to live very close to their relatives and closest friends. The travellers tend to live in caravans, mobile homes and chalets, and may or may not stay in the same place for extended periods. A key feature is living in very close proximity to their extended family and friends. There has been a recent trend to live in the same place for longer, especially as the benefits of settled schooling for their children has been recognised. Our school system has been notoriously bad at coping with the education of traveller's children.

An Englishman's home is his castle, unless he is a traveller; then it is the open road.

 

[biffvernon]

do they pay income and council taxes?

I expect some of them don't, but legal tax 'avoidance' and illegal 'evasion' are certainly not the prerogative of the travellers.

 

[Penners]

You say that all of the land is owned by somebody. A surprising proportion is owned by a very small number of people and may, or may not have been obtained lawfully. One might consider how, in the 13th century, the Duke of Northumberland came by some of his land. Murder prevailed over law. It is doubtful that the enclosure movement and it's various constituted Acts could be described as the outcome of democratic consent. Much land was given to the Crown, as we know, by God. My ancester, Vernon de Vernon of Normandy was given Surrey, by William I, but somehow it was frittered away on a millenium of wine, women and song. I try to uphold the family tradition.

Oh, perleeease! If you have to cite the injustices of some 800 years ago in support of the Dale Farm people, may I suggest that this seems like...how can I put it?... scraping the bottom of the argumental barrel?!

Mind you, Vernon de Vernon sounds like my kinda guy.

democracy puts small minorities at a disadvantage.

Indeed it does. That's the whole principle upon which it is based. The wishes of the majority constitute the laws of the land.

Sounds fair and reasonable to me.