Author Topic: Fears of confrontation as bailiffs set to bulldoze Europe's largest illegal camp  (Read 51274 times)

Charles Martel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5979
Hundreds of anarchists and student protesters are plotting to join the battle against the bulldozing of Europe’s largest illegal traveller camp.
Police fear bloody confrontations with bailiffs and officers as outsiders attempt to turn the protest into a politically motivated riot.
About 50 anarchists have already joined the 1,000 travellers at Dale Farm and many more are expected over the coming days, say police sources. As the High Court yesterday gave the go-ahead for the camp at Crays Hill, Essex, to be closed down, the travellers were already digging in for a war of attrition.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031921/Dale-Farm-eviction-Bailiffs-set-bulldoze-Europes-largest-illegal-campsite.html#ixzz1WhgJ4W00

Lost World

  • Guest
They should let them stay. The issue was one of planning permission, as I understand it, as they already owned the land. Perhaps more energy should be invested in helping them forge better relations with the local community, and addressing the issue of planning with each individual case one at a time. Brussels can pay for that seeing as they're so hot on human rights.

I do understand the councisl position, but there needs to be flexibility in the system to allow for both compassion and positive solutions to be found, instead of the hammer and nut approach of eviction of people, some very old anf frail, and a number of children.

It's a traveller camp for fucks sake, not a terrorist training camp.

Titus

  • Champion of the Sun, a master of karate
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10975
Can't say I know much of the background, but the travellers supporters accept the plots are illegal don't they?

Chuck them out. Everyone needs to obey the law, and that includes having planning permission for buildings.

Natural Mystic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13850
  • hello
I don't want to be turfing children out of their homes but how is it that these people can get away with building these homes without permission, and I assume, without paying any taxes that go along with building such homes

Natural Mystic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13850
  • hello
I do understand the councisl position, but there needs to be flexibility in the system to allow for both compassion and positive solutions to be found, instead of the hammer and nut approach of eviction of people, some very old anf frail, and a number of children.

It's a traveller camp for fucks sake, not a terrorist training camp.
I do hear you but have you ever lived in an area whereby there are a large number of travellers?

Charles Martel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5979
I don't want to be turfing children out of their homes but how is it that these people can get away with building these homes without permission, and I assume, without paying any taxes that go along with building such homes
Because they're a persecuted ethnic minority, apparently... & they've got Vanessa Regrave & other hand-wringing luvees & professional do-gooders demanding they be exempt from the planning laws the rest of us have to adhere to...

tequila_nic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8300
There needs be a new definition of traveller

Being Irish and living in a static caravan should not be enough

Also it's worth having a look at the history of this as it seems some of the families own property in Ireland.

Nic

jason

  • Technical Support
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1154
  • Excellent!
  • Expertises:
  • Wars Fought
  • Bears Wrestled
  • Tigers Castrated
They've also got a history of clogging up the legal process with endless appeals, irrelevant motions and shedloads of paperwork just so they can stay longer.

As I understand it, it's greenbelt land as well so it wouldn't really matter who owned it - they'd still never get planning permission.

I would just be smart about it - don't go in mob handed because that's what they'll be waiting for.  Use diversionary tactics and then send people into the camp through other areas to get people out.  They've served the relevant writs and the residents have had around a year to leave voluntarily so they've really got nobody else to blame over this.

Sir Rocis de Liver

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10880
Water cannon.
Dual purpose.
Clear them and all the muck and filth on the site.
 :scrap: >:D :scrap:

Lost World

  • Guest
I do hear you but have you ever lived in an area whereby there are a large number of travellers?

Yes, in the 80's several camps of traveling irish folk occupied our playing fields, but that was different because they were on the move and were all in caravans, but they stayed for about a year, and were a complete pain in the arse!

As I said, the council are in a difficult position here. If they are allowed to stay then that arguably sets a precedent for future travelers. I'm still not comfortable with the idea of evicting folks who have planted roots there. I think I would prefer to see a 'contract' set up in these situations, whereby they earn their right to stay there by adhering to rules on how to conduct themselves and how to maintain their 'neighbourhood' so it isn't an eye sore, or a health hazard!

Sir Rocis de Liver

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10880
Remind me - where does Vanessa Redgrave live? How many houses has she got?
I blame 'My Gipsy Wedding'
 >:D
« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 06:05:01 PM by Sir Rocis de Liver »

Chewie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6943
Travellers, been there for 10 years. :weed:
What sort of travelling is that then?
It's an illegal encampment, needs moving on. They made their choice, so must
take the consequences. If they break the law, they pay the price.

 If I wanted to put a conservatory in my garden there is no way I'd get permission.
If I built it anyway it would be demolished. Why should these people be exempt from
the same legislation. There are, afaiac, no exemptions. They've been offered alternative
bricks and mortar and turned it down. Last time I went through the social housing system,
after two offers, you cannot refuse the third, without going then, to the back of the queue.

Deviant Dread

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5860
Because they're a persecuted ethnic minority, apparently... & they've got Vanessa Regrave & other hand-wringing luvees & professional do-gooders demanding they be exempt from the planning laws the rest of us have to adhere to...
Ah sweet old Vanessa, did you hear on the radio how a local explained about some of the travellers behaviour, Vanessa said if the local reported the incidents and the police did nothing then it was the police who were at fault not the travellers. :hmmm:

Lucifer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5427
  • I didn't do it
Ah sweet old Vanessa, did you hear on the radio how a local explained about some of the travellers behaviour, Vanessa said if the local reported the incidents and the police did nothing then it was the police who were at fault not the travellers. :hmmm:

It's never the fault of the criminal. It's the fault of other people, for not stopping them. Sounds strangely like some of the justifications from the riots.

Gilzai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1771
Travellers, been there for 10 years. :weed:
What sort of travelling is that then?
It's an illegal encampment, needs moving on. They made their choice, so must
take the consequences. If they break the law, they pay the price.

 If I wanted to put a conservatory in my garden there is no way I'd get permission.
If I built it anyway it would be demolished. Why should these people be exempt from
the same legislation. There are, afaiac, no exemptions. They've been offered alternative
bricks and mortar and turned it down. Last time I went through the social housing system,
after two offers, you cannot refuse the third, without going then, to the back of the queue.

Absolutely.