Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

Dale Farm

last reply
179 replies
7.0k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by Dave__Notts
I would have to agree with the above for the majority of the Gypsy population the world over

25% of Gypsies/Travellers are on the road. That means 75% of the rest are not and 50% are in houses............paying council tax, rent, mortages, utilities, etc
Generalisations are flying thick and fast in this thread
Dave_Notts
you carry on believing that mr notts, but for me and for others you are in a minority of 1.
where on earth do you get that ludicrous statement above from? nobody can possibly have a clue as to how many are on the road. nobody has a clue how many are in the UK. i was not aware that travellers gave that information to anyone, you must have friends in high places then, or as i suspect making it up. :notes:
" Statistics for Irish Travellers in the UK do not exist, although in 2011, for the first time, the census categorised Romanies (including Roma) and Irish Travellers as distinct ethnic groups ". so,,,,, where are your stats from mr notts?
where i live we constantly get these peeple parking up in local council fields, and then the council having to clear up after them. the filth they leave behind to which i as a taxpayer have to pay for in the clean up every 3 months.
Quote by Dave__Notts
Then I look forward to your comments on this one Dave.
The ever-so-helpful forces of gipsy lawlessness will definitely be costing the local taxpayer purse on this one....

Perhaps Dave Dawson might be employed by the local council as a consultant....

Comment on what G?
This one would cost the tax payer money as it is public/council land..........i.e. the council are the landowner so they have to remove them.
Dave Dawsons land so he had to remove them.
This seems quite straight forward to me and I can't see why you don't grasp that the Council would not have been liable for the civil case involving Dave Dawson.
Dave_Notts
The fact that the Police, by their inappropriate action cause extra expense to the public purse. In the latest case, why should the local tax payer have to find the cost of evicting these people?
The tax payer could I suppose instigate a Class Action against the Chief Constable for his officers incompetence; presumably he (or she) has appropriate insurance but why should the tax payer foot the bill (no pun intended)?
Quote by starlightcouple
you carry on believing that mr notts, but for me and for others you are in a minority of 1.

You make me laugh Star. I now imagine you as the caped crusader on a mission to save Britain from the scourge of the Traveller. In fact, you are a voice who speaks for you and you alone. If anyone else wishes to agree or disagree then they can voice their opion on the forum. Until that time your opinion differs to mine.
Mind you, have I gave my opinion on the Travellers? I can't remember if I have or not......all I have done is shown that your claims are only your opinion based on nothing. All your claims I have read around and could find nothing to support your opinion, but plenty that discredits it.
Quote by starlightcouple
where on earth do you get that ludicrous statement above from? nobody can possibly have a clue as to how many are on the road. nobody has a clue how many are in the UK. i was not aware that travellers gave that information to anyone, you must have friends in high places then, or as i suspect making it up. :notes:
" Statistics for Irish Travellers in the UK do not exist, although in 2011, for the first time, the census categorised Romanies (including Roma) and Irish Travellers as distinct ethnic groups ". so,,,,, where are your stats from mr notts?

Search and thee shall find:



Quote by starlightcouple
where i live we constantly get these peeple parking up in local council fields, and then the council having to clear up after them. the filth they leave behind to which i as a taxpayer have to pay for in the clean up every 3 months.

Now this is an interesting point. Why do they park up illegaly? When the gypsy men were away fighting for King and Country this country made authorised sites for the horses & caravans to be housed. However, in '46 they removed this. So thanks for risking your lives and making the ultimate sacrifice but now it is over you are out on your ear.............Rule Britania.
Since then, more Acts & Regulations have been introduced or repealed stopping Gypsies from settling, so some have no option but to keep moving and stopping illegally because where it was once legal to to stop it is now illegal. The law makers have made this situation for the country and the Gypsies.........it is not the Gypsies that has mad it, it has been thrust upon them. For this reason, they have my sympathy. When they break the law and are dealt with within the law then I have no problems with that either.
Dave_Notts
Quote by GnV
The fact that the Police, by their inappropriate action cause extra expense to the public purse. In the latest case, why should the local tax payer have to find the cost of evicting these people?

Their land held by the local council. See my responce to Star on why they do it G. It'll save typing it out again.
Quote by GnV
The tax payer could I suppose instigate a Class Action against the Chief Constable for his officers incompetence; presumably he (or she) has appropriate insurance but why should the tax payer foot the bill (no pun intended)?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Police are funded through local taxation and central budgets that come from taxpayers.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
The fact that the Police, by their inappropriate action cause extra expense to the public purse. In the latest case, why should the local tax payer have to find the cost of evicting these people?

Their land held by the local council. See my responce to Star on why they do it G. It'll save typing it out again.
Quote by so then, in response to star, D_N
When they break the law and are dealt with within the law then I have no problems with that either.

But that's the problem being outlined Dave which you are failing to grasp; they often are NOT dealt with within the law so I guess you have a problem with that after all...
Another item cleared up.
Quote by Dave_Notts
The tax payer could I suppose instigate a Class Action against the Chief Constable for his officers incompetence; presumably he (or she) has appropriate insurance but why should the tax payer foot the bill (no pun intended)?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Police are funded through local taxation and central budgets that come from taxpayers.
Dave_Notts
But if the costs are covered by insurance... No cost to the public purse dunno
Quote by Dave__Notts
You make me laugh Star. I now imagine you as the caped crusader on a mission to save Britain from the scourge of the Traveller. In fact, you are a voice who speaks for you and you alone. If anyone else wishes to agree or disagree then they can voice their opion on the forum. Until that time your opinion differs to mine.

i speak for me and me alone? somehow i think not mr notts. try telling that to the residents of basildon council, who were threatened and intimidated over the fact they dared to back the council. try telling that to every land owner who has woken up to find these peeple camped on his land. then has to spend his money on getting them evicted even though they have broken onto his land. the law will of course ask the land owner has he any proof they have broken onto his land, but the gypsies are not fools. they sneak onto land in the middle of the night, like thieves in the night.
they then leave hordes of rubbish, once again got rid of at the landowners expense. on my own mr notts? a "caped crusader" mr notts? not at all.
Quote by Dave__Notts
Search and thee shall find:



bravo mr notts, bravo. is that all you could find? a load of public relations material written by gypsies, for gypsies, for the benefit of gypsies? rotflmao:rotflmao:
the human rights act and the ethnic minority rubbish these peeple now use, just blights peeples lives even more. peeple may well not agree with what i say, but like that horrid woman vanessa redgrave who so galantly came to the rescue of the dale farm peeple, she never offered to have them camping out in her lush back garden, and neither would you. as long as they are on someone elses property, causing someone else the problem peeple then say poor travelers, they have nowhere to go. :upset:
Quote by I
where i live we constantly get these peeple parking up in local council fields, and then the council having to clear up after them. the filth they leave behind to which i as a taxpayer have to pay for in the clean up every 3 months.

Quote by Dave__Notts
Now this is an interesting point. Why do they park up illegaly? When the gypsy men were away fighting for King and Country this country made authorised sites for the horses & caravans to be housed. However, in '46 they removed this. So thanks for risking your lives and making the ultimate sacrifice but now it is over you are out on your ear.............Rule Britania.

no they do not park up illegally mr notts, many times they break onto a piece of land and then park up as you say. you make it sound like they are on holiday. a caravaner going down the west country for there holidays "parks up" mr notts. but then move on again until they reach there destination. many of these travellers have homes back in ireland so are certainly not homeless either as some may suggest.
what has a lesson on ancient history got to do with gypsies breaking onto someones land in the middle of the night, and causing all sorts of problems? many of the traveller gypsies are irish now in england, why? what is so wrong with ireland?
Quote by Dave__Notts
Since then, more Acts & Regulations have been introduced or repealed stopping Gypsies from settling, so some have no option but to keep moving and stopping illegally because where it was once legal to to stop it is now illegal. The law makers have made this situation for the country and the Gypsies.........it is not the Gypsies that has mad it, it has been thrust upon them. For this reason, they have my sympathy. When they break the law and are dealt with within the law then I have no problems with that either.
Dave_Notts

yes as a motorist i know the feeling mr notts. i also used to be able to stop and park up without it being illegal, but now alas that traffic warden person comes along and tells me to move along. harsh eh? the law stinks at times, it really does. rolleyes
a few for you to ponder over mr notts.



and seeing as a lot of the links are written by travellers for travellers my last link is from the other side of things. one side of which i firmly agree with.

:thumbup::thumbup:
i do so hope that they do not sneak onto your property in the middle of the night mr notts, but then again i am sure you would offer them bacon sarnies and a sympathetic ear. innocent make sure you have plenty of bin bags, oh and the address of the nearest skip owner.
Quote by GnV
But that's the problem being outlined Dave which you are failing to grasp; they often are NOT dealt with within the law so I guess you have a problem with that after all...
Another item cleared up.

When are the Travellers getting away with breaking the law G? This is the laughable thing about this whole thread. "The Travellers get away with it" is bandied all over this thread..............but the irony is that the Travellers were evicted from Dale Farm, so they lost. Yet it is used over and over and over again as an example of them getting away with breaking the law.
Nobody has shown mass examples of Travellers getting away with any laws. The two examples of Dale Farm and the shooting of Barras showed that the Travellers faced the law and were dealt with.
Quote by GnV
But if the costs are covered by insurance... No cost to the public purse dunno

Excess? Premiums? Uninsurable costs?
There is always a cost G
Dave_Notts
I take it that you missed the publication by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister :doh:
As for the rest, just rhetoric without substance. Same old, same old. I would love to see a link to show that the police are too scared to uphold the law because the camps are travellers...............but I may not hold my breath for it.
The ancient history is the reason that there is this problem now. If the old customs would still apply now then there would not be so many problems now. For example, people complain about the east european migrant workers doing agricultural work. This used to be done by the Gypsies, yet when the laws were changed so they could not park up on a farmers land, with the farmers permission for the harvest. Then the farmers did not employ them but went for the migrants instead.
Most of this mess has been put on this country, and the Gypsy, by subsequent governments.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
But that's the problem being outlined Dave which you are failing to grasp; they often are NOT dealt with within the law so I guess you have a problem with that after all...
Another item cleared up.

When are the Travellers getting away with breaking the law G? This is the laughable thing about this whole thread. "The Travellers get away with it" is bandied all over this thread..............but the irony is that the Travellers were evicted from Dale Farm, so they lost. Yet it is used over and over and over again as an example of them getting away with breaking the law.
Nobody has shown mass examples of Travellers getting away with any laws. The two examples of Dale Farm and the shooting of Barras showed that the Travellers faced the law and were dealt with.
Quote by GnV
But if the costs are covered by insurance... No cost to the public purse dunno

Excess? Premiums? Uninsurable costs?
There is always a cost G
Dave_Notts
So you can equally prove that every vehicle on the public highway owned/used by a "traveller" is properly taxed and insured and that is the reason the Police take no action against them?
C'mon Dave.
Quote by Dave__Notts
I take it that you missed the publication by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister :doh:

no :doh: here mr notts. just that the deputy of any political persuasion just seems a very weak and lame piece of evidence to use. does this artical carry any political substance? what from a deputy PM who is not and has never been in power of any sort? now there is indeed a :doh:
i am sure the coalition will be hanging on it's every word. rotflmao
Quote by Dave__Notts
As for the rest, just rhetoric without substance.

plenty of substance it is just that you do not want to accept that these peeple are a bloody nuisance. of course not a nuisance when they do not affect a person, but a bloody drain on local authorities, and a drain and a nuisance to land owners. they do not want to be part of any community yet are now shouting about how they are persecuted as a minority. next they will be screaming about there human rights. now there is a big :doh: there.
substance indeed.

peaceful and upstanding members of the community. also law abiding as well. :doh:
still they are " misunderstood " stated a local police inspector. I bet that inspector was sitting in his cosy office while the poor coppers on the street go in and do the dirty work, with kid gloves on as well.
Quote by GnV
So you can equally prove that every vehicle on the public highway owned/used by a "traveller" is properly taxed and insured and that is the reason the Police take no action against them?

G,
To be honest can any one prove every vehicle on the public highway is properly taxed and insured ?
Evidence from numerous spot checks would seem to differ. It's long been an issue and one of the 'drivers' (no pun intended) behind the linking up of the DVLA, VOSA (MOT test) and Insurance databases together with the ANPR devices deployed in various vehicles to catch these people - which to an extent de-personalises things as all they get is a 'ping' on vehicles of interest irrsepective as to the age, occupation, cultural background of the occupant (s).
Granted as a benefit of the technology renewing your Tax 'online', with automatic checks for MOT and Insurance, certainly beats queuing at the Post Office any day of the week.
Quote by HnS
So you can equally prove that every vehicle on the public highway owned/used by a "traveller" is properly taxed and insured and that is the reason the Police take no action against them?

G,
To be honest can any one prove every vehicle on the public highway is properly taxed and insured ?
Evidence from numerous spot checks would seem to differ. It's long been an issue and one of the 'drivers' (no pun intended) behind the linking up of the DVLA, VOSA (MOT test) and Insurance databases together with the ANPR devices deployed in various vehicles to catch these people - which to an extent de-personalises things as all they get is a 'ping' on vehicles of interest irrsepective as to the age, occupation, cultural background of the occupant (s).
Granted as a benefit of the technology renewing your Tax 'online', with automatic checks for MOT and Insurance, certainly beats queuing at the Post Office any day of the week.
Well, yes of course H.
When they get a 'ping' there then follows a rather smelly 'pong' and they move on rapidly to an easier 'target' :lol2:
Quote by starlightcouple
no :doh: here mr notts. just that the deputy of any political persuasion just seems a very weak and lame piece of evidence to use. does this artical carry any political substance? what from a deputy PM who is not and has never been in power of any sort? now there is indeed a :doh:

So what evidence on numbers would you like to see then Star? What is acceptable to you?
I have given you a link to a paper from a government office (P.S. it is the ODPM not the actual DPM who wrote it), links from those that work or are active in the field of travellers, with one being a pamphlet from those who represent them but there are numerous national newspaper links who also give the same figures.
But it seems none of these are acceptable. It seems that the figures that you plucked from the sky are the ones you are clinging to. In that case it is not worth discussing this particular issue with you as you have made up your mind on no evidence except your own perception.
Quote by starlightcouple
plenty of substance it is just that you do not want to accept that these peeple are a bloody nuisance.

Looks like the goal posts are changing. I have never disputed that some are a nuisance in certain circumstances, I am disputing the ridiculous claim of a two tiered law system and the reasons why they actually do it.
Dave_Notts
Quote by GnV
So you can equally prove that every vehicle on the public highway owned/used by a "traveller" is properly taxed and insured and that is the reason the Police take no action against them?
C'mon Dave.

Of course not and no I can't prove that claim, but thats not what I claimed.
My claim is that the Travellers do not get away with it if they are discovered to have broken the law and the police can provide evidence that will support a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt. This is what happens with Travellers and any other person in this country.........except embassy staff wink
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts

So you can equally prove that every vehicle on the public highway owned/used by a "traveller" is properly taxed and insured and that is the reason the Police take no action against them?
C'mon Dave.

Of course not and no I can't prove that claim, but thats not what I claimed.
My claim is that the Travellers do not get away with it if they are discovered to have broken the law and the police can provide evidence that will support a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt. This is what happens with Travellers and any other person in this country.........except embassy staff wink
Dave_Notts
Well I'm sorry Dave, but they do get away with it even when there is compelling evidence on which to make a prosecution and convict.
The personal experience I outlined earlier in the thread is not anecdotal. I rang the Police, they immediately knew the vehicle (presumably from PNC check) and the owner (as later I became aware of too) and given they were from a local travelling show, as it were (courtesy of Cher), they decided it wasnt in their interest to bother with it but to give me a Christmas present of the 'booty'.
By the way, I tidied up your quote within a quote mess In this posting :wink:
G
to sides to every argument :twisted:


seems a perfectly legitimate thing to do, start building a second after council staff go on a bank holiday jaunt. i would presume these peeple had there planning application granted for this little project? i know it is 2009 but no relevance there as to how some have to get planning permission for most building work, and how others can build a mini town and get away with it.
oh dear they seem to still be here despite an order for them to leave by JANUARY of this year, we are now in june.

a law abiding person would have had the baillifs round and been evicted the day the court order ran out. a local MP i am sure would also come to our rescue.. i think now somehow.
" Resident Barbara Griffiths has objected to the application, saying: "They, like us, have to obey the law, nothing has changed. The site, seen clearly from our house, is still occupied by many caravans. We ask the council to take every measure necessary to remove the travellers from Southend Lane as soon as possible."
where do these peeple get the money from to be able to keep the law at bay through the courts?
Star,
Illegal development without planning consent and illegal outside of the terms of any planning consent granted happens all the time all over the country, just pay a visit to any Town Hall and look at Planning Committee Agendas/Minutes - they are public records afterall.
From past experience, being both being Councillors at various times in different parts of the country and sitting on Planning, usually had one of these 2 types of issues to deal with most meetings, though to be honest only 1 'traveller' related one every couple of years.
To be fair the facts and any Officers recommendations being presented, discussed, voted on, and only then were details/names provided on request, so that as far as possible an impartial agreement was reached and the appropriate action taken.
In the Daily Wail link you've provided, then yes this relates to a Travellers 'development, though over the years we've heard or dealt with scores of cases from illegal domestic development through to whole houses, million £ + commercial developments, including a Super store, which all required 'enforcement action' by the council though see prescious few of those reported in the Wail.
Quote by HnS
In the Daily Wail link you've provided, then yes this relates to a Travellers 'development, though over the years we've heard or dealt with scores of cases from illegal domestic development through to whole houses, million £ + commercial developments, including a Super store, which all required 'enforcement action' by the council though see prescious few of those reported in the Wail.

HNS,
i fully appreciate your comments but surely even you can see that gypsies building on land over a bank holiday, was done for a specific reason? also you failed to be drawn i notice to the comment in the link stating that a court had ordered there removal by january of this year (we are now in june btw), and strange as it is they are still there. not a single illegal sewer or electricity socket has been removed. surely a court could order a energy supplier to cut off the electric as well? i was also under the impression that any electrical work such as that, would also be illegal for health and safety purposes? still i digress on that point.
i would hazard at a guess that a domestic development and certainly a superstore would when ordered by a court, would stop all work and demolish it immediately. it is easy knocking down an illegal superstore, but another thing forcing peeple off of land through a court order. if it was that easy it would have been done by now, but six months on from the court order they still remain.
also i can only speak for myself but if pushed i know which one of the to i would want close to my property. a superstore or a load of gypsies who have even built there own roads fgs . an easy one that even for me.
Quote by starlightcouple
... also you failed to be drawn i notice to the comment in the link stating that a court had ordered there removal by january of this year (we are now in june btw).

In the link that you provided, dated 13:29, 25 May 2009 the only reference as to legal proceedings is in the last line, "council planners went back to work on Tuesday and started the lengthy legal process of eviction."
Therefore the local Planning Authority (Forest of Dean District Council in this instance) would be following enforcement powers as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Advice on these powers can be found in Planning Policy Guidance Note 18: Enforcing Planning Control (PPG18).
The article does not refer to any of the planning enforcement tools, e.g. Requisition Notice, Planning Contravention Notice, Breach of Condition Notice, Enforcement Notice, Stop Notice, Temporay Stop Notice, or Injunction at their disposal.
Quote by starlightcouple
...not a single illegal sewer or electricity socket has been removed. surely a court could order a energy supplier to cut off the electric as well? i was also under the impression that any electrical work such as that, would also be illegal for health and safety purposes? still i digress on that point....

Yes a Court could order many things, including Electricity Companies to cut off a supply irrespective as to whether (a) the bill was being paid and there were no arrears on the account, (b) irrespective as to whether the supply complied with the relevant Regulations
Was the Court 'asked' ?
Quote by starlightcouple
...i would hazard at a guess that a domestic development and certainly a superstore would when ordered by a court, would stop all work and demolish it immediately. it is easy knocking down an illegal superstore,....

You might think so, however this store was opened in 2004 some 20% larger than agreed, with retrospective planning permission rejected in 2006. Feel free to visit the store, thousands do.
Quote by starlightcouple
... also i can only speak for myself but if pushed i know which one of the to i would want close to my property. a superstore or a load of gypsies who have even built there own roads fgs . an easy one that even for me.

An easy one would be neither, but hey if your 'thing' is Superstores each to their own
Quote by GnV

So you can equally prove that every vehicle on the public highway owned/used by a "traveller" is properly taxed and insured and that is the reason the Police take no action against them?
C'mon Dave.

Of course not and no I can't prove that claim, but thats not what I claimed.
My claim is that the Travellers do not get away with it if they are discovered to have broken the law and the police can provide evidence that will support a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt. This is what happens with Travellers and any other person in this country.........except embassy staff wink
Dave_Notts
Well I'm sorry Dave, but they do get away with it even when there is compelling evidence on which to make a prosecution and convict.
The personal experience I outlined earlier in the thread is not anecdotal. I rang the Police, they immediately knew the vehicle (presumably from PNC check) and the owner (as later I became aware of too) and given they were from a local travelling show, as it were (courtesy of Cher), they decided it wasnt in their interest to bother with it but to give me a Christmas present of the 'booty'.
By the way, I tidied up your quote within a quote mess In this posting :wink:
G
Is every crime pursued and dealt with within the law G? I have one at the moment that looks like the CPS will drop as "not serious enough" even though the police agree with us. I just have to take it on the chin that with lack of resources not everything will be followed up.
If the police didn't take it, could you not have taken a private prosecution? This is the route we are looking at, but are hanging back until the full decision by the CPS has been revealed.
In my scenario, I have not declared that this type of person/race get away with it........I have to accept that resources and other factors have an influence. Throughout this whole thread none of the stories that are in the public eye have been shown that the travellers "have got away with it". So where this idea comes from is bemusing to me.
Dave_Notts
PS what quoting mess?................................ :grin: bolt
Quote by Dave__Notts
PS what quoting mess?................................ :grin: bolt

But it took you 3 turns to get it right :lol2:
Quote by GnV
PS what quoting mess?................................ :grin: bolt

But it took you 3 turns to get it right :lol2:
I'm a repeater............what more can I say wink
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
PS what quoting mess?................................ :grin: bolt

But it took you 3 turns to get it right :lol2:
I'm a repeater............what more can I say wink
Dave_Notts
:laughabove::laughabove::laughabove:
got you there GNV lol
Quote by Dave__Notts
PS what quoting mess?................................ :grin: bolt

But it took you 3 turns to get it right :lol2:
I'm a repeater............what more can I say wink
Dave_Notts
Even I can manage it 3 times in 2½ days :lol2:
Oh fecking stop it rotflmao
This is supposed to be a serious thread..............stop making me laugh lol
Dave_Notts
But where will we get the yoghurt from when they've all been moved on.....