So that'll be "nul points" north of the A127 to Bas Labour come May 1st then ;)

Frank

Thanks Labour, just another stab in the back for us tax paying, law abiding, down trodden, people of Essex/Britain again.

Boy you're really makiing me feel like the minority in my own country...

won't be voting for yo this time round then...

He said: "This is an outrageous amount of money to set aside, to enforce planning laws at a former scrapyard in an anonymous country lane."

That comment just proves the arrogance of the labour party and the contempt it has for the electorate.
Oak road may be an anonymous lane to you , but people do actualy live there and the surrounding area.
What you are actually saying is there are no greenbelt laws and all and sundry can build what ever they wish....!
Keep up the good comments like this and you will reep your rewards in the may elections.
Good riddance to you and good riddance to your lying cheating corrupt government.

Looks like the Nu-Lab Think-Tank has thrown a track.

Another vote lost.

the undertaker wrote:
He said: "This is an outrageous amount of money to set aside, to enforce planning laws at a former scrapyard in an anonymous country lane." That comment just proves the arrogance of the labour party and the contempt it has for the electorate. Oak road may be an anonymous lane to you , but people do actualy live there and the surrounding area. What you are actually saying is there are no greenbelt laws and all and sundry can build what ever they wish....! Keep up the good comments like this and you will reep your rewards in the may elections. Good riddance to you and good riddance to your lying cheating corrupt government.

'What you are actually saying is there are no greenbelt laws and all and sundry can build what ever they wish'.

They can, look at the new Southend football stadium.

I don't normally post on other districts sites. But this has got to be a spectacular own goal from Labour. I cannot think of anything more unpopular than allowing these Pikey vermin to continue flouting the law.

But Labour have a past history of patronising the white law-abiding working class, just look at this government.

It's about time there was a vote of No Confidence with this wishy washy council whom see fit to waste hard working peoples' money on those wishing to flout the law at any cost!
Only to be told there is due to be a further rise in council tax this year to underwrite the inadequacies of those whom see fit to waste money.
To think we pay highly inflated salaries to these stuffed shirts to represent our best interests is just rubbing salt into the wound!
Open the flood gates for more parasites to suck the system dry why not?

Francis Grubb wrote:
So that'll be "nul points" north of the A127 to Bas Labour come May 1st then ;) Frank

I am really not a Labour supporter but they are right on this issue. All that's gonna happen is the council spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money trying to get them out. This battle will go on for years, trust me and so much money will be given to lawyers. What about this money being used for the good of the majority of people in the Basildon district? The council has a duty to act for the majority and not the minority of people living in the small village of Crays Hill. Of course, for the Tories, it is where they have quite a lot of support!

That says it all.

I cannot think of a finer example of 'New Bloody Labour' doing more for the law breakers than they even think about doing for the law abiding, tax paying non benefit scrounging hard working folk!!

I hate everything about 'New Labour'and hopefully at the next General Election they will all go back to Scotland.

Then at least we might have a chance of returning to England for the English and anyone that wants to work hard pay taxes and be lawful.

Michael wrote:

Francis Grubb wrote: So that'll be "nul points" north of the A127 to Bas Labour come May 1st then ;) Frank

I am really not a Labour supporter but they are right on this issue. All that's gonna happen is the council spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money trying to get them out. This battle will go on for years, trust me and so much money will be given to lawyers. What about this money being used for the good of the majority of people in the Basildon district? The council has a duty to act for the majority and not the minority of people living in the small village of Crays Hill. Of course, for the Tories, it is where they have quite a lot of support!

Thats a selfish and misguided quote really is'nt it.
Because the outcome of dale farm will set a precedent for the rest of the country.
If the council give up on this ,then they are giving these people carte blanche to develop what ever patch of green belt they want.

i told them to get comical ali as there spokesman.

Kim - you have the floor

Michael wrote:

Francis Grubb wrote: So that\'ll be \"nul points\" north of the A127 to Bas Labour come May 1st then ;) Frank

I am really not a Labour supporter but they are right on this issue. All that\'s gonna happen is the council spending millions of pounds of taxpayers\' money trying to get them out. This battle will go on for years, trust me and so much money will be given to lawyers. What about this money being used for the good of the majority of people in the Basildon district? The council has a duty to act for the majority and not the minority of people living in the small village of Crays Hill. Of course, for the Tories, it is where they have quite a lot of support!

You can ignore Messrs Smith & Kirkman - they're small beer - and for their support at the recent Regional Assembly for 81 more pitches for Basildon they will "reap what they've sown" at the ballot box in May.You could give a little credit to the two Labour Secty's of State who supported Bas Council in 2 appeals on Dale Farm.As for duty,the Council has a statutory duty to uphold the Planning Laws - if they fail in that duty,they'll deserve everything they get.

Labour are right to not wish to waste millions of taxpayers' money on eviction by a bunch of bully boys (sorry bailiffs). What is the point of eviction when all you are doing is moving the problem on and then the Council has to house those it has made homeless? More cost to the taxpayers!The traveller site used to be a concreted scrap yard so it is hardly "GREEN" belt anyway!!! There has to be a better solution.

Thanks Labour - you'll never get my vote while there is a breath in my body. At least Thatcher made me feel proud of my country. I WAS Labour but never ever again. You're more traitorous than the terrorists.

Jan wrote:
Labour are right to not wish to waste millions of taxpayers' money on eviction by a bunch of bully boys (sorry bailiffs). What is the point of eviction when all you are doing is moving the problem on and then the Council has to house those it has made homeless? More cost to the taxpayers!The traveller site used to be a concreted scrap yard so it is hardly "GREEN" belt anyway!!! There has to be a better solution.

It has never been a scrapyard,it was a car breakers then a car salvage yard.
And that was only a small part of it.
I take it that you dont reside in the vicinity of dale farm...!As people who post on here supporting the actions of the squatters dont have their lives affected by them.
How would you feel if all of a sudden your house was worth 40% less than its true value,(thats if you can sell) due to a neighbour from hell...!You would'nt support them would you,i suspect you would be trying to get the authorities to evict them.Thats the situation for all the residents of crays hill but on a bigger scale.

I wouldn't vote Labour, but, frankly, they are right on the issue.

The amount of taxpayers money that's been spent on helping sad little people like John Dornan and Kim Gandy fight their sad parochial battles is ridiculous. If people in Crays Hill want it, they should pay for it themselves, without the rest of us having to fork out.

Just out of curiousity,

Does anyone know what will actually happen if they do end up being removed?

Will the council buy the land back from them? or will be they still own it but not be allowed to develop any further?

I know they've done wrong, but can't help feeling sorry for the time and money they must have spent. Especially for the older ones who might have used their live savings.

Fred Freispracher wrote:
I wouldn't vote Labour, but, frankly, they are right on the issue. The amount of taxpayers money that's been spent on helping sad little people like John Dornan and Kim Gandy fight their sad parochial battles is ridiculous. If people in Crays Hill want it, they should pay for it themselves, without the rest of us having to fork out.

Why should the residents of crays hill pay....!
This whole debacle was created by the inaction of the council in the first instance.

I just hope at the next round of elections the people of Basildon remember these Councillors.

Who the hell wants gypsies squatting near you devaluing land and generaly making an absolute mess and thieving whenever they get the chance. The Dale Farm lot are probably the biggest parasites in essex let alone Basildon and i dont know anyone in Basildon who has a good word for them.

These councillors need to remember that they are elected by the people to represent the people NOT to embark on their godly missions against the greater wishes of the electorate.

If this is now the Labour Policy in Basildon i sincerely doubt if there will be many labour seats left at the next elections. Also seeing as Nigel Smith is one of our MP'S Husband i wonder what HER stance on this issue really is.

Personally i dont care what the use of this land was before those scroats arrived, but we dont need them, dont want them and instead of spending a hell of a lot of money getting rid of them i would be happy to see a bomb dropped on them, doubt if thats allowed though. I now await the do-gooders wrath.

Jan wrote:
Labour are right to not wish to waste millions of taxpayers' money on eviction by a bunch of bully boys (sorry bailiffs). What is the point of eviction when all you are doing is moving the problem on and then the Council has to house those it has made homeless? More cost to the taxpayers!The traveller site used to be a concreted scrap yard so it is hardly "GREEN" belt anyway!!! There has to be a better solution.

I'm sure there are plenty homes to house those that are evicted. Let us not forget, as reported by the Echo, many allready have perfectly good houses to go to.

Lets do our bit and try to persuade everyone we know not give any Labour candidate the time of day in May.

I don't care how much it costs, these scroungers need to be kicked out. We owe it to Crays Hill, we owe it to S.E Essex and we owe it to everyone blighted by the anti-social parasites that infest us all.

curious wrote:
Just out of curiousity, Does anyone know what will actually happen if they do end up being removed? Will the council buy the land back from them? or will be they still own it but not be allowed to develop any further? I know they've done wrong, but can't help feeling sorry for the time and money they must have spent. Especially for the older ones who might have used their live savings.

I think you'll find that despite the apparent wealth of the travellers, they have, thus far, been getting legal aid to fight the battle.

Jan wrote:
Labour are right to not wish to waste millions of taxpayers\' money on eviction by a bunch of bully boys (sorry bailiffs). What is the point of eviction when all you are doing is moving the problem on and then the Council has to house those it has made homeless? More cost to the taxpayers!The traveller site used to be a concreted scrap yard so it is hardly \"GREEN\" belt anyway!!! There has to be a better solution.

what are you worried they might move near to you, I hope they do.

knobby wrote:
Lets do our bit and try to persuade everyone we know not give any Labour candidate the time of day in May. I don\'t care how much it costs, these scroungers need to be kicked out. We owe it to Crays Hill, we owe it to S.E Essex and we owe it to everyone blighted by the anti-social parasites that infest us all.

Thank you, someone with a lot of common sense. If we don't do something this whole area will be full of them with their disgusting antisocial behaviour. Vote conservative they are the only party that will get our greenbelt back from their greedy claws.

THAT STATEMENT MEANS NO MORE LABOUR COUNCILORS IN BASILDON.
WELL DONE NIGEL SMITH,
IF ONLY IT WAS THAT EASY TO GET RID OF THE ONES IN THE PALACE OF WESTMINISTER.

We need to spread the word to as many people as possible what will happen if labour get voted in. Kiss goodbye to every piece of greenbelt left in this area. The labour government haven't got a clue about what the people living here are suffering. How dare Nigel Smith say that this is about a small anonymous country lane. This is just about the biggest and most far reaching illegal activity that has ever happened to us in Essex. He is the most patronising arrogant and totally out of touch man in the labour party I have had the misfortune to listen to. I am totally gobsmacked that he can make such a stupid statement, the people of this area have rights, look at the groups that have been set up to fight the developments in Dry Street and Barn Hall just to name two of them. We will not bow down to this pig headed and short sighted government, we will fight to keep our greenbelt which is our heritage. Come on people of Essex fight for what is right and vote for what is right. The Echo is a great paper but this is a national problem in reality and needs to be dealt with nationally by this idiotic government.

curious wrote:
Kim - you have the floor

What can I say that I haven't already said? Except I am weary of blithering leftwing liberal politically correct scumsucking garbage.

They are actually worse than travellers or any other kind of miscreant minority.

Let's start pointing the finger at the do gooders.

If we can make their lives damned uncomfortable and make it so that THEIR views are totally unacceptable, eventually, things may turn full circle until these sick, sick people actually LOOK like the minority they actually are - and believe me they ARE in a minority.

Like all bullies they just look bigger than they actually are.

We can start by refusing to accept persecution for what we say and believe in and shooting these people down in flames every time they open their mouths.

I suggest we start here, with the next one that dares express a view on this forum.

Whilst I believe in people's right to a point of view, I do not believe we should all have to agree even when they are horribly, horribly wrong and totally misguided. Informed opinions are always best.

So I say to the bleeding hearts who like to get upset on others' behalf, shut up, in advance and no, I'm not coming back to hear your blatherings. So save your breath.

Go and do something useful like looking after our OWN GENUINELY needy, like the hugely ignored elderly, who fought to save your unworthy @sses so you can spout your pc nonsense here.

There, Curious. I hope that is satisfactory. Far be it from me to disappoint.

Oh and I'm a pussycat really. Honest!

Fred Freispracher wrote:
I wouldn't vote Labour, but, frankly, they are right on the issue. The amount of taxpayers money that's been spent on helping sad little people like John Dornan and Kim Gandy fight their sad parochial battles is ridiculous. If people in Crays Hill want it, they should pay for it themselves, without the rest of us having to fork out.

Don;t you DARE put me in the same bracket as John Dornan. Get your facts right. I don't live in Crays Hill although I am TRYING to sell my house there.

It's all right for you isn't it? They haven't affected YOUR life. Well, I hope they turn up on your doorstep next thenn you will see a "sad parochial battle" first hand.

And as for paying for it myself. I HAVE done, believe me and not just in money.

Now shut up and take your leftie views somewhere where you'll be more welcome.

People like you ought to be locked up.

Jan wrote:
Labour are right to not wish to waste millions of taxpayers' money on eviction by a bunch of bully boys (sorry bailiffs). What is the point of eviction when all you are doing is moving the problem on and then the Council has to house those it has made homeless? More cost to the taxpayers!The traveller site used to be a concreted scrap yard so it is hardly "GREEN" belt anyway!!! There has to be a better solution.

A year or two ago,Labour's then Deputy Prime Minister,John Prescott,said he had a much better idea;cheap,non-green belt government land and formerly a traveller site - Terminus Drive at Pitsea.
The Council (Con),5000 locals and their MP (Con)disagreed but did you think it was a "better solution"?

Nigel Smith's attitude to this illicit activity is quite alarming.This has broader issues than just the Travellers.Is he suggesting that if illegal developments are not able to be challenged cost effectively,then they should'nt be pursued, This would be a free for all for every one who wishes to flout planning law.

Sorry but do you realise what these scumbags have done.

They have actually broken the law by building without planning permission, what would happen IF I was to build a mobile home in the middle of a park in Basildon?

It is the job of the Council to enforce the law!!

Plus these people are law breaking outlaws that have no place in a law abiding society, and they take full advantage of their power of intimidation.

And what gives them The Irish misfits the right to demand us to re house them?

Like the 'New Travellers' years ago evict them and let them AS THEY WANT keep travelling!!

ALL YOU NICE PEOPLE REALLY HAVE YOUR HEADS UP YOUR BUTTS!

WHOOPEE, great news. I'm off to buy a cheap piece of agricultural land and a caravan. No more taxes, rates, road tax MOT. Thanks labour you have set us all free from abiding from any laws that you feel are not worth the hassle of enforcing.

curious wrote:
Just out of curiousity, Does anyone know what will actually happen if they do end up being removed? Will the council buy the land back from them? or will be they still own it but not be allowed to develop any further? I know they've done wrong, but can't help feeling sorry for the time and money they must have spent. Especially for the older ones who might have used their live savings.

"You pays your money, you takes your chances!"
Think of all the council tax and rate free years that have been provided by the majority of people living in this area, underwriting the wrong in the first place over decades!
If anything, Dale Farm and the like should be dipping into their own pockets and giving the tax payer a break!
As for their drug dealing and other illegal and immoral earnings, they should serve very heavy custodial sentences at the expense of their families whom have raped the land of its fruits!

schraube wrote:
Sorry but do you realise what these scumbags have done. They have actually broken the law by building without planning permission, what would happen IF I was to build a mobile home in the middle of a park in Basildon? It is the job of the Council to enforce the law!! Plus these people are law breaking outlaws that have no place in a law abiding society, and they take full advantage of their power of intimidation. And what gives them The Irish misfits the right to demand us to re house them? Like the 'New Travellers' years ago evict them and let them AS THEY WANT keep travelling!! ALL YOU NICE PEOPLE REALLY HAVE YOUR HEADS UP YOUR BUTTS!

You dont complain about the Virgin centre and the new southend stadium being built on greenbelt land though do you.

mick wrote:

Jan wrote: Labour are right to not wish to waste millions of taxpayers' money on eviction by a bunch of bully boys (sorry bailiffs). What is the point of eviction when all you are doing is moving the problem on and then the Council has to house those it has made homeless? More cost to the taxpayers!The traveller site used to be a concreted scrap yard so it is hardly "GREEN" belt anyway!!! There has to be a better solution.

A year or two ago,Labour's then Deputy Prime Minister,John Prescott,said he had a much better idea;cheap,non-green belt government land and formerly a traveller site - Terminus Drive at Pitsea. The Council (Con),5000 locals and their MP (Con)disagreed but did you think it was a "better solution"?

Are you suggesting that you support the move to Terminus Drive, or have I misunderstood. The site was NEVER a legal Travellers Site! Yes, they stayed there illegally for a while (causing countless problems and leaving an almightly mess when they were FINALLY moved on. The reason for refusal to allow legal development were many. Furthermore, according to a letter I received from MP Angela Smith "in Basildon Council's District Plan the site is identified as appropriate for light industral use. I do not consider that it is suitable for any kind of residential development". Her words. Objection to this proposal is virutally unanimous in this area, so please, will people stop thinking of Terminus Drive as a potential replacement site for the Crays Hill Lot.

Linda wrote:

mick wrote:

Jan wrote: Labour are right to not wish to waste millions of taxpayers' money on eviction by a bunch of bully boys (sorry bailiffs). What is the point of eviction when all you are doing is moving the problem on and then the Council has to house those it has made homeless? More cost to the taxpayers!The traveller site used to be a concreted scrap yard so it is hardly "GREEN" belt anyway!!! There has to be a better solution.

A year or two ago,Labour's then Deputy Prime Minister,John Prescott,said he had a much better idea;cheap,non-green belt government land and formerly a traveller site - Terminus Drive at Pitsea. The Council (Con),5000 locals and their MP (Con)disagreed but did you think it was a "better solution"?

Are you suggesting that you support the move to Terminus Drive, or have I misunderstood. The site was NEVER a legal Travellers Site! Yes, they stayed there illegally for a while (causing countless problems and leaving an almightly mess when they were FINALLY moved on. The reason for refusal to allow legal development were many. Furthermore, according to a letter I received from MP Angela Smith "in Basildon Council's District Plan the site is identified as appropriate for light industral use. I do not consider that it is suitable for any kind of residential development". Her words. Objection to this proposal is virutally unanimous in this area, so please, will people stop thinking of Terminus Drive as a potential replacement site for the Crays Hill Lot.

Terminus Drive, Hovefields, Dale Farm, wherever, these scroungers should not be encouraged to relocate anywhere except from whence they came. IRELAND.

Strangely a country that has an equal, if not better standard of living than we do. Could it be that the Irish won't accept their anti-social antics like our soft-arsed politicians & leaders do.

Linda wrote:

mick wrote:

Jan wrote: Labour are right to not wish to waste millions of taxpayers\' money on eviction by a bunch of bully boys (sorry bailiffs). What is the point of eviction when all you are doing is moving the problem on and then the Council has to house those it has made homeless? More cost to the taxpayers!The traveller site used to be a concreted scrap yard so it is hardly \"GREEN\" belt anyway!!! There has to be a better solution.

A year or two ago,Labour\'s then Deputy Prime Minister,John Prescott,said he had a much better idea;cheap,non-green belt government land and formerly a traveller site - Terminus Drive at Pitsea. The Council (Con),5000 locals and their MP (Con)disagreed but did you think it was a \"better solution\"?

Are you suggesting that you support the move to Terminus Drive, or have I misunderstood. The site was NEVER a legal Travellers Site! Yes, they stayed there illegally for a while (causing countless problems and leaving an almightly mess when they were FINALLY moved on. The reason for refusal to allow legal development were many. Furthermore, according to a letter I received from MP Angela Smith \"in Basildon Council\'s District Plan the site is identified as appropriate for light industral use. I do not consider that it is suitable for any kind of residential development\". Her words. Objection to this proposal is virutally unanimous in this area, so please, will people stop thinking of Terminus Drive as a potential replacement site for the Crays Hill Lot.

It was John Prescott's proposal,not mine !
The fact that Mrs Smith disagreed with Mr Prescott is no more surprising than Mr Smith and Mr Kirkland disagreeing with the Labour Secretary of State who in January,dismissed the travellers appeals on Dale Farm and supported the Council upholding the Law.I was just interested in finding out which bit of Labour's position Jan of Essex favours.
For clarity,what I don't support is anyone willfully breaking the law or irresponsible politicians of any persuasion.By the way,it might be a good idea to ask Mrs Smith where she thinks the 81 extra pitches that have been recommended to the government for Basildon should be sited.

Sam wrote:

schraube wrote: Sorry but do you realise what these scumbags have done. They have actually broken the law by building without planning permission, what would happen IF I was to build a mobile home in the middle of a park in Basildon? It is the job of the Council to enforce the law!! Plus these people are law breaking outlaws that have no place in a law abiding society, and they take full advantage of their power of intimidation. And what gives them The Irish misfits the right to demand us to re house them? Like the 'New Travellers' years ago evict them and let them AS THEY WANT keep travelling!! ALL YOU NICE PEOPLE REALLY HAVE YOUR HEADS UP YOUR BUTTS!

You dont complain about the Virgin centre and the new southend stadium being built on greenbelt land though do you.

Do not be so stupid!!

That has been done legally you half wit!!

Richard Branson and Southend united including Freddie Eastwood are not Irish outlaws!

They do not Rob cheat and steal from old people.

Vernon wrote:

curious wrote: Just out of curiousity, Does anyone know what will actually happen if they do end up being removed? Will the council buy the land back from them? or will be they still own it but not be allowed to develop any further? I know they've done wrong, but can't help feeling sorry for the time and money they must have spent. Especially for the older ones who might have used their live savings.

I think you'll find that despite the apparent wealth of the travellers, they have, thus far, been getting legal aid to fight the battle.

Vernon

I meant money spent on the individual plots. I had to deliver something there once, and saw some little houses etc.
what will happen to those?

Kim or any member of the regular gang who might like to answer

Out of interest, If you had it in your power to have the final say, what your solution be?

Before you answer, remember your solution must be a feasible one that they might resign themselves to, however reluctantly, and one that the courts are likely view favourably.

Lets have real possibilities please, no ceaseless tirades and flows of invective. Although I am not saying that anyone does that, but sometimes even I get carried away.

The powers that be, (and James) might be reading this and may get some ideas from your suggestions.

Undertaker, Shipshape, Schraube, Sam, Vernon, Steve, Knobby

My earlier post was meant to be addressed to all of you too, as well as Kim, but in going back to get your names, I pressed the wrong key too soon. Sorry, about that,

Your posts are very interesting
Would sincerely like to hear your views.

curious wrote:
Kim or any member of the regular gang who might like to answer Out of interest, If you had it in your power to have the final say, what your solution be? Before you answer, remember your solution must be a feasible one that they might resign themselves to, however reluctantly, and one that the courts are likely view favourably. Lets have real possibilities please, no ceaseless tirades and flows of invective. Although I am not saying that anyone does that, but sometimes even I get carried away. The powers that be, (and James) might be reading this and may get some ideas from your suggestions.

1.The Council should identify sufficent land (in total,less than an acre is required) but clearly this should not be green belt,not contaminated and not isolated from shops,hospitals,tran

sport etc.This land should NOT all be in one place but of a size equivalent to the government's new guidelines of a maximum of 15 pitches per site, to accommodate all current unauthorised pitches from the BDC area.This land should be used ONLY on a temporary basis until a sufficient number of the 1187 additional pitches that EERA have recommended to the Government for the Eastern Region are in place - scheduled by end 2011.As soon as sufficent numbers of of these new sites in the region are available,wherever they are,the occupiers of the temporary sites should move to them,with the council having the power to over-ride any refusal to move.
2.The Council should seek 100% funding from the Government for set-up costs,in the same way that 3 other councils in the region received funding last week for new sites.
3.The occupiers of the current unauthorised sites in Basildon should not be allowed to stay where they currently are beyond when the temporary sites are ready.
4.Meanwhile,the council should continue to take a very hard line with all unauthorised green belt development,includin

g any proposed or pre-existing unauthorised sub-division of traveller plots.

PROS:a)green belt is restored/preserved;b

)no one needs to be made homeless;c)the government pays and plays a key part;d)it alligns with the government's long term plan to regularise traveller accommodation and stop unauthorised development once and for all;e)it saves Basildon Council money;f)it would put an end to the social engineering that has taken place as a result of massive unauthorised developments such as Dale Farm;g)the government will support it over the eviction alternative;h)the courts should be content since it is not undermining current Planning Law.
CONS:a)Basildon Council will not trust the travellers to keep their part of any agreement
b)the travellers big clans will oppose being split up
c)it's far too sensible for local politicans to support because there's no political mileage in it and none of them invented it;d)it will be seen as a reward for breaking the law

Mike

A most reasonable draft proposal.

Of course, since there is much the council may not have told us, some of your points may have to be looked into further, but on the face of it, it seems like an excellent starting point.

Thanks for taking the time.

Curious

I will answer that my solution would be.

1. Enforce by lawful means the planning laws otherwise chaos will happen.

2. We as local tax Payers owe these people nothing.

3. Let them do as all of my family have SAVE UP and purchase property with planning/building rights.

HOWEVER:

They must not behave like they do now as an intimidating large lawless mob.


They must live within the law and pay taxes and behave like normal members of a community not like scumbags that they are now.

My Elderly parents and several other people I know have suffered at the hands of these Irish Scumbags, they frighten, intimidate and threaten ordinary folk which often kills them.

BUT Given a choice I would just send them on their chosen way TRAVELLING and not stopping!!

Schraube

You are right, a very worrying precedent would be set if planning law is not upheld.

Though, planning law should always come second to human rights, the precedent setting aspect of the thing is probably the largest single reason preventing the Gov't from stepping in & ordering that they be left alone under the human rights act.

I gather, though, that your concerns are more social in nature, especially if family members have been harrassed. Yours is one of so many accounts by locals.

I wish there was some (safe) way to communicate this to the travellers. Unfortunately, they don't seem to monitor local forums, or if they do, they are silent.

Maybe James could do something to convince them that some behavioural changes would be in their own interests.

(Don't worry - He WILL read this)

schraube wrote:

Sam wrote:

schraube wrote: Sorry but do you realise what these scumbags have done. They have actually broken the law by building without planning permission, what would happen IF I was to build a mobile home in the middle of a park in Basildon? It is the job of the Council to enforce the law!! Plus these people are law breaking outlaws that have no place in a law abiding society, and they take full advantage of their power of intimidation. And what gives them The Irish misfits the right to demand us to re house them? Like the 'New Travellers' years ago evict them and let them AS THEY WANT keep travelling!! ALL YOU NICE PEOPLE REALLY HAVE YOUR HEADS UP YOUR BUTTS!

You dont complain about the Virgin centre and the new southend stadium being built on greenbelt land though do you.

Do not be so stupid!! That has been done legally you half wit!! Richard Branson and Southend united including Freddie Eastwood are not Irish outlaws! They do not Rob cheat and steal from old people.

It was still greenbelt land which ever way you look at it.
I would like to say that there was no need to call me a half wit, I was trying to have a discussion about land.

Curious, I don't usually revisit posts but someone called me at work and told me you were asking a legitimate question and for once, not screeching left wing liberal propoganda at me - or hurling accusations of racism.

I will always enter into dignified debate with people who understand that to oppose travellers does not mean one is a racist.

What should be done? Well, it's simple. Many of them have plots on other site elsewhere in the country; some have houses in Ireland, others have homes - and relatives - abroad.

They are obviously very affluent judging by the cars, the jewellery and the Spode china I saw on one of the many fly-on-the-wall documentaries.

They should be dispersed as planned and any genuinely homeless cases scattered to proper, council run sites all over the country.

Other councils should be made to provide small sites for no more than 10 caravans. These would be more manageable and stop any illegal activity going on.

These should be maintained by local councils and regular checks made. Also legitimate charges made for services.

And I don't want to hear the old f@nny about their human rights to live where they want - living together; not having families separated etc etc. And not having to be checked up on or regulated.

People in landlord rented accommodation have to have six monthly property inspections, so why should the rules be different for travellers?

We ALL have to live by rules and regulations. ALL our lives are governed by limitations on housing - planning, siting, overcrowding etc. Why should they be treated differently? All that does is cause hostility and resentment, which is the situation we now find ourselves in.

They CHOOSE that lifestyle and correct me if I'm wrong, class themselves as "travellers". In the old days, the Romanies did just that. They travelled. These people don't. They claim to be homeless when in fact many of them are not.

I have a friend who comes from Romany stock but she decided to be part of the settled community. She made her money legitimately from a business, bought a house and now pays her way like everyone else.

The Romany people had a code of honour about the countryside and respecting others' property. They did NOT divide communities and turn whole swathes of land into dumping grounds with burning cars and detritus.

If scattered, those with homes elsewhere will have to return to them; it's as simple as that.

We all know that many of them have alternative homes because endless newspaper reports and at least one book has been written on the subject. And let's not hear the old cr@p about journalists making things up. We all know that there are laws to govern that sort of thing in newspapers. Generally, local newspapers are not as sensational as national ones anyway. I believe Jon Austin's reporting in particular, to be well researched and well documented.

After six years, these people still show no sign of wanting to integrate into the community and are still alienating residents.

They can't just cherry pick the bits of static life they like and discard their responsibilities.

It is THIS that upsets locals, NOT the fact that they are gypsies or travellers or even Irish.

Enough is enough. It's time some people realised that we are ALL being had for mugs - the politically correct brigade do gooders are the biggest mugs of all because they BELIEVE that the rest of us are all racist bigots.

I work with Poles, West Africans and Filipinos and have no problem with any of them. They work hard and pay their way so fair enough.

That is my solution - either pay your way and respect our community or get out.

A significant number of them do have homes to go to - they should return to them.

Oh and Curious, you are not James by any chance are you? I just wondered.

If not, I apologise.

Now that's enough. I've got other stuff to do. Hope the above clarifies things.

curious wrote:
Schraube You are right, a very worrying precedent would be set if planning law is not upheld. Though, planning law should always come second to human rights, the precedent setting aspect of the thing is probably the largest single reason preventing the Gov't from stepping in & ordering that they be left alone under the human rights act. I gather, though, that your concerns are more social in nature, especially if family members have been harrassed. Yours is one of so many accounts by locals. I wish there was some (safe) way to communicate this to the travellers. Unfortunately, they don't seem to monitor local forums, or if they do, they are silent. Maybe James could do something to convince them that some behavioural changes would be in their own interests. (Don't worry - He WILL read this)

The Government does not agree with your contention that Planning Law should always come second to Human Rights and it has made it's position on human rights very clear.The Secretary of State's decision letter of 21st January this year details why it feels that any interference with human rights in this case is not disproportionate to the overall pursuit of public interest and protection of the environment.

the labour party are a bad joke , locally and nationally, honest tax paying voters should never vote for them they will sell you down the river and tax you as you go.....

Eek! Sorry Curious, I'm on shift at the mo and don't have much time to spare. I'll try to jot something when I get the chance.
Sorry, mate.

Mike

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

Generally when courts try a case, their sphere of vision is narrowed to the immediate evidence as to whether a particular law has been broken or not.

My point was that this situation has escalated to where the law itself appears to be in question (albeit subtley).

No one disputes that a breach of planning permission occurred. However, In looking at the arguments presented in court, the defence appears to be that human rights justify, (or at least mitigate) the illegality of the breach and in fact, override the planning law.
(N.B. I am paraphrasing here, but the concepts quoted are the defence lawyers' arguments not mine)

Also, in the letter, there is the clear implication that the two things were indeed balanced against each other and a decision made that the public interest etc. weighed heavily enough when measured against the human rights one.

What I was trying to say, and may have gone about it clumsily was just that the balancing had to occur.

You obviously have extensive knowledge of the situation and your proposal was very well presented.

Can't compete with that, but hope I made myself clear now.

curious wrote:
Kim or any member of the regular gang who might like to answer Out of interest, If you had it in your power to have the final say, what your solution be? Before you answer, remember your solution must be a feasible one that they might resign themselves to, however reluctantly, and one that the courts are likely view favourably. Lets have real possibilities please, no ceaseless tirades and flows of invective. Although I am not saying that anyone does that, but sometimes even I get carried away. The powers that be, (and James) might be reading this and may get some ideas from your suggestions.

Quite simple really, send them back to their houses in rathkeale.

It has never been a scrapyard,it was a car breakers then a car salvage yard.

Ah yes, a crucial distinction there...

Human Rights v. Planning law was only one aspect of the legal argument. Another argument was whether Basildon council had adequately accounted for the need for gypsy and traveller sites in the district, as it is obliged to under government planning guidance, before deciding to take enforcement action.

Also whether the council had reached it's decision in accordance with it's duties under the race relations act.

Read the CRE's report here: http://www.kent.gov.

uk/committees/gypsy-

and-traveller-adviso

ry-board/24-may-2006

/may06-itemb1.pdf and honestly ask yourself whether the council has acted in accordance with the "best practice" guidlines laid out in the report.

One thing the report makes clear is that when site provision is handled in a responsible way, it helps to alleviate many of the problems that can occur between local communities and travellers. More integration, better provision of services, less rubbish, better health, better school attendance, and what should be dear to the heart of every fiscal conservative: less tax money wasted moving people on which only serves to perpetuate the problem somewhere else.

Bringing it back to the local situation, does it really make sense to spend £3 million to evict now, to only later have to designate new sites when the EERA planning guidance comes out in three years?

Mike,
While I could quibble with the details, the overall outline of what you describe is exactly what the Travellers have been asking for. If Dale Farm is not an appropriate site, show us where an appropriate site would be that we could buy and get planning permission. The Travellers have always been willing to move to other sites, but to date, no authority has stepped up and designated land that would be appropriate for gypsy site development.

Everyone repeats the mantra of Travellers breaking planning laws. But the Travellers don't have any option if their planning applications are always refused (see CRE report if you need proof).

Despite what the conspiracy theorists say,one of the reasons they chose to buy land at Dale Farm in the first place was that there were already sites there that had received planning permission. The Travellers figured that they had a pretty good chance of getting planning permission as well, esp. since the land was junk anyway.

The sad thing is James, your heart is in the right place but these people are only out for what they can get.

Once they have bled you dry your services will no longer be required.

You'd do better to save your enthusiasm for those that really deserve it.

Last post for today...promise :)

curious wrote "I wish there was some (safe) way to communicate this to the travellers. Unfortunately, they don't seem to monitor local forums, or if they do, they are silent."

Many of the Travellers are illiterate, and in any case are far from tech-savvy. Besides that, I would say the vast majority are of the opinion that it is no use trying to tell their side of the story because people will just attack them and discount anything they have to say because they are Travellers. They are very "gun shy" in this regard because of past experiences. They have no interest in "getting into it" with people in online forums.

I find the concept that one needs a "safe" place to talk to Travellers a little laughable. But if anyone is serious about setting up some neutral forum to discuss local issues with them, I'll do my best to help facilitate it. Email me with your ideas and I'll see what I can do.

@Bored: You sound kind of disillusioned. Do you have any experience providing services to Travellers? If so I'd love to talk to you about it.

jdasinger@googlemail
.com

VOTE THE LABOUR IMMIGRANT LOVING LAW BREACKING HELPERS IDIOTS OUT ASAP

James wrote:
Mike,
While I could quibble with the details, the overall outline of what you describe is exactly what the Travellers have been asking for. If Dale Farm is not an appropriate site, show us where an appropriate site would be that we could buy and get planning permission. The Travellers have always been willing to move to other sites, but to date, no authority has stepped up and designated land that would be appropriate for gypsy site development.

Everyone repeats the mantra of Travellers breaking planning laws. But the Travellers don't have any option if their planning applications are always refused (see CRE report if you need proof).

Despite what the conspiracy theorists say,one of the reasons they chose to buy land at Dale Farm in the first place was that there were already sites there that had received planning permission. The Travellers figured that they had a pretty good chance of getting planning permission as well, esp. since the land was junk anyway.

James, are you a wind-up or what? Don't you see anything wrong in the fact that these 'scroungers' have perfectly good homes elsewhere but choose to occupy land not designated for dwelling. They are trying to get something for nothing and every effort should be made to 'encourage' them to return from whence they came.

Now I know you come from a long line of 'interfering Americans' but could you really see this sort of behaviour being allowed to happen in the US? I think not, it would be dealt with very swiftly.

Now, please go away and indulge in your little ego trip somewhere else. Perhaps you could do more good by standing up for your own Native Americans, some of which desperately need help. After all, you are occupying their land!

Where exactly do you live Nigel Smith? Crays Hill? No I thought not and non of your misguided cronies in New Labour either!

The Tories may not be getting it all right in Basildon but on this occasion they are actually playing fair by the law abiding majority of this district.

As a former Labour supporter, I fear Mr Smith et al have shot themselves in the foot!

James wrote:
Last post for today...promise :) curious wrote \"I wish there was some (safe) way to communicate this to the travellers. Unfortunately, they don\'t seem to monitor local forums, or if they do, they are silent.\" Many of the Travellers are illiterate, and in any case are far from tech-savvy. Besides that, I would say the vast majority are of the opinion that it is no use trying to tell their side of the story because people will just attack them and discount anything they have to say because they are Travellers. They are very \"gun shy\" in this regard because of past experiences. They have no interest in \"getting into it\" with people in online forums. I find the concept that one needs a \"safe\" place to talk to Travellers a little laughable. But if anyone is serious about setting up some neutral forum to discuss local issues with them, I\'ll do my best to help facilitate it. Email me with your ideas and I\'ll see what I can do. @Bored: You sound kind of disillusioned. Do you have any experience providing services to Travellers? If so I\'d love to talk to you about it. jdasinger@googlemail .com

James

Pray tell me what is "laughable" about wanting to be safe?

In your haste to rush in where a wiser man would never have trod, I don't suppose you stopped to consider that other people are also "gun shy" because of past experiences? Travellers don't have the monopoly on fear of being misunderstood.

Careful James, your youth and inexperience are manifesting themselves as arrogance.

The first rule of Dispute Resolution (as taught by Harvard) is to refrain from further alienating the other party. Your fatuous remarks might have done that, if this was an issue I could walk away from.

I hope they aren't paying you too much... but then again someone said you are a volunteer, in which case, they are getting just hat they paid for.

You say on your blog you wish to mediate. Again, any DR specialist (or even student), worth his salt, would know that after having advocated, you cannot mediate the same issue. There would always be a perception of bias. But then again, you are not serious about this, - just gathering a few months of work experience.

Its a dangerous thing to try to appear superior on open forums, you never know who you are talking to and you could end up looking very silly indeed.

I need no lectures from you regarding low literacy etc. or anything else in the travelling community, I know it better than you ever will. I have friends and relations on both sides of the fence and have spent a lifetime being involved even at the level of the European Parliament.

Pull up your socks boy, if you wish to achieve anything - don't stand at the tip of the iceberg and patronise people who know the underbelly the beast.

James, your reference to travellers being 'Gun Shy' has an (un?)amusing twist.Check out the archive under 'travellers site' and you will see a number of stories relating to illegal firearms.We in the UK dont have the same 'right to bear arms'that your country has.
And still you waffle about human rights.Don't waste your potential, do something worthwhile with your intelligence.

James wrote:
Mike, While I could quibble with the details, the overall outline of what you describe is exactly what the Travellers have been asking for. If Dale Farm is not an appropriate site, show us where an appropriate site would be that we could buy and get planning permission. The Travellers have always been willing to move to other sites, but to date, no authority has stepped up and designated land that would be appropriate for gypsy site development. Everyone repeats the mantra of Travellers breaking planning laws. But the Travellers don't have any option if their planning applications are always refused (see CRE report if you need proof). Despite what the conspiracy theorists say,one of the reasons they chose to buy land at Dale Farm in the first place was that there were already sites there that had received planning permission. The Travellers figured that they had a pretty good chance of getting planning permission as well, esp. since the land was junk anyway.

Like anybody else, the travellers can buy land for development on the open market - just get them to contact the local estate agencies there are plenty of them.

The problem is that they do not want to do this as the market value (cost) of land for development is much greater than it is for Greenbelt which cannot be developed.

Unfortunately, although they seem to be able to buy large and expensive 4x4s they do not want to spend their money on land for legal development.

They have a great scam that entails buying cheap greenbelt land and them developing it. They then claim that they are being treated unfairly and having their human rights ignored when they are told to move on and return the land to greenbelt.

They then use legal aid to fight the case through the court even though many of them are actually very wealthy.

On top of this, they get a few blinkered do-gooders such as you to support them.

This is a joke - I live in green belt but cannot add a conservatory, let alone add another house or a "chalet".

What is it about them that is so special that they can flout the planning laws?

James wrote:
Human Rights v. Planning law was only one aspect of the legal argument. Another argument was whether Basildon council had adequately accounted for the need for gypsy and traveller sites in the district, as it is obliged to under government planning guidance, before deciding to take enforcement action. Also whether the council had reached it\'s decision in accordance with it\'s duties under the race relations act. Read the CRE\'s report here: http://www.kent.gov. uk/committees/gypsy- and-traveller-adviso ry-board/24-may-2006 /may06-itemb1.pdf and honestly ask yourself whether the council has acted in accordance with the \"best practice\" guidlines laid out in the report. One thing the report makes clear is that when site provision is handled in a responsible way, it helps to alleviate many of the problems that can occur between local communities and travellers. More integration, better provision of services, less rubbish, better health, better school attendance, and what should be dear to the heart of every fiscal conservative: less tax money wasted moving people on which only serves to perpetuate the problem somewhere else. Bringing it back to the local situation, does it really make sense to spend £3 million to evict now, to only later have to designate new sites when the EERA planning guidance comes out in three years?

You are confusing things and at the same time,presenting a one-sided summary of the issues.The facts of the Secretary of State's refusal to allow temporary planning consent are not in any doubt and the recent High Court Judicial Review hearing to which you now refer was not a re-test of that decision.It was a check on whether Basildon's Planning Committee correctly followed due process in reaching it's decision.There are many issues for the Judge to consider but as I understand it,the critical areas are 1.Is eviction a proportional response to the breach of planning law ? and 2.Did the BDC Planning Committee fully consider the consequences of it's decision in terms of it's responsibilities under the Housing & Homelessness Acts,Human Rights Act and Race Relations Act ?
Interestingly,the Secretary of State also had to consider all thse matters in reaching her decision in January but we shall have to wait a few more weeks to see what the Judge makes of it all.
It is wrong to imply that in Law Basildon is obliged to acoount for a need for sites before making it's decision ; there is nothing in current Law that compels Basildon to meet an alleged need.You ask if it makes sense to spend money on evictions in light of EERA's proposals but
you are mistaken if you believe that the EERA recommendations are set in stone.Many councils and members of the public will take the opportunity to robustly oppose the EERA recommendations,whic

h seem badly flawed in several respects but in particular because they do not allign with EERA's independent sustainability appraisal,they are not supported by an environmental impact assessment and they take no account of any local deliverability constraints.You should also bear in mind that many councils,particularl

y those where high numbers of additional pitches are proposed,are already saying that delivery by 2011 is not achievable and 2016 is more realistic.

James wrote:
Mike, While I could quibble with the details, the overall outline of what you describe is exactly what the Travellers have been asking for. If Dale Farm is not an appropriate site, show us where an appropriate site would be that we could buy and get planning permission. The Travellers have always been willing to move to other sites, but to date, no authority has stepped up and designated land that would be appropriate for gypsy site development. Everyone repeats the mantra of Travellers breaking planning laws. But the Travellers don\'t have any option if their planning applications are always refused (see CRE report if you need proof). Despite what the conspiracy theorists say,one of the reasons they chose to buy land at Dale Farm in the first place was that there were already sites there that had received planning permission. The Travellers figured that they had a pretty good chance of getting planning permission as well, esp. since the land was junk anyway.

You can quibble at will - I really do not care a hoot.My off-the-cuff suggestion on a way forward was the quickest,half-credib

le way I could think of to restore some order and normality for the residents of Crays Hill but it's not what the travellers have been seeking,is it ? It's been made clear by their leadership and the various people they have brought in for support (actors,former trades union leaders and lobbyists from overseas)that their aim is to stay at Dale Farm,at all costs.
Your point about other land at Dale Farm that does have consent is interesting becasue it illustrates the first of several political mistakes that have been made dowm the years - in the early 1990's the council (then Labour) granted consent at Dale Farm despite the green belt designation.

Hmm so Labour wouldnt evict these travellers who constantly cause harrassment and problems for the local community! Would it be because they have already earmarked the money for immigrants, a loan towards northern rock or to pay for Gordon Browns lavatory to be refunished!! If Labour recieve another term in office this country will go right down the pan, were almost there now!!!!!

Any Labour councillors supporting this lunatic policy have forfeited the right to be on the Council and should resign immediately.

I usually prefer to read rather than write posts, but today i have to laugh at the lambasting that james is getting from everyone, especially curious. not that he doesn't deserve it. Bit cocky isn't he.
and not paying attention to the overwhelming evidence of the locals, this is not just one or two people having bad experiences, it is almost unanimous. But I suspect that he is being "racist" himself since he is Irish too.
He is probably annoyed by the comments and is trying to shut people up.

I not sure where everyone is getting an "arrogant" tone from, esp over the internet. I assure you none is intended.

Mike,
Thanks for the clarifications. I was simply recalling the barristers arguments as I heard them on the first and last days of the judicial review. Of course, I understand that the requiremenet that districts provide sites was removed in 1994. However, as it was argued in court, government guidance still told planning authorities to take into account need for gypsy and traveller accomodation in their districts. Even the judge said that it made things difficult for local councils to understand exactly what their duties are. He commented from the bench that it seemed as if the central government didn't want to suffer the political fallout from making it a requirement, but at the same time knew there was a need for gypsy and traveller accomodation, so it took the sort of back-door approach of getting rid of the strict legal obligation, but replacing it with planning guidance. In any case, it's in the judge's hands now.

Re: the traveller's position on Dale Farm: their first preference would obviously be to stay at Dale Farm. If that is not possible, they would cooperate in a move to alternate legal site/s whether permanent or temporary (until 2011). What they won't cooperate with is a mass eviction on to the roadside.

@Sue: I don't think I could shut anyone up here even if I tried :) Re: your comment about not paying attention to locals, I've talked to fire officials, schoolteachers, Wickford and Billericay Police Officers, Basildon Planning officials, clergy, doctors, residents of Oak Road, and we've heard from the disctrict councillors in this article, who all say they don't have any problems with the Travellers and think there is a better way to handle the situation. These are people who in many cases, have more direct interaction with Travellers than than the average district resident. Opposition to the Travellers is far from unanimous.

Kim

Not sure if you will return to read this, but just in case you do

Thanks for replying to me. From reading your recent emails I understand you have made serious attempts to diffuse local tensions and to find a way forward, so far to no avail. But whether or not, everyone agrees with you in every way, the energy in your post leaves no doubt about your sincerity.

On a more personal note:
A little something of a writer's personality is always present in every post.
I am left with the impression that you are basically a decent and goodhearted woman, with strong views and are not afraid to air them. But you don't suffer fools gladly and that will never endear you to those around you. You are probably frequently misunderstood, but you are also a strong woman who will soldier on regardless. Good luck to you, you deserve it.

I am not the 7th child of a 7th child and don't believe in second sight or any of that nonsense, but for some reason, pain and loss seem to underlie your words. Although I can't point to anything specific in what you've said. Forgive me if I am wrong, impressions can be misleading, and we often transfer our own feelings to other people.

What they won't cooperate with is a mass eviction on to the roadside.

Why won't they tolerate that? They call themselves "travellers" don't they? If they don't want to travel, fair enough. So why don't they rent or buy houses?

Why do we have to come up with the solution for these people? What makes them so special?

People like you ought to be locked up.

Quite right Kim Gandy. How dare people express a view!

More seriously, you explicitly mentioned the generation of men & women in this country to whom we all owe a debt (our WWII veterans). As you point out, they fought for our right to free speech, democracy, and all that. So your assertion that someone should be jailed for expressing a view is nothing short of extremely puzzling...

(Oh, and also downright stupid).

James RE your comment:
I've talked to fire officials, schoolteachers, Wickford and Billericay Police Officers , Basildon Planning officials, clergy, doctors, residents of Oak Road, and we've heard from the disctrict councillors in this article, who all say they don't have any problems with the Travellers

This is utter BS and you know it.The Police would not be permitted to comment to the public about such matters and as I've said before (which you neatly sidestepped, well actually ignored, it obviously does'nt suit your agenda) On the day you said you visited Wickford Police station and they told you how they have no bother with the travellers at Hovefields Avenue/Drive, the road was actually blocked off by a Police vehicle, why I don't know, but there you have it.Perhaps one of the settled community was running riot with an illegal firearm, or firing catapults at horses?
Just out of interest, why is it that all the problems with travellers in the Basildon area seem to happen at Dale Farm, Meadow Lane and Hovefields Avenue/Drive? I've never heard of any problems coming from the site called Hovefields Caravan Park, in Courtauld Road,which is a council owned traveller site, or Cranfield Park Avenue, and other than illegal development and benefit fraud, Sadlers Park seems free of problematic residents.
Any thoughts?

James wrote:
I not sure where everyone is getting an "arrogant" tone from, esp over the internet. I assure you none is intended. Mike, Thanks for the clarifications. I was simply recalling the barristers arguments as I heard them on the first and last days of the judicial review. Of course, I understand that the requiremenet that districts provide sites was removed in 1994. However, as it was argued in court, government guidance still told planning authorities to take into account need for gypsy and traveller accomodation in their districts. Even the judge said that it made things difficult for local councils to understand exactly what their duties are. He commented from the bench that it seemed as if the central government didn't want to suffer the political fallout from making it a requirement, but at the same time knew there was a need for gypsy and traveller accomodation, so it took the sort of back-door approach of getting rid of the strict legal obligation, but replacing it with planning guidance. In any case, it's in the judge's hands now. Re: the traveller's position on Dale Farm: their first preference would obviously be to stay at Dale Farm. If that is not possible, they would cooperate in a move to alternate legal site/s whether permanent or temporary (until 2011). What they won't cooperate with is a mass eviction on to the roadside. @Sue: I don't think I could shut anyone up here even if I tried :) Re: your comment about not paying attention to locals, I've talked to fire officials, schoolteachers, Wickford and Billericay Police Officers, Basildon Planning officials, clergy, doctors, residents of Oak Road, and we've heard from the disctrict councillors in this article, who all say they don't have any problems with the Travellers and think there is a better way to handle the situation. These are people who in many cases, have more direct interaction with Travellers than than the average district resident. Opposition to the Travellers is far from unanimous.

If you want to "cherry-pick" a few random comments from court to strengthen your argument that's clearly your call.Just remember that others will know that there were many other comments made in court that paint a quite a different picture of the overall proceedings.

Did you know that the conservative government did away with the funding to provide sites in 1994? They told the travellers to buy their own sites which they have done. Did you know the Basildon Council spends 1/10th of it's annual budget making gypsies and travellers homeless? And we are British citizens. We do not live in Zimbabwe. When evictions like this happen in Zimbabwe it's a crime, but it's not a crime in Great Britain?

Richard Sheridan?????

Good move James

Did you know that the conservative government did away with the funding to provide sites in 1994?

Yes I did. Good for them I say, one of their (rare) better moves. What's your point? You think that this group should receive special accommodation funding? Why?

Harvey wrote:
James RE your comment: I\'ve talked to fire officials, schoolteachers, Wickford and Billericay Police Officers , Basildon Planning officials, clergy, doctors, residents of Oak Road, and we\'ve heard from the disctrict councillors in this article, who all say they don\'t have any problems with the Travellers This is utter BS and you know it.The Police would not be permitted to comment to the public about such matters and as I\'ve said before (which you neatly sidestepped, well actually ignored, it obviously does\'nt suit your agenda) On the day you said you visited Wickford Police station and they told you how they have no bother with the travellers at Hovefields Avenue/Drive, the road was actually blocked off by a Police vehicle, why I don\'t know, but there you have it.Perhaps one of the settled community was running riot with an illegal firearm, or firing catapults at horses? Just out of interest, why is it that all the problems with travellers in the Basildon area seem to happen at Dale Farm, Meadow Lane and Hovefields Avenue/Drive? I\'ve never heard of any problems coming from the site called Hovefields Caravan Park, in Courtauld Road,which is a council owned traveller site, or Cranfield Park Avenue, and other than illegal development and benefit fraud, Sadlers Park seems free of problematic residents. Any thoughts?

I didn't ask the police whether they thought Travellers angels. I asked what their general perception was, and whether they had any particular enforcement issues with the Traveller sites.

They said that they didn't perceive any greater problems with the Hovefields site, or with the Traveller community, than with the general population. I imagine if they weren't allowed to comment, they could have just told me "we aren't allowed to comment on that." I can't believe they would feel a need to lie to me, can you? I actually asked if there were any publicly accessible crime statistics that I could look at and they said that information was confidential. As I said before, they said their biggest problems were with youth hoologanism, but that the problem was widespread in the settled and traveller populations. That would seem to account for the issues you describe (petty theft, rock throwing, general anti-social behaviour etc.) I wasn't attempting to put words in anyone's mouth. If you want you can email me and I'll give you the name of the officer I talked to and you can ask him yourself, or better yet, go to the next "cuppa with a copper" event. I may even meet you there.

Re: your comments about the difference between authorised and unauthorised sites, it has been demonstrated that legal, properly managed sites always lead to less problems with the local population, less anti-social behaviour, more integration, less litter etc. Again the CRE's 2006 report "Common Ground" is a good place to get this info. Basically, legal sites are always better than illegal ones, for both the Travellers and the settled community. I suspect that is the difference you are seeing between the unauthorized parts of Dale Farm and the legal sites at Hovefields or Courtald road.

Richard Sheridan wrote:
Did you know that the conservative government did away with the funding to provide sites in 1994? They told the travellers to buy their own sites which they have done. Did you know the Basildon Council spends 1/10th of it's annual budget making gypsies and travellers homeless? And we are British citizens. We do not live in Zimbabwe. When evictions like this happen in Zimbabwe it's a crime, but it's not a crime in Great Britain?

The Conservatives made a mistake in 1994;Labour's John Prescott made an even bigger error in 2003 by granting 2 years for those on unauthorised sites at Dale Farm to comply and move off ;Basildon Council should have used injunctions rather than the long drawn out procees of direct action and as I pointed out many months ago via these posts,the Labour government has had 11 years to reverse the Conservatives 1994 decision.
But no government or local council has ever said to you or anyone else "buy greenbelt sites and develop them without consent".Since failing to gain consent,you have treated the Law with contempt - far from making any effort to comply,the extent of unauthorised development has grown.It's the government in Zimbabwe that flounts the Law,not a small group of it's population who arrogantly behave as if they are above it.

Richard Sheridan wrote:
Did you know that the conservative government did away with the funding to provide sites in 1994? They told the travellers to buy their own sites which they have done. Did you know the Basildon Council spends 1/10th of it's annual budget making gypsies and travellers homeless? And we are British citizens. We do not live in Zimbabwe. When evictions like this happen in Zimbabwe it's a crime, but it's not a crime in Great Britain?

You come from Eire, you are NOT British citizens. You are southern Irish tax dodgers and professional benefit scroungers. You are NOT welcome, you will NEVER be welcome and one way or another you WILL be removed. The people of Essex will not rest until you are back in your Rathkeale mansions sponging off the Irish taxpayer.

There are a load of people in this country that aren't British citizens but they are not outed. Where do you start?

Sam wrote:
There are a load of people in this country that aren\'t British citizens but they are not outed. Where do you start?

WH-A-A-T?!? We have gay immigrants in the UK? Where's my shotgun...

Sam wrote:
There are a load of people in this country that aren't British citizens but they are not outed. Where do you start?

Start with those who ignore our laws and who contribute nothing, like the Planning Law breaking, tax dodging, benefit scrounging parasites at Dale Farm.

For Richard Sheridan:
Richard, thanks for entering this debate, I'd like to ask a few questions and I hope you would be kind enough to take the time to reply
1.It seems that the illegal plots are mainly inhabited by women and children and older relatives but no husbands.This seems rather unusual to a Gorga like myself, and I can only assume this is a ruse to claim benefits

2.Almost everyone on the illegal plots appears to have medical problems and presumably claims benefits for said issues.Why so many?

3.Permit me to ask, but I have the perception that travellers work cash in hand and pay no income tax, I'd like to ask where your income comes from

Thanks

You realise this is james by another name.

By the way, Richard is Gorger too.

CURIOUS - In your annoyance with withhisname, you gave some clues to your identity

If you are who I think you are, why has this situation been allowed to get so out of hand.

Shouldn't you and your people have got involved well before now, for everyone's sake?

You would have had more credibility than anyone with the authorities as well as done something to haul the Dale Farm lot into line. Its you and your lot that should be there, not the likes of James, although I daresay he is harmless(?)

British Romany Gypsies across this country have watched in dismay, as these so called "travelers" have stolen their culture and brought it into disrepute, whilst attempting to hide under the Romany banner and use the 'race" card, which does not apply to them, to win all sorts of concessions which they eventually turn around and abuse. People are using the term gypsy/traveler to refer to them (because the legislation does) with gypsy being the operative word. It is so unfair. I know the Gypsy council seems to be giving some support, I suppose they have to make a show of doing that, because any legal decisions made with respect to eviction or sites etc. will affect the few remaining Romanies still on the road and also because of the confusion that now exists regarding where to draw the very indistinct line between the two groups.

I have a lot of sympathy for anyone under siege, and would never decry the most abominable their human rights. Obviously not all of them are disreputable, there obviously is some need and some genuine cases. All interested parties have already acknowledged this. But its no use denying that the Dale Farmers themselves are largely responsible for the antipathy the locals feel towards them. No one is an island, and it is idiotic to think that you can exist in isolation and attack society at large, especially when you are dependant upon that society for services, and "funding" shall we call it?

James, you may recognize what I am saying, I think Hillary Clinton expressed a similar concept in her book "It takes a village."

Gypsy Woman wrote:
CURIOUS - In your annoyance with withhisname, you gave some clues to your identity If you are who I think you are, why has this situation been allowed to get so out of hand. Shouldn\'t you and your people have got involved well before now, for everyone\'s sake? You would have had more credibility than anyone with the authorities as well as done something to haul the Dale Farm lot into line. Its you and your lot that should be there, not the likes of James, although I daresay he is harmless(?) British Romany Gypsies across this country have watched in dismay, as these so called \"travelers\" have stolen their culture and brought it into disrepute, whilst attempting to hide under the Romany banner and use the \'race\" card, which does not apply to them, to win all sorts of concessions which they eventually turn around and abuse. People are using the term gypsy/traveler to refer to them (because the legislation does) with gypsy being the operative word. It is so unfair. I know the Gypsy council seems to be giving some support, I suppose they have to make a show of doing that, because any legal decisions made with respect to eviction or sites etc. will affect the few remaining Romanies still on the road and also because of the confusion that now exists regarding where to draw the very indistinct line between the two groups. I have a lot of sympathy for anyone under siege, and would never decry the most abominable their human rights. Obviously not all of them are disreputable, there obviously is some need and some genuine cases. All interested parties have already acknowledged this. But its no use denying that the Dale Farmers themselves are largely responsible for the antipathy the locals feel towards them. No one is an island, and it is idiotic to think that you can exist in isolation and attack society at large, especially when you are dependant upon that society for services, and \"funding\" shall we call it? James, you may recognize what I am saying, I think Hillary Clinton expressed a similar concept in her book \"It takes a village.\"

I hope James understands and appreciates your wisdom and good advice - so far,it's been as scarce in supply on this issue as good leadership at Dale Farm.

Like yourself,"Curious" seems to understand the need for a democratic framework and an attitude of compromise and realism if you want to make progress and live in peace.

"Curious" did give some identity clues in snapping at the youngster and in hinting at past experience in resolving the unresolvable.

Showing a touch of excess emotion though is a characteristic of those born under Aries - I should know.

Will we be seeing more of Curious before too long ?

I’m staggered (and appalled) at the level of vitriol that always seems to accompany stories on this issue. Take Kim “I will always enter into dignified debate” Gandy for example.

“Let's start pointing the finger at the do gooders. If we can make their lives damned uncomfortable and make it so that THEIR views are totally unacceptable, eventually, things may turn full circle until these sick, sick people actually LOOK like the minority they actually are - and believe me they ARE in a minority. Like all bullies they just look bigger than they actually are. We can start by refusing to accept persecution for what we say and believe in and shooting these people down in flames every time they open their mouths.”

Now if I didn’t know better I’d say that was a concerted attempt at planning to mob any poster who dares disagree with Ms Intolerance with vast amounts of spammed abuse. “I will always enter into dignified debate” indeed!

She adds “I believe in people's right to a point of view” – yet just three minutes later she is telling a poster to “shut up” and labelling them with her list of “leftie” insults (cf. “blithering leftwing liberal politically correct scumsucking garbage” for example). Best of all - “People like you ought to be locked up.” Hmmm, that’s tolerance for people’s differences, respect for free speech, etc isn’t it. Hope you’ve kept that black shirt nicely ironed for when the time comes to wear it again.

I might have had sympathy for some of your views if you had expressed them with an iota of humanity rather than the whiff of Zyklon B. I won’t ask what you mean by “dispersing” travellers, in the circumstances…

staggered and appalled wrote:
I’m staggered (and appalled) at the level of vitriol that always seems to accompany stories on this issue. Take Kim “I will always enter into dignified debate” Gandy for example. “Let's start pointing the finger at the do gooders. If we can make their lives damned uncomfortable and make it so that THEIR views are totally unacceptable, eventually, things may turn full circle until these sick, sick people actually LOOK like the minority they actually are - and believe me they ARE in a minority. Like all bullies they just look bigger than they actually are. We can start by refusing to accept persecution for what we say and believe in and shooting these people down in flames every time they open their mouths.” Now if I didn’t know better I’d say that was a concerted attempt at planning to mob any poster who dares disagree with Ms Intolerance with vast amounts of spammed abuse. “I will always enter into dignified debate” indeed! She adds “I believe in people's right to a point of view” – yet just three minutes later she is telling a poster to “shut up” and labelling them with her list of “leftie” insults (cf. “blithering leftwing liberal politically correct scumsucking garbage” for example). Best of all - “People like you ought to be locked up.” Hmmm, that’s tolerance for people’s differences, respect for free speech, etc isn’t it. Hope you’ve kept that black shirt nicely ironed for when the time comes to wear it again. I might have had sympathy for some of your views if you had expressed them with an iota of humanity rather than the whiff of Zyklon B. I won’t ask what you mean by “dispersing” travellers, in the circumstances…

Never a true word said, Ms Gandy..pot kettle and all that!

Staggered and appalled, if you feel so strongly why don't you address the issue instead of attacking the messengers.


If there is vitriol in this discussion, it is most likely because the rights of the law abiding taxpayers of Billericay, Wickford, Crays Hill and Basildon have been consistntly ignored in favour of the non-taxpaying, planning law breaking, RATHKEALE HOME OWNING and professional benefits scroungers of Dale Farm.

People will only take so much, and if something is not done to evict these law breakers soon I would not be surprised to see normal law abiding people feel forced to begin resorting to extreme measures.

Andrew wrote:
Staggered and appalled, if you feel so strongly why don't you address the issue instead of attacking the messengers. If there is vitriol in this discussion, it is most likely because the rights of the law abiding taxpayers of Billericay, Wickford, Crays Hill and Basildon have been consistntly ignored in favour of the non-taxpaying, planning law breaking, RATHKEALE HOME OWNING and professional benefits scroungers of Dale Farm. People will only take so much, and if something is not done to evict these law breakers soon I would not be surprised to see normal law abiding people feel forced to begin resorting to extreme measures.

Andrew, I haven't addressed the issue for the precise reason I detailed - ie because some people find it preferable to bully posters they disagree with, using ad hominem attacks, "leftie" labelling and other puerile measures to attempt to discredit them. Attacking the messenger, as you put it.

There are other threads about people who break the law, which do not have anywhere near this level of vitriol. Hence it cannot be the law-breaking that causes it, but the nature of the (alleged) law-breakers themselves.

I see in your final paragraph that you are also advocating taking the law into your own hands. Perhaps you can clarify this statement in case people think you are advocating violence against the denizens of Dale Farm. After all that wouldn't be very clever - or legal - and it would only serve to discredit the views of those who resort to such measures.

S&A Wrote: I see in your final paragraph that you are also advocating taking the law into your own hands. Perhaps you can clarify this statement in case people think you are advocating violence against the denizens of Dale Farm. After all that wouldn't be very clever - or legal - and it would only serve to discredit the views of those who resort to such measures.

I did no such thing. I pointed out that if people continue to be ignored things may get more extreme. In no way did I advocate violence.

You deliberately twisted my words to fit your attacks on those who object to their local environment being destroyed by and their taxes being soaked up by the professional benefits scroungers, drug traffickers, Rathkeale home owners and thieves at Dale Farm.

Andrew - Understood. I suggest you phrase your posts more carefully in future, friend. Perhaps you can explain what "extreme measures" are, if not violence.

Just wondering, on a related issue, how you feel about English benefit scroungers (of which there are many in our area) and drug traffickers (of which there have recently been some coincidentally in the Crays Hill area). Perhaps you could also add a note on your thoughts in relation to the non-criminal elements at Dale Farm; unless of course you are stating (and have proof) that every single one of them is a criminal.

Andrew, you accuse me of twisting your words - yet you do the same, attempting to say that I attack those who object to their area being destroyed.

As you well know, I did no such thing. I attacked those who bully other posters simply because they disagree. I did not state an opinion on the Dale Farm population.

Once again it seems that the anti-Traveller posters are using untruths and libel to attempt to discredit people. Just as I predicted.

s&a wrote:
Andrew - Understood. I suggest you phrase your posts more carefully in future, friend. Perhaps you can explain what \"extreme measures\" are, if not violence. Just wondering, on a related issue, how you feel about English benefit scroungers (of which there are many in our area) and drug traffickers (of which there have recently been some coincidentally in the Crays Hill area). Perhaps you could also add a note on your thoughts in relation to the non-criminal elements at Dale Farm; unless of course you are stating (and have proof) that every single one of them is a criminal.

In terms of crime,failure to comply with a valid Enforcement Notice under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 IS a criminal offence.

In this case,I understand that consideration of prosecution has been suspended pending the outcome of the Judicial Review.

Anyone living in Crays Hiil who has lost say 25% or more in the value of their homes probably feels a crime has been committed against them by someone - the prime suspects are the Government (and possibly Basildon Council )who are seen to have either failed to correctly administer Planning Law or have not strengthed it sufficiently or have failed to enact new legislation a) to ensure sufficient legal sites are already available nationwide b)to deter unauthorised development by the use of much tougher penalties and c) for failing to properly safeguard all green belt land to ensure it's protection from opportunist sale/developent.

It is to be hoped that the residents of Crays Hill do not have to resort to the courts in an effort to bring the government or council to book.Perhaps some people would regard that as an "extreme measure".

S&A,

Thats where we differ. These people are NOT 'travellers'. They are tax dodging Irish economic migrants who have perfectly good homes in Rathkeale, Co Limerick. They have built ILLEGALLY on green belt land, none of them pays a penny in tax, all of them claim benefits. I don't know about you, but I don't think people who have never contributed into the tax pool should be scrounging benefits. As for English benefit claimants, the majority HAVE PAID TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE.
The drug trafficking you mention was carried out FOR Dale Farm residents, as attested to in court.

Mike B, interesting post. I think you've hit on something here - the Govt and the local council have let down local residents, and they seem to be getting away with it. If "extreme measures" just means court action, then perhaps such a measure is a good method of bringing this issue to a resolution, at last.

Andrew, we do in fact agree on your opinion that people who have not paid tax should not be eligible for benefits, except perhaps in extreme cases, eg where children are involved. This, of course, would also trap those English people who leave school and go straight on the dole without ever working. However, I had not previously been aware that ALL residents of Dale Farm were both failing to pay tax, and ALL claiming benefits. Is this true? Has this been published by a reputable source who can back up their claims? If so, it doesn't look good, does it.

My point here has always been about the abuse handed out to posters who are not as strongly opposed to the Dale Farm folks as others - not the actions of the Dale Farm folks themselves. Perhaps I can comment on that another day, once I feel that such comments will be discussed in an adult manner, and not just an excuse to hurl abuse.

All the best.

Mike B, interesting post. I think you've hit on something here - the Govt and the local council have let down local residents, and they seem to be getting away with it. If "extreme measures" just means court action, then perhaps such a measure is a good method of bringing this issue to a resolution, at last.

Andrew, we do in fact agree on your opinion that people who have not paid tax should not be eligible for benefits, except perhaps in extreme cases, eg where children are involved. This, of course, would also trap those English people who leave school and go straight on the dole without ever working. However, I had not previously been aware that ALL residents of Dale Farm were both failing to pay tax, and ALL claiming benefits. Is this true? Has this been published by a reputable source who can back up their claims? If so, it doesn't look good, does it.

My point here has always been about the abuse handed out to posters who are not as strongly opposed to the Dale Farm folks as others - not the actions of the Dale Farm folks themselves. Perhaps I can comment on that another day, once I feel that such comments will be discussed in an adult manner, and not just an excuse to hurl abuse.

All the best.

s&a wrote:
Mike B, interesting post. I think you've hit on something here - the Govt and the local council have let down local residents, and they seem to be getting away with it. If "extreme measures" just means court action, then perhaps such a measure is a good method of bringing this issue to a resolution, at last. Andrew, we do in fact agree on your opinion that people who have not paid tax should not be eligible for benefits, except perhaps in extreme cases, eg where children are involved. This, of course, would also trap those English people who leave school and go straight on the dole without ever working. However, I had not previously been aware that ALL residents of Dale Farm were both failing to pay tax, and ALL claiming benefits. Is this true? Has this been published by a reputable source who can back up their claims? If so, it doesn't look good, does it. My point here has always been about the abuse handed out to posters who are not as strongly opposed to the Dale Farm folks as others - not the actions of the Dale Farm folks themselves. Perhaps I can comment on that another day, once I feel that such comments will be discussed in an adult manner, and not just an excuse to hurl abuse. All the best.

I could not say if "extreme measures" would be restricted to court action - each person or family must make up their own minds on which way to act - some might be tempted for example to not pay council tax.

The most certain route to finally resolve this issue is for those who have broken the Planning Laws to either comply or be compelled to do so.

Central to this entire fiasco is that the government has let everyone down,not just residents.

"some might be tempted for example to not pay council tax"

I see your point but is that not also illegal? Two wrongs, etc...

Mind you at least you're trying to find solutions. Not just calling people names on a website. Now that's hardly going to change the world is it!!

s&a wrote:
"some might be tempted for example to not pay council tax" I see your point but is that not also illegal? Two wrongs, etc... Mind you at least you're trying to find solutions. Not just calling people names on a website. Now that's hardly going to change the world is it!!

My point was simply to illustrate that "extreme measures" has many possible forms.

Rather than split hairs,look at the facts - witholding council tax would be illegal but is hasn't happened yet ; people who might be tempted,even people who are understandably getting a bit frayed around the edges on this,are still putting their trust in the rule of Law and abiding by it.

If you get tempted to come up to the line and try to create solutions yourself for the world to fire at,you'll find plenty of room and very little serious opposition.

OK Mike, here's some of my thoughts on this. Basically we're presented with a fait accompli here - these people are living on their own land but without planning permission, and don't look likely to move. Attempts to dislodge them before have all failed.

So, either we keep going round in the same circles, spending vast sums trying (and probably failing again) to evict, or we try a new approach.

Measures that might work:

1. Grant retrospective permission (there is plenty of precedent for this) on the condition there is no further development, and in full consultation with local residents.

2. Get the Dale Farm and Crays Hill people to work together more closely to foster a better mutual understanding, and see if they can solve their problems on their own. That way we don't have a bottomless pit of costs, and proper communication might help people get on better with eachother instead of just shouting abuse.

3. Properly investigate all criminal allegations and treat them with the full force of the law. Then muzzle the more scary shrieking members of local society - including those who have moved to Rayleigh. We've already established that yelling abuse does not solve any problems at all, it's just a lazy solution for people with no ideas.

4. Bulldoze the site - and the village - and start from scratch.

S & A wote "4. Bulldoze the site"

At the risk of splitting hairs, it appears that you are now on the same side as all the others?

Aha, you spotted the sarcastic bit. ;-)

1. Grant retrospective permission (there is plenty of precedent for this) on the condition there is no further development, and in full consultation with local residents .

Just how naive can you be? Grant retrospective planning permission and you will see illegal building on greenbelt at Dale Farm, Hovefields and elsewhere in the area take off like there's no tomorrow!

2. Get the Dale Farm and Crays Hill people to work together more closely to foster a better mutual understanding, and see if they can solve their problems on their own. That way we don't have a bottomless pit of costs, and proper communication might help people get on better with eachother instead of just shouting abuse.

Been tried, many times, and every time the goodwill of Crays Hill residents has been thrown back in their faces.


3. Properly investigate all criminal allegations and treat them with the full force of the law. Then muzzle the more scary shrieking members of local society - including those who have moved to Rayleigh. We've already established that yelling abuse does not solve any problems at all, it's just a lazy solution for people with no ideas .


Last time I looked we had freedom of speech in Britain. If you don't like what people are saying, tough.



4. Bulldoze the site

As they say, many a true word is spoken in jest.

Andrew:

"Just how naive can you be?"

Chill, brother... crikey... (sigh)

"Grant retrospective planning permission and you will see illegal building on greenbelt at Dale Farm, Hovefields and elsewhere in the area take off like there's no tomorrow!"

Indeed, quite likely. Hence my point that it is conditional on a line being drawn - no further development. You did read that too, didn't you?

"Been tried, many times, and every time the goodwill of Crays Hill residents has been thrown back in their faces."

Right - like when the Irish kids came to the school, the local parents withdrew their own children in an attempt to get the school closed down. Cutting off their own noses to spite their faces, they then left their own kids without local schooling, and left a once decent school in a nasty hole. Very decent of them.

"Last time I looked we had freedom of speech in Britain. If you don't like what people are saying, tough."

Last time you looked where, Andrew? Our bill of rights? Our constitution? Neither exists. The freedom of speech we enjoy is a right conferred in common law only, and is slowly being withdrawn. Perhaps if we didn't abuse it by calling people silly names but instead used it to hold people to account using reasonable argument, then people might value it more.

Still, I suspect it made you feel better to make such a condescending point. Well done you. Very big AND very clever, all in one go.

Not so clever, though, for you to contend that our ancestors fought and died for our freedom to call eachother names. For that is what you are defending, by trying to attack me for, er, exercising my right to free speech. Think about it.

"As they say, many a true word is spoken in jest."

You appear to be advocating the destruction of all homes in Crays Hill - for I assume you weren't so lazy as to not read my full point. Perhaps you'd like to explain why that's a good idea, in case any Crays Hill residents are reading this.

You have the floor.

Well Mike I tried, as you suggested. Just a few ideas off the top of my head, nothing major.

Shame it didn't prompt a proper discussion but I agree it was worth a try.

Yet again you twist my words. Are you incapable of addressing the point and not the poster? I have called no names.
I DO believe our ancestors fought for our freedom, and NO-ONE, least of all you, will stop me from voicing my opinion.


Indeed, quite likely. Hence my point that it is conditional on a line being drawn - no further development. You did read that too, didn't you?

That was the part I was addressing, and the part I consider extremely naive. What makes you think people who have already repeatedly flouted planning law, will abide by such an agreement any longer than it takes for them to drive home from court?

"NO-ONE, least of all you, will stop me from voicing my opinion."

I certainly hope not. And of course I have not attempted to do so. (You wouldn't be twisting my words there would you sir?)

Right - time for a deep breath.

Perhaps you have some ideas better than mine. I should imagine there's plenty of scope to improve on my suggestions. Or would you rather continue to address the poster rather than the point?

Here are some ideas.

Forcibly remove the economic Irish migrants, the tax dodgers, the benefit frauds, the drug traffickers, the thieves, the burglars and illegal builders, from Dale Farm.

Confiscate and sell their vehicles and caravans to recompense the taxpayer.

Deport them back to their homes in Rathkeale, Co. Limerick, Eire and refuse them re-entry to any part of Britain.

Then bulldoze Dale Farm.

Only from Dale Farm?

Why not purge ALL the scroungers, tax dodgers, and criminals - wherever they live?

On the "drug traffickers" point, didn't someone earlier point out that it was settled people doing this? At worst, apparently, some of their customers were at Dale Farm - so "drug takers" rather than "drug traffickers" would presumably be more accurate. Although I grant you this is just sophistry and hardly the most important issue at stake.

Andrew, I think you do have something here. If any person can be proven to have evaded tax for example then they should have goods confiscated to recover the lost revenue. So why doesn't the council set about proving exactly this? After all it's a civil offence, not a criminal one, I believe - and therefore the burden of proof is that much easier.

Andrew, Mike etc.

Stop wasting your time, that is someone from Dale Farm or one of their representatives you are talking to, or in any case definitely someone not local and not with a complete understanding of the issue and efforts so far

Wrong on both counts I'm afraid, SS. I am a local resident, and I have a decent understanding of the issues (imho). At least I am trying to discuss the issues, and maybe learn something from other people like Andrew and Mike.

And your contribution is....?


Now I'm off home and thence to Cheltenham for the Gold Cup. Happy days. (And lots of Irish people!) Hope to revisit this on Monday, or perhaps sooner if possible.

I wonder if Kim Gandy will come back to explain her bizarre outbursts above. I'd like to see that, above all.

s&a

you do indeed have lots of good advice to give, so trite and full of cliches, copied word for word from kindergarten textbooks on "how to get along with your fellow classmates."

And you are indeed right, there are two sides to everything.
why don't you give some advice to the people at Dale Farm.

"why don't you give some advice to the people at Dale Farm"

Happy to.

Any suggestions? (preferably constructive ones)

Here's the story.


DETECTIVES are investigating if travellers at Crays Hill were involved in a plot to flood the streets with nearly £3million of cocaine.

The Echo has reported that Ryan Ludlow, 26, was sentenced to 11 years in prison after he was caught last August with 30 kilograms of cocaine - worth £2.7million - in a car in a McDonald's car park in Harlow.

Defending him at Basildon Crown Court on Wednesday, David Williams said he was talked into picking up the package by travellers at the Oak Lane site .

Essex Police confirmed investigations are continuing. Helen Cook, Essex Police spokeswoman, said: "Enquiries are ongoing with regard to this case.

"Officers are looking at the implications of what may have gone on before the arrests and elsewhere.

"Because of this we cannot comment on any ongoing action at this time."

The court was told Ludlow, of Clayburn Circle, Basildon, was seeing a girl from the site, but the travellers did not approve because he was not one of them and he agreed to do the job to "clear the debt".

Ray O'Donovan, 27, from Wilsner, Pitsea, who was caught with him in the silver Ford Mondeo with 40 wraps of the drug, worth £10,000, received four years at the same hearing.

Judge Gareth Jones said he must have realised the job involved cocaine, because he admitted to seeing quantities of the drug when visiting the site.

Officers from Essex Police's Serious and Organised Crime Directive were monitoring the vehicle before making the arrests.

Thanks Andrew.

I did read that story, but it occurred to me that the defendants would say that in order to minimise the blame on themselves. What they plea, in their situation, hardly constitutes proof.

Happy to see that the police are continuing to investigate. Perhaps they will soon be able to back up this claim - in which case I'll gladly admit you were right, of course, once they are convicted.

Otherwise I tend to follow a basic British principle, like freedom of speech, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Not having a pop, simply saying it as I see it. As is, of course, my right!

All the best.

s&a wrote:
Well Mike I tried, as you suggested. Just a few ideas off the top of my head, nothing major. Shame it didn\'t prompt a proper discussion but I agree it was worth a try.

Resolution,or at least,the start of a significant new phase,will be when the court hands down the judgment on the Judicial Review around Easter.

Whilst we wait,ideas,hopes and fears can be tested against what people think the Judge is most likely to decide.

It's anyone guess but he cannot grant retrospective Planning Consent - clearing the unauthorised site is not a matter of if but when.

There is of course a precedent for both travellers and residents in Crays Hill to live in harmony - they did that for many years before the large scale unauthorised development at DF.

Before harmony can be restored,the Law must be seen to be upheld first so it's the Judge who has the key.

For me,the issue of criminal activity is quite separate but I would not wish to muzzle anyone,even Messrs Smith and Kirkland whose utterings started this thread.

s&a (alias James/Richard/Gratto
n P. & Assoc.)

I was merely suggesting that since you appeared to have so much in the way of advice (unoriginal, though it may be) to give to all and sundry, that you might consider bestowing the benefit of your apparently infinite wisdom on those who appear to need it most, i.e. your friends at Dale Farm.

And if you don't know by now, what advice they need, I'm even sorrier for them than I was before.

By the way, I am Irish too, I might see you there.

s&a wrote:

"I tend to follow a basic British Principle, like freedom of speech"


Patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel
I rest my case.

ss wrote:
s&a wrote:

\"I tend to follow a basic British Principle, like freedom of speech\"


Patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel
I rest my case.

... And what a hole-ridden sketchy waste of a case it is. Good luck convincing anyone of its merits.

Winkle Pikewits wrote:

ss wrote: s&a wrote: \\\"I tend to follow a basic British Principle, like freedom of speech\\\" Patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel I rest my case.

... And what a hole-ridden sketchy waste of a case it is. Good luck convincing anyone of its merits.

ss

as you can see from the above post, literary allusions are wasted here, if you must use that kind of language, you'd be better off writing to the Times, if you wish to be understood, that is

I'm at a loss to understand why so called travellers are tolerated, from what I have seen travelling seems to be the last thing they do. If they want to settle somewhere, do what the rest of us have to, get a job, pay tax and save for a deposit on a home. Why is it ok to steal land, not abide by laws, pay no tax and still demand rights.
Why should people have their homes (paid for by them working) and lives blighted by such conditions and have less power than the law breakers.
It really angers me that councils are so scared of being seen to be political correct that they allow obvious human rights of the law abiding constituents to be pushed aside without another thought.
I really do despair of this country lately and common sense has long since left us!

Another good reason NOT to vote Nu-Labour.

s&a wrote:
Thanks Andrew. I did read that story, but it occurred to me that the defendants would say that in order to minimise the blame on themselves. What they plea, in their situation, hardly constitutes proof. Happy to see that the police are continuing to investigate. Perhaps they will soon be able to back up this claim - in which case I'll gladly admit you were right, of course, once they are convicted. Otherwise I tend to follow a basic British principle, like freedom of speech, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Not having a pop, simply saying it as I see it. As is, of course, my right! All the best.

I'm not convinced that anyone in their right mind would dishonestly implicate travellers so as to lessen their own guilt.There would be unpleasant repercussions for sure, and even drug addled idiots would think twice before blaming the Dale Farm crowd!

it looks like your enviting the voters to evict you, i can't imagine that the crazy hill-billies have voting at the top of their to-do list (i may be wrong)it's just wrong, we should know who let them in, in the first place then the residents of crays hill could sue that idiot.