Living on your own land

Thanks for the support - the campaign is really gaining momentum now!
 
The only problem is while Nick Clegg is very free minded, anything that goes to the statute book has to get past the Tories as well. While Cameron is not bad for a Tory there are loads of Tory back benchers who will be supporting the "NIMBY, arghhhh gypsies, this is a class neighbourhood" brigade. Even if it is your own land the idea of someone living in a motorhome full time does not sit well in these people's psyche.
 
Oi Firebox,

Where the hell have you been? I have been worried by your absence (nobody else bothered BTW).:D

I have had nobody to take the mickey out of. Did your selfbuild sink then? I told you marine engineering on a van was no good.:p:p
 
Thank you so much for all your support guys. I've posted this on a number of forums, and it seems to have touched a cord in so many people. The government will have to look at it, as it's about number 10 or 11 on the first page of the Restoring Civil Liberties section The order is determined by number of comments, so it you haven't commented, and really want this to be seriously considered, please do comment as well as vote.

Again thanks for the support, you're lovely people, and I'm so glad I found you!!
 
Yes I know, I know Maingate :D All the others were far too busy fretting over a measly £15 and didn't give a second thought to my marine style wiring or my 10 amp returns. This is an absolute travesty :p

As for the liberty bill, thanks once again for pointing it out Escapees. I have already voted for the legalise cannabis and prostitution threads as well as for cutting down red tape such as multiple CRB checks and health/saftey legisalation gone mad. I was in town the other day and the people from the local nursery were taking toddlers in push chairs round the mall. They were wearing fluorecent jackets, but comically or sadly perhaps both, the toddlers strapped up in the buggies were also wearing little minature fluorescent waistcoats. It's costing the country a lot of money jumping through these hoops!
 
Sorry to burst your balloon but this will never happen.

The travellers and *****s will love it and be the first to abuse it.

You had better buy up any spare land near your house before it is too late.:eek:
 
I agree it will never happen & your dreaming if you think it will. As for the gypos & the like they will just do it anyway. There is one not too far from where I live bought some land then started living there, now there are a few caravans, a motorhome & a bit of a shack built (it's still there after 10 years).

Can anybody name one public petition that has actually changed anything substantial, I'd settle for getting rid of height barriers & all the no overnight parking signs.
 
Agreed it will be a bit difficult getting some of this stuff past the Tories. But it's a bit more than a just a petition. It's an official government consultation on poor legislation. Things ARE going to go forward from this onto the statute books. Curbing thse Multiple CRB checks is just one example.

If you buy your own woodland it is possible to live their discretely and erect temporary structures for the purpose of forestry. Strictly I still don't think you are supposed to stay more than 28 days in any one year, but if it's a motorhome where you can easily move on, then who is counting? It would be very tricky to stop someone living there most of the time.
 
maingate said:
Sorry to burst your balloon but this will never happen.

The travellers and *****s will love it and be the first to abuse it.

You had better buy up any spare land near your house before it is too late.:eek:
Click to expand...

You're not - bursting my balloon that is. :)

I've discussed this point many times on the thread, as other people have the same viewpoint as you. Travellers etc will do what they do now, this won't change anything. My proposal still requires planning, you will still need to demonstrate that your home is sustainable, and temporary, and there would be a minimum acreage required, to prevent mass development. This is not a carte blanche for mass development of the countryside, but a small relaxation of the current rules.

Developers will not be interested in this, as there will be no intrinsic value, as there will be no permanent development. No one will buy up parcels of land and split them into portions, as they will not be allowed to. With the proper controls it will work.

The rest of Europe already have these rights. To be able to live susatinably on your own land should be a basic right for everyone, not just the very rich, who can afford to build huge mansions, and pay for planning advisors and architects.

The proposal is now very high up the first page of ideas, and very well supported. As such, will be looked at by the government. It may happen.

Please support it.
 
Kontiki said:
I agree it will never happen & your dreaming if you think it will. As for the gypos & the like they will just do it anyway. There is one not too far from where I live bought some land then started living there, now there are a few caravans, a motorhome & a bit of a shack built (it's still there after 10 years).

Can anybody name one public petition that has actually changed anything substantial, I'd settle for getting rid of height barriers & all the no overnight parking signs.
Click to expand...

I'm not dreaming, just trying to restore a fundamental right :)

This isn't a public petition, it's far more than that. It is quite possible that nothing will happen, but I'm just not going to let this chance pass me by.

Forget about travellers, this has nothing at all to do with them.
 
a court order can be easily got by the authorities. lots have tried round here .lots have failed .i know a few that seem to be getting away with it. some more openly on view . it seems the ones trying to hide get trouble first.
better to be in the open then the general public think you must have permission . the coucils dont seem to act unless someone complains. it seems all about bluff. if you hide someone complains . i keep looking but cant find the right place. seems a shame to have a house .better to have a workshop for repairs and live in ther truck. will get it sorted one day.
 
but it as to do with travellers .we are travellers as a sort. if you think different then you are very mistaken. your last remarks are almost offensive to travellers. you have made it to do with travellers . why is it not to do with them or me.
 
It was not my intention to offend, just to try and explain.

There are an awful lot of people in this country who are terrified of travelling people, of them moving in en-masse and ruining "Their countryside".

Can I say categorically that I'm not one of them, in fact I hope very much to be a traveller for a time myself soon!

But as so many people are anti-traveller/gyspsy, it's important to make them understand that they should not be frightenend of this proposal, as it will in no way make it more likely for them to be invaded by what they see as undesirables.

Trying to get that undertanding is vital, if there is any chance of this proposal being taken up.

Does that help to explain where I'm coming from?
 
it does ,but as i travel in my truck more than i live in my house i am strongly against traveller discrimination . i have frequently stayed at traveller sites here and abroad . in fact this year was comeing up through galecia and couldnt find the ideal place to stay so dropped into the local travel site was made very welcome . and later travelled with a local fairground they thought it was great to have two english truck campers join them. its a shame people arent more friendly to the travelling comunity . but the proposals do allow a traveller to own land and have a base. trurh is the only law.lets not mask the fact. we have ex travellers /gypsy families only a few hundred yards up the road from my house . wish i could afford theirs , did my drive only two years ago . their father knew mine when my grandad worked at edwinstow forest years ago. so its a small world. we actually went to the last burn up after a gypsy funeral and it was an eye opener. proud people .
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is that I think back bench Tories are against anyone who doesn't live in a house (pref detatched) and maybe indulge in the odd bit of fox hunting.

So whatever your definition of traveller, in practical terms, despite the good intentions of Clegg or Cameron, they have to carry the back benchers with them to get legislation passed. That's the key to the issue whether this legislation is the first to be looked at or the last, you're still facing the same hurdle.
 
Call me an old cynic if you like but the way I see it now is this:

We now have A Tory/Lib government.

The travellers set up in idyllic village locations. I have never heard of one on an industrial site.

The main supporters of the ruling parties tend to live in nicer places. Therefore I believe that there will be pressure put on the government for more draconian measures against travellers.

There are more travellers in the UK since a change in Irish Law, which meant that they were better off in the UK as regards sites. If similar laws are enacted in the UK, then you might as well give your m/home a Viking funeral. None of us will be able to park up, apart from sites.

vwalan, I know a traveller when I see one. Unfortunately most of them are not true travellers. If you call in here, I will make a paper rose for your lady (if I can still remember how to do it).
 
and thank you maingate .i could as a return show you how to bake a hedgehog in clay in an open fire .or bake bread under your open fire. sorry dont do pegs cheaper from china ,ha ha. but there is only one law we must make authority abide by it. every one thinks fair ground or showman etc have special laws just for them . we are all equal we just have to stand up and make them realize. i spend alot of time making authority abide its own rules ,they break more than most criminals. they have a total disregard or their own rules yet smack us with a fine every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top