Dale Farm

Message

Samray · #1 Post by **Samray** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:12 am

Interesting TV coverage this morning, but I haven't seen Davina McCall yet.

Shebee · #2 Post by **Shebee** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:35 am

D-Rider · #3 Post by **D-Rider** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:38 am

Didn't see the coverage ......

Dale Farm

..... is this a reality TV show about Falcopops embarking on a new agricultural career in the Outback?

I might even watch that one

HowardQ · #4 Post by **HowardQ** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:40 pm

Keep up Andy, we all know that Dale Farm is the company that makes Yogurt,
isn't it?

As somebody who can't stand yogurt, it seems a great idea to me to send the bailiffs in and stop them making the bloody stuff.

Or is it that I am not keeping up?

HowardQ · #5 Post by **HowardQ** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:42 pm

Then again, In suppose you could be right, it could be a recent new agricultural establishment set up in the outback by FP.

Willopotomas · #6 Post by **Willopotomas** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:59 pm

Makes me laugh when they say "we haven't had enough time to find somewhere else to live".. So 10 years isn't long enough.

For the second time this year, I'm on the same side as the Police and courts!

#7 Post by **Kwackerz** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:11 pm

I feel sorry for them.. well, not so much sorry as I can understand just how hard it must be now there's a recession and no fekker wants crap cheap tarmac driveways..
Maybe they should turn their hand to recycling.. put a tender in to the council to clear the crap left at dale farm...
With the money they would then earn, they could maybe buy ferry tickets and fuck off back to Ireland.. and take the pathetic rent a crowd 'protesters' with them.
As for the Council and Police, they should grow a bloody backbone. we had 'new age travellers' or whatever theyre called down in fleet a few years back on military land. They soon move when you tip up with a couple of large diggers and a promise to help them pack.

D-Rider · #8 Post by **D-Rider** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:14 pm

I've mixed feelings. Planning laws should be applied but on the other hand, our society is very intolerant of different lifestyles and fail to make adequate provision for those who travel.
One of the big problems for travellers is there is nowhere to go. There used to be an obligation for every council to provide facilities but this was never respected and subsequently abolished.

The plight of Gypsies & Travellers today is not easy. In 1968 a law was passed saying that each local council had an obligation to provide a site for every Traveller. This promise was never honoured and the sites that were provided were often old rubbish tips or even under flyovers, places no one else would want to live.

In 1994 the conservative government abolished the Caravan Sites Act and took away the obligation for local councils to provide sites. At least 5000 families were left without any legal home. The Gypsies and Travellers were told that they should look for their own sites and that councils would give them planning permission. Again this never happened and families were forced to either go into housing or apply for planning permission retrospectively, because no Gypsy could ever get planning permission granted because of local prejudice.

Now I'm not saying that the problems between the minority nomadic population and the settled population exist only on one side but if you put yourself in the position of imagining that you wish to have a nomadic lifestyle, it's difficult to see how our society makes this possible.

back_marker · #9 Post by **back_marker** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:34 am

Without trying to start a full-scale debate on the issue, how can they claim that they are travellers and have chosen this way of life, yet they have spent the last ten years on the same site constructing fences and permanent buildings?

They seem to be trying to use the fact that they have been there so long as some kind of mitigating circumstances yet I'm sure if you asked them they would openly admit that they have only been there so long due to the fact that they are flouting the british legal system and the amount of time it takes to achieve some kind of decision.

And don't even get me started on these so-called protesters who keep bleating about police brutality between hurling bricks and bottles of piss at them.

Annnnnnd breathe.

D-Rider · #10 Post by **D-Rider** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:05 am

Agreed that there do seem to be those that have given up travelling though I do wonder how much the fact that it is so very difficult to find places to travel to has contributed to this.

I also like the irony of the fact that this comes at a time our wonderful government have said they will be relaxing planning rules .... but maybe that's only for those wishing to add extensions to their large houses etc.

Tweaker · #11 Post by **Tweaker** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:41 am

Sorry Andy but I have to take issue with 'Our society is very intolerant of different lifestyles'.

In general, British society is highly tolerent of varying lifestyles and, in some cases, receives criticism for being too much so. Yes, there are always a few who voice their displeasure at minorities but they are just that - minorities.

The issue I have with the Traveller community is that they, and their supporters, portray themselves as victims of an unjust society. The reality is that they have chosen a lifestyle which is incompatible with the rules and laws of the land and the society in which they live. They contribute nothing to the coffers of the country but demand, as their 'right,' a place to live with all the amenities laid on - schools, hospitals, water etc. It is a truism that rights are underpinned by responsibilities. Opt out of the latter and you forgo the former - something which many people seem to conveniently forget.

If I choose an alternative lifestyle, it has to be one that will fit within the boundaries of what is legal and which does not impinge upon the freedom of others to follow their chosen path. If I choose a lifestyle which sets me outside the law then I have to expect the consequences. Their lifestyle IS a matter of choice and is outside the law - as are many of their fund raising activities!

It is a (sad) fact that, in this small and crowded country, land belongs to someone and to simply commandeer it for your own purposes, because you believe it's your 'Right' as a traveller, is unacceptable.

I wonder how keen to defend the travellers rights, the supporters would be, if having been evicted, the travelers took to squatting in their homes?

Think I need a drink now

HowardQ · #12 Post by **HowardQ** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:49 pm

It's getting more interesting now!
Although Andy has some valid points, I think that Dave's comments are much more valid, and would pretty much agree with everything he says.

I also remember many years ago when local councils spent millions providing for traveller sites around our area and I assume in all other parts of the country.
In pretty much every case agreement had been reached with all parties and the sites had full facilities.
There were two main results -
Some of the sites stayed pretty much emply for years with just the odd caravan or two at certain times of year when there were "work opportunities" in the local area.
Effectively most of the plots within the units were left unused for most of the year.
A total waste of taxpayers money.

Some of the bigger sites were used and were totally destroyed over a number of years. The one at the end of the link road from the M18 at Doncaster, White Rose Way for example.
There were constant fires from burning tyres as they needed the wire scrap etc..
Scrap was dumped all over the compound, with hazardous stuff in some areas. Ultimately the toilets and other service units were stripped of copper pipes and other scrap and the units got burnt down or simply destroyed.
Eventually when it just looked like a total bombsite the travellers left.
Another complete waste of taxpayers money.
I am not saying that sites should not be provided, but they should pay rent to cover the site and services and contractually agree a duty of care to respect/help maintain the overall service.
If a council house needs repair, (inhabitant normally paying rent etc..), the council deal with all repairs very quickly. If a council tennant habitually destroys everything, he or she will be thrown out.

Yes I know the are other issues with council tennants, (re-housing etc.) but they are of no concern in this argument.
If you want a service you should expect to pay for it, and should have reasonable responsibility for the upkeep.
They should receive no help unless they agree to this.

D-Rider · #13 Post by **D-Rider** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:14 pm

Woooooah chaps ..... I don't remember advocating that they shouldn't pay to use the facilities that have been provided or that a blind eye should be turned to misuse of facilities etc.

Of course the general principles of these things should apply.

Samray · #14 Post by **Samray** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:22 pm

Simple answer ... Put Davina in charge.

D-Rider · #15 Post by **D-Rider** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:33 pm

Samray wrote:Simple answer ... Put Davina in charge.

Paddy's Mrs?

she'd soon sort them out