# Basildon site action on 19 September



## Alaska Guy (Sep 17, 2011)

I get email updates through my work about the imminent evictions at that site in Basildon, Essex. The local council have sent out alerts to all other councils and police authorities warning people to make sure that properties are adequately secured in case of a large scale dispersal of travellers. 
I have posted this because this might cause forum members problems in the near future, as police, local councils and private landowners might get a bit twitchy over camper vans in their patch overnighting in what we would just see as responsible wild camp spots.

BBC News - Dale Farm travellers lose court bid to halt eviction

I would be curious to hear your views.
Alaska Guy


----------



## Firefox (Sep 17, 2011)

If they get the boot they will probably stay in Thames Estuary area as they have been there a while, but you never know. I guess they would largely stick together as a group so may seek larger areas of public grass like verges of highways or recreation grounds that we wouldn't normally consider as wild camping locations. Anyway, I hope the council will sort them out with something. They must have some plans for them, they can't just dump that number of people in the road outside the site - the travellers own the land and would simply migrate back in time.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 17, 2011)

Firefox said:


> If they get the boot they will probably stay in Thames Estuary area as they have been there a while, but you never know. I guess they would largely stick together as a group so may seek larger areas of public grass like verges of highways or recreation grounds that we wouldn't normally consider as wild camping locations. Anyway, I hope the council will sort them out with something. They must have some plans for them, they can't just dump that number of people in the road outside the site - the travellers own the land and would simply migrate back in time.


 
The local authority has a duty to house these residents.  They have not met their duty to provide sufficient sites for travellers as it is, so they can only expect more problems by their actions.


----------



## Deleted member 775 (Sep 17, 2011)

local authority has a duty to re home .. biggest laugh i have heared yet . they may have a duty,  but but wether or not they have a duty  to carry that duty  out is another thing .i say leave them alone ,its there land .the only reason they want to evict them is for planning infringements .we all know the trouble some of them can cause ,so isent it better to keep them all in one place  insted of scattering them up and down the area .


----------



## Sooty 10 (Sep 17, 2011)

Pobably depends where you liveas to what your views are. Some people need to try living next to this site and then see what they think.

Sooty


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 17, 2011)

Sooty 10 said:


> Pobably depends where you liveas to what your views are. Some people need to try living next to this site and then see what they think.
> 
> Sooty


 
Hi Sooty

I have lived near a traveller site in County Durham since it was established in the 70s.  There is no problem with the people on this site.  It is not travellers that are the problem it is law breaking individuals that need to be dealt with no matter where they reside.  I have suffered thefts in a former business from people who claimed to be travellers and lived on traveller sites.

Families of travellers have been a common feature of my upbringing and I remember having traveller children in my class at school.  I worked in a benefit office and had travelling families often on the books.  They moved around on a set pattern and we could deal with them as we did with any other claimant including having benefits delivered to their temporary site by post.

My GGrandfather used to overwinter travellers on his small farm as far back as the late 1800s when many families from Ireland came over to get work.  Consett population in 1841 was 250, in 1851 it had grown to 2500, mostly Irish, including my own ancestors, to work in the new Iron Company.  I was in the Consett benefit office when the Iron Company closed down 

There is also a NIMBY culture that needs to be overcome.  Not everyone who lives in a caravan it is villan.

Some of these families at Basildon are reported to have properties in Ireland, but prefere to spend most of their year in their caravan on the Dale Farm Site.  These people are not homeless but are second home owners be it a Mobile Home.   The true travellers will have moved on in their carvans to avoid trouble.  It is the settled ones that are the problem and in my opinion should not be regarded as travellers although they claim to be eithic travellers.

The site is a former scrap yard yet it is refered to by opponents to the site as if it was a green field in the green belt.  Part of it has PP and will remain, so what is the problem of extending PP to the rest of the site?

I have now chosen to live in a Motorhome and travel full time stopping on CLs, CSs or Aires.  I am not a traveller, but prefere to not be tied to bricks and mortar myself.


----------



## bmb1uk (Sep 17, 2011)

I think they call themselfs travellers, so why are they there?. give them the big boot, when they learn how to live with the laws of the land and contribute to society, maybe they will get more help.


----------



## Deleted member 775 (Sep 17, 2011)

Sooty 10 said:


> Pobably depends where you liveas to what your views are. Some people need to try living next to this site and then see what they think.
> 
> Sooty


 
 i am not sticking up for them as we all know a certain percentage of them may be less desireable to have live near you . but then again look at other members of the comunity that arnt model neighbours  and arnt travelers . druggies .alcohol soaked teens .  we lived near a shall we say gypsy site and to tell you the truth we dident have a great deal of trouble with them the od stolen car/or van ,but how many nick motors that arnt gypsies  .unless the local drunks decided to teach them a lesson in there words  big mistake


----------



## runnach (Sep 17, 2011)

I suppose if you stop a moment and consider the diversity of the prison population and crimes for which the inmates have been convicted, there is a bad element in all walks of life.

MP,s expense scandal Stealing off all of us, dodgy businessmen accountants solicitors etc there cant be a dividing line in all of this.

' travellers' suffer the stigma of being tarred and labelled with the same brush that is ludicrous, its like saying all Black people are drug dealers or something, the difference is Of course if anyone were to say that there would be uproar the travelling community however dont enjoy the same sympathy.

Channa


----------



## just jane (Sep 17, 2011)

The issue of travellers is a very complicated one that I dont think will ever be resolved. 
As John says there have always been itinerant or migrant workers who have travelled with their families wherever the work was, they helped build our canal, motorway and road networks and settled in certain areas to work in heavy industries as they developed.
Whilst it is true that local authorities do have an obligation to provide sites for travellers it has not always been so this obligation was taken away in the 80s by the Thatcher government as part of their battle with 'alternative' lifestyles and 'new age travellers' Labour reintroduced it during their term in office and now the latest government plan to further victimise travellers by making trespass a criminal offence. 
There are many smaller sites like this around the country where travellers have moved onto their own land without residential planning consent but councils are tied and have to grant temporary permission because there is no alternative to move them on to(because nobody built sites because there wasnt until recently that obligation on them). 
We as a society try to force travellers to educate their children but as there are so few legal sites they can stay on the children never have a chance to settle into a classroom and there is so much bigotry about they often feel excluded by classmates anyway.

In my experience travellers who are welcomed into a community instead of treated with suspicion will rarely cause any trouble within that area, if they are provided with somewhere they can safely stay without harassment they are less likely to leave it in a mess because they may want to come back.

As I say a very complicated minefield of ignorance(on both sides), bigotry  and cultures. I am not sure what can or should be done about the site in Basildon but there was a case near me a few years ago where an entire factory was built on green belt land without planning permission and local people were appalled that it should be forced to be knocked down if retrospective planning permission wasnt granted because it employed 300 people, I still cant see the difference  between this and the many traveller sites around.


----------



## Firefox (Sep 17, 2011)

They may well offer them "housing",but many of them are not used to living in bricks and mortar, they prefer the caravan or mobile home way of life.

As far as I  can see in this case, the council will spend millions on evictions, but the people will just drift back to that site and the council will be faced with the same situation.


----------



## runnach (Sep 17, 2011)

bmb1uk said:


> I think they call themselfs travellers, so why are they there?. give them the big boot, when they learn how to live with the laws of the land and contribute to society, maybe they will get more help.



A rather blanket statement. And partly my point re labelling people. 

Interesting how you have a caveman with a club as an avatar, It certainly reflects your attitudes and prejudice perfectly so far.

When I am in the UK and not WORKING having paid my TAXES { to the uk regime ) abroad I too am officially classed as a gypsy according to the unemployment office. Even though on each occasion upon my return to the UK I have found paid work.

Apparently I am a gypsy officially because I have no fixed abode and choose to live in a motorhome. 

Its all labelling and pigeon holeing people, In your world I have a job and live in bricks and mortar, I am perceived in one light, choose to live in a motorhome perceived in another. 

I welcome the rationale behind the prejudice. 

Channa


Naturally like any other member here needing help or advice, If I feel I can contribute I do, I do that as a human being with a common interest not as a gypsy or Gorga


----------



## cooljules (Sep 17, 2011)

channa said:


> A rather blanket statement. And partly my point re labelling people.
> 
> Interesting how you have a caveman with a club as an avatar, It certainly reflects your attitudes and prejudice perfectly so far.
> 
> ...


 
i can sort of understand where he is coming from, they are breaking the law.

i know some, none of them drive legally, they steal etc, and i wouldnt trust them as far as i can throw them.

just look at the litter and mess they make, plus you always see them on cop shows in illigal transits etc breaking the law.  plus if they are travellers, being in one places for 10 years sort of proves they are not.................


----------



## just jane (Sep 17, 2011)

cooljules said:


> i can sort of understand where he is coming from, they are breaking the law.
> 
> i know some, none of them drive legally, they steal etc, and i wouldnt trust them as far as i can throw them.
> 
> just look at the litter and mess they make, plus you always see them on cop shows in illigal transits etc breaking the law.  plus if they are travellers, being in one places for 10 years sort of proves they are not.................


 
You Talk about 'they' a lot, I think you mean 'some of them' as for trusting them I dont think you would get close enough to throw any of them. I know a lot of council house residents that drive illegally and steal too and lets not start on MPs. How many estates do you see with abandoned mattresses, shopping trolleys,etc. How many gangs of teens do you see getting drunk and leaving piles of cans in the park?


----------



## cooljules (Sep 17, 2011)

just jane said:


> You Talk about 'they' a lot, I think you mean 'some of them' as for trusting them I dont think you would get close enough to throw any of them. I know a lot of council house residents that drive illegally and steal too and lets not start on MPs. How many estates do you see with abandoned mattresses, shopping trolleys,etc. How many gangs of teens do you see getting drunk and leaving piles of cans in the park?


 
i live in the middle of a rough council estate, litter, crime, joyriders daily etc.  but most of the people are decent and hard working.   now when it comes to all the travellers i have met, its the otehr way around, with the majority being the criminals.    they dont do themselves any favours.


----------



## runnach (Sep 17, 2011)

cooljules said:


> they dont do themselves any favours.



A bit like wildcampers then ? You know leave their ****e wherever, assume they have a 'right' to overnight where they want with no regard to the land owners wishes ? 

Preferring to cite ill thought out legislation as an excuse rather than excercise common sense and broker a happy medium ?

Frickin eck we sound like gypsies 

Channa


----------



## just jane (Sep 17, 2011)

cooljules said:


> i live in the middle of a rough council estate, litter, crime, joyriders daily etc.  but most of the people are decent and hard working.   now when it comes to all the travellers i have met, its the otehr way around, with the majority being the criminals.    they dont do themselves any favours.


 
Then your experience is limited


----------



## cooljules (Sep 17, 2011)

channa said:


> A bit like wildcampers then ? You know leave their ****e wherever, assume they have a 'right' to overnight where they want with no regard to the land owners wishes ?
> 
> Preferring to cite ill thought out legislation as an excuse rather than excercise common sense and broker a happy medium ?
> 
> ...


 
no not at all...........i havent left any litter etc when i have been. once im gone no one would have known i was ever there.  i dont chuck my litter in bushes etc.   i would love to spend a year or 2 travelling in my camper, i enjoy waking up somewhere new and fresh air...but wouldnt want anyone to think i was a traveller.


----------



## cooljules (Sep 17, 2011)

just jane said:


> Then your experience is limited


 
it might be, but i stand behind what i have seen myself.  i wouldnt trust a single one of the ones i know...not a single one.


----------



## runnach (Sep 17, 2011)

cooljules said:


> no not at all...........i havent left any litter etc when i have been. once im gone no one would have known i was ever there.  i dont chuck my litter in bushes etc.   i would love to spend a year or 2 travelling in my camper, i enjoy waking up somewhere new and fresh air...but wouldnt want anyone to think i was a traveller.



Good for you but in your response you conveniently forgot to give your opinion on landowners wishes? sadly a consideration in respect of wild camping perhaps ? and a a significant part of my question. 

So if you dont want anyone to think you are a traveller, hows about incoherent scumbag from Council estate in Sheffield ? 

Thats a label, Welcome to the world of labels If you are offended 'tough' ...........

Welcome to my world not nice is it ? BTW I dont think for a moment you are a scumbag just trying to show how easy it is to label peeps inappropriately  

Channa


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 17, 2011)

Hi Channa

Are you sure it is the official attitude or is it just local office predudice that classed you as a gypsy at the Benefit Office.   I met this local predudice when I was behind the counter.  I looked up the Codes of Practice (held in every office) and found that the travellers could be treated as ordinary claimants if the Post Office would deliver to their given address.  I spoke to the Post Office and they told me that they already did deliver as they were well known in the area.  I then had it out with the manager.  He had to agree with the codes and the travellers were delighted with being treated as normal claimants.  Prior to this the benefit office staff had them on daily signing and they had to collect their benifits from the office.  Once it was sorted out they signed once every two weeks.  A junior officer had taken it on themselves to impose these retrictions and the management had not queried it.


----------



## runnach (Sep 17, 2011)

John Thompson said:


> Hi Channa
> 
> Are you sure it is the official attitude or is it just local office predudice that classed you as a gypsy at the Benefit Office.



TBH John I was told I was traveller status on the line you need to ring before I was assigned an appointment at the local benefit office.(so I guess official ? ) At the office itself I was questioned as to why after being abroad I had decided to lay roots in Doncaster. And in fairness I was treated with respect and courtesy, which was naturally recipricated.

In fairness, after I explained that I grew up there, worked there and had contributed to the local economy there were few questions.

However on occasion the fact I was transient albeit in the Doncaster area caused temporary consternation, It seems like round two is beckoning in November this year when my contract finishes.

Back OT, I am trying to illustrate to Cooljules that blanket labelling is wrong , judge a book by its cover etc 

Channa


----------



## cooljules (Sep 17, 2011)

channa said:


> Good for you but in your response you conveniently forgot to give your opinion on landowners wishes? sadly a consideration in respect of wild camping perhaps ? and a a significant part of my question.
> 
> So if you dont want anyone to think you are a traveller, hows about incoherent scumbag from Council estate in Sheffield ?
> 
> ...


 
well if someone had met many of the lowlife you find on council estates and that was it, of course they would think that they are all like that....     it doesnt bother me in the slightest what someone thinks of me for where i like, dont give a damn, but EVERY single traveller i have come across did nothing but break the law....simple.


----------



## Firefox (Sep 17, 2011)

I don't think the ones at Dale Farm create a lot of mess, their caravans and gardens are pretty neat and tidy from the pics I've seen and they take a lot of pride in their camp. I've got some sympathy for them but not really for the ones who have second bricks and mortar homes back in Ireland. I don't know how far that extends across the group though.

We all break the law to some extent. A lot of wild camping is technically trespass, and we can be moved on in the same way, in time. The difference being we are usually in and out within a night or maybe two so the issue doesn't arise. And who can say they haven't broken parking rules or speed limits on many occasions.


----------



## Deleted member 3802 (Sep 18, 2011)

spec savers have announced record sales of rose tinted glass's this week and are hoping to break this again next week


----------



## Tbear (Sep 18, 2011)

We are all travellers of a kind and I sometimes use grey areas of the law to parkup for the night. The big difference between me and these people is that if I am asked to move on I do. Given a good reason, I move without comment. I do not cost millions of pounds over ten years when I know I'm in the wrong.
Imagine if that money had been spent on Aires

Richard


----------



## cooljules (Sep 18, 2011)

Tbear said:


> We are all travellers of a kind and I sometimes use grey areas of the law to parkup for the night. The big difference between me and these people is that if I am asked to move on I do. Given a good reason, I move without comment. I do not cost millions of pounds over ten years when I know I'm in the wrong.
> Imagine if that money had been spent on Aires
> 
> Richard


 
yup and how can they be travellers, with bungalows and huge statics....you aint moved for a year you aint a traveller never mind 10 years..


----------



## kimbowbill (Sep 18, 2011)

*got to have my say*

My Granparents were Romany Gypsies, there land was taken off them and they were forced to settle in a council estate in sheffield, they were hard woking people and made a living through making things, my grandad was a rag and bone ma. When i started school, i was labelled as scum, scrubber, scrounger, freeloader, tramp my parents have never claimed one penny of the state, they have always worked, always had a car, a mortgage, and gave us the best uprbringing any child could ask for, i have always worked and so have my children, i live on a council estate in Sheffield, i have a motrohome  and choose not to stay on campsites, i've never stole anything in my life expect for someones heart,  my real name is a true gypsy name but i have had to change it because of peoples attitiudes, we should not tar everyone with the same brush, there is good and bad in everyone. 

Travellers should not be treated any different just because they have a different lifestyle, of course some travellers are criminals, but so are people living on estates, whats the difference? you see kids just chucking rubbish on the floor next to bins, spitting, swearing and generally being a nuiscence, so we accept that because they live in a house, we dont accept it when they live in a caravan, i dont see what the difference is, cooljules said he woundn't trust one, with respect CJ they probably wounldn't trust you either, why should they, they dont know you, trust has to be earnt and nobody ever seems to give travellers a chance to earn the trust, if you call a child stupid enough times, they will be stupid, its same with Travellers, label them criminals, they become criminals, if people accepted Travellers into their communty  they wouldnt be half the problems we have now, thats my view,


----------



## cooljules (Sep 18, 2011)

kimbowbill said:


> My Granparents were Romany Gypsies, there land was taken off them and they were forced to settle in a council estate in sheffield, they were hard woking people and made a living through making things, my grandad was a rag and bone ma. When i started school, i was labelled as scum, scrubber, scrounger, freeloader, tramp my parents have never claimed one penny of the state, they have always worked, always had a car, a mortgage, and gave us the best uprbringing any child could ask for, i have always worked and so have my children, i live on a council estate in Sheffield, i have a motrohome  and choose not to stay on campsites, i've never stole anything in my life expect for someones heart,  my real name is a true gypsy name but i have had to change it because of peoples attitiudes, we should not tar everyone with the same brush, there is good and bad in everyone.
> 
> Travellers should not be treated any different just because they have a different lifestyle, of course some travellers are criminals, but so are people living on estates, whats the difference? you see kids just chucking rubbish on the floor next to bins, spitting, swearing and generally being a nuiscence, so we accept that because they live in a house, we dont accept it when they live in a caravan, i dont see what the difference is, cooljules said he woundn't trust one, with respect CJ they probably wounldn't trust you either, why should they, they dont know you, trust has to be earnt and nobody ever seems to give travellers a chance to earn the trust, if you call a child stupid enough times, they will be stupid, its same with Travellers, label them criminals, they become criminals, if people accepted Travellers into their communty  they wouldnt be half the problems we have now, thats my view,


 
your not too far from me, and years ago on this estate we had problems with them, they tried to move onto some land at firth park, everyone objected.  and with the state of the sites you see, with litter etc, just like they have being doing at the main one in kent, its not surprising.   they go around collecting scrap, fair enough, but the ones i have seen go up garden paths and take anything metal, even the chains and locks etc. nothing is safe.    just look at the disgusting litter etc they dropped at the rear of the shops at attercliffe road.  the council ahd to put height barriers up.

ok i have met you, you seem fine.  

there are lots of people on my estate, who steal, do drugs, no insurance etc.  just free loaders, but the decent people have nothing to do with them... yet all the travellers stick together.  i would shop my own mother if i knew she was commiting serious crimes..


----------



## Tbear (Sep 18, 2011)

I'm not sure how relevant it is, whether these people are nice, productive, clean living folk or not. I am sure there are numerous people who would like to expand their villages and hamlets but are prevented by green belt planning regs. If you let one group ignore these regs, what do you tell the rest?


----------



## kimbowbill (Sep 18, 2011)

cooljules said:


> your not too far from me, and years ago on this estate we had problems with them, they tried to move onto some land at firth park, everyone objected.  and with the state of the sites you see, with litter etc, just like they have being doing at the main one in kent, its not surprising.   they go around collecting scrap, fair enough, but the ones i have seen go up garden paths and take anything metal, even the chains and locks etc. nothing is safe.    just look at the disgusting litter etc they dropped at the rear of the shops at attercliffe road.  the council ahd to put height barriers up.
> 
> ok i have met you, you seem fine.
> 
> there are lots of people on my estate, who steal, do drugs, no insurance etc.  just free loaders, but the decent people have nothing to do with them... yet all the travellers stick together.  i would shop my own mother if i knew she was commiting serious crimes..


 
I am fine CJ, i'm honest, hardworking person thats never commited an offence (oopps sorry 1 speeding) I  will help anyone out whenever i can, as you know but i'm of gypsy blood, does that make me a bad person? i know what your saying about Attercliffe but also there are as many Asian people who have turned Attercliffe into a dump, not only gypsies, this is my point, good and bad in everyone


----------



## runnach (Sep 18, 2011)

cooljules said:


> afe.
> . yet all the travellers stick together.



Perhaps they do CJ, its called a community. 

Does this website and our cyber community not follow the same doctrine ?

I know there has been meets in the past for those that enjoy it so we have a prescence in the real world. 

Do we not collectively share information to protect our pastime ?............ particularly in respect of places to wild ? 

Is there not evidence in the forums to suggest we collectively try and promote wildcamping to those who are against us, dont understand us, or perhaps scared of our motives through ignorance ?

A read through the threads would suggest we all do this ...a collective 'stick together'.

The current Scarborough thread and a description of some arrogant and atrocious motorhome parking, risks labelling all of us  motorhomers as inconsiderate nuisances in the minds of people that just see a motorhome.   

I would hope non of our members are guilty parties............ but the behaviour described makes our cause even more difficult.

It seems even good and bad in the Motorhome world, same as gypsies or any other sector of society. 

Channa


----------



## Alaska Guy (Sep 19, 2011)

*Good insights*

Still being quite new to this (and all other) forum, it is really heart warming to read the posts. I can understand where some are coming from in terms of not trusting travellers, but I think I relate more to the replies that speak about them as individuals with a different way of life.
All people are like any other animal, in that they react to how they are treated. I have not lived on an estate, nor next to a traveller site, but I have had times in my life when I was pigeon-holed unfairly and know how that feels. A childhood friend did actually have a traveller group move onto some scrap of land near his house on the edge of a Hampshire village; the first thing he did was to make contact and create a level of mutual respect. Neither he nor the village experienced any problems.
I can see the argument about the planning law infringement, and the decision by the council being one of not creating precedent. But if you look on one of those websites to do with smallholdings, you can usually find information about how to buy agricultural land and put a small dwelling structure on it to support the agri-enterprise. Planning officers sometimes actually help these people navigate the system.  OK, this is different to the Basildon site, but the point is that planners, as council officers, are using the national planning legislation framework and still cannot meet the habitation needs of everybody in this country. Where a site is a former scrap yard, or derelict industrial site, why could they not find some way of allowing temporary use whilst a planning hearing process takes place? Unfortunately, that rather utopian idea just shows that the council system leans toward nimbyism. The TALK is all about human rights and noble ideals, but the WALK is about preventing travellers from entering into a genuine dialogue.

Thank you for all the interesting and concerned posts on this thread. It shows me that this forum has some really cool people in it. I look forward to getting to know you better.


----------



## cooljules (Sep 19, 2011)

Alaska Guy said:


> Still being quite new to this (and all other) forum, it is really heart warming to read the posts. I can understand where some are coming from in terms of not trusting travellers, but I think I relate more to the replies that speak about them as individuals with a different way of life.
> All people are like any other animal, in that they react to how they are treated. I have not lived on an estate, nor next to a traveller site, but I have had times in my life when I was pigeon-holed unfairly and know how that feels. A childhood friend did actually have a traveller group move onto some scrap of land near his house on the edge of a Hampshire village; the first thing he did was to make contact and create a level of mutual respect. Neither he nor the village experienced any problems.
> I can see the argument about the planning law infringement, and the decision by the council being one of not creating precedent. But if you look on one of those websites to do with smallholdings, you can usually find information about how to buy agricultural land and put a small dwelling structure on it to support the agri-enterprise. Planning officers sometimes actually help these people navigate the system.  OK, this is different to the Basildon site, but the point is that planners, as council officers, are using the national planning legislation framework and still cannot meet the habitation needs of everybody in this country. Where a site is a former scrap yard, or derelict industrial site, why could they not find some way of allowing temporary use whilst a planning hearing process takes place? Unfortunately, that rather utopian idea just shows that the council system leans toward nimbyism. The TALK is all about human rights and noble ideals, but the WALK is about preventing travellers from entering into a genuine dialogue.
> 
> Thank you for all the interesting and concerned posts on this thread. It shows me that this forum has some really cool people in it. I look forward to getting to know you better.


 
Hi. thats a pretty fair reply.  

one think i dont understand, is why if they are travellers, why have some been there for 10 years? others also many years....

as i have said before, i like the idea of travelling, from place to place, even stopping for a while.  and while i have some factual programmes, showing them, and how they struggle daily.  i even have taken a look at official traveller website, so got some idea about them.

one of the people living next door to this illigal site, has had many problems, non stop, on his own land...so its understandable why he and others want them to leave.


----------



## Guernsey Donkey (Sep 19, 2011)

I come from a traveling family, you can see my grandmother with her sister as youngsters in front of a market stall, when she got married the tradition carried on, my Grandfather used to go around the streets selling logs to everybody and also had market stalls in Staines, Woking and Wokingham. I used to travel at times with him when selling logs to all "classes" of people and every body was so kind to us it seems to me that as the years have passed a lot of people have got very snobbish and look down on a people that have not been given a real chance in our society or not done as well as they have and that is sad because even one of our Royals has slept with what some would  call "the down and outs" under bridges and on the streets. I come from a Romany background and very proud of it and being brought up a non raciest or class prejudiced - as long as each of us keeps to the law of the land let be. I am not aiming at any that have put posts up this is just me and my little moan up (Monday morning)


----------



## Harmergeddon (Sep 19, 2011)

Tbear said:


> I'm not sure how relevant it is, whether these people are nice, productive, clean living folk or not. I am sure there are numerous people who would like to expand their villages and hamlets but are prevented by green belt planning regs. If you let one group ignore these regs, what do you tell the rest?



I agree with. I am not interested in who the people involved are or where they are from. The fact is houses have been built without planning permission. If we all started putting our own houses where ever we wanted very soon there would be houses all over the place. Yes i know this is a scrap yard but this kind of prescident of doing what you please whenever you want should not be allowed to be set. Especially when you consider the rescent riots that erupted over the country.
At the end of the day you should respect the laws of the land that you choose to live in. Imagine just what would happen to this site and the people on it if we were in Syria.


----------



## John H (Sep 19, 2011)

I absolutely agree with tbear and harmergeddon - this should be viewed as a breach of planning law, and as such there is no excuse for what this group of people have done. Planning law applies equally to all of us and, for the sake of the rest of the community and the preservation of the green belt, we should all support the eviction (and bear in mind that part of the site does have planning permission and will remain). What I cannot support, however, is the kind of blind prejudice that states one "sort" of person should be turned on wherever they stop and others should be allowed to stay. This is a wildcamping site for goodness sake - how can anyone who subscribes to it complain that ALL gypsies are trouble? Do you not recognise the irony of what you are saying, cooljules? For what its worth, I have enjoyed the company and the hospitality of travelling Roma people on many ocassions and if we demand the right to park where we want to if we respect the local people and the environment then why should the same not apply to everyone, whatever their ethnicity or lifestyle?


----------



## Deleted member 775 (Sep 19, 2011)

it a difficult situation here ,ok they have broken planning regs ,but to me the planning regs in this country are a farse . as for traveling folk being trouble ,then yes some are ,but you look in papers and listen to the news there are trouble causes in all walks of life  . we lived close to a travelers site at darrington in the 70s and i must say they were the nicest people you could wish to meet ,in fact i used to work for a guy called pat part time when on nights  when i worked at kellingley pit  ,he was a tarmacker  and a coupe of times a week i would go off with him working ,and he payed well cash up front no problem . hugie burton another personal friend god rest his soul as he died some years ago   he had a roller and used to lend it to the may queen parade ,and other fairs the village may have when they needed a nice car . but you should have heared the comments made  behind his back he knew about the insults he got but shrugged his sholders and said thats there problem  . i do think that many full timers have the romany in there blood, i must have as i loved our time in the van  .my wife is of sicilian decent and we did a family tree and there is romany blood in her viens.  aswell as other sicilian  family ties also . councils arround the country have a duty to provide places for traveling families  but they dont ,due to expense  so to me this site as its owned by these folks should be given retrospect planning for the residents that are there now.


----------



## Harmergeddon (Sep 19, 2011)

mandrake said:


> it a difficult situation here ,ok they have broken planning regs ,but to me the planning regs in this country are a farse .
> so to me this site as its owned by these folks should be given retrospect planning for the residents that are there now.



The point is if we all decided to do this where would we end up? The planning laws may be a farse but they hopefully keep a rein on who can build what and where. I would leave the country very quickly if planning laws were removed allowing houses to be put up where ever people chose to. It would ruin the country side.


----------



## Tbear (Sep 19, 2011)

mandrake said:


> it a difficult situation here ,ok they have broken planning regs ,but to me the planning regs in this country are a farse . as for traveling folk being trouble ,then yes some are ,but you look in papers and listen to the news there are trouble causes in all walks of life  . we lived close to a travelers site at darrington in the 70s and i must say they were the nicest people you could wish to meet ,in fact i used to work for a guy called pat part time when on nights  when i worked at kellingley pit  ,he was a tarmacker  and a coupe of times a week i would go off with him working ,and he payed well cash up front no problem . hugie burton another personal friend god rest his soul as he died some years ago   he had a roller and used to lend it to the may queen parade ,and other fairs the village may have when they needed a nice car . but you should have heared the comments made  behind his back he knew about the insults he got but shrugged his sholders and said thats there problem  . i do think that many full timers have the romany in there blood, i must have as i loved our time in the van  .my wife is of sicilian decent and we did a family tree and there is romany blood in her viens.  aswell as other sicilian  family ties also . councils arround the country have a duty to provide places for traveling families  but they dont ,due to expense  so to me this site as its owned by these folks should be given retrospect planning for the residents that are there now.


 
That would be the "nice" thing to do but then you would have set a president and all such sites would have to be legalised. Where would it stop?


----------



## Guernsey Donkey (Sep 19, 2011)

Nice to see so many of you contributing on this subject with various thoughts ideas and suggestions along with the odd moan and groan but still not falling out with each other - just having your say and like me a little moan - and still staying friends - good banter on topic of the day - somewhat different to the old days eh. :have fun::yeahthat:


----------



## kimbowbill (Sep 19, 2011)

Guernsey Donkey said:


> Nice to see so many of you contributing on this subject with various thoughts ideas and suggestions along with the odd moan and groan but still not falling out with each other - just having your say and like me a little moan - and still staying friends - good banter on topic of the day - somewhat different to the old days eh. :have fun::yeahthat:


 
Yes GD, i feel comfortable expressing my opinion nowadays, i used to be scared to death to even post lol, the site is really nice now, among friends xx


----------



## John H (Sep 19, 2011)

mandrake said:


> it a difficult situation here ,ok they have broken planning regs ,but to me the planning regs in this country are a farse . as for traveling folk being trouble ,then yes some are ,but you look in papers and listen to the news there are trouble causes in all walks of life  . we lived close to a travelers site at darrington in the 70s and i must say they were the nicest people you could wish to meet ,in fact i used to work for a guy called pat part time when on nights  when i worked at kellingley pit  ,he was a tarmacker  and a coupe of times a week i would go off with him working ,and he payed well cash up front no problem . hugie burton another personal friend god rest his soul as he died some years ago   he had a roller and used to lend it to the may queen parade ,and other fairs the village may have when they needed a nice car . but you should have heared the comments made  behind his back he knew about the insults he got but shrugged his sholders and said thats there problem  . i do think that many full timers have the romany in there blood, i must have as i loved our time in the van  .my wife is of sicilian decent and we did a family tree and there is romany blood in her viens.  aswell as other sicilian  family ties also . councils arround the country have a duty to provide places for traveling families  but they dont ,due to expense  so to me this site as its owned by these folks should be given retrospect planning for the residents that are there now.



I take your point, Mandrake, and agree with the vast majority of what you say - but even though the law may be an ass more often than not, it is the only law we have until it is democratically changed. It is tempting to go along with you but, as others have said, we can't pick and choose which laws we obey without taking the consequences. The consequences in this case are eviction and the people involved knew the risk they took when they took it. I feel very sorry for them - especially as they will probably be rejected again wherever they end up - but the law is the same for all of us and there are plenty of cases of house-dwellers having to demolish buildings/extensions that have not got the proper permissions.


----------



## runnach (Sep 19, 2011)

John H said:


> I take your point, Mandrake, and agree with the vast majority of what you say - but even though the law may be an ass more often than not, it is the only law we have until it is democratically changed. It is tempting to go along with you but, as others have said, we can't pick and choose which laws we obey without taking the consequences. The consequences in this case are eviction and the people involved knew the risk they took when they took it. I feel very sorry for them - especially as they will probably be rejected again wherever they end up - but the law is the same for all of us and there are plenty of cases of house-dwellers having to demolish buildings/extensions that have not got the proper permissions.



Exactly my thoughts in respect of the legalities. 

Channa


----------



## Firefox (Sep 19, 2011)

I have the same thoughts as John and Channa. 

Apart from some of the residents are not short of a few Euros and also have houses back in Ireland. They just prefer to come to the UK as, I guess, essentially  economic migrants. If they do have other houses to go to, and are not short of cash, they can hardly be classed as homeless. I've an idea but no proof, that there are not many in this situation, and it has been exaggerated by the Daily Mail Brigade.

I'm also interested to see what the council do with the land. They say they are going to make it inaccessible, but I believe the travelers actually own it, so what is the legal position?

As it is Green belt, I believe it can be used for farming or forestry and some people would have a right to live there temporarily for 28 days a year and also seasonly in connection with gathering of timber or harvesting.


----------



## Deleted member 775 (Sep 19, 2011)

just been on the news the residents have just won ahigh court injunction, preventing the council from removing structures there untill friday  .


----------



## runnach (Sep 19, 2011)

mandrake said:


> just been on the news the residents have just won ahigh court injunction, preventing the council from removing structures there untill friday  .



Travellers using the framework and remedies that the law provides  Whatever next ? 

Heaven forbid, with all the media interest perhaps some are like wildcampers and are choosing to send a message to the public that they arent adverse to dialogue to resolve the situation irrespective of the history that has resulted in the current situation. 

I saw on the news, a pledge for a peaceful protest, however the police riot squad are there just in case. 

I just hope all this doesnt turn into another Orgreave 

Channa


----------



## Teffy (Sep 19, 2011)

My brother served for a while as a local councillor.  On one committee, a titled lady informed him that gypsies were not really people.  It is all very well to talk about planning law but it tends to be applied very differently according to your status in local society.  I would also say according to whose palm you can afford to grease but that is just an opinion, I have no evidence to support it.  By the way, I love Guernsey Donkey's family photo, it's beautiful.


----------



## just jane (Sep 19, 2011)

channa said:


> Travellers using the framework and remedies that the law provides  Whatever next ?
> 
> Heaven forbid, with all the media interest perhaps some are like wildcampers and are choosing to send a message to the public that they arent adverse to dialogue to resolve the situation irrespective of the history that has resulted in the current situation.
> 
> ...


 
Or another Battle of the beanfield.


----------



## Deleted member 775 (Sep 19, 2011)

channa said:


> Travellers using the framework and remedies that the law provides  Whatever next ?
> 
> Heaven forbid, with all the media interest perhaps some are like wildcampers and are choosing to send a message to the public that they arent adverse to dialogue to resolve the situation irrespective of the history that has resulted in the current situation.
> 
> ...


 its getting that bad with police riot squads turning up where a group of people meet ,that even the mothers union jam making evenings may be under surveilance  who no's what they are planning .they could be trying to JAM the countries radar defences


----------



## donkey too (Sep 19, 2011)

I have kept quiet up to now and followed this thread avidly. I disagree with some comments but would fight for the right of those people to post those comments. 
In my oppinion as a long serving councillor. I have to say that I think the council is wholly to blame for this situation.
They should have stopped the overflow of the site in the first place and not wait until now to take action. After all did all the extra travellers on the overflow site turn up together? Of coarse not they came in ones and twos. so as soon as the first one over the alloted number came in they should have been dealt with under planning law. The whole situation has been allowed to get out of control by the bad management of the local authority and its elected representatives.
Incedentally I live in a place where provision is not provided for travellers of this kind, (i.e. Irish tinkers). In fact I always voted against providing such provisions. Why should the electorate pay for provisions for people who do not pay into the system? Where I live though we do provide a camping place on our common land for two Romany families who turn up here regularly every year and have done so since as far back as anyone can remember. In fact the same families are mentioned in the town history books. they have horses and vardas and are what I call rightly or wrongly, real gypsies. They are great people, I have spent hours sat with them just talking about the old days.
Any views quoted herein are mine alone and not those of the local authority.


----------



## Deleted member 775 (Sep 19, 2011)

yes i belive the council have a lot to answer for ,they have turned a blind eye for so long that it is now beyond  there capability to handle properly . we all know that the travelers will take a mile if they are given a foot ,but then many of us do aswell .i do think that the cheapest and easiest way to deal with the matter is to leave them as is.give them the planning they need for the families that are there now but  moniter them more closely preventing any further expansion of the site it will be easier . it a case now of ,shutting the gate after the horse has bolted .this is costing the council hundreds of thousands of pounds  when councils are supposed to be saving money.only my idea to  bring an end to this case ,i may be wrong, but i am not an expert on these matters  .


----------



## Firefox (Sep 19, 2011)

mandrake said:


> yes i belive the council have a lot to answer for ,they have turned a blind eye for so long that it is now beyond  there capability to handle properly . we all know that the travelers will take a mile if they are given a foot ,but then many of us do aswell .i do think that the cheapest and easiest way to deal with the matter is to leave them as is.give them the planning they need for the families that are there now but  moniter them more closely preventing any further expansion of the site it will be easier . it a case now of ,shutting the gate after the horse has bolted .this is costing the council hundreds of thousands of pounds  when councils are supposed to be saving money.only my idea to  bring an end to this case ,i may be wrong, but i am not an expert on these matters  .



It's worse than that in financial terms, the cost of the eviction is reckoned to be up to £10 million with central Gov paying £4.5 million, Dept of communities and local Gov paying £1.2 million, and presumably the council paying much of the rest.


----------



## John H (Sep 19, 2011)

donkey too said:


> I have to say that I think the council is wholly to blame for this situation.
> They should have stopped the overflow of the site in the first place and not wait until now to take action. After all did all the extra travellers on the overflow site turn up together? Of coarse not they came in ones and twos. so as soon as the first one over the alloted number came in they should have been dealt with under planning law. The whole situation has been allowed to get out of control by the bad management of the local authority and its elected representatives.


 
I tend to agree with you that the matter should have been dealt with more efficiently and a lot earlier but the incompetence of this particular local authority does not alter the fact that the structures were built without planning permission and that is illegal (unless, of course, the statute of limitations was exceeded before action was taken and I am not aware of the exact time-line involved here although I assume action was started within the ten year limit because of the recent court decision). Nonetheless, because the council has faffed around it may be that when the matter reaches the European Court (as I understand it is due to) that faffing around may be seen by the court as unacceptable and the travellers may be allowed to stay. We shall see.


----------



## Canalsman (Sep 19, 2011)

Firefox said:


> It's worse than that in financial terms, the cost of the eviction is reckoned to be up to £10 million with central Gov paying £4.5 million, Dept of communities and local Gov paying £1.2 million, and presumably the council paying much of the rest.


 
And of course you know who foots the bill?

The tax payers of this country!

The council has basically been in dereliction of its duty regarding planning controls for this site, and we all pay as a consequence.

Incidentally, assuming that the High Court injunction is overturned on Friday, and the bailiffs then go in, more monies will have been spent unnecessarily.

Finally, had the bailiffs gone in immediately the High Court had ruled, there would have been no opportunity for the high profile international media coverage that has now resulted. And there would have been less likelihood of anyone being hurt.

I think it's a complete b***s up!


----------



## Deleted member 775 (Sep 19, 2011)

canalsman if dale farm is on the poi data base dont take it off yet :wave::lol-053:


----------



## Guernsey Donkey (Sep 19, 2011)

Teffy said:


> My brother served for a while as a local councillor.  *On one committee, a titled lady informed him that gypsies were not really people.*





A titled lady eh - where does she think her ancestors came from, behind a cabbage bush. :sad:


----------



## Guernsey Donkey (Sep 19, 2011)

mandrake said:


> canalsman if dale farm is on the poi data base dont take it off yet :wave::lol-053:



Come on Mandrake surely you don't think they would let you in do you - :scared:


----------



## Deleted member 775 (Sep 19, 2011)

no ide give them a bad name :lol-053:


----------



## runnach (Sep 20, 2011)

donkey too said:


> . In fact I always voted against providing such provisions. Why should the electorate pay for provisions for people who do not pay into the system?
> Any views quoted herein are mine alone and not those of the local authority.



When you say you 'always' voted against 'providing such provisions' was that your own decision or did you take the trouble to consult the people that elected you moreover now and again check out that your electorate had not changed its view one way or the other ? ( this may sound a confrontational question but I am interested as to what happens once people are elected in my opinion only interested in the electorates thoughts come re election time ) 

When I had bricks and mortar I paid council tax, now I dont, because I dont actually live in a specific area so I dont pay into the system ? 

But and an important But.... I buy fuel and pay the duty like everyone else, Pay Vat on my purchases like everyone else , Income tax, National Insurance, Which although goes to Central Government coffers is handed out to local government ? The share of the spoils is a seperate issue,and shouldnt affect my ability to claim help if I need it.

So the only tax I dont pay is council tax largely due to my lifestyle. So are you suggesting this precludes me from 'provisions'? 

Think about your decision, had you voted in favour, is it not possible that the council despite expenditure would not have received revenue ? moreover you would have promoted people paying into the system ? 

You state that your opinions are your own not representative of the council you serve that I accept, But are councils a council of personal opinions or representative of the people that elected them ? 

regards 

Channa


----------



## Harmergeddon (Sep 20, 2011)

After watching dispatches last night in the vain hope of trying to understand the situation better i haven't much changed my mind set.
The programe reported that most of the legal side of the site was left empty and derilict. It didn't explain why. It also reported that with the looming eviction many travellers have either left or moved back over to the legal side leaving just a few on the illegal side with a load of people who don't have anything to do with the site at all and who quite frankly should be minding there own buisness elswhere.
I suspect it will end up with a stand off between the police and baliffs and these "Supporters" and a few travellers and end covering the news with bad press for all involved.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 20, 2011)

Harmergeddon said:


> The point is if we all decided to do this where would we end up? The planning laws may be a farse but they hopefully keep a rein on who can build what and where. I would leave the country very quickly if planning laws were removed allowing houses to be put up where ever people chose to. It would ruin the country side.


 
Ok guys.  If we all decide to not use campsites, as required by the law, and camp on other peoples land without authority then chasos will reign.  People will park motorhomes all over the place and there will be no space for other to enjoy the countryside.  If the planners find that we are living in a vehicle they can move us on and prevent us from returning within 3 months according to another law.

How can people who advocate WILDCAMPING, be so blind to the fact that they are also not conforming to the law of the land.

According to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960  For Human habitation we are only allowed to park on unlicenced land for no more than 2 nights with The Landowners permission.

The Public Order Act provides powers for Planning Officers, to remove people and vehicles that people are living in, from the Highway and its verges etc as well as other land without the permission of the landowner.

"Let those that are without sin cast the first stone".


----------



## Firefox (Sep 21, 2011)

As wild campers we are basically exploiting the fact that it takes time to catch up with us. But it's true we are technically breaking the law, trespassing camping on private land without permission, or by using highways land for living on.

So I don't think we are in a position where we can criticise travellers. In this case they are not even trespassing, just falling foul of planning. They are doing similar stuff to us only longer term.


----------



## cooljules (Sep 21, 2011)

Firefox said:


> As wild campers we are basically exploiting the fact that it takes time to catch up with us. But it's true we are technically breaking the law, trespassing camping on private land without permission, or by using highways land for living on.
> 
> So I don't think we are in a position where we can criticise travellers. In this case they are not even trespassing, just falling foul of planning. They are doing similar stuff to us only longer term.


 
i dont leave crap behind or sh*t in the woods etc.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 21, 2011)

cooljules said:


> i dont leave crap behind or sh*t in the woods etc.


 
Hi Cooljules

You and I may not behave in this way, but in discussions on this and other forums MOTORHOMERS have boasted (like the traveler children on the Dispatches program) that they do not use the toilet in their vans and DO go into the wood instead. Some also dump human waste in carrier bags in litter baskets at parking stops.

We are not all the same, in the same way that all travelers are not the same.   

It is a simple matter to dig a pit as we did in the scouts to dispose of your body waste.  Done in the correct manner it does not pollute.  There is no excuse to just Sh*t and walk away.

If you pull into many a UK lay-by you can smell that it is not just the Traveling community that sh*t in the bushes.


----------



## Harmergeddon (Sep 21, 2011)

John Thompson said:


> How can people who advocate WILDCAMPING, be so blind to the fact that they are also not conforming to the law of the land.



I'm not blind! How dare you suggest such a thing! :mad1: Please i prefer the term hypocrite!


----------



## John H (Sep 21, 2011)

John Thompson said:


> How can people who advocate WILDCAMPING, be so blind to the fact that they are also not conforming to the law of the land.
> 
> According to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960  For Human habitation we are only allowed to park on unlicenced land for no more than 2 nights with The Landowners permission.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, John, but this is not accurate. There is no national law that prevents sleeping in vehicles (although some local authorities have passed by-laws that prohibit it in certain specified locations). Also, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 does not COMPEL motorhome users to stay on campsites and the section of the Public Order Act 1986 that allows the police to remove tresspassers specifically excludes the public highway and adjacent areas. If our vehicles are properly taxed and insured then we have a legal right to park within the law and to sleep in our vehicles. Of course, many of us (including me!) have parked where we strictly shouldn't have but it is wrong to say that simply by wildcamping we are breaking the law (if that was true then this website would have fallen foul of the law and Phil would have been prosecuted!). But I do agree that too many people who have cast stones themselves are willing to cast them at other travellers.


----------



## cooljules (Sep 21, 2011)

John Thompson said:


> Hi Cooljules
> 
> You and I may not behave in this way, but in discussions on this and other forums MOTORHOMERS have boasted (like the traveler children on the Dispatches program) that they do not use the toilet in their vans and DO go into the wood instead. Some also dump human waste in carrier bags in litter baskets at parking stops.
> 
> ...


 
Hi John, i can see what your saying, when i was younger i lived out in the wild, here and in other countries, was nothing better than waking with the birds and wildlife...but theres a huge difference between digging a lavvi and not leaving any visiable trace, and like on that tv programme (which i saw late last night), leaving poo and bog roll everywhere.

i would often wake near a lake or sea, having slept under fishermans boats upside down, but there was no sign i was ever there, even in the worst storms for years.


----------



## cooljules (Sep 21, 2011)

John H said:


> Sorry, John, but this is not accurate. There is no national law that prevents sleeping in vehicles (although some local authorities have passed by-laws that prohibit it in certain specified locations). Also, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 does not COMPEL motorhome users to stay on campsites and the section of the Public Order Act 1986 that allows the police to remove tresspassers specifically excludes the public highway and adjacent areas. If our vehicles are properly taxed and insured then we have a legal right to park within the law and to sleep in our vehicles. Of course, many of us (including me!) have parked where we strictly shouldn't have but it is wrong to say that simply by wildcamping we are breaking the law (if that was true then this website would have fallen foul of the law and Phil would have been prosecuted!). But I do agree that too many people who have cast stones themselves are willing to cast them at other travellers.


 
having seen phils foto on here, it does look like it came from a police mugshot book


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 21, 2011)

John H said:


> Sorry, John, but this is not accurate. There is no national law that prevents sleeping in vehicles (although some local authorities have passed by-laws that prohibit it in certain specified locations). Also, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 does not COMPEL motorhome users to stay on campsites and the section of the Public Order Act 1986 that allows the police to remove tresspassers specifically excludes the public highway and adjacent areas. If our vehicles are properly taxed and insured then we have a legal right to park within the law and to sleep in our vehicles. Of course, many of us (including me!) have parked where we strictly shouldn't have but it is wrong to say that simply by wildcamping we are breaking the law (if that was true then this website would have fallen foul of the law and Phil would have been prosecuted!). But I do agree that too many people who have cast stones themselves are willing to cast them at other travellers.



Hi John

While I agree that The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 does not compel us to use a site.   I still hold that the Act states that it is an offence to permit a caravan to be used for human habitation on land except in special circumstances or with a site licence.  Whilst we may not be procecuted, the law is still being broken by our action of parking without authority.

The other Act I was refering to was Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and not the Public Order Act 1986.



> Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994  33 Part V
> Powers to remove unauthorised campers
> 
> Section 77
> ...



We live in a very restrictive country as far as Motorhomes are concerned.


----------



## Firefox (Sep 21, 2011)

I don't think it is restrictive to ask or provide for the removal of a vehicle on highways land after the due process has been served.

Such removal could be for maintenance, road works, highway improvement, or obstruction of sight lines etc. In most cases wild campers would be long gone, or if not, preprepared to move to accommodate such things.


----------



## Rubbertramp (Sep 21, 2011)

The Moral Maze...BBC Radio4 on now! discussing this subject


----------



## Admin (Sep 21, 2011)

cooljules said:


> having seen phils foto on here, it does look like it came from a police mugshot book



Nice......


----------



## Deleted member 775 (Sep 21, 2011)

it is a mug shot ,he just cut the numbers off the bottom  :lol-049::help:


----------



## Deleted member 3802 (Sep 22, 2011)

it's defiantly not a mug shot!! they always make us take our hats off :scared:


----------



## oldish hippy (Sep 22, 2011)

Old_Arthur said:


> it's defiantly not a mug shot!! they always make us take our hats off :scared:




no its a surgicaly attached item so cannot be remove lol


----------



## Deleted member 3802 (Sep 22, 2011)

oldish hippy said:


> no its a surgicaly attached item so cannot be remove lol



du ya recon he cud bi bald under theer :scared::lol-053::lol-061::lol-061:

sorry about that mi duck


----------



## Guernsey Donkey (Sep 22, 2011)

oldish hippy said:


> no its a surgicaly attached item so cannot be remove lol



Correct - to keep his brains in - :hammer:  have to watch what I say lads remember he is the boss :king: and without him at the head this site wouldn't be what it is.:drive:


----------



## John H (Sep 22, 2011)

John Thompson said:


> Hi John
> 
> While I agree that The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 does not compel us to use a site.   I still hold that the Act states that it is an offence to permit a caravan to be used for human habitation on land except in special circumstances or with a site licence.  Whilst we may not be procecuted, the law is still being broken by our action of parking without authority.
> 
> ...


 
Hi John,

If you read the section of the 1994 Act you have quoted carefully it depends on the words "residing" and that the highways authority "may" take action. This is a solicitors dream because you can argue forever over the meanings of those words. I think the critical thing for us is that if you contact the department of Transport and ask the specific question  as to whether or not there is a law banning sleeping in legally taxed and insured vehicles on the highway they will be forced to admit there isn't. However, I don't think anyone would argue with your conclusion that this is a restrictive country as far as motorhomes are concerned!


----------



## bmb1uk (Sep 22, 2011)

*english oak*

well im ready for tomorrow, just polished my oak club (channa) ready for clearance duties,just cannt beat the sound of good old english oak on irish PLANKS     :hammer:


----------



## oldish hippy (Sep 23, 2011)

Guernsey Donkey said:


> Correct - to keep his brains in - :hammer:  have to watch what I say lads remember he is the boss :king: and without him at the head this site wouldn't be what it is.:drive:


 was going to say that but didnt want to write a falsehood only what i have been led to believe by reading the forum lol


----------



## MichaelU (Oct 3, 2011)

Going back to the OP, Boy, this isn 't an easy one!

I guess I am a traveller, I wish to have the freedom to park up where I fancy and not to have some local councillors plastering the country with signs and prohibition notices. I do so with a conscience and what I always hoped was a good moral compass as set by my Ma and Pa.

Where I depart from the life of the Romany traveller is that I don't impose my long term residency on the communities I visit. 

If travellers wish to enjoy residency, schools, doctors etc they are by definition, no longer travellers. Purchasing land for residency is quite an undertaking and commitment, but sadly failing to integrate with the community creates disharmony. The same is true of some Asian communities in our inner cities. If you're investing in a place to live, you must also invest in the community you are joining.

The same goes for our community. If we park up and don't smile, say hello and make an effort when we park up for our brief stay, we miss out on meeting new people in some lovely communities and we don't integrate. We become disliked and up go the signs. It's hard making the effort too when all you really want is the quiet and seclusion but it's a better way to live than buried by politically motivated rules and impositions that take away much of the fun and many of the freedoms from our lives.

I need a drink.....


----------



## Rubbertramp (Oct 3, 2011)

MichaelU said:


> Going back to the OP, Boy, this isn 't an easy one!
> 
> but it's a better way to live than buried by politically motivated rules and impositions that take away much of the fun and many of the freedoms from our lives.
> 
> I need a drink.....


 
I would add to that..... "and a politically motivated climate of fear backed up by frenzied media hatred".......Hats off to you Micheal.....:cheers: Cheers


----------



## MichaelU (Oct 3, 2011)

It's why I unbolt "no overnight parking" signs LOL!


----------



## Pollik (Oct 3, 2011)

Nice post, Michael.

Non integration is also a large why of why immigrant communities are resented.



Polly


----------



## John H (Oct 4, 2011)

MichaelU said:


> If you're investing in a place to live, you must also invest in the community you are joining.


 
Absolutely agree and would add two points:

1. The lack of attempt to integrate is not limited to one group - be they Romany, Asian or anybody else - it also applies to many Brits who set up home abroad (eg Spain). People should be judged by their actions not by their origin.

2. Investing in the community includes accepting the laws of that community - your commendable statement does not tie in with your less than commendable advocacy of criminal damage with respect to road signs. Its deja vu all over again! :scared:


----------



## Pollik (Oct 4, 2011)

> Investing in the community includes accepting the laws of that community



This can be a tricky one.  The laws imposed in a community are frequently imposed from outside, meaning that it can be the case that the community itself does not respect the laws, but in a general sense I agree with you.


Polly


----------



## bigmeeky (Oct 4, 2011)

*Difficult one*

There is no doubt that this is a tricky subject which makes contributors either sound like the Third Reich clearing the Jewish Ghettos or Swampy.

I live on a farm a mile or so from this site and we have had numerous incidents invovling the residents, none of them positive Im afraid, problems range from fly tipping, attempted theft of scrap, (we caught a lad whose flat bed had overturned when he tried to pick up a tonne of metal with a hiab on the back of the wagon), break ins to my sister in laws house (caught on CCTV), theft of machinery, hare coursing etc etc. Needless to say we will welcome the clearance of the site, sadly there some residents will remain as will the problems.

If these people adopted a different attitude to life, their surroundings and neighbours then the feelings people have towards them would be diferent. At present they seem to be making placards galore, when the tax man drops a letter they cant read or write!

I fear I may start ranting so I will end this, although I may add that I recently had planning permission refused, perhaps I should just build my extensionanyway and just ignore all the correpondence, go to all the court (for which the people of Basildon are paying 1/3 of the costs!!!!!), and just ignore authority.

Thats my bit, had your fun taken the piss right royally, time to go, and please go and live far far away!!!!


----------



## cooljules (Oct 4, 2011)

my friends last year put down a few foot of decking, and a wooden roof.   as i was very ill last year and couldnt get out and about or go into town with them, after having major surgery. so it meant i could sit outisde in the garden and stay dry if it rained.....  

the council are taking me to crown court, as i refuse to take it down, they originally said it was dangerous, yet it was the only thing standing over the last year, with the huge amount of snow and wind, so many chiminies and roofs collapsed yet mine stayed put.

i have had arguement after argument with them about this and other things.   it really takes the p*ss. while my garden isnt the best on the street, the worst half are just left like jungles and never touched.


----------



## mustardseed (Oct 4, 2011)

mandrake said:


> i am not sticking up for them as we all know a certain percentage of them may be less desireable to have live near you . but then again look at other members of the comunity that arnt model neighbours  and arnt travelers . druggies .alcohol soaked teens .  we lived near a shall we say gypsy site and to tell you the truth we dident have a great deal of trouble with them the od stolen car/or van ,but how many nick motors that arnt gypsies  .unless the local drunks decided to teach them a lesson in there words  big mistake


 
All sorts of persons I may consider "undesirable" originate from or have come to live in the same town I have chosen to make my home.  Many of them contribute absolutely nothing and a number cause considerable problems.  However, that doesn't give anyone grounds for removing them.
If you look at the pictures of the site before and after the scrapyard section (which is the part on greenbelt land) was turned into living accommodation, it looks as if the entire site has become much more presentable and less of an eyesore overall than it was in those days, which makes one start to wonder exactly what people are complaining about.  The BBC have already run a story about the fact that there is virtually nowhere else for those who are legitimate travellers left to go in the entire country (the authority with the most vacancies only had 5 pitches), despite local authorities being required to provide sites for travellers.

And as for the greenbelt issue, I'm concerned to protect greenbelt land myself, yet round here planning law goes out the window when first the doctors want to build a new surgery to serve the new estates that have taken over all the fields, and then that sets a precedent and developers start to get planning permission to build yet more houses next to the surgery, arguing that they are "environmentally friendly", whilst there is currently highly dangerous access to and from the road......  this new development will, of course, massively help homeless people, since it incorporates about 3 "affordable housing" units.

Oh, and by the way I have had a Roma family camping on my land in the past with my full agreement and permission.  They never caused any problems at all and even most of the neighbours who were very suspicious came to like and respect them in the end.


----------



## cooljules (Oct 4, 2011)

mustardseed said:


> All sorts of persons I may consider "undesirable" originate from or have come to live in the same town I have chosen to make my home.  Many of them contribute absolutely nothing and a number cause considerable problems.  However, that doesn't give anyone grounds for removing them.


 
sounds like perfect reason to remove them.........................


----------



## Pollik (Oct 4, 2011)

All those are excellent reasons not to like your neighbours...it must be like living next to sink estate, which are usually occupied by people who are not travellers.

The planning permission or building regulations issue, again you have a valid point, but again it is a far from uncommon happening all across the country, again not travellers.

I don't have any easy solutions, but travellers have problems too, with the assumptions of the evil intent...told to me by a traveller acquaintance who chaired the local residence association,  She also told me of the prejudice against her the first time she tried to settle down in bricks and mortar.

I am not trying to defend the wrong doers, but travellers are by no means all crooks and ne'erdowells.

I used to live in Billericay until around 1980, so I have some idea of the area.



Polly


----------



## mustardseed (Oct 4, 2011)

cooljules said:


> my friends last year put down a few foot of decking, and a wooden roof.   as i was very ill last year and couldnt get out and about or go into town with them, after having major surgery. so it meant i could sit outisde in the garden and stay dry if it rained.....
> 
> the council are taking me to crown court, as i refuse to take it down, they originally said it was dangerous, yet it was the only thing standing over the last year, with the huge amount of snow and wind, so many chiminies and roofs collapsed yet mine stayed put.
> 
> i have had arguement after argument with them about this and other things.   it really takes the p*ss. while my garden isnt the best on the street, the worst half are just left like jungles and never touched.


 
Jules: if you would like to forward me the relevant info I'll see if there is anything I can do by way of some useful advice, or maybe put you in touch with someone you could get the right advice from.  Are you being accused of being in breach of planning laws, or is this about some regulation of whomever owns your property?


----------



## cooljules (Oct 4, 2011)

mustardseed said:


> Jules: if you would like to forward me the relevant info I'll see if there is anything I can do by way of some useful advice, or maybe put you in touch with someone you could get the right advice from.  Are you being accused of being in breach of planning laws, or is this about some regulation of whomever owns your property?


 
well its a big more complicated than that, its a council house.   its a nightmare really, months ago my friends put me some paving slabs down, out in the sun with a plastic table and chairs, the council want that up too.   the garden was a total jungle when i moved in, tons and tons of rubbish......

worst touble is, the rear access to the garden, i have used for 16 years since i moved in, which is a shared pathway to everyones rears, then suddenly out of the blue weeks ago, im not allowed to use it.  i cant get anything in or out (i sold a shed prior to knowing this) and 2 weeks later the removal van turned up, and the scabby neighbours next door stabbed the 2 removal men.     i not cant get anything in or out stright into the garden from the road/path where i have done for so long...wheelbarrowed stuff stright in and out.  had about 15 mates over the past 18months help me with little jobs.

i was told i was ok to burn dog poo months ago (i did it late at night in a burner everyone week or 2), then told not too.   i was ok to have a pond, no permsion, then suddenly i needed permission.

told the council i wont take anything down, as its same, and the nice little expesive brick path (that i got from freecycle) is ok, they want it up....told them i will turn it into a garden of mud and overgrown weeds if i do, like it was when i moved in.

the scabby neighbours next door other week cut lots of nice trees down (with birds nest, although i think had flown)  council dont care, dumped rubbish, old tvs, plastic directly on the waste land that runs BEHIND MY end of the garden, they dont care.....

its the same neighbours that cause nothing but trouble, not just for me but for others, only me that stands upto them, hence brake fluid all over my car, keyed, campervan damaged and threatend and assualted......

been accused of having parties when i havent, just total lies.

trying to get a eviction order against me.  i have told them for over a year, i need a better house, due to my disiablities, backed up by doc and housing etc. but they dont care.......

its things like this, and seeing those in basildon that make me feel suicidel at times


----------



## MichaelU (Oct 5, 2011)

John H said:


> your commendable statement does not tie in with your less than commendable advocacy of criminal damage with respect to road signs. Its deja vu all over again! :scared:



Can you have "Deja Vu all over again"? Surely that means "all over again all over again", to be sure to be sure...


----------



## John H (Oct 5, 2011)

MichaelU said:


> Can you have "Deja Vu all over again"? Surely that means "all over again all over again", to be sure to be sure...



Its a quote from American baseball player Yogi Berra, who was even more prone than George W Bush to putting his foot in his mouth. Among other things, he also said "I didn't really say everything I said". The advantage he has over Bush is that despite the nonsense you can actually see what he was trying to say! :have fun:


----------



## John H (Oct 5, 2011)

Pollik said:


> This can be a tricky one.  The laws imposed in a community are frequently imposed from outside, meaning that it can be the case that the community itself does not respect the laws, but in a general sense I agree with you.
> 
> 
> Polly


 
Surely, in a democracy (however flawed it may be) this is not so. The government is elected by the people, the government passes the laws and there is an implied acceptance that those laws applies not only to those who approved of them but also to the minority who didn't. Thus it cannot be said in our society that the laws are imposed from outside - even in the case of Europe because our government democratically agreed to our entry and the people in a referendum agreed with them. It may be that people have changed their minds since but until the government decides to have another referendum (or is replaced by one who will) we have to accept that we, as a country, decided - no-one from outside forced us. It seems to me that the only countries in which your statement would be valid are those in which there is no democracy.


----------



## Pollik (Oct 5, 2011)

> It seems to me that the only countries in which your statement would be valid are those in which there is no democracy.



There are many ways I can think to respond to this.

I like the definition of democracy offered by Wikipedia: "Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives."

Howard Zinn describes the current system better than I can:



> We don’t have a lot of democracy in America today. We have these formal institutions. We have representative government and we have a Bill of Rights.
> 
> But the fact is that the representative government doesn’t work very well. The electoral system is dominated by wealth. For instance, in the upcoming [2008] presidential election, most people I speak to cannot find a candidate that they like. They have no choice. The candidates have been selected for them and they have Republican or Democrat, and third party candidates don’t have a chance. The political system, therefore, is very limited.
> 
> ...


 Howard Zinn on Democracy in America | Howard Zinn | Big Think

Looking at voter turnouts, I am not sure many people really feel that we live in democracy.  When was the last time a British government was voted in by a majority of the eligible electorate?

Also think about the number of times that local decisions made at a local government or parish level are overturned at central government.

I am not going to respond to the euro referendum issue...that would probably derail the thread entirely!

But, no, I don't agree with you...what you say may be accurate in law, but not in a democracy, IMHO.



Polly


----------



## David & Ann (Oct 5, 2011)

John H said:


> Surely, in a democracy (however flawed it may be) this is not so. The government is elected by the people, the government passes the laws and there is an implied acceptance that those laws applies not only to those who approved of them but also to the minority who didn't. Thus it cannot be said in our society that the laws are imposed from outside - even in the case of Europe because our government democratically agreed to our entry and the people in a referendum agreed with them. It may be that people have changed their minds since but until the government decides to have another referendum (or is replaced by one who will) we have to accept that we, as a country, decided - no-one from outside forced us. It seems to me that the only countries in which your statement would be valid are those in which there is no democracy.


 
Hi JH, I agree with what you have said above but I would like to make a point. Although England and it's Govt: as a Democracy agreed to join Europe, which in it's self  correct, but what is NOT Democratic, is that the peoples of GB were not offered a Referendum as promised by both the Con: and Lab: It is to be remembered, that was in their Manefesto and because of that, they were voted into power. In the latter part of your post, as stated, " It may be that people have changed their minds since but until the government decides to have another referendum (or is replaced by one who will) we have to accept that we, as a country, decided" Unfortunately, we have NOT had a Referendum, so the peoples on the very onset did not agree, hence, it being undemocratic. Further more, as stated, "no-one from outside forced us" in my opinion, is untrue. Reason being, we were left with no alternitive to join, or except the consequences of being left out of Europe, which would have brought  a lot of Political, Industrial and financial distress. I am not in a position to a say, the decision is right or wrong by Con: party or the Lab: Party. I am only saying it was undemocratic for both Parties to offer a Referrendum as part of their manifesto and not abide by their promises to the people.


----------



## John H (Oct 5, 2011)

Pollik said:


> Looking at voter turnouts, I am not sure many people really feel that we live in democracy.  When was the last time a British government was voted in by a majority of the eligible electorate?
> 
> Also think about the number of times that local decisions made at a local government or parish level are overturned at central government.
> 
> Polly


 
Hi Polly

As Churchill said (and I paraphrase) "democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others" and we all feel disenfranchised at some time or another. For example, I didn't think much of the choices on offer at the last general election, I don't think much of the quality of our political leaders (in any Party) and I have very little sympathy for most of the decisions being made by this current government. But until someone comes up with a better system, it is the only one we've got and if we really don't like it we are all free to stand for election ourselves. If we can pursuade enough people to think like we do then we will get elected; if we can't then the majority rules the day (whatever we might think about them!).  

It is true that we have had few governments elected by more than 50% of the electorate but we recently had a referendum which was convincingly (and in my view incomprehensibly) won by those who want to maintain this system. You and I may think it wrong but the majority voted for it!

As for higher levels overturning the decisions of lower levels - that is also part of our democracy. And, having seen many Parish Councils in operation (or, more appropriately, slumber) if their decisions were binding there would, for example, never be any new housing development anywhere! 

One thing is abundently clear - the only sensible form of government is a dictatorship .................run by me! :hammer:


----------



## John H (Oct 5, 2011)

David & Ann said:


> Unfortunately, we have NOT had a Referendum, so the peoples on the very onset did not agree, hence, it being undemocratic.


 
Hi David

I agree with your point about the duplicity of political parties that promise something and then conveniently forget about it when elected but we DID have a referendum in the 1970s in which there was overwhelming support for the UK being part of Europe. As I said, views may have changed since then but in our constitution there is no compulsion on our government to hold another referendum (despite election promises) and, as I said in my reply to Polly, our democracy may be far from perfect but the original decison was made democratically and that means everything that stems from it is a democratic decision (even though we as individuals may think a lot of it stupid). And, despite the duplicity of the main Political Parties, people have had the clear option to vote UKIP at several elections and a relatively small number have done so, which means either the majority are happy with our membership or they don't see it as a major issue of concern.


----------



## David & Ann (Oct 5, 2011)

John H said:


> Hi David
> 
> I agree with your point about the duplicity of political parties that promise something and then conveniently forget about it when elected but we DID have a referendum in the 1970s in which there was overwhelming support for the UK being part of Europe. As I said, views may have changed since then but in our constitution there is no compulsion on our government to hold another referendum (despite election promises) and, as I said in my reply to Polly, our democracy may be far from perfect but the original decison was made democratically and that means everything that stems from it is a democratic decision (even though we as individuals may think a lot of it stupid). And, despite the duplicity of the main Political Parties, people have had the clear option to vote UKIP at several elections and a relatively small number have done so, which means either the majority are happy with our membership or they don't see it as a major issue of concern.


 
I was unaware that in 1970 a Referendum was in place. As you well know I am from Germany so was not familiar of the situation. In that case i withdraw my last post as irrevalant and do agree totally to your original post. My apoligies.


----------



## Pollik (Oct 5, 2011)

I heard it elsewhere as:democracy is the least worst form of government.    I used to agree, but lately I am not nearly so sure.  Perhaps this is a direct result of being more politically active in the last ten years.  I don't have a better solution, which is not to say that a better system does not exist.

You are right about the referendum on the voting system, yes it was convincing and yes it was incomprehensible, in my view also.

I would like to believe that the internet has been and is such a wonderful information and communication provider and that the pedestal on which our betters sit is looking distinctly wobbly at the moment.  The wall street protest, hardly mentioned in either the British or US media, has been going on for more than two weeks now.  I am aware of it only because the internet enables me to access sources of information outside the control of 'them'.  In the UK we have UK Uncut.  We find that people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) acquire hero status (for a while, anyway) after he suffers US governmental pressure on Banks to cut off his assets.  He has still not been charged with anything (excepting the Swedish rape charge and that was failing last I heard), much less tried and convicted.  By your argument, as I read it, this is OK because the US govt was elected.

I shan't be around, probably, but it would not surprised if some other form of government did not emerge over the next century.  The alternative seems to be a descent into some kind of dystopian society, so beloved of SF writers...in which case I don't want to be around.

"One thing is abundently clear - the only sensible form of government is a dictatorship .................run by me! "

I have a rule about not voting for anyone who seeks power!!  :ninja:


Polly


----------



## David & Ann (Oct 5, 2011)

I will only vote if I feel that a paticular Party will do as it says. To date, that has not happened. Some may say, if you don't vote, then you have no grounds to put your point of view or object. That may be so, hence, I am neutral in my thinking.


----------



## Pollik (Oct 5, 2011)

> Some may say, if you don't vote, then you have no grounds to put your point of view or object.



I have always thought this was a silly thing to say.  At the last election, as a euro sceptic, if I had wanted to vote for a party that would either move us out of EC or give us a referendum, then I was limited to a single minor party, whose other policies I was much less keen on.

It can be a real problem only having baskets of policies I can vote for.  How much better would it be to vote on the policies themselves?



P


----------



## John H (Oct 5, 2011)

David & Ann said:


> I was unaware that in 1970 a Referendum was in place. As you well know I am from Germany so was not familiar of the situation. In that case i withdraw my last post as irrevalant and do agree totally to your original post. My apoligies.


 No problem, David.


----------



## John H (Oct 5, 2011)

Pollik said:


> I would like to believe that the internet has been and is such a wonderful information and communication provider and that the pedestal on which our betters sit is looking distinctly wobbly at the moment.  The wall street protest, hardly mentioned in either the British or US media, has been going on for more than two weeks now.  I am aware of it only because the internet enables me to access sources of information outside the control of 'them'.  In the UK we have UK Uncut.  We find that people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) acquire hero status (for a while, anyway) after he suffers US governmental pressure on Banks to cut off his assets.  He has still not been charged with anything (excepting the Swedish rape charge and that was failing last I heard), much less tried and convicted.  By your argument, as I read it, this is OK because the US govt was elected.
> 
> "One thing is abundently clear - the only sensible form of government is a dictatorship .................run by me! "
> 
> ...


 
I absolutely agree with you about the difficulty of getting balanced and reasonably objective information - I think it can only be even partly achieved by consulting as many different sources as possible. For example, if you watch the news on Al-Jazeera you get a very different picture of what is happening in the world from that of, for example, Sky or CNN. But if I gave the impression that anything is ok because the government was democratically elected then please allow me to correct that impression. When talking about democracy I was simply trying to describe how decisions are made - I wasn't saying I personally agreed with those decisions. I would only agree with all the decisions made if it was me making them - but I see I have a rival for the role of dictator! :have fun:


----------



## maureenandtom (Oct 5, 2011)

Hello Polly,

I see you haven't started back on those pills yet.  I'm so pleased.

Here's a rather nice research document for you to look at - it's a very pleasant read.

Fear: The Foundation of Every Government’s Power: Publications: The Independent Institute

After you've read that then there's another publication, rather older, which is also pleasant but more difficult.   More difficult because it's older and it's translated into an older style english which is difficult for us.  But it's an eye-opener and I've heard it's bedtime reading for our senior politicians or those who wish to become so. 

Machiavelli: The Prince: Contents


----------



## mustardseed (Oct 8, 2011)

Sorry CJ: I haven't seen this until now (there's nothing to notify you when someone replies to something you have posted on this site, so I'm struggling to find my way around it).  It all sounds very complicated, and like it's causing you a shed (dismantled or not!) load of stress :-(
Has the ownersip of the Council houses transferred to a housing association by any chance?  (they tend to change the rules, and have done in some quite silly ways round here, like people are not allowed to have nice well-maintained boats in their drives/ front gardens!)  I'm still not very well and have a hospital appointment on Monday so am a bit like a cat on hot bricks until then, but will see if I can make sense of any of it and offer any suggestions after then.
A x


cooljules said:


> well its a big more complicated than that, its a council house.   its a nightmare really, months ago my friends put me some paving slabs down, out in the sun with a plastic table and chairs, the council want that up too.   the garden was a total jungle when i moved in, tons and tons of rubbish......
> 
> worst touble is, the rear access to the garden, i have used for 16 years since i moved in, which is a shared pathway to everyones rears, then suddenly out of the blue weeks ago, im not allowed to use it.  i cant get anything in or out (i sold a shed prior to knowing this) and 2 weeks later the removal van turned up, and the scabby neighbours next door stabbed the 2 removal men.     i not cant get anything in or out stright into the garden from the road/path where i have done for so long...wheelbarrowed stuff stright in and out.  had about 15 mates over the past 18months help me with little jobs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pollik (Oct 8, 2011)

> I see you haven't started back on those pills yet. I'm so pleased.



I didn't like the side effects...I found they tended to make me rant incoherently.

Thanks for the links.  As it happens, I have just finished reading a translation of Plato's 'Ion', so Machievelli will be a treat and I will put Nietzsche aside for a while.





Polly


----------



## David & Ann (Oct 11, 2011)

YES SIR, you are correct (to a point) sometimes we cut ourselves down to size☺☺☺


----------



## Harbourmaster (Oct 11, 2011)

I spent the whole Summer "travelling." I paid about £6 a night on proper campsites. I never felt the urge to leave a load of rubbish or scrap behind, or to annoy the locals. 

So why can't others do the same, whatever their so-called ethnic origin?

And I really hate the term "settled community..."


----------



## Guernsey Donkey (Oct 11, 2011)

[No message]


----------



## John H (Oct 11, 2011)

Well it would be if it weren't for all these interjections from France!!


----------



## David & Ann (Oct 11, 2011)

I think I will get my coat too. I may have misunderstood the first post, regarding garbage.....Garbage in Garbage and talking Garbage. I'm outta here, as the Americans say☺☺☺


----------

