interesting new court ruling re gypsies and right to roam

[mariesnowgoose]

Very true but it was in reply to the post about Roma leaving rubbish on their own land...maybe they have the same thinking.

True. Some farmers can be just as bad when it comes to dumping stuff and leaving it lying around on their land, but it is normally connected to their job - agriculture - and more often than not has a function, or could have a function that will help the farmer.

The rubbish that gets dumped on private land around here is often in full view from main roads and usually has absolutely nothing to do with agriculture or maintaining the land.

 

[maureenandtom]

The Court of Appeal today ruled that Gypsies and Travellers have an “enshrined freedom” to move from one place to another, and that an injunction to prevent camping on public land would breach the rights of the communities it targeted.

An interesting discussion but there's something important that we've skated over. This ruling might well mean that all “no overnghting” signs on public car parks (public land) no longer have validity. We can all claim to be New Travellers but the notices themselves might now be unlawful. The ruling is against “injunctions” but I can't see that “no overnighting” notices are any different.

Useful for the next member to get a PCN for the appeal.

 

[Debroos]

The Court of Appeal today ruled that Gypsies and Travellers have an “enshrined freedom” to move from one place to another, and that an injunction to prevent camping on public land would breach the rights of the communities it targeted.

An interesting discussion but there's something important that we've skated over. This ruling might well mean that all “no overnghting” signs on public car parks (public land) no longer have validity. We can all claim to be New Travellers but the notices themselves might now be unlawful. The ruling is against “injunctions” but I can't see that “no overnighting” notices are any different.

Useful for the next member to get a PCN for the appeal.

How fascinating. I do so hope you are right!

 

[GreggBear]

The Court of Appeal today ruled that Gypsies and Travellers have an “enshrined freedom” to move from one place to another, and that an injunction to prevent camping on public land would breach the rights of the communities it targeted.

An interesting discussion but there's something important that we've skated over. This ruling might well mean that all “no overnghting” signs on public car parks (public land) no longer have validity. We can all claim to be New Travellers but the notices themselves might now be unlawful. The ruling is against “injunctions” but I can't see that “no overnighting” notices are any different.

Useful for the next member to get a PCN for the appeal.

Point is the gypsy council faught for that result for the gypsies only. Every bit of that legislation relates only to gypsies. The gypsy council actually sought to exclude "new travellers" from any laws they got overturned etc. They actively distance themselves from us when it comes to fighting for "justice".....

 

[maureenandtom]

An unintended consequence then. How am I to know that the no overnighting signs are discriminatory in that there are portions of the populace they don't apply to? I guess the councils would have to amend the notices to say “no overnghting unless you can convince me you are a Traveller and New Travellers need not apply”.

"An injunction which prevents them from stopping at all in a defined part of the UK comprises a potential breach of both the ECHR and the Equality Act

But I see nothing in the report to say that New Travellers are excluded not did I see any distancing of themselves. Where did you get that from? I'm interested.

I think an appeal against a PCN may well succeed.

 

[GreggBear]

Think you could well be right, I'd appeal too . Thought it was common knowledge the gypsies don't identify with us, in law or otherwise....