Why is STILL ok to attack certain communities? SERIOUS QUESTION!

[DerbyGull]

That thread was quite something. Change the wording to Black, Asian, Jewish, disabled, gay or any other community and it would be racist/prejudice and all the attackers would be rightly banned.

And some NSC members might even come on here and start a thread saying why is this gay, i mean traveller/gypsy, defamation ok? But because a few isolated cases are shown by media outlets like BBC and The Sun painting this community in a bad light and encouraging the public to think badly of them then it's ok.

Double standards from the media, one of the last forms of accepted prejudice.

The sooner the law is changed to include Travellers/gypsy communities in the anti-prejudice movement the better.

I'm not a traveller, nor do i have any connections to a traveller community. But i see the double standards in this, and it stinks of hypocrisy.

Where else would a community of 80 families be kicked out of their home JUST because they were living on a disused scrapyard?

The issue been thrown about people is that the dale farm people were on 'greenbelt' land. They were breaking the law by a few square metres, on a disused barren piece of land which was a blot on the land scape itself. So people would rather see a horrible piece of concrete lay barren than a community of people put it to good use?

The Community Right to Build programme, a bill being brought in by this government, allows villagers to build on GREENBELT land WITHOUT planning permission. So why is it ok for villagers to build on greenbelt land and without the need for 'permission' but not for 'Travellers' to put caravans on it? Is this prejudism?

At the same time this government wants to stop travellers from gaining planning permission for 'illegal' encampments: Conservatives pledge to stop travellers from gaining planning permission for illegal permanent camps - Telegraph

To put it in perspective: Travellers: Own the land, go through the correct avenues to obtain planning permission, suffer a highly disproportion amount rejected planning applications compared to the rest of society. The villagers: own their land, freely 'allowed' to build on greenbelt.

This has ALL the hallmarks of prejudice.

 

[Nibble]

I am certain the truth lies somehwere between but there is undoubtedly prejudice toward travellers in society.

 

[Gully]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above.

The thread about gypsies was offensive on so many levels, one of the posters was effectively being bullied by several others, I don't really care about the derisory comments aimed in my direction as I have heard far worse. It was me who reported it to the moderators, although others may also have done so. I would just ask those who did contribute to have a really good look at themselves and consider how your posts may have made you appear to others. I used to be proud to associate myself with the Albion and NSC, now I'm not so sure.

I am all for freedom of speech and will defend it rigorously, but in the hands of some it is so clearly wasted.

 

[dgh123]

There is simply no respect in our society and whatever people say they claim that they have a right to say it because of 'freedom of speech'. Its turned into a scape route, people just need to keep there comments to them selves. I'm not a traveler or in any minority group in the U.K but I find it wrong how people can say totally disgusting comments and get away with it because they believe its a right.

Freedom of speech is good don't get me wrong but it has recently been used wrongly but idiots who are doing wrong but say that they are using it for a 'scape route', 'freedom of speech' should be used to express their views on oppressive regimes (like Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi ) not to discriminate against minority groups!

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

It's not right to persecute someone on the basis of their raical group but its also not right to not enforce a law on the basis of their racial group.

Those at the illegal part of Dale Farm knew they were breaking the law from the moment they concreted over. They just hoped they would get away with it. They didn't.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Good post DerbyGull. It seems there always has to be somebody for the rest of society to kick around and it seems that 'travellers' are the target du jour.

 

[Hotchilidog]

It's not right to persecute someone on the basis of their raical group but its also not right to not enforce a law on the basis of their racial group.

Those at the illegal part of Dale Farm knew they were breaking the law from the moment they concreted over. They just hoped they would get away with it. They didn't.

Technically you are correct, however looking into it a little bit more you wonder whether the reason permission wasn't granted was because it was that particular community applying for it. I have read today that 90% of planning applications from these communities get turned down, as opposed to a general refusal rate far lower than that.

As a card carrying lentil munching tree hugger I am no fan of people breaching planning regs, but I am curious as to why this community was not granted permission for the development. Also what is to become of the land now, and will it's owners benefit financially from it?

 

[dgh123]

They broke the law in which I think is wrong so theoretically the travelers shoudn't be there, and also it is classed as green belt land. Therefore you would think that nothing would be on that piece of land before the travelers...
But a legal scrap yard was on it before where the council use to dump cars on it to be scarped and now with the governments new proposals to legalize the building of houses on some greenbelt land to house people it does seem a bit ridiculous for the supposed reasons for there eviction.

 

[Was not Was]

You're on to something. I've been more sympathetic than I might be to the Dale Farm travellers due to my experience in Romania over ten years ago. I was asked to help out with the people who were building the probation service from scratch in that (very poor, post-communist) country. As you'd imagine, we had a roomful of some of the most liberal people in the country; who else goes out of their way to work with criminals with no funding?

Nonetheless, the anti-Roma racism was astonishing. I'd never heard anything like it, and to hear it from such a progressive bunch was startling. What I learned was that well-meaning people are still able to jump on a bandwagon of prejudice if it's the norm.

I know the travellers in the UK aren't generally Roma, but still - I, too, have a sense that this is the last (?) remaining acceptable prejudice.

 

[Hotchilidog]

They broke the law in which I think is wrong so theoretically the travelers shoudn't be there, and also it is classed as green belt land. Therefore you would think that nothing would be on that piece of land before the travelers...
But a legal scrap yard was on it before where the council use to dump cars on it to be scarped and now with the governments new proposals to legalize the building of houses on some greenbelt land to house people it does seem a bit ridiculous for the supposed reasons for there eviction.

And this is the crucial point. I agree legally the Dale farm community did not have leg to stand on, permission was not granted they would have to leave. I do however find it difficult to believe that prejudice did not play apart in the refusal of planning permission in the first place.

This of course being quite ironic as the government are seeking to relax planning controls in certain areas now.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Technically you are correct, however looking into it a little bit more you wonder whether the reason permission wasn't granted was because it was that particular community applying for it. I have read today that 90% of planning applications from these communities get turned down, as opposed to a general refusal rate far lower than that.

As a card carrying lentil munching tree hugger I am no fan of people breaching planning regs, but I am curious as to why this community was not granted permission for the development. Also what is to become of the land now, and will it's owners benefit financially from it?

I don't know for sure, but probably one of the reasons why it was not approved was because they didn't apply and just went ahead and poured the concrete. Councils don't take too kindly to retrospective applications. If they had of applied and were turned down and suspected that it was on the grounds that they were travellers they would have surefire legal ground for judicial review.

The long term plan for the land is to return it to green belt land.

 

[Seagull kimchi]

The perceived 'criminality' - or lack of tax paying productivity of the travelling/alternative community will always raise the hackles of the Daily Mail reading, smug majority sections of society.

The ideals of freedom and shared ownership of our blessed soil will likely terrify those who want to forever build fences and walls.

 

[Hotchilidog]

I don't know for sure, but probably one of the reasons why it was not approved was because they didn't apply and just went ahead and poured the concrete. Councils don't take too kindly to retrospective applications. If they had of applied and were turned down and suspected that it was on the grounds that they were travellers they would have surefire legal ground for judicial review.

The long term plan for the land is to return it to green belt land.

If that was the case, and I have not followed this closely enough to know all the ins and outs, then obviously they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. I am not in favour in retrospective planning permission either, so to some degree I agree with principle which the eviction upheld. Having said that though I cannot help feeling that some sort of prejudice informed the whole situation here. If for example traveller communities had had a higher success rate than 10per cent in previous planning applications, maybe the Dale Farm community may have felt more inclined to go through due process rather than try and present a fait accompli.

 

[User removed 4]

You're on to something. I've been more sympathetic than I might be to the Dale Farm travellers due to my experience in Romania over ten years ago. I was asked to help out with the people who were building the probation service from scratch in that (very poor, post-communist) country. As you'd imagine, we had a roomful of some of the most liberal people in the country; who else goes out of their way to work with criminals with no funding?

Nonetheless, the anti-Roma racism was astonishing. I'd never heard anything like it, and to hear it from such a progressive bunch was startling. What I learned was that well-meaning people are still able to jump on a bandwagon of prejudice if it's the norm.I know the travellers in the UK aren't generally Roma, but still - I, too, have a sense that this is the last (?) remaining acceptable prejudice.

Or, maybe , horror of horrors, they were speaking from experience ??

 

[beorhthelm]

The Community Right to Build programme, a bill being brought in by this government, allows villagers to build on GREENBELT land WITHOUT planning permission. So why is it ok for villagers to build on greenbelt land and without the need for 'permission' but not for 'Travellers' to put caravans on it? Is this prejudism?

once the new law has come in, and if a group of travellers is not allowed to build in greenbelt they own while another group is, then you can come back here and talk about the prejudice of the system. until then, you are talking bollocks about existing rules over potential rules we dont even know for certain will come in.

as for hypocrisy, shall we first deal with the "travellers" who demand to have fixed sites and want to build static homes while invoking their right to be recognised as a seperate culture?

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

If that was the case, and I have not followed this closely enough to know all the ins and outs, then obviously they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. I am not in favour in retrospective planning permission either, so to some degree I agree with principle which the eviction upheld. Having said that though I cannot help feeling that some sort of prejudice informed the whole situation here. If for example traveller communities had had a higher success rate than 10per cent in previous planning applications, maybe the Dale Farm community may have felt more inclined to go through due process rather than try and present a fait accompli.

The 90% stat though is meaningless unless you can see more detail about what they were concerning. It's not as if its a case of getting lucky one of the times. If the planning application is clearly unlawful then it won't matter that the previous 20 were refused, they'll still refuse it.

 

[bhaexpress]

That thread was quite something. Change the wording to Black, Asian, Jewish, disabled, gay or any other community and it would be racist/prejudice and all the attackers would be rightly banned.

And some NSC members might even come on here and start a thread saying why is this gay, i mean traveller/gypsy, defamation ok? But because a few isolated cases are shown by media outlets like BBC and The Sun painting this community in a bad light and encouraging the public to think badly of them then it's ok.

Double standards from the media, one of the last forms of accepted prejudice.

The sooner the law is changed to include Travellers/gypsy communities in the anti-prejudice movement the better.

I'm not a traveller, nor do i have any connections to a traveller community. But i see the double standards in this, and it stinks of hypocrisy.

Where else would a community of 80 families be kicked out of their home JUST because they were living on a disused scrapyard?

The issue been thrown about people is that the dale farm people were on 'greenbelt' land. They were breaking the law by a few square metres, on a disused barren piece of land which was a blot on the land scape itself. So people would rather see a horrible piece of concrete lay barren than a community of people put it to good use?

The Community Right to Build programme, a bill being brought in by this government, allows villagers to build on GREENBELT land WITHOUT planning permission. So why is it ok for villagers to build on greenbelt land and without the need for 'permission' but not for 'Travellers' to put caravans on it? Is this prejudism?

At the same time this government wants to stop travellers from gaining planning permission for 'illegal' encampments: Conservatives pledge to stop travellers from gaining planning permission for illegal permanent camps - Telegraph

To put it in perspective: Travellers: Own the land, go through the correct avenues to obtain planning permission, suffer a highly disproportion amount rejected planning applications compared to the rest of society. The villagers: own their land, freely 'allowed' to build on greenbelt.

This has ALL the hallmarks of prejudice.

If you have a problem with a post why not report it to the Moderators ?

 

[piersa]

people who knowingly commit crime and ignore the law are aprehended by the law. That is not racial hatred or racism. The PC brigade who twist the enforcement of the law as racism or opression should get some perspective and reality.

 

[Greyrun]

My negative attitude towards the Travellers is based on
1 Witnessing elderly people being ripped off.
2 The filth they leave behind
3 Aggresive anti-social behaviour.

 

[bhaexpress]

Or, maybe , horror of horrors, they were speaking from experience ??

No mate, they're just bigots like you and me.