The Dale Farm fiasco

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jez2011 said:
WHOOSH!

Funny how the mods pick up on this but don't seem particularly bothered about a post calling for the bombing of unarmed civilians.
Click to expand...


Or someone citing the final solution!

They were probably just being ironic, weren't they? :|
 
boyfalldown said:
actually I have, but unless your proposing moving them to some location where they're no longer able to behave in that way, prison camp maybe? I'm not sure why moving them off land the currently own is any better solution then anything else?.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not seeking to defend their actions, just wondering why moving them from where they are now solves any issues
Click to expand...
I agree. Moving them elsewhere just spreads the problems elsewhere.
But does that mean that they should be allowed to get away with ignoring planning (and all other) laws and that they should be allowed to continue to make life hell for everyone else in their area?

Surely, the answer must be to treat everyone, regardless of race, lifestyle choices, religion or anything else exactly the same - no special treatment, no looking the other way, no hesitation from either police or any other authorities when they fail to obey the laws. If that happened, they would either not be a problem to their neighbours or they'd end up where other criminals end up.
 
Jez2011 said:
WHOOSH!

Funny how the mods pick up on this but don't seem particularly bothered about a post calling for the bombing of unarmed civilians.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the mods (including me) have already picked up on everything in this thread and have posted.
 
kelack said:
I was going to stay out of this as I have traveller friends and some of the posts in here are quite offensive but I'm putting my mod hat on and saying behave with the comments please.
Click to expand...

Jez2011 said:
WHOOSH!

Funny how the mods pick up on this but don't seem particularly bothered about a post calling for the bombing of unarmed civilians.
Click to expand...

WHOOSH!
 
If the council and government decide to shy away from dealing with this problem then what is to stop any person/group, be they Travellers or otherwise, from setting up semi-permanent houses in any bit of land they happened to own?

Anyone fancy living in a pretty little village near Reading? £30k gets you just over 3 acres. You can get a lot of caravans on there, in an area where a 3 bed semi is going for £385k.

The council gave them permission for a legal site and then they took the mickey. Planning laws are there for a reason.
 
As the crow flies, I work less than a mile from this fiasco!

The site which is on greenbelt land is owned by some of the travellers and there was permission for a number of legal plots, however over the last 10 years more and more "travellers" have pitched up and built on the land.

This has resulted in local residents seeing their property values plummet through the floor and their lives increasingly affected by crime.

Over the years the council has tried (and failed) to move on the travellers who have build on the land without permission.

There are a number issues here as far as I'm concerned but for now I'll ignore the fact that these "travellers" have been in the same place for 10 years, don't pay taxes but get all the benefits of the NHS and local education facilities and have generally made life unpleasant for all of the local residents who go to legitimate places of work and pay taxes.

The more important point is that they have built illegally on greenbelt land. Putting the greenbelt issue aside, if you or I built in our own back gardens without permission, it's likely that and retrospective planning permission would be granted and we'd be told to knock the building down, failure to do that would end up in swift court action/prosecution.

On top of this the council has been trying to work with these people and have made a number of council houses available, suggested other legal sites that have spaces available in neighbouring councils and even suggested that they use some of the unoccupied 38.... yes 38 LEGAL plots on the site.

Apparently none of them are suitable options which says to me that this lot are just sticking two fingers up at the establishment.

So IMVHO they should move off the land or face the consequences, it's as simple as that, they are supposedly travellers so they should live up to their name and travel!!!

Mod edit I don't think so ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the way things are going in the planning laws you'll pretty soon be able to do that anyway
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/09/ministers-hypocrisy-over-planning-regulations

that aside while its doubtless true that some , but not all, travellers are problematic - you do have to wonder about the outpouring of predjudice on both sides of the argument - if we were dealing with a gay couple who had built a house without PP you wouldnt have people calling for an airstrike, or sending in the army to evict them, but nor would you have handringing and people saying that they are a special case because of their sexuality.
 
Hmm, some of the suggestions here are far worse than the problem of the travellers!
To keep it in context this is a breach of planning laws, but the council should not back down, the law should apply to everyone.
My experience of travellers is seeing them moving onto land that they don't own and eventually leaving it in a terrible mess with the tab being picked up by the landowner or the tax payer r both.
It seems from some of the residents around this site that they are suffering many of the same problems that others have mentioned, rubbish, threats, crime etc.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Wasn't the site previously a scrapyard?
Click to expand...

That's a slight exaggeration..... It believe it was a farm and there were some old farming vehicles/machinery, however I don't see how/why that's relevant.

It is greenbelt now and that's what should matter.

It's like saying where I live used to be military ranges so the the local mafia could come and try out there weapons when they feel like it ;)
 
If this was anyone else but Gypsies then they would have been out a long time ago. Its just another sad addition to how this country is imploding.

The other thing I picked up on today was that there was a technicality with not serving them a notice period correctly to each individual dwelling. In my experience (which is limited) they don't know how to read and write anyway so its completely pointless.


These are my views, my thoughts and my idea to get rid of them would certainly not be PC but anyway, lets make sure we pay our taxes and keep britain a "Free" country for everyone of its people and the rest of the world that want us to pay for them too.
 
Russ77 said:
That's a slight exaggeration..... It believe it was a farm and there were some old farming vehicles/machinery, however I don't see how/why that's relevant.

It is greenbelt now and that's what should matter.

It's like saying where I live used to be military ranges so the the local mafia could come and try out there weapons when they feel like it ;)
Click to expand...

not according the previous owner

Bocking (the previous owner)said the council helped him put down hardcore because he had a contract with the council to collect abandoned cars and he was asked to store them on the site. Photographs from the 1990s show scores of cars covering more than half of Dale Farm next to the scrapyard.
Click to expand...

from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/16/dale-farm-concreted-basildon-council-owner?INTCMP=SRCH


Richard King said:
easier if it was nipped in the bud on day one
Click to expand...


while in no way defending them, how exactly would you propose 'nipping' and where exactly would you send them to?
 
Last edited:
I think 'nipped in day one' would have prevented the last 10 years of law-breaking :)
 
Russ77 said:
That's a slight exaggeration..... It believe it was a farm and there were some old farming vehicles/machinery, however I don't see how/why that's relevant.

It is greenbelt now and that's what should matter.

It's like saying where I live used to be military ranges so the the local mafia could come and try out there weapons when they feel like it ;)
Click to expand...

The previous owner, Raymond Bocking, says it was a hard-standing and had always been a scrapyard. If that's the case then the only way it can now be reclassified as greenbelt if it can be show as “having blended into the landscape in the process of time” which it obviously hasn't, so it's not greenbelt.....
 
gramps said:
I think 'nipped in day one' would have prevented the last 10 years of law-breaking :)
Click to expand...

or moved it elsewhere? which isn't the same as preventing - as above it'd be great to explain how this nipping would work
 
Last edited:
OK so it was a scrap yard but it was still on greenbelt which mean building is prohibited.

I still fail to see how it makes any of this right?
 
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...

Firm and consistent action everywhere would soon have brought an end to the continuing problem - once they learned that they could not just flout the law and there was no option but to live where provisions were made available (as is the case in this instance) the situation would change.
As it is, with the hand-wringing and failure to act this one case alone is going the cost the taxpayer thousands if not millions to resolve ... and by the way the taxpayer is you and me!
 
Splog said:
It is 'Green Belt' The previous owner is totally irrelevant!
Click to expand...

if you take the quote in, instead of out of context, its very relevant.

In summary for you

Someone else
"It was never a scrapyard"

Me
"Not what the previous owner says"

Simples! and I'm sure you got the relevance really :)


you'll note also I never said anything about Green belt, although for what its worth I'm not sure how any site anywhere thats spent the last 40 years as a scrapyard can be 'Green Belt'
 
Flash In The Pan said:
It can't be greenbelt and a scrapyard :lol:
Click to expand...

Why can't it be changed? It's not just about grass and green stuff!

The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belts is their openness.
Click to expand...
 
gramps said:
Firm and consistent action everywhere would soon have brought an end to the continuing problem - once they learned that they could not just flout the law and there was no option but to live where provisions were made available (as is the case in this instance) the situation would change.
As it is, with the hand-wringing and failure to act this one case alone is going the cost the taxpayer thousands if not millions to resolve ... and by the way the taxpayer is you and me!
Click to expand...

which is great bluster, but you've not actually said how you'd solve anything? :shrug:
 
boyfalldown said:
which is great bluster, but you've not actually said how you'd solve anything? :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think I did, but if you didn't understand, invoke the law and prevent movement onto the land in the first place.
 
boyfalldown said:
if you take the quote in, instead of out of context, its very relevant.

In summary for you

Someone else
"It was never a scrapyard"

Me
"Not what the previous owner says"

Simples! and I'm sure you got the relevance really :)


you'll note also I never said anything about Green belt, although for what its worth I'm not sure how any site anywhere thats spent the last 40 years as a scrapyard can be 'Green Belt'
Click to expand...

Green has sod all to do with anything and land status can be changed! .... My point was that whatever the previous owner said was totally irrelevant! :)
 
gramps said:
I think I did, but if you didn't understand, invoke the law and prevent movement onto the land in the first place.
Click to expand...

you've invoked the law, prevented all movement onto the land (which they already own, although that doesn't give them the right to build I agree) - but you can't really legally stop anyone going on to land they own. You've just moved the problem somewhere else, not solved it - thats the bit you seem to have difficulty understanding, so while you may think you solved the problem, all you've done is shifted it down the road
 
Keep shifting it until they decide to take the positive course, don't give them the opportunity to build - simples.
 
Just out of interest..... How much council tax have they been paying?
 
boyfalldown said:
but you could make that argument for any set of figures, what makes you think Basildon is particularly bad for recoding crime?
Click to expand...

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.
 
gramps said:
Keep shifting it until they decide to take the positive course, don't give them the opportunity to build - simples.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top