10 years ago when this first raised its ugly head was the time the 'powers that be' in the Independent Republic of Basildon should have acted. They prevaricated and the situation just got worse.
I seem to recall that 'The Colonel' Bob (now an MP) even got involved for the benefit of his TV program solving disputes and failed miserably - it's not Kosovo!
Maybe someone will suggest Muammar Gaddafi is holed up there and NATO will raze it to the ground.
That might be their best hope now.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Dale Farm
last reply
179 replies
6.9k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
Quote by flower411
So ...a bunch of "travellers" have lost their court battle to remain at Dale Farm and are supposed to be evicted any day now.
It appears that they were perfectly happy to use the court system all the time they thought it might be to their advantage but now things haven`t gone their way they`re going to ignore the law ......a tiny bit hypocritical maybe ?
Who`s gonna call which way this one is going to go ?
If they amass a large enough army to repel eviction will that just set a precedent for any and all other lawbreakers to do the same ?
If the powers that be fail to evict them will they have any credibility in their attempts to run the county. If they fail to uphold the law here where else will they be able to ?
This is going to be a defining moment .....
Having predicted a total breakdown in society in the near futureI honestly don`t know which way this one is going but the plain fact is neither side can afford to lose .
the bit in bold should be the clue
Sexlightened
I have a problem with them being evicted from their own land. Fair enough it's greenbelt land so they have no right to build on it. But they have every right to park their caravans there.
Sexlightened
Quote by GnV
I have a problem with them being evicted from their own land. Fair enough it's greenbelt land so they have no right to build on it. But they have every right to park their caravans there.
But to live in them requires planning permission I understand.
If it were a static caravan, yes planning permission is needed. if it's a caravan that stands on a mobile platform (wheels) no planning permission is needed.
from memory parking one caravan in your garden is not likely to raise issues with the planning acts. It is using it for living in that causes problems. You are permitted, without bothering with planning consent, to sleep in a caravan on your own land for 28 nights in any 12-month period.
AFAIK
AFAIK
Sex God
It's also worth noting Irish Travellers are recognised in British law as an ethnic group and were included as such in this years Census.
Would really like someone to actually come up with a plan of the site showing :
a) the whole site
b) which part has planning permission
c) which part does not have planning permission
d) which part of the site is/was 'greenfield', which was 'brownfield', where previous (if any) planning consents or developments, e.g. scrap yard etc. has been permitted.
It's interesting to note that Basildon Council has repeatedly asked that the travellers peacefully vacate the unauthorised site, and has stressed that it will meet its duty to house homeless families as the law demands, although
- they've not said where (so far as we can assertain)
- and the government has just cut £30m of funding for new sites
Also quite where Basildon Council has come up with the figure of £8 million for the large-scale clearance of 96 families, which is on top of the £10 million Essex Police estimates it could cost the force, similarly needs some explaining.
(Or do these costs include the Council spend as per the 1995 judgment which has meant that local authorities have to take account of Traveler’s circumstances before evicting ?)
Also is this a Section 62A eviction ?
As per the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act which provides the police with powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers from land.
If so the police must have a suitable pitch to direct them to i.e. an authorised stopping place – normally a local authority site or a piece of land where encampments are ‘tolerated’, which should have facilities such as water, sanitation and refuse collection, in order to be ‘suitable’. Not seen any reporting as to where these places might be, have you ?
Home Office Circular 45/94 indicates that the senior police officer at the scene may wish to take account of the personal circumstances of the trespassers, ‘for example, the presence of elderly persons, invalids, pregnant women, children and other persons whose well-being may be jeopardised by a precipitate move.
Is there a wider issue here for Basildon Council now that the government is bringing local authority Gypsy/Traveller sites under the terms of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (amended for 2012), and thereby introducing security of tenure on Local Authority sites ?
It's also worth noting that Essex Ccounty Council centrally manages the 11 Council owned sites in Essex (total capacity 176 plots and operates a waiting list system for these), managing all the issues associated with running sites, including site maintenance, support to access services, promoting good relations with neighbours and chairing / attending local multi-agency meetings etc. The County Council also provides a specialist Traveller Education Service.
If there is an unauthorised encampment on Essex Ccounty Council land or the public highway, then ECC’s Code for Travellers in Essex kicks in – this can allow up to 28 days of toleration. If there is an encampment on land held by Districts and Boroughs then the individual codes of those authorities would kick in. (For privately owned land, this would be a matter for the private owner, but neither Essex Ccounty Council nor the relevant District/Borough Council would be involved.)
Are we condoning the breaking of Planning Legislation, No
However no single piece of Legislation should cut across other Legislation, as you will have by now read, and this isn't a simple 'should they be kicked out'issue.
Would really like someone to actually come up with a plan of the site showing :
a) the whole site
b) which part has planning permission
c) which part does not have planning permission
d) which part of the site is/was 'greenfield', which was 'brownfield', where previous (if any) planning consents or developments, e.g. scrap yard etc. has been permitted.
It's interesting to note that Basildon Council has repeatedly asked that the travellers peacefully vacate the unauthorised site, and has stressed that it will meet its duty to house homeless families as the law demands, although
- they've not said where (so far as we can assertain)
- and the government has just cut £30m of funding for new sites
Also quite where Basildon Council has come up with the figure of £8 million for the large-scale clearance of 96 families, which is on top of the £10 million Essex Police estimates it could cost the force, similarly needs some explaining.
(Or do these costs include the Council spend as per the 1995 judgment which has meant that local authorities have to take account of Traveler’s circumstances before evicting ?)
Also is this a Section 62A eviction ?
As per the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act which provides the police with powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers from land.
If so the police must have a suitable pitch to direct them to i.e. an authorised stopping place – normally a local authority site or a piece of land where encampments are ‘tolerated’, which should have facilities such as water, sanitation and refuse collection, in order to be ‘suitable’. Not seen any reporting as to where these places might be, have you ?
Home Office Circular 45/94 indicates that the senior police officer at the scene may wish to take account of the personal circumstances of the trespassers, ‘for example, the presence of elderly persons, invalids, pregnant women, children and other persons whose well-being may be jeopardised by a precipitate move.
Is there a wider issue here for Basildon Council now that the government is bringing local authority Gypsy/Traveller sites under the terms of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (amended for 2012), and thereby introducing security of tenure on Local Authority sites ?
It's also worth noting that Essex Ccounty Council centrally manages the 11 Council owned sites in Essex (total capacity 176 plots and operates a waiting list system for these), managing all the issues associated with running sites, including site maintenance, support to access services, promoting good relations with neighbours and chairing / attending local multi-agency meetings etc. The County Council also provides a specialist Traveller Education Service.
If there is an unauthorised encampment on Essex Ccounty Council land or the public highway, then ECC’s Code for Travellers in Essex kicks in – this can allow up to 28 days of toleration. If there is an encampment on land held by Districts and Boroughs then the individual codes of those authorities would kick in. (For privately owned land, this would be a matter for the private owner, but neither Essex Ccounty Council nor the relevant District/Borough Council would be involved.)
Are we condoning the breaking of Planning Legislation, No
However no single piece of Legislation should cut across other Legislation, as you will have by now read, and this isn't a simple 'should they be kicked out'issue.
Sex God
Quote by HnS
(snip) this isn't a simple 'should they be kicked out' issue.
No, it's a simple 'they should have been kicked out 10 years ago' issue.
Just cos you own land doesn't mean you can do what you like with it. Land for living is different from land for agriculture in law (and we all know that if it is in law, it must be 'right'). They applied for planning permission multiple times and were turned down every time (I believe) on the basis that it was (very WAS since they have concreted almost all of it) green-belt. They already had premission for a specific number of vans - then broke the permission they were given by adding more and more.
If they want to travel - they should travel, from site to site. If they don't want to travel they must esxpect to be bound by exactly the same land and property laws as the rest of the population. It's a choice.
Sex God
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
my point would be if they wish to hang up their traveling boots should they not be subject to the same social housing or planning rules as the rest of society
if not id like to know what makes them a special case
Sex God
Quote by flower411
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
Awww ...to be added to the list of acceptable comments that don`t cause bursts of moral outrage and then strings of mod sanctioned abuse !!!
It`s ok to suggest lynching pikeys .....:notes:
oh and I'd so hoped that people new me well enough to understand irony
Sex God
Quote by Lizaleanrob
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
my point would be if they wish to hang up their traveling boots should they not be subject to the same social housing or planning rules as the rest of society
if not id like to know what makes them a special case
Mainly the media ..... had this been a group of pretty much any other kind I find it difficult to imagine them getting quite the same amount of media coverage ..... I wonder why ??
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
Awww ...to be added to the list of acceptable comments that don`t cause bursts of moral outrage and then strings of mod sanctioned abuse !!!
It`s ok to suggest lynching pikeys .....:notes:
oh and I'd so hoped that people new me well enough to understand irony
I did staggs... but flower is worried that if he had made the comment, the Mods would have strung him up
He probably believes you have a mod or two in your pocket as well :lol2:
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
my point would be if they wish to hang up their traveling boots should they not be subject to the same social housing or planning rules as the rest of society
if not id like to know what makes them a special case
Mainly the media ..... had this been a group of pretty much any other kind I find it difficult to imagine them getting quite the same amount of media coverage ..... I wonder why ??
what other than accept we can't build on the land you mean ?
i do believe the media are being used to the max by these travellers to champion their cause so why can't they accept what the rest of us would have to should we own a piece of this green (belt) and pleasant land
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Quote by GnV
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
Awww ...to be added to the list of acceptable comments that don`t cause bursts of moral outrage and then strings of mod sanctioned abuse !!!
It`s ok to suggest lynching pikeys .....:notes:
oh and I'd so hoped that people new me well enough to understand irony
I did staggs... but flower is worried that if he had made the comment, the Mods would have strung him up
He probably believes you have a mod or two in your pocket as well :lol2:
Flowers having a problem recognising irony, never?!
Not that I know anything, just passing through on the way to happiness.... 
Sex God
Quote by Mr_Lilly
I have a problem with them being evicted from their own land. Fair enough it's greenbelt land so they have no right to build on it. But they have every right to park their caravans there.
But to live in them requires planning permission I understand.
If it were a static caravan, yes planning permission is needed. if it's a caravan that stands on a mobile platform (wheels) no planning permission is needed.
If it were to be used for holidays, then yes you are correct, but they may not spend 12 months of the year there. ie live there
Sex God
Listening to the news on the way home from work tonight an interesting bit of information slipped out.....apparently before it was lived on the land was a scrap yard... now whilst this in no way alters the argument about planning laws it does give lie to some of the debate about preserving the green belt
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Listening to the news on the way home from work tonight an interesting bit of information slipped out.....apparently before it was lived on the land was a scrap yard... now whilst this in no way alters the argument about planning laws it does give lie to some of the debate about preserving the green belt
The part that the travellers are being evicted from did not form part of the original plot where the scrap yard stood . the original scrap yard land and the building on it are of course permitted
hope that clears it up
Quote by Lizaleanrob
The part that the travellers are being evicted from did not form part of the original plot where the scrap yard stood . the original scrap yard land and the building on it are of course permitted
hope that clears it up
but only for commercial use and the NDR will apply. I know to my own cost from past experience (in Essex) that persuading a LA to agree change of use from commercial to permit housing is nigh on impossible.
Sex God
Quote by flower411
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
Awww ...to be added to the list of acceptable comments that don`t cause bursts of moral outrage and then strings of mod sanctioned abuse !!!
It`s ok to suggest lynching pikeys .....:notes:
oh and I'd so hoped that people new me well enough to understand irony
I suppose I just assumed that you`d made a favourable comment about a certain mods cleavage and were therefore "clear" to make these comments without outrage and abuse coming your way .........
Irony ? What`s that ?
Irony is right next to cobalty on the periodic table
Can't say I remember any cleavage comments ... but Dave_notts puppy is quite fetching
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
Awww ...to be added to the list of acceptable comments that don`t cause bursts of moral outrage and then strings of mod sanctioned abuse !!!
It`s ok to suggest lynching pikeys .....:notes:
oh and I'd so hoped that people new me well enough to understand irony
I suppose I just assumed that you`d made a favourable comment about a certain mods cleavage and were therefore "clear" to make these comments without outrage and abuse coming your way .........
Irony ? What`s that ?
Irony is right next to cobalty on the periodic table
Can't say I remember any cleavage comments ... but Dave_notts puppy is quite fetching
with subtlety right at the other end of the table. :lol2:
Sex God
Quote by flower411
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
Awww ...to be added to the list of acceptable comments that don`t cause bursts of moral outrage and then strings of mod sanctioned abuse !!!
It`s ok to suggest lynching pikeys .....:notes:
oh and I'd so hoped that people new me well enough to understand irony
I suppose I just assumed that you`d made a favourable comment about a certain mods cleavage and were therefore "clear" to make these comments without outrage and abuse coming your way .........
Irony ? What`s that ?
oh i see........ thats where kenty went wrong :doh:
jeez flower maybe your posts should contain one of these
Sex God
evictions start a week on monday
lets just hope its peacefull
lets just hope its peacefull
Quote by foxylady2209
No, it's a simple 'they should have been kicked out 10 years ago' issue.
without a shadow of a doubt.
Quote by foxylady2209
If they want to travel - they should travel, from site to site. If they don't want to travel they must esxpect to be bound by exactly the same land and property laws as the rest of the population. It's a choice.
there lies a major fundamental problem with the traveling comunity. they do not in many cases want to be bound by any law except there own, which they make up as they go along.
to buy land and then knowingly break the law by doing what you or me cannot do, and that is to build on it without permission is a total disgrace.
how this crap has dragged on for ten bloody yeers is beyond me.
intimidation with these peeple is a big issue, plus new recent laws that also protect these peeple have in the long term only helped them to achieve what i or my neighbours could fail to do, and that is to run the local council into ten yeers of legal rangling.
how much has this cost the council involved? this same council like many others will moan of lack of funds but that money could/should have been spent on helping the law abiding residents, and not a bunch of law breakers intent on doing what they want without any regard for anyone/anything else.
the council should have kicked these travellers ( theres a laugh of a word ), out ten yeers ago and saved a heck of a lot of money in the process!!!
vanessa redgrave should be ashmamed of herself. i have not seen her offering her land for them to live on. silly cow!
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
String 'em all up fuckin' pikeys
many peeple would say a big yes to that statement.
:thumbup:
Quote by starlightcouple
how this crap has dragged on for ten bloody yeers is beyond me.
I beleive it drags on for so long as businessmen and women know that if the law was changed and the council was able to evict immediately for breach of planning legislation then their loopholes would be shut and their businesses would be shut and a loss of money to them.
So it is not in their interest to lobby for a change in the law and to keep this avenue open to them.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
how this crap has dragged on for ten bloody yeers is beyond me.
I beleive it drags on for so long as businessmen and women know that if the law was changed and the council was able to evict immediately for breach of planning legislation then their loopholes would be shut and their businesses would be shut and a loss of money to them.
So it is not in their interest to lobby for a change in the law and to keep this avenue open to them.
Dave_Notts
maybe dave but i also beleeve that these peeple use intimidation in many cases.
i can only feel sympathy for the peeple who live close to these peeple, who then have to pay there council tax and watch whilst these other peeple flout the law, while avoiding paying the same tax as other law abiding peeple do.
Not disagreeing Star that the law should be done and be seen to be done in the case of Dale Farm
However, as a business pays tax are you saying that it is ok for them to break the same law as these business make life misery to the nearby residents?
My belief is that in these cases both should be dealt with exactly the same, whether they are Traveller or business
Dave_Notts
However, as a business pays tax are you saying that it is ok for them to break the same law as these business make life misery to the nearby residents?
My belief is that in these cases both should be dealt with exactly the same, whether they are Traveller or business
Dave_Notts
