The Dale Farm fiasco

Status
Not open for further replies.
neil_g said:
I said possible, I didn't it was fact.

Plus when were the figures on that website started from?

Only offering suggestions, don't hang me for that.
Click to expand...

;) - not hanging anyone or trying to :)

upmystreet.com says it pulls its crime figures from the home office and the ONS
 
I used to work near basildon , it was an absolute **** hole - but no worse for travelers than elsewhere ( I managed the laidon reserve) and as i recall 90% of our problems were with the local chavtastic hoodrats - joyriding, burning out cars, drinking, smoking, snifing and injecting in the woods, pouring petrol down badger setts and lighting it, trashin or stealing site furniture etc - most of that crime was never recorded because the police werent especially interested , as to be fair they had larger concerns,
 
Last edited:
As said above they've got to live somewhere. They'll get moved on, set up somewhere less convenient like the local beauty spot, wreck it then be moved on again, to the next spot, see the cycle?? And all at the taxpayers expense.

Better off they're somewhere where they're happy to stay.

Don't blame them for playing the racism card.... everyone else seems to get away with it.
 
big soft moose said:
I used to work near basildon , it was an absolute **** hole - but no worse for travelers than elsewhere ( I managed the laidon reserve) and as i recall 90% of our problems were with the local chavtastic hoodrats - joyriding, burning out cars, drinking, smoking, snifing and injecting in the woods, pouring petrol down badger setts and lighting it, trashin or stealing site furniture etc - most of that crime was never recorded because the police werent especially interested , as to be fair they had larger concerns,
Click to expand...

...like various shootings at Dale Farm !
 
jimmyb said:
As said above they've got to live somewhere.
Click to expand...

Actually, about 20 years ago they built a council run traveller site, with all the facilities, water, electric etc not far from where I lived. I don't think I ever saw it being used and it's now an overgrown piece of wasteground.

They have, however, taken over a field not far down the road....:shrug:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Actually, about 20 years ago they built a council run traveller site, with all the facilities, water, electric etc not far from where I lived. I don't think I ever saw it being used and it's now an overgrown piece of wasteground.

They have, however, taken over a field not far down the road....:shrug:
Click to expand...

I thought 'Wild camping' was allowed in Scotland? :D
 
neil_g said:
Give them a break they have got all those nice shiny pickups and vans to run and that can't be cheap..

;)
Click to expand...

I dunno - if you nick the vehicle, dont pay road tax or insurance, and steal your deisel from local farms or by driving off without paying from petrol stations, the ruinning costs are pretty much negligible
 
Gypsies and travellers have extra rights under planning legislation (whether or not that's fair to other people). It seems to me that the main problem here may be that the local authority has been so terrified of being accused of racism that they haven't done their job properly.

Having said that, there are no simple answers.
My family has had a running fight with a planning authority, one of the National Parks, for years, and has finally given up because the fight can't be won.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the actual planning application, the planning authority and it's employees have constantly lied, ignored their own rules and procedures, prevented their own planning committee from actually deciding on the application and yet have won at two public inquiries, simply because the 'Independent' Planning Inspector (an ex planning officer of course) accepts everything that they say as true and ignores all evidence to the contrary.

Given that this sort of behaviour is fairly common with planning authorities, there has to be legal safeguards to protect the interests of the planning applicants, to stop or at least slow down the abuse of process by the planning officers.

But one thing that the local authority could have done and maybe should have done but didn't - they could have issued a stop notice to prevent any further development, and if that stop notice was ignored they could have taken immediate action, because any further development after the issue of a stop notice would have been a criminal offence.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Gypsies and travellers have extra rights under planning legislation (whether or not that's fair to other people). It seems to me that the main problem here may be that the local authority has been so terrified of being accused of racism that they haven't done their job properly.
Click to expand...

Indeed! ......... And their-in lies the problem.
 
listened to the phone in on 5 live at work on sunday night and one of the resident travellers was on and apparently they were willing to move on if the council paid them 6 million pounds.
 
steunited said:
listened to the phone in on 5 live at work on sunday night and one of the resident travellers was on and apparently they were willing to move on if the council paid them 6 million pounds.
Click to expand...

I spoke to a traveller who was getting moved off their site to make way for the Commonwealth Games site and they were telling me that he were hoping to get enough compensation from the council to buy a bungalow (from about £400k in the area he mentioned) and there were probably a dozen families on the site in total.

In the end I think the council just gave them another piece of land (there are about 20 sites dotted around Glasgow) and some moving expenses....
 
boyfalldown said:
not really simples, keep shifting it where? you can't actually legally stop them building things on the land they own, the remedies are there after, generally not before hand.
Click to expand...

Shifting them off, not "where", and change things so that they cannot build and occupy without permission - same as everyone else. If they do build it is quickly demolished and they are 'encouraged' to either travel legally or if they are no longer 'travellers' settle in council arranged sites or normal housing.
Didn't I read above that there were 38 plots available to this lot on the legally settled part of this particular site?
Why is that unacceptable to them?
 
gramps said:
Shifting them off, not "where", and change things so that they cannot build and occupy without permission - same as everyone else. If they do build it is quickly demolished and they are 'encouraged' to either travel legally or if they are no longer 'travellers' settle in council arranged sites or normal housing.
Didn't I read above that there were 38 plots available to this lot on the legally settled part of this particular site?
Why is that unacceptable to them?
Click to expand...

A lot of the Irish travellers actually have council houses back over there, so in theory those that do could simply go and live in those.....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
It can't be greenbelt and a scrapyard :lol:
Click to expand...

You still haven't told me what your point is?

It WAS (past tense) a scrap yard, it may have been greenbelt at the time as I'm pretty sure greenbelt status only prevents building on it but the most important fact is it is greenbelt land NOW.

Not far from this, a local farmer goes on holiday for two weeks every July/August and rents out his field to a load of travellers, normally 200 or so.

This year around 2000 turned up.

Local shops/pubs closed, the 24 hour Asda shut at 6pm everyday as the travellers were coming in en-mass and either using the toilets as washing facilities or blatantly walking out with trollies full of goods without paying and threatening anyone who tried to stop them.

They also were going round knocking on people's doors asking for water and taking dumps in front gardens.

These are not civilised people, they are tax dodgers and criminals!!!!

There are genuine Gypsy/travelling people but these aren't, I'll go back to the original argument, if they are travellers, why have they been in the same place for 10 years and built houses?

Incidentally, I have also heard on good authority that most of these people have proper houses in a small town in Ireland, they pretty much own all the land and return there every year and treat the place like a holiday camp. The resident locals despise them!
 
gramps said:
[SNIP] Didn't I read above that there were 38 plots available to this lot on the legally settled part of this particular site?
Why is that unacceptable to them?
Click to expand...

Because as far as I'm concerned this is just another way for them to flout the laws of the land.......

They want to to what they want, when they want and where they want while the rest of us have to work for a living, pay taxes and abide by the laws of the land.
 
gramps said:
Shifting them off, not "where", and change things so that they cannot build and occupy without permission - same as everyone else. If they do build it is quickly demolished and they are 'encouraged' to either travel legally or if they are no longer 'travellers' settle in council arranged sites or normal housing.
Didn't I read above that there were 38 plots available to this lot on the legally settled part of this particular site?
Why is that unacceptable to them?
Click to expand...

As an opinion, it looks to me like Basildon council simply wishes to shift the problem elsewhere, after all this is a planning dispute on land the travellers already own.

While I understand its greenfield land (though its disputed as to what hand the council had in its previous concreting over) the same council has also granted planning permission for a number of Barrett homes on its greenbelt recently.

I don't know if there are 38 plots available on the legal part of the land, but simple maths suggests that 1000 travellers on 38 plots of land they'd be 27 of them on each plot. I can understand why anyone would be unhappy with that, would you want to live 27 in a caravan size plot?.

I can't help thinking there is a far better solution to this then simply forcing them onto the road again, to shift elsewhere and have the whole sorry cycle restart, but if you simply resettle in council houses then

1) Why would they be any better behaved

and

2) it would actually cost a hell of a lot more

The pragmatic truth, like it or not is that those families will end up somewhere. As above a proper solution to the issue rather then simply 'encouraging' them to move on is the answer (move where?), after all I'm sure you'd like it as much as me if they ended up at the bottom of our respective roads
 
boyfalldown said:
[SNIP] I can't help thinking there is a far better solution to this then simply forcing them onto the road again, to shift elsewhere and have the whole sorry cycle restart, but if you simply resettle in council houses then

[SNIP]
Click to expand...

How can there be a better solution, they call themselves TRAVELLERS, by definition they shouldn't be settling anywhere and if they do they should be paying their dues and abiding by the law like the rest of us.

Also it was the "travellers" who threw down conrete/tarmac at the site as 3 people died there a few years back when fire broke out in one of the dwellings. Firefighters got there but found they'd tarmac'd over the hydrant.
 
Russ77 said:
How can there be a better solution, they call themselves TRAVELLERS, by definition they shouldn't be settling anywhere and if they do they should be paying their dues and abiding by the law like the rest of us.

Also it was the "travellers" who threw down conrete/tarmac at the site as 3 people died there a few years back when fire broke out in one of the dwellings. Firefighters got there but found they'd tarmac'd over the hydrant.
Click to expand...

so you think the way forward is just to have the same situation again, maybe down the road?

as per my post above the previous owner (although the council dispute it) say he and the council laid most of the hardcore.

If anyone concerted a hydrant then they simply deserve a Darwin award
 
Russ77 said:
You still haven't told me what your point is?

It WAS (past tense) a scrap yard, it may have been greenbelt at the time as I'm pretty sure greenbelt status only prevents building on it but the most important fact is it is greenbelt land NOW.
Click to expand...

My point was it's been a scrapyard for over 30 years, it was the council who changed the use from agricultural to commercial when they had the surface concreted over and started using it to store towed-away vehicles.

At best once the travellers have been removed and the site flattened it will be a brownfield site, it can never be greenfield again and that is where the council have a problem as they are using the pretext of wishing to restore the greenbelt as the excuse to evict the travellers.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
My point was it's been a scrapyard for over 30 years, it was the council who changed the use from agricultural to commercial when they had the surface concreted over and started using it to store towed-away vehicles.

At best once the travellers have been removed and the site flattened it will be a brownfield site, it can never be greenfield again and that is where the council have a problem as they are using the pretext of wishing to restore the greenbelt as the excuse to evict the travellers.
Click to expand...

I can see your point now but by letting them stay you set the bar for the "travellers" everywhere:

Stay on land illegally for X years and eventually the council will have to let you stay on it.

Yes, there probably should be more sites available to them but the problem normal, law-abiding citizens don't want them anywhere near where they live because of what the nearby residents of Dale Farm have experienced.

Where you have a handful of travellers living together it's not as bad, as soon as they start living in the numbers that are at Dale Farm they become a law unto themselves and begin to act like they rule the roost and that's simply not fair on local residents or businesses.
 
As far as I'm aware they do not own this land, they just moved onto it when it became empty.
As for no where to go. There is the remains of a traveller site in Upminster, Haveing Council built the site for them, with toilet blocks etc, probably around 40 years ago. The travellers that lived there wrecked it themselves within months and after a few years left and it has remained empty ever since.
There is another traveller site just on the outskirts of Upminster, can be seen from the M25 just after the A127 as you head for the Dartford Crossing. This particular site is a winter residence for Carnival travellers and is well kept and no trouble. I very much doubt if they'd want these travellers moving onto their site either.
 
Some of the posts in this thread are nothing short of despicable. There is a post on the first page where the poster says to 'shoot them on sight.' How can this be acceptable?
 
Which is why a couple of mods have already asked people to behave. Am I on global ignore or something :bang:
 
norters said:
Some of the posts in this thread are nothing short of despicable. There is a post on the first page where the poster says to 'shoot them on sight.' How can this be acceptable?
Click to expand...

Post your address up, I'll nip across the road with it and tell them you're more than happy to have them living with you :lol:
 
If they bought and legally owned the land across the road then its none of my business. I take it you agree with the 'shoot on sight' sentiment?
 
norters said:
Some of the posts in this thread are nothing short of despicable. There is a post on the first page where the poster says to 'shoot them on sight.' How can this be acceptable?
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was one about a "final solution" too, and a few suggestions about getting the army onto the streets and shooting looters during the recent riots. It's crass, but doubt if people really mean it. I would be concerned if I thought they did.
 
You have to see the irony - "travellers" fighting to settle
 
norters said:
Some of the posts in this thread are nothing short of despicable. There is a post on the first page where the poster says to 'shoot them on sight.' How can this be acceptable?
Click to expand...
I agree, saying that they should be treated violently and without regard for the law (the way that some of them treat other people) is nothing short of despicable. But maybe the people who are advocating extreme measures have actual experience of dealing with them, which makes their attitude understandable even though it isn't right...

There is another traveller site just on the outskirts of Upminster, can be seen from the M25 just after the A127 as you head for the Dartford Crossing. This particular site is a winter residence for Carnival travellers and is well kept and no trouble. I very much doubt if they'd want these travellers moving onto their site either.
Click to expand...
I think this sums it up nicely - there's a massive difference between the real travellers who work and who have a travelling lifestyle and the people who call themselves travellers
 
It just flies in the face of this being the friendliest forum on the internet. Don't get me wrong, the good people outnumber the crass/insensitive and downright despicable but as in life those ones shout the loudest. It always seems to be the same handful of people as well. Whether they do it to shock is irrelevant to me.
 
All it boils down to, as far as i am concerned, is that they are there illegally, they do not own the land so they should leave.
 
As far as I am aware the land is privately owned. The problem being some of the structures that have been built.

Simple thing to do would be do remove the offending structures or grant planning permission. Evicting families from their established homes should not he on the agenda.
 
boyfalldown said:
or moved it elsewhere? which isn't the same as preventing - as above it'd be great to explain how this nipping would work
Click to expand...

They could do what everyone else has to do..

Purchase land which is suitable in the first place
Seek planning permission

I understand that 1/2 the farm is OK planning wise

If 10 years ago, when the problem begun, the law was applied, yes temporarily a couple of families would have had to relocate to a suitable site, but also, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today
 
norters said:
If they bought and legally owned the land across the road then its none of my business. I take it you agree with the 'shoot on sight' sentiment?
Click to expand...

Nope, your assumption is incorrect. I'd shoot them on site ;)

Just kidding :lol:

You're right, it would be none of your business but if crime levels increased and as a result your property price decreased would you still be so understanding?
 
norters said:
Evicting families from their established homes should not he on the agenda.
Click to expand...

And there lies the biggest flaw in your and their argument.......

Surely T R A V E L L E R S should not have "established homes"??? :shrug:

That's like me saying "I've had enough of living on this estate..... that nice big open field looks nice, I'll build a house on there"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top