Not for the first time, the church is completely out of touch.
Sadly, it is not surprising that its espousal of extreme left wing causes such as this, and the support for Sharia Law expressed recently by Dr Rowan Williams, is leading to growing disenchantment with the church amongst its natural constituency, Middle England.
It is amazing that only foreign clerics, such as the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of Rochester, seem to have the faintest clue about how to stop the rot.
Perhaps the Bishops of Brentwood and Chelmsford would consider allowing travellers to pitch their caravans in their respective gardens!

Note that they do not mention that Chelmsford or Brentwood should have some sites as well!

Leaders of all parts of society should use their influence wisely and avoid implying that they condone anyone breaking the law or that the end somehow justifies the means.

Political pressure groups who cherry pick parts of a legal judgement but ignore the evidence of breaches in criminal law and bringing the law into disrepute do not merit anyones support.

Whether it is appropriate to appeal first rather than follow the directions of Justice Collins is another matter but as Malcolm Buckley rightly points out, the Judge was very clear that those at Dale Farm and Hovefields without planning consent will have to move – it is not a matter of if but when.

Nothing in the judges ruling compels Basildon Council to provide more permanent sites in advance of carrying out their statutory duty to uphold the law or that somehow, there is a case for the law to be suspended or dispensed with in favour of a particular group .

Leaders of all parts of society should use their influence wisely and avoid implying that they condone anyone breaking the law or that the end somehow justifies the means.

Political pressure groups who cherry pick parts of a legal judgement but ignore the evidence of breaches in criminal law and bringing the law into disrepute do not merit anyones support.

Whether it is appropriate to appeal first rather than follow the directions of Justice Collins is another matter but as Malcolm Buckley rightly points out, the Judge was very clear that those at Dale Farm and Hovefields without planning consent will have to move – it is not a matter of if but when.

Nothing in the judges ruling compels Basildon Council to provide more permanent sites in advance of carrying out their statutory duty to uphold the law or that somehow, there is a case for the law to be suspended or dispensed with in favour of a particular group .

Sadly, it is not surprising that its espousal of extreme left wing causes...

Like Christianity perhaps?

The Bible does say that you should love thy neighbour. It’s been a while since I went to Sunday School, but I can’t remember ‘evict thy neighbour and make them homeless’ ever being part of Christ's message.

Dave H wrote:

Sadly, it is not surprising that its espousal of extreme left wing causes...

Like Christianity perhaps? The Bible does say that you should love thy neighbour. It’s been a while since I went to Sunday School, but I can’t remember ‘evict thy neighbour and make them homeless’ ever being part of Christ's message.

At Sunday School we used to sing "fight the good fight with all thy might" which is what people in Hovefields and Crays Hill are doing,isn't it ?

Like Christianity perhaps?

The Bible does say that you should love thy neighbour. It’s been a while since I went to Sunday School, but I can’t remember ‘evict thy neighbour and make them homeless’ ever being part of Christ's message

That's a Jewish thing. Love thy neighbour means love your fellow Jew. It has nothing to do with anyone else.

Dave H wrote:

Sadly, it is not surprising that its espousal of extreme left wing causes...

Like Christianity perhaps? The Bible does say that you should love thy neighbour. It’s been a while since I went to Sunday School, but I can’t remember ‘evict thy neighbour and make them homeless’ ever being part of Christ's message.

It seems like the Bishop of Brentwood and the Bishop of Chelmsford wish to love thy neighbour, as long as they're in Basildon.I don't hear them kicking up a holy fuss for more sites to be made available in their own parish.Maybe they should have a think about that!The Catholic church is not only one of the most wealthy organisations in the world, but they also own a lot of land.Come on Benedict, pull your Papal finger out, these are your people!

They wouldn't be so forthright if travellers camped out next to their churches and promptly nicked and burnt all the pews, filled the graveyard up with old cars,tyres and piles of tarmac & cra*ped in the font.

Tos*ers

bonzer wrote:

Dave H wrote:

Sadly, it is not surprising that its espousal of extreme left wing causes...

Like Christianity perhaps? The Bible does say that you should love thy neighbour. It’s been a while since I went to Sunday School, but I can’t remember ‘evict thy neighbour and make them homeless’ ever being part of Christ's message.

At Sunday School we used to sing "fight the good fight with all thy might" which is what people in Hovefields and Crays Hill are doing,isn't it ?

...assuming, of course, that it is a "good" fight... or perhaps they are just indulging in good old fashioned prejudice.

this "upholding the law" thing is such a farce. These people are not murderers, it is planning permission that we are talking about. Which would be given or witheld at the will of a handful of people.... and it IS given to a chosen few, but not to others... so much for the law....

To paraphrase Shakespeare, the law can sometimes be an ****.. so stop pretending that it is "law" that we are talking about here.

Steve wrote:

bonzer wrote:

Dave H wrote:

Sadly, it is not surprising that its espousal of extreme left wing causes...

Like Christianity perhaps? The Bible does say that you should love thy neighbour. It’s been a while since I went to Sunday School, but I can’t remember ‘evict thy neighbour and make them homeless’ ever being part of Christ's message.

At Sunday School we used to sing "fight the good fight with all thy might" which is what people in Hovefields and Crays Hill are doing,isn't it ?

...assuming, of course, that it is a "good" fight... or perhaps they are just indulging in good old fashioned prejudice. this "upholding the law" thing is such a farce. These people are not murderers, it is planning permission that we are talking about. Which would be given or witheld at the will of a handful of people.... and it IS given to a chosen few, but not to others... so much for the law.... To paraphrase Shakespeare, the law can sometimes be an ****.. so stop pretending that it is "law" that we are talking about here.

I'm not pretending anything - the facts speak for themselves.

Try Dickens when you've had enough of Shakespeare or better still,read the court judgement.

bonzer wrote:

Steve wrote:

bonzer wrote:

Dave H wrote:

Sadly, it is not surprising that its espousal of extreme left wing causes...

Like Christianity perhaps? The Bible does say that you should love thy neighbour. It’s been a while since I went to Sunday School, but I can’t remember ‘evict thy neighbour and make them homeless’ ever being part of Christ's message.

At Sunday School we used to sing "fight the good fight with all thy might" which is what people in Hovefields and Crays Hill are doing,isn't it ?

...assuming, of course, that it is a "good" fight... or perhaps they are just indulging in good old fashioned prejudice. this "upholding the law" thing is such a farce. These people are not murderers, it is planning permission that we are talking about. Which would be given or witheld at the will of a handful of people.... and it IS given to a chosen few, but not to others... so much for the law.... To paraphrase Shakespeare, the law can sometimes be an ****.. so stop pretending that it is "law" that we are talking about here.

I'm not pretending anything - the facts speak for themselves. Try Dickens when you've had enough of Shakespeare or better still,read the court judgement.

Wasn't actually accusing you personally of pretending, I was commenting on the whole thing and the fact that everyone is talking about the "law" as though some dreadful atrocity had been committed.

These people own the land, they are not squattng, the whole issue is planning permission, which lies in the hands of a small group of people, who have the power to approve or disapprove based on nothing more than their own and their associates feelings at any given moment. Studies have shown clearly that travellers experience a much higher refusal rate. I can't see how that can be considered fair... when rules are applied differently.

Yet, everyone here is ignoring that and screaming about one law for everyone when it suits them, and forgetting about the majority of times when it discriminates against travellers.

The church has got plenty of empty buildings these tax dodging benefit spongers could live in. Lets see the Bishops put their christian money where their christian mouths are and let these people move into their churches.

Hi folks,

Dave is right. It isn't simply about upholding the law, its about understanding the whole situation involved and the particularly difficult situation that travellers have been put into as a result of historical changes in their ability to lead a nomadic life.

It may be difficult for the settled community to adjust to them, but they have a need to live somewhere and that problem isn't removed simply by evicting them.

The judge was not saying they should be allowed to simply live where they want to and break any planning laws. He was saying they should be given understanding until places were made where they could live legally. The government has already recognised its duty to do that and in fact probably has to under European law. The lenience of the judge is to do with wider arguments of legality and rights than simply planning permission.

To apply laws with no respect to history or circumstance is not just in any case even if the majority wishes it to be so.

The travelling community does have needs and the problem can only be solved with understanding by the settled community and the reprieve should be given until suitable sites can be found where legal permission is granted.

To simply shunt travellers around and not provide sites is neither Christian nor a solution and it wouldn't work anyway or help persuade them or enable them to be more integrated.

Tim

Tim wrote:
Hi folks,

Dave is right. It isn't simply about upholding the law, its about understanding the whole situation involved and the particularly difficult situation that travellers have been put into as a result of historical changes in their ability to lead a nomadic life.

It may be difficult for the settled community to adjust to them, but they have a need to live somewhere and that problem isn't removed simply by evicting them.

The judge was not saying they should be allowed to simply live where they want to and break any planning laws. He was saying they should be given understanding until places were made where they could live legally. The government has already recognised its duty to do that and in fact probably has to under European law. The lenience of the judge is to do with wider arguments of legality and rights than simply planning permission.

To apply laws with no respect to history or circumstance is not just in any case even if the majority wishes it to be so.

The travelling community does have needs and the problem can only be solved with understanding by the settled community and the reprieve should be given until suitable sites can be found where legal permission is granted.

To simply shunt travellers around and not provide sites is neither Christian nor a solution and it wouldn't work anyway or help persuade them or enable them to be more integrated.

Tim

What part of the phrase "they have homes in Ireland and elsewhere" don't you understand.

Talk sense man, they are outlaws and want to scheme, ponce and scrounge off the rest of us at will.

This cosy little vision of tinkers in their little coloured caravans selling pegs doesn't exist anymore. They are anti-social, violent, messy and scrounging Chancers and have NO place in society unless they are willing to pay and conform.

They are Irish ponces of the first order and it is their 'victims' that need the support.

Christianity, my @rse.

Jimbo wrote:

Tim wrote: Hi folks, Dave is right. It isn't simply about upholding the law, its about understanding the whole situation involved and the particularly difficult situation that travellers have been put into as a result of historical changes in their ability to lead a nomadic life. It may be difficult for the settled community to adjust to them, but they have a need to live somewhere and that problem isn't removed simply by evicting them. The judge was not saying they should be allowed to simply live where they want to and break any planning laws. He was saying they should be given understanding until places were made where they could live legally. The government has already recognised its duty to do that and in fact probably has to under European law. The lenience of the judge is to do with wider arguments of legality and rights than simply planning permission. To apply laws with no respect to history or circumstance is not just in any case even if the majority wishes it to be so. The travelling community does have needs and the problem can only be solved with understanding by the settled community and the reprieve should be given until suitable sites can be found where legal permission is granted. To simply shunt travellers around and not provide sites is neither Christian nor a solution and it wouldn't work anyway or help persuade them or enable them to be more integrated. Tim

What part of the phrase "they have homes in Ireland and elsewhere" don't you understand. Talk sense man, they are outlaws and want to scheme, ponce and scrounge off the rest of us at will. This cosy little vision of tinkers in their little coloured caravans selling pegs doesn't exist anymore. They are anti-social, violent, messy and scrounging Chancers and have NO place in society unless they are willing to pay and conform. They are Irish ponces of the first order and it is their 'victims' that need the support. Christianity, my @rse.

Yay for Jimbo, someone with a bit of common sense.

I bet these clergy men would not give the travellers space on their land or even the churches. Its all very well to say you support them, if so, do the christian thing buy a piece of land, add all the services (electricity etc), then you can say you support them, in deads and not just fine words.

quote

I bet these clergy men would not give the travellers space on their land or even the churches. Its all very well to say you support them, if so, do the christian thing buy a piece of land, add all the services (electricity etc), then you can say you support them, in deads and not just fine words.

Tim wrote:
Hi folks, Dave is right. It isn't simply about upholding the law, its about understanding the whole situation involved and the particularly difficult situation that travellers have been put into as a result of historical changes in their ability to lead a nomadic life. It may be difficult for the settled community to adjust to them, but they have a need to live somewhere and that problem isn't removed simply by evicting them. The judge was not saying they should be allowed to simply live where they want to and break any planning laws. He was saying they should be given understanding until places were made where they could live legally. The government has already recognised its duty to do that and in fact probably has to under European law. The lenience of the judge is to do with wider arguments of legality and rights than simply planning permission. To apply laws with no respect to history or circumstance is not just in any case even if the majority wishes it to be so. The travelling community does have needs and the problem can only be solved with understanding by the settled community and the reprieve should be given until suitable sites can be found where legal permission is granted. To simply shunt travellers around and not provide sites is neither Christian nor a solution and it wouldn't work anyway or help persuade them or enable them to be more integrated. Tim

Your analysis is fanciful but flawed and you are ignoring the facts .

Government has been aware of the issue for years but rather than “recognise it’s duty” as you suggest ,it constantly kicks for touch .

It has still not introduced legislation mandating local authorities to provide any authorised sites and as a result, how many of the estimated need for 1187 new sites for the Eastern Region by 2011 will be in place by then ? Maybe 200, 300 and with some local authorities openly saying that meeting their targets even by 2016 might not be possible.

Government could have demonstrated it’s awareness and provided proper leadership by creating authorised sites on parts of it’s own surplus property portfolio.
Instead, it allowed government departments, particularly the NHS and MoD to sell off surplus land to highest bidders, often private sector developers for the creation of luxury homes.
Why ? Because it was a simple way for government departments to meet their short term budget targets.
Government, so keen to cram more and more housing into the South East, could still mandate that all new housing schemes must make a small provision for travellers – if it’s determined to achieve social inclusion for travellers and integration with the settled community, why will it not do that ? Because it knows it will lose votes and private sector housing developers will not take the risks.

The problem with “giving understanding until places are made where they can live legally” is that such an approach has no time limit or certainty of outcome .
Even if a combination of Basildon and it’s nearest neighbouring councils – Castle Point, Brentwood, Thurrock, Chelmsford, Rochford, Tendring , Southend and Maldon – were to provide sufficient sites right now to match the unauthorised numbers at Hovefields and Dale Farm ,currently there is no legislation compelling anyone to move and of course, we know that those at Dale Farm still demand to stay together.

In those circumstances and despite what you say, the law cannot simply be suspended indefinitely neither should society cave in to emotional blackmail .

If you want to contribute to a sensible outcome, press government to get off the pot and press Basildon Council to follow the Judicial Review ruling and if necessary, use some of it’s own non-greenbelt land as emergency stopping places whilst the government actually does something rather than simply talk around the issue.

mike b wrote:

Tim wrote:
Hi folks, Dave is right. It isn't simply about upholding the law, its about understanding the whole situation involved and the particularly difficult situation that travellers have been put into as a result of historical changes in their ability to lead a nomadic life. It may be difficult for the settled community to adjust to them, but they have a need to live somewhere and that problem isn't removed simply by evicting them. The judge was not saying they should be allowed to simply live where they want to and break any planning laws. He was saying they should be given understanding until places were made where they could live legally. The government has already recognised its duty to do that and in fact probably has to under European law. The lenience of the judge is to do with wider arguments of legality and rights than simply planning permission. To apply laws with no respect to history or circumstance is not just in any case even if the majority wishes it to be so. The travelling community does have needs and the problem can only be solved with understanding by the settled community and the reprieve should be given until suitable sites can be found where legal permission is granted. To simply shunt travellers around and not provide sites is neither Christian nor a solution and it wouldn't work anyway or help persuade them or enable them to be more integrated. Tim

Your analysis is fanciful but flawed and you are ignoring the facts .

Government has been aware of the issue for years but rather than “recognise it’s duty” as you suggest ,it constantly kicks for touch .

It has still not introduced legislation mandating local authorities to provide any authorised sites and as a result, how many of the estimated need for 1187 new sites for the Eastern Region by 2011 will be in place by then ? Maybe 200, 300 and with some local authorities openly saying that meeting their targets even by 2016 might not be possible.

Government could have demonstrated it’s awareness and provided proper leadership by creating authorised sites on parts of it’s own surplus property portfolio.
Instead, it allowed government departments, particularly the NHS and MoD to sell off surplus land to highest bidders, often private sector developers for the creation of luxury homes.
Why ? Because it was a simple way for government departments to meet their short term budget targets.
Government, so keen to cram more and more housing into the South East, could still mandate that all new housing schemes must make a small provision for travellers – if it’s determined to achieve social inclusion for travellers and integration with the settled community, why will it not do that ? Because it knows it will lose votes and private sector housing developers will not take the risks.

The problem with “giving understanding until places are made where they can live legally” is that such an approach has no time limit or certainty of outcome .
Even if a combination of Basildon and it’s nearest neighbouring councils – Castle Point, Brentwood, Thurrock, Chelmsford, Rochford, Tendring , Southend and Maldon – were to provide sufficient sites right now to match the unauthorised numbers at Hovefields and Dale Farm ,currently there is no legislation compelling anyone to move and of course, we know that those at Dale Farm still demand to stay together.

In those circumstances and despite what you say, the law cannot simply be suspended indefinitely neither should society cave in to emotional blackmail .

If you want to contribute to a sensible outcome, press government to get off the pot and press Basildon Council to follow the Judicial Review ruling and if necessary, use some of it’s own non-greenbelt land as emergency stopping places whilst the government actually does something rather than simply talk around the issue.

Brilliant, what a well written response.

Thanks Jimbo, Sherry and Jr for your comments.

If like you say Jimbo they do all have houses in Ireland and elsewhere it does alter the whole situation quite a lot, but I very much doubt that that is the case even though it may apply to a few. I know too that in mainstream media facts do
get hyped up in order to sell papers and that they don't always go out of the way to try to be the most balanced, objective and fair.

I agree that the idea that having a cosy image of travellers isn't an accurate one either, but I don't see that marginalising them further would alter that or make them more integrated either. Neither is it fair to have a rosy picture of human nature in that people who live in houses also break laws and can be anti social and violent too.

If as you say all the travllers have homes, then why are they doing what they are doing? What is the motive for it? Surely the whole issue is about the problem of having places to stop and the cultural effects of that way of life now becoming criminalised as a result leaving them with few options. The truth too is that if they were to move into houses next to you you probably wouldn't accept them any more than if they lived in caravans. They are culturally different due to huge periods on the road. They are struggling to know how to move forward as a result of changing conditions and to further marginalise them is more rather than less likely to push them into criminality.

Another alternative could be to give them other places they could stop temporarily until settled sites are available. There must be places that are free - disused airports, commons, quarries etc, etc

In answer to JR it isn't as simple as me buying them land. For a start I do not have the money to do that and in any case they have the money and have bought land. It is about whether the planning system gives them the ability to legalise their way of life within the constraints they have of needing somewhere immediately to live.

That was a good analysis of the situation, Mike

I think it was a little unfair to call mine fanciful or flawed, because substantially your position was in agreement with mine.

In essence we were both saying the problem has been the government has failed to sort the issue, because its not a vote winner to deal with the issue fairly and that the travellers needs do have to be understand for a real solution to be found.

From what I understand many of the big problems started from the closure of traditional stopping places and the advent of planning laws and originally councils did have to provide caravan sites for travellers, but the conservatives government removed that responsibility and put the onus on travellers to then find their own without actually very often granting it.

According to planning guidelines the authorities are already expected to make provision within that for travellers, but in practice no one wants them near to them even though they have a need to stay somewhere.

It's almost an unsolveable situation from what I understand and its not simply about the travellers emotionally manipulating people. Its simply about even when they have legal rights and legal provision should be made for them it hasn't been done.

In practice to grant them legal emergency stopping places would be almost to give them de facto indefinite rights to stay elsewhere and so it isn't likely to be given even though it is a very sensible solution. It would mean the authorities would never be able to evict them from those places, because at present rates not enough places are being created like you say and without more public understanding it is hard to see how that will change sufficiently fast enough as you say.

The pressure really is on to find real sites where they can stay permenently and the cycle of evictions will go on but be increasingly frustrated by human rights laws which are finally forcing the authorities to have to provide against the unwillingness of everyone to have the sites actually anywhere near them.

Part of the solution must be to spread understanding of the needs of travellers as well as the settled community and in turn the price of having sites will be that more integration will have to be expected. Illegality cannot be accepted from either the settled or travelling communities, nor hostile or uncivilised behaviour or antisocial behaviour.

It may in fact be in the government best interests to not provide emergency sites, because if they were given the need to provide permanent sites would be resisted leaving the government with a harder job than allowing the present unsolved situation to continue as it is. They can make the case more forcefully for permanent site provision when there are unauthorised rather than authorised sites against pulic hostility to them, because they can raise the need issue whereas if temporarily places were given the argument could always be raised that everywhere was not a right place and they should simply stay in the temporary places longer potentially making the semi-permenent. It's going to drag on and on and on in practice until permanent sites are created, unless extreme violence was used against travellers which isn't really the right thing to do and has been tried in the past anyway without success.

The answer unfortunately for the residents lies in helping the travelers find a solution to their dilemma by helping them get permenent provision and understanding. Unfortunately it can't be reduced simply to a local problem. The sheer scale of what has happened makes it bigger than that.

That's how it seems to me anyway difficult though it is for the local residents who also need our understanding.

Mike and Jimbo and especially Tim
You have all made excellent points in outlining many pros and cons..but..
You (mike and jimbo) still ignore the building blocks of the situation. Prejudice, plain and simple. ALL THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE HOMES ELSEWHERE, it doesn't make sense. Where is the evidence, - a newspaper report??? Surely even the bigots of this county have more inteligence than that. If it is so true, why has the council not acted? That is just something the villagers are saying to make it easier on their consciences. Clutching at straws to mask their bigotry.

It doesn't matter what the travellers do, society has always found a way to marginalize them. Whether it be by the non-application of laws that benefit them, or the application of laws that are to their detriment.

Planning laws have for years now, been manipulated and used against them while others are grant retrospective permission easily.

There has been a piece of greenbelt destroyed for every home in England. Remembering of course, that Dale Farm could hardly be described as that in the first place.

When a law is unfair (or unfairly applied) it must be challenged. History shows that there have been many archaic and prejudicial laws which have had to be changed over time. Though I am not suggesting that the law be changed here. No one is asking for that. What these people want is the right to live on their own land - permissions that have been granted to most other citizens

Its a funny country that would deny them that.

All this is very interesting - but the Catholic Bishops in question need to take a look at BBC's website. Type in "Travellers/Gypsies" and see what the folk in the Catholic homeland (Italy) think about gippos - They take a more direct approach via bottles of gasoline!

Meldrew wrote:
All this is very interesting - but the Catholic Bishops in question need to take a look at BBC's website. Type in "Travellers/Gypsies" and see what the folk in the Catholic homeland (Italy) think about gippos - They take a more direct approach via bottles of gasoline!

Precisely, Mr. Meldrew,

my point exactly regarding prejudice.

But pardon me if I don't compare Britain with countries such as those and I for one, will not compare myself with such people or let them set an example for me.

If we descend to that, then we are no better than any third world banana republic, and don't tell me about Italy being in Europe and all that, it doesn't make that kind of behaviour any less uncivilized.

You will note that the Italian government distanced itself from the incident. Lip service only... but still something.

Steve/Tim, in my book, if you want to 'join a club' (settled society), you pay your dues, don't deliberately antagonise the members and gradually you become a fully respected part of the club of your choice.

What you don't do is (illegally) barge your way in, continue to act in your normal barbaric and ignorant lifestyle and you don't continue to play the violent intimidation card to upset those that you profess to want to integrate with.

They are here by design because our weak laws allow them to chance their arm. They have cost this (and other) communities many thousand (if not millions) of ponds and almost completely destroyed the Crays Hill community. They must be stopped soon otherwise the law will be a complete ****.

If they do not like it, they have another option. GO HOME. If they are really serious about settling down, they can then save up, get a mortgage/job etc and buy or rent a house and contribute like most of the rest of us do! Their "look at poor us" rhetoric is becoming extremely tedious.

Until you have experienced them 'living' near you, I suggest your support is ill founded.

Steve,
You have sort of missed the point here.
The Catholic Bishops represent the Church of Rome. In the homeland of that religion the population there have also become so frustrated at the antics of these groups that it is leading to violence.
The point I wished to make was that in England and Wales(as opposed to Scotland and Ireland)we have inept representatives who are too easily swayed by unelected minority action groups - such as "The Traveller Law Reform Project" and countless others (See the travellers own websites).
This leads to frustration amongst the majority population as they see "reforms" introduced which allow gypsy/travellers to break / avoid laws and dues which the rest of us must conform-to.
Not one of the well constructed arguments on this subject has made a case as to why this group NEED to live in caravans/mobile homes as opposed to a permanent home or why they NEED a nomadic lifestlye.
The reason of course that they CHOOSE this way of life is too avoid responsibility for all those restrictions such as taxation, employment law, trading law, livestock welfare etc.etc. which having a permanent address makes necessary.
The question has been raised before - where are all the male travellers who are very careful not to have their pictures shown in any articles or videos? Perhaps it is because they might be recognised from one of their many aliases?
It is time to wake up and smell the coffee -Owning grazing and pasture land entitles you to do just that. Erecting a "stable block" which magically becomes a mobile home overnight complete with 6 foot walls is blatant disregard for the law and should be jumped on hard!
Lastly will someone explain just why this group's history and tradition is different from anyone else. Are we looking forward to Arab tents and camels in the parks, Sampans and houses on stilts in Benfleet Creek, Mud Huts with grass roofs in our woodland? of course not and this group should be brought down to earth like the rest of us.....

Mr. Meldrew (I almost want to call you Victor)

Everything you have said is true. But the whole point is that these things do not apply to all gypsies/travellers. Studies indicate that ninety percent of (British) Romanies are now settled, tax paying people. And the Irish travellers are indeed trying to settle, which is the point of all the sites. They just need one or two generations of being allowed to do this and they too will meld into the mainstream. Which would solve all the problems.
As for the ones in Europe, you are wrong there, they certainly do not (generally)engage in violence and intimidation they are not empowered to such an extent. They indulge largely in begging, possibly in petty theft when the occasion presents itself. Simply to feed their children and and survive another day. They are treated like animals and never given a chance, what are they supposed to do? Starving people with children will beg and thieve, its human nature.

The only thing I can say again, is that not all gypsies/travellers are bad people, the majority of them are very decent folk, like everyone else, and all are human beings.

Most of them pay their taxes, yet are subjected to the same stereotyping constantly. Even if you buy a house, the neighbours immediately become hostile. The deck is stacked against them. And that needs to change.

I know I will probably never convince you, but believe me, I should know, I am one.
Hope you are not too horrified at having "spoken" to me.

Mike, Steve, Tim & Co.
From your comments you seem to have some grey matter - Just ask yourself why these "traveller" groups did not buy proper building land build proper housing on it and live in their own little community for ever more - Answer = Cost and having all their finance affairs open to scrutiny.
We are not talking about planning laws discriminating against travellers which would be the case if they followed the same route as every other developer and got knocked back.
If they want to develop land let them pay the price.

Well Well Steve, Here we go again on the same old track - They don't understand us, we're ordinary law abiding folk mostly bla bla bla.
Look I might agree that the majority of English gypsies are now happlily settled in mainstream community. In fact I know many of them and believe me apart from sharing some traditions and language the majority of them dismiss most of the groups such as those in Basildon as "new age" or Irish.
English gypsies have become more integrated because they accepted the fact that their traditional way of life was unsustainable and have generally done well by conforming to the same laws as the rest.
Building more sites might solve all the problems for your lot but at the expense of the rest of us mugs who pay our way (and yours).
If you really want to be accepted it is quite simple - Conform! Buy proper building land (in a syndicate if necessary), submit your housing plans, then build - using the "honest labour" you have so much of. Then buy or rent an industrial site where you can register your businesses and park your trucks, get some insurance and hey presto you are a respected group in the community!
Last point - It was not the gypsy / travellers I spoke about using violence in other parts of the world - it was ordinary mainstream society reacting in frustration at a lack of action by their own goverments against travellers activities which fuelled the violence.
In the long run even Englishmen will react that way when they are clearly being taken as mugs.

Dave H wrote:

Sadly, it is not surprising that its espousal of extreme left wing causes...

Like Christianity perhaps? The Bible does say that you should love thy neighbour. It’s been a while since I went to Sunday School, but I can’t remember ‘evict thy neighbour and make them homeless’ ever being part of Christ's message.

Yes but do the travellers "Love thy neighbour"? Me thinks not!

quote

Stop taking the mickey out of law abiding people and call in the Bulldozers!

As a Catholic and Irish I am ashamed that the Catholic church is defending these criminals.

Tim,

If you still feel I was unfair in my earlier criticism, then I apologise but I want explain why I’m not in agreement with you and we never know who reads these exchanges so there may be wider benefit from exploring this some more.

If the present government had been around for a short while, reference to the undoubted errors of previous governments might be relevant but after 11 years in power with huge majorities, the buck stops with this government, not the last one.

Government faith in making change via masses of new ideas - but with hardly a clue on how to deliver them - has led to it’s obsession with guidelines, circulars, and best practice notes that it thinks are so convincing and reasonable that overwhelming goodwill will result and all objections swept away.

Friendly academics write it’s guidance documents and head task forces .
Their product includes the same conclusions as you seem to have, that significant responsibility lies with the settled community who “need to adapt and give it time” rather than government must take the lead, provide more sites and break the deadlock.

Prejudice is an unpleasant fact of life all over the world but it cuts both ways ; it’s worst excesses are controlled in this country by legislation regulating the behaviour of individuals, private companies and the public sector.

But you cannot simply instruct and demand that people accept and enjoy a diet of new culture or that they must abandon their established way of life and trade it in for what they see as the unproven benefits of cultural integration .
It’s rubbing salt in their wounds when they resist to then imply it’s their fault that government policy isn’t working and that in future,their views will be marginalised .

If it’s really the settled community who most need convincing and who have, as you suggest, the key to unlocking this fiasco, why did the recent task force team reviewing site provision not have a single representative from a settled community of over 55 million people in it’s membership ?
Were all 55 million regarded as prejudiced and their contribution too predictable or was it a recognition that convincing them of the need for more authorised sites is not important or indeed even necessary ?
The majority of people in Hovefields and Crays Hill do not need any convincing but even if they did, I doubt if any of them will be invited by GoEast to participate in the future site provision Public Inquiry at Letchworth this coming October.

It really would be misguided to believe that the settled community has any marginal power in the application or administration of planning law at a local level - their protests at Westminster or marching in the local village or speaking at public inquiries made not a jot of difference to the two Labour secretaries of state who upheld Basildon Council’s decisions to use direct action at Dale Farm but it’s interesting to note that all manner of counter protest by travellers at Dale Farm had no influence either.

It clearly isn’t the settled community or their lack of understanding of travellers needs that stands in the way of creating authorised sites but a government who lack the will to act.

I believe you are wrong to suggest that evictions will be “increasingly frustrated by human rights laws”. In the Hovefields and Dale Farm case, neither the secretaries of state or the Judicial Review found that damage to human rights should over-ride damage to the environment or the overall public interest.

I don’t share your negative view on using emergency stopping places on government of local authority land. As I’m sure you’re aware, the recent Briscoe report encouraged the use of emergency stopping places to lessen the impact of forced eviction .
I do find it curious that you have gone into a fair bit of detail in order to discredit Briscoe’s idea .Is it I wonder connected to why the travellers have recently withdrawn their appeal against planning refusal at Pitsea ? Perversely, they withdrew as soon as it looked as if they might win, after the owners said they would not object. To have proceeded and won would have handed Basildon Council compliance with the Judicial Review on a plate – the use of emergency stopping places would have a similar effect.

I certainly do not agree that it’s an almost unsolvable situation – what’s required is the government’s hand to be forced .

To bring that about, Basildon Council should correct their decision making process in accordance with the Judicial Review ruling. As Justice Collins predicts, it will lead to eviction for some if not all those on unauthorised sites.
It will flush out whether some have alternatives homes in Wolverhampton, Ireland or mainland Europe and will demonstrate very clearly whether the current law is sufficient or fails to protect those with genuine need and how that need can quickly be met temporarily whilst permanent authorised sites are provided in appropriate non-green belt areas, wherever they might be.

When (not if) that happens, the council will justify it’s decision by demonstrating it has done everything it needed to do and take proper account of ; the travellers will cry foul, chain themselves to fences, call in the international press - the full works but it will, rightly, be the government in the hot seat and only then might it do it’s job.

Basildon Council will be heros in some eyes, villains in others ; the travellers will be proclaimed either as martyrs or opportunists but the quicker delivery of authorised sites and an end to this farce should result .

For as long as this government keeps it’s head in the sand and the settled community fails to demand action from them, the travellers will go on refusing to recognise that like everyone else, they cannot have exactly what they want, where and when they demand it - the consequences may be unpalatable but no one, least of all this government, will be able to say they did not see it coming – it will be their law and their decisions that will be enacted .

Finally, back to the Bishops and their support of the Traveller Law Reform Project, whose prime aims include making changes in the law to improve the rights and needs of travellers. The majority of MP’s who make up it’s numbers are Labour , including Ed Balls, once Gordon Brown’s bag carrier at the treasury and now, along with his wife Yvette Cooper ,a member of the cabinet ; he has undoubted influence and aspirations to lead us all if there’s a change at the top.

It seems to me that the Bishops should be saying to him and this group “if you seek to change the law ,why don’t you just get on and do it whist you still have a large majority in parliament ? You can make a start by creating traveller sites on your own surplus land and passing legislation now making it obligatory for all local authorities to create the balance ”.

That seems to me to be a lot more constructive than getting on Basildon Council’s back and trying to persuade them not to carry out their responsibilities.

Mike
As always, an excellent comment

I would only disagree with you only in that I don't see that the settled community in Britain is under any great cultural threat from the Travellers. As mentioned, they are a small minority, and the culture of the majority always prevails.

There are however, serious threats looming from several other groups already here and who continue to knock at our doors.
and who will make the travellers look like kids in a schoolyard in terms of culture differences and terror tactics. I should know, it is my unfortunate lot right now, to have to work with some of them (abroad).

The day is fast approaching when we will look back at the house vs. caravan issue and laugh at it.

You will see cultural threats like you have never seen before, just take an example from several NA cities.

We should save our energy for that. But the problem is that we never put things into perspective until we have experienced worse.

Jes wrote:
Mike As always, an excellent comment I would only disagree with you only in that I don't see that the settled community in Britain is under any great cultural threat from the Travellers. As mentioned, they are a small minority, and the culture of the majority always prevails. There are however, serious threats looming from several other groups already here and who continue to knock at our doors. and who will make the travellers look like kids in a schoolyard in terms of culture differences and terror tactics. I should know, it is my unfortunate lot right now, to have to work with some of them (abroad). The day is fast approaching when we will look back at the house vs. caravan issue and laugh at it. You will see cultural threats like you have never seen before, just take an example from several NA cities. We should save our energy for that. But the problem is that we never put things into perspective until we have experienced worse.

I agree ; it's only where travellers have overwhelmed people that it's a serious threat and then only locally.

But you have to start somewhere.....I believe even Noah built the Ark before it started to rain !

Yet more eloquent speeches from Mike et al but still no response from the travelling people (who don't travel) as to why they NEED to live in a caravan on pasture land, grazing land or any kind of green belt.
They might have some case for needing a HOME but tradition and culture can be practised whatever your home may be.
Just another small thing - Have all those objectors to the "great more sites plan" seen their objections published? No - they have been tipped into the same old black hole.... Politicians of all parties are being led by the nose by bleeding heart do-gooders and misguided clergy. Democracy my arse!

Mike,

Thanks for your in-depth thoughts. Perhaps you do have some of the answers. From looking on the internet it does seem as if the government is doing some of what you suggest anyway and it is putting pressure on councils to set up sites more quickly than what they wanted and in more numbers. I think its still some years from getting a full solution.

I would like to commend Steve too for joining this discussion if indeed he is a traveller and to continue posting his views. He is well written if he is, because from what I understand most are illiterate.

In answer to Baldeagle about travellers not being travellers I think there are very good reasons for that too. Many travellers from what I understand would rather travel, but are hitting the impossibilities of being able to do that as everywhere they traditionally stopped are closed off. Whilst they would like to travel periodically to be forced all the time limits their ability to get work, get education and do all the things that very often they are accused of not doing.

What they would really like to do it seems is be able to have places where they can stop and yet still retain the ability to travel from time to time. That's why the government reccomends setting up two types of sites - permanent and transit - and the logical thing for the travelling community to do is seek to develop within a legal framework their ability to travel. That will never be possible if that legality is frustrated by planning laws. At least that's how it seems to me.

On the question of democracy maybe we should also consider the question of freedom too. It isn't as simple as the rights of the majority to force minorities to conform. It's a question of making space for people to pursue different options and give them legal opportunities to do that. At some stage all of us have minority interests and in practice we do have to make various adjustments for each other too as indeed the travellers have to also. How much we do that shows to some extent how tolerant and unbigoted we are.

What we also don't know is what skills and experiences we may need in the future. We establish seed banks to maintain genetic diversity. We want wild animals to have freedom to roam in certain places. Likewise as human being we cannot conform everyone into being clones of each other.

I agree with Jez that there are more serious problems emerging. The biggie is peaking resources in an environmentally damaged world from what I have discovered, particularly 'peak oil' It's worth checking out.

tim wrote:
Mike, Thanks for your in-depth thoughts. Perhaps you do have some of the answers. From looking on the internet it does seem as if the government is doing some of what you suggest anyway and it is putting pressure on councils to set up sites more quickly than what they wanted and in more numbers. I think its still some years from getting a full solution. I would like to commend Steve too for joining this discussion if indeed he is a traveller and to continue posting his views. He is well written if he is, because from what I understand most are illiterate. In answer to Baldeagle about travellers not being travellers I think there are very good reasons for that too. Many travellers from what I understand would rather travel, but are hitting the impossibilities of being able to do that as everywhere they traditionally stopped are closed off. Whilst they would like to travel periodically to be forced all the time limits their ability to get work, get education and do all the things that very often they are accused of not doing. What they would really like to do it seems is be able to have places where they can stop and yet still retain the ability to travel from time to time. That\'s why the government reccomends setting up two types of sites - permanent and transit - and the logical thing for the travelling community to do is seek to develop within a legal framework their ability to travel. That will never be possible if that legality is frustrated by planning laws. At least that\'s how it seems to me. On the question of democracy maybe we should also consider the question of freedom too. It isn\'t as simple as the rights of the majority to force minorities to conform. It\'s a question of making space for people to pursue different options and give them legal opportunities to do that. At some stage all of us have minority interests and in practice we do have to make various adjustments for each other too as indeed the travellers have to also. How much we do that shows to some extent how tolerant and unbigoted we are. What we also don\'t know is what skills and experiences we may need in the future. We establish seed banks to maintain genetic diversity. We want wild animals to have freedom to roam in certain places. Likewise as human being we cannot conform everyone into being clones of each other. I agree with Jez that there are more serious problems emerging. The biggie is peaking resources in an environmentally damaged world from what I have discovered, particularly \'peak oil\' It\'s worth checking out.

Tim Wales (any relation!),
We have a group of people who wish to travel and a group of those who might want to but can't and instead buy a lump of non-build land cos it is cheap and then build.
So where is the problem? The ones who insist on travelling can do so perfectly legally by using authorised touring sites. The ones who want to settle but would like to travel now and again simply buy or rent proper housing and set off when the mood takes them.
There is a small snag of course and every one discussing this topic is well aware of it - To stay on a touring site you must 1. Pay your dues up front 2. Behave yourself and not cause a nuisance 3.keep clean and tidy and dispose of any litter.
All three of these basic rules are not understood by the likes of those in Hovefields and those trespassing in Basildon. When their "culture" moves on and they UNDERSTAND US they might just become acceptable to the rest of society.
In your last three paragraphs Tim I think you have completely lost the plot!
You suggest that the laws as passed by the majority should be changed to make illegal activity legal for just a small minority. So when my son wants a home he can buy some farm land erect a small bungalow (sorry "stables") and the Planners say OK then oh,wait a minute you are not a registered DiD, sorry mate....
Next para. "Skills and experience"?? Are you referring to Tax avoidance, pretend you're a water board rep, build an 8 foot double wall overnight or simply how to syphon 50 gallons of red diesel in the dark in 10 seconds type of skills?
"Seed Banks to maintain genetic diversity" - are you raving mad? this is not Monty Python land and Gypsy / Travellers are not wild animals even though they sometimes act that way!
Look Tim these groups should be ashamed to call themselves gypsies and the government need to take notice of mainstream society or face severe problems in future.
If they succeed in building official ghettos for one group how long before other and more dangerous groups start pressing for the same?

Tim -
I do indeed come from traveller stock, but was lucky enough to have parents who realized the benefits of schooling. So we live in one place now. You have almost restored my faith in human nature. My week will be better for having read your kind comment. Best Wishes to you.


Bald eagle - the moment you learned I was a traveller, you brought up the subject of taxes and used the word "you." FYI... I am a nurse at a hospital and have paid taxes all my working life so I don't think I deserve the accusation.
On a per capita basis I am sure there are as many tax dodgers in the settled community as there may be among travellers, why aren't you concerned about them?
Also about that planning permission everyone keeps touting, aren't you getting it? Planning permission is rarely granted to travellers that is the whole point of the thing.
My parents bought a small cottage and had a terrible battle to even move in. No line of caravans, no extended family in sight, just one family, but still the usual opposition. One planning inspector said it was the fact that we hadn't done anything (yet) that made him more suspicious. I don't expect you to agree, there is none so blind as those who will not see.

i reckon tims a traveller too or a zac or james type student from the good ol us of a

Steve wrote:
Tim - I do indeed come from traveller stock, but was lucky enough to have parents who realized the benefits of schooling. So we live in one place now. You have almost restored my faith in human nature. My week will be better for having read your kind comment. Best Wishes to you. Bald eagle - the moment you learned I was a traveller, you brought up the subject of taxes and used the word \"you.\" FYI... I am a nurse at a hospital and have paid taxes all my working life so I don\'t think I deserve the accusation. On a per capita basis I am sure there are as many tax dodgers in the settled community as there may be among travellers, why aren\'t you concerned about them? Also about that planning permission everyone keeps touting, aren\'t you getting it? Planning permission is rarely granted to travellers that is the whole point of the thing. My parents bought a small cottage and had a terrible battle to even move in. No line of caravans, no extended family in sight, just one family, but still the usual opposition. One planning inspector said it was the fact that we hadn\'t done anything (yet) that made him more suspicious. I don\'t expect you to agree, there is none so blind as those who will not see.

You are Irish. Travellers are not an ethnic group they are Irish. Travellers are just Irish people who choose to break the law. If your family bought a cottage and it belonged to them how could anyone stop them moving in. Why would they need planning permission to move into a cottage that had already been built. I have bought houses but have never needed planning permission to move in. The reason travellers do not get planning permission is is because they buy greenbelt land which is not to be built on. Nobody would be allowed to build on it that is why they can't get planning permission but of course they just break the law and build on greenbelt land regardless.

Steve wrote:
Tim - I do indeed come from traveller stock, but was lucky enough to have parents who realized the benefits of schooling. So we live in one place now. You have almost restored my faith in human nature. My week will be better for having read your kind comment. Best Wishes to you. Bald eagle - the moment you learned I was a traveller, you brought up the subject of taxes and used the word \"you.\" FYI... I am a nurse at a hospital and have paid taxes all my working life so I don\'t think I deserve the accusation. On a per capita basis I am sure there are as many tax dodgers in the settled community as there may be among travellers, why aren\'t you concerned about them? Also about that planning permission everyone keeps touting, aren\'t you getting it? Planning permission is rarely granted to travellers that is the whole point of the thing. My parents bought a small cottage and had a terrible battle to even move in. No line of caravans, no extended family in sight, just one family, but still the usual opposition. One planning inspector said it was the fact that we hadn\'t done anything (yet) that made him more suspicious. I don\'t expect you to agree, there is none so blind as those who will not see.

Steve,
You really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder.
O.K. so you are employed as a nurse which is commendable and you are obviously not daft, so try not to cherry pick bits of the comments on here to try and make a case for those you support.
The "you" and "your" I refer to relates to all supporters of what most see as a blatantly law breaking minority.
The latest comment from Dave really sums up my response to you regarding housing / planning permission.
If you wish to buy a house no planning permission is needed as I am sure you know well. The only problem with house purchase for a travelling family would be when they turned up with a suitcase of money and had to account for where it came from (money laundering regulations).
As to paying rates and taxes, if the authorities are not aware of who lives where or have no means of establishing identity, how do they locate and detect the offenders.
In "mainstream society" people have fixed addresses and all manner of paperwork to prove who they are and what they own.
Just try and open a bank account, buy a house, get insurance or even claim benefit without proof. Then again there seems to be a different rule for those claiming some gypsy / traveller status.
I have absolutely nothing against any genuine gypsy or traveller who is prepared to abide by the same rules as the rest of society. Just do not waste your energy in trying to convince people that these groups cause is anything but a blantant attempt to make the case for a minority group having preferential treatment at the expense of the majority.
Steve, you are doing your genuine gypsy community a disservice by supporting these groups and worse you are risking being tarred with the same brush - as illustrated by the more extreme comments we see on this forum. Why not use your gift with words to convince leading figures in the "travelling" world to distance themselves from these outlaws?

I wouldnt trust the most senior member of the anglican & roman catholic church anyway

Baldeagle - I am an Irish Traveller, not a Romany. Chip on my shoulder? shouldn't wonder, been through a lot.

but what's your excuse?

Steve wrote:
Baldeagle - I am an Irish Traveller, not a Romany. Chip on my shoulder? shouldn't wonder, been through a lot. but what's your excuse?

Steve,
Don't seem to see where I mentioned "Romany" but assume you mean "gypsy". Pardon my slip.
Still I note that you are still cherry picking - How about a response to the main points in my comment?

Steve I commend your comments and welcome you to the settled community, however ... you made a comment above that the Irish travellers are attempting to settle. They are going about it in the wrong way. Greenbelt land is not for housing, whether it be a caravan, bungalow or otherwise!
You (not personally directed) cannot just decide to buy a piece of arable land plonk a compound within it and invite your extended family et all.
This is the whole crux of the matter, and the sooner the travelling community (who aren't travelling anywhere soon) realise that this is what all the antagonism is about, the sooner we shall all get along.

A previous attempted eviction (I think it was Dale farm) was rebutted using concrete bollards, gas bottles (bombs) and heavy machinery.
This kind of action is hardly going to endear the public, plus the other stuff going on... Botched housing repairs, driveways that last 6 months, TV's with no internals, Laptop boxes sold containing only a bottle of water, warehouses built to store sofas!!! It sure stinks of a different culture alright, one that has no regard for the law!
Anyway, as I first said welcome :-)

Steve wrote:
Baldeagle - I am an Irish Traveller, not a Romany. Chip on my shoulder? shouldn't wonder, been through a lot. but what's your excuse?

I think a lot of people have "been through a lot" because of the travellers, perhaps we should all break the law, build homes on greenbelt land, and just let the country go bankrupt, its half way there already.

Piemaker,
Good comment - I notice Steve has gone very quiet now that we have asked him to defend the actions of those he appears to support.
Mary,
I think we all know that "settled" folk are jumped on hard if we even contemplate a brick wall out of place on our own building land.
You may be right though... Our sons and daughters might benefit from a change in the law for us too, so that they can buy a piece of green belt and stick a nice double unit mobile on it - much cheaper than an "official" home! Power to the Dids, green belt homes for the masses!

Baldeagle wrote:
Piemaker, Good comment - I notice Steve has gone very quiet now that we have asked him to defend the actions of those he appears to support. Mary, I think we all know that \"settled\" folk are jumped on hard if we even contemplate a brick wall out of place on our own building land. You may be right though... Our sons and daughters might benefit from a change in the law for us too, so that they can buy a piece of green belt and stick a nice double unit mobile on it - much cheaper than an \"official\" home! Power to the Dids, green belt homes for the masses!

A couple of interesting points have been raised here, which I would just like to explore a little further.

The first is that many people here seem to be committed to an idea of democracy that is all about conforming minorities, rather than the more libertarian idea that as far as possible we should create a free society that recognises the varying interests and cultures and lifestyles of different people.

To read some of the posts here you would gain the impression that we settled folk are the most law abiding people out and strongly adhere to every aspect of it and believe every aspect of it to be right. Have you ever wondered what it would be like if the boot was on the other foot and the majority of people were travelling folk and the few people who wanted to stay in one place were continually uprooted and any fixed dwelling they attempted to build was levelled? Surely we would be saying there has to be some way of being able to accomodate both ways.

Now let me state very clearly here that it isn't appropriate for travellers to simply be able to move onto any piece of land and build wherever they want any more than it should be possible for anyone else to do that. What we do have to recognise is the problems that changing laws and conditions have brought upon them and help them find legal sites where they can stay and stop even if they have to move from where they are.

I do think though that you raise an important point, Baldeagle when you say how much easier it would be if we could all buy land and live cheap on it. It may be in that respect we have become an overregulated country which forces many who would like to live cheaply into indebtedness and homelessness. That would itself be a worthy discussion to consider and in some ways goes to explain why in the 80s huge numbers of new age travellers came into existence. They were disenchanted with what they saw as a system and sought to find a cheaper mode of living which the law doesn't allow.

This area in fact will grow in importance for a number of reasons. There isn't the same cultural elements as there is with the traveller question, but are there are a few pragmatic ones.

Here are some things to think about. If we live in a world of finite resources (which we do) we cannot get infinite growth and therefore any system which works on the basis that we can will eventually become unstable. If we have built a society based upon consuming resources at an unsutainable rate that society will at some point have a crisis when it learns its sytem isn't sustainable. Now as the resources go into decline it would mean there was less and less to go around. If we think of energy as being the central plank of the system in essence each of us is getting the effect of having several peoples manual labour working for us. Now as the world goes into decline those servants in essence end up being laid off and we learn what we can really afford in environmental terms.

Now think about it. We have set up our societies based upon centralised systems of control where everything is piped and trucked in and managed. It all depends on a huge banking and finance system to maintain all of this which needs growth so these debts can be paid back with interest. How are we ever going to be able to afford to do it as the resources peak and decline the stresses of which we are now beginning to see ?

No one's really thought it through and planned for what's going to happen, but even if the clever geeks are going to invent solutions it still has to be implemented and there is very little timescale to do that.

For most of us it will work like this. Expenses go up whilst living costs remain the same. Now you can cut back on food and clothing and entretainment, but eventually there comes a point where rent and heating itself is too much to afford. If we have legislated a situation that is unaffordable for most people we will be in real difficulties indeed.

The big questions we may have to ask ourselves is are our roads and services and pensions and mortgage systems and planning permission and health and saftey laws etc. etc themsleves only a product of a short period when we had a lot of fossil fuels.

If we don't give the scope for anyone to be different or to think outside the box or to have a different culture then what we create isn't merely a cloned society of identikit people, but also a society which is too rigid to easily change.

My interest in this is not because I am a traveller or from the US as one person suggested, but because I'm a deep thinker and we are all becoming prisoners of an economic system that gives few people any freedom and which respects neither spirituality, the environment or the right to be different. We are sleepwalking into what is a MCDonaldised World. A cloned world where each of us ends up like factory animals Everything is the same wherever you go and everything is so tightly controlled you can hardly do anything.

The answer doesn't lie in huge numbers of very rigid rules that don't recognise anyone's circumstances and which restrict creativity and freedom, but in understanding human nature and the need for repentance. If we don't recognise anyone else's problems today, no one will recognise ours in the future.

In Germany before World War 2 the Germans got fixated on growth and figures and targets too. As the top leadership tried to conform everyone to Hitlers vision of the perfect race a lot of people got uncomfortable about what was happening, but the social pressure to conform ensured not enough did. At the end of the day you can rely upon the mass of people to be like sheep. You need people who are different, however we look at it. Their idea of what freedom means may conflict with ours, but their persepctive helps to show ours isn't the only one that could be possible. It is a mistake to think travellers have no skills and have nothing to offer. Every human experience has a value and is necessary. We do have to try to gain mutual understanding. Not one of us knows everything.

As I was saying Hitlers Germany gave a foretaste of what happens when minorities are considered inferior. One writer say they came for the communists, but I never protested because I wasn't a communist, then they came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, then they came for him because his Christian values weren't accepted anymore in the intolerant society where everyone had to be seen to be the same. A society where everyone has to be conformed is a society which does not have any freedom. The freedom to roam or to have a culture that is not mainstream may not matter to you, but if you should become a minority yourself in the future it could mean a lot.

Reductionism is a very poor form of reasoning. It goes like this This is about nothing but planning when it isn't or this is only about keeping the law. The popular press does that because its the way to make things sensational and sell papers. The politicans do it very often because they seek the popularity of the masses.

I welcome your considered thoughts

meldrew + baldeagle + liemaker = Grillo??

Tim

Nothing of what you say will be appreciated,let alone understood, by any of the vindictive and disturbed individuals that frequent the "traveller" threads. Everytime as traveller tries to speak here, instead of welcoming the opportunity for dialogue, they attack them with excessive virulence, that the person soon realises how useless it is and leaves. Then they rejoice in their great victory. MIT published an article recently which suggests that the more agressive and nasty an individual is anonymously on an internet site, the more inadequate they are in real life. Its probably quite true.

Its nice of you to try anyway, and its good to know that there are still people like you in this world.

And I am NOT a gypsy or traveller so don't bother going down that road folks and if that makes me a "grillo" that ok too!!

TIM (nice but dim?)
Nice speech,shame it's along the same old track.
While we sit philosophising the next piece of green belt is having "stables" built on it.
ANON. - Too much talk and no do is the whole problem with the country these days.
Still no real answers why "travellers" NEED to travel though.
GRILLO HUNTER you bagged a wrong un here..... Is "grillo" code for guerrilla?

Anon wrote:
Tim Nothing of what you say will be appreciated,let alone understood, by any of the vindictive and disturbed individuals that frequent the "traveller" threads. Everytime as traveller tries to speak here, instead of welcoming the opportunity for dialogue, they attack them with excessive virulence, that the person soon realises how useless it is and leaves. Then they rejoice in their great victory. MIT published an article recently which suggests that the more agressive and nasty an individual is anonymously on an internet site, the more inadequate they are in real life. Its probably quite true. Its nice of you to try anyway, and its good to know that there are still people like you in this world. And I am NOT a gypsy or traveller so don't bother going down that road folks and if that makes me a "grillo" that ok too!!

Do you live next to a travellers site?

Tony wrote:

Anon wrote: Tim Nothing of what you say will be appreciated,let alone understood, by any of the vindictive and disturbed individuals that frequent the "traveller" threads. Everytime as traveller tries to speak here, instead of welcoming the opportunity for dialogue, they attack them with excessive virulence, that the person soon realises how useless it is and leaves. Then they rejoice in their great victory. MIT published an article recently which suggests that the more agressive and nasty an individual is anonymously on an internet site, the more inadequate they are in real life. Its probably quite true. Its nice of you to try anyway, and its good to know that there are still people like you in this world. And I am NOT a gypsy or traveller so don't bother going down that road folks and if that makes me a "grillo" that ok too!!

Do you live next to a travellers site?

Didn't think you did.