Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Torn on a sticky subjectFollow

#1 Mar 08 2006 at 3:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Linky

Quote:
Will Minety Gypsies be able to stay?

When passions run as high as they do over neighbourly disputes, it is perhaps wise that the language of the planning inquiry is as dispassionate as it comes.

Which is why during the inquiry into the Minety Gypsy encampment, Wiltshire, highways engineer Mark Baker was trudging through the grey afternoon with his measuring gizmos, getting the exact numbers on sight lines and safety factors.

But for all of those concerned with this deeply controversial site, what it comes down to is a very simple question: Do the Gypsies who moved into the area in August 2003 have a right to stay?


After reading this I am torn.

It seems that the gypsies are trying to settle down, to join in with society but have made the worst start by instantly and deliberately breaking the law to try.

I would love to let them settle down. I really think the gypsies are doing the right thing, just in the wrong way.

They should have bought land they could develop. But then I wonder, how much of the current ill feeling and bad press towards the fly tipping, tarmaccing stereotype gypsies prevents those with the money and willing actually buying land in the first place? Did they lie to simply enable them to gain the land? Who knows ...

Anyway, what do asylumites think about this situation?

I would like to see a compromise, maybe asking the gypsies to move to another area of land in the area where they can legally build and settle. They wish to settle, why not offer a solution and not just kick them out?
#2 Mar 08 2006 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Perhaps we could sell you to the gypsies and buy everyone premium for the year. Hmmm, I like that idea.
#3 Mar 08 2006 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Eldy wrote:
Perhaps we could sell you to the gypsies and buy everyone premium for the year. Hmmm, I like that idea.
I don't think they'd pay that much for a biggoted generalising **** to be honest.

Edited coz t3h 3nt3rn3t5 > N0bBy



Edited, Wed Mar 8 15:55:00 2006 by Nobby
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#4 Mar 08 2006 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
Some gypsy chicks are yummy. I they are yummy, they can stay...
#5 Mar 08 2006 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
I love you too Nobby Smiley: frown
#6 Mar 08 2006 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
JennockFV wrote:
I love you too Nobby Smiley: frown
Put your coat on Love; You've pulled! Smiley: wink

On the original topic, I've worked a great deal with travellers and there's a classic self-perpetuating bout of stereotyping.

A minority of disruptive travellers/Gypsies/Roma have caused mayhem, causing the traveller community to be discreditied as a bunch of Pikeys.

A number of local Councils have reneged on their legal responsibilities by selling off traveller camps and parks for a quick buck.

____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#7 Mar 08 2006 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Well I had hoped that you realised I said that the stereotype hindered the gypsies!! omg

I would just like to see gypsies who wish to settle given fair opportunities to enable them to do just that. Without having to lie to buy land.

That said, you should not buy land under false pretencies .. but when thats all you can do ???

Chicken egg you know?

Why I was wondering what people would propose as a solution. I would not like to see the gypsies win the right to settle on this land, as it would set an uncomfortable precedent where anyone could just settle ad-hoc on land and set up a home. But they are willing and wanting to settle. So as part of any settlement they should be given the choice to swap for another plot of land of equal value and location (finances to be worked out blah blah).
Is that fair?
#8 Mar 08 2006 at 4:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I used to tell my son I was going to sell him to the gypsies on a regular basis.

One day we were in the car and I was in a bad mood about something and talking to my mother when he piped in from the back seat. I snapped at him and he was silent for a few minutes before he quietly said "Daddy?..." "What?" "It's okay if you sell me to the gypsies."

Ah, kids.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Mar 08 2006 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
JennockFV wrote:
Why I was wondering what people would propose as a solution. I would not like to see the gypsies win the right to settle on this land, as it would set an uncomfortable precedent where anyone could just settle ad-hoc on land and set up a home. But they are willing and wanting to settle. So as part of any settlement they should be given the choice to swap for another plot of land of equal value and location (finances to be worked out blah blah).
Is that fair?
No it's not.

We have a common law dating back to the 11th century protecting the right of people to use common land without let or hindrance unless they abuse the neighbours.

If they turn up and dump rusty cookers and washing machines in peoples' gardens, f'uck 'em. Move em on.

If not, let em be.

If Councils sell off land that is 'legally' theirs, but in common law has been publicly owned for a thousand years, they should be taken out and have their children sold to Michael Jackson.

If they choose to stop travelling and settle down, we need to stop using loop-holes to keep the middle-classes happy and we might stop travellers having to find dodgy work-arounds simply to enjoy the rights you and I do.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#10 Mar 08 2006 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
I'm not sure how to settle that. Let's ask the Kurds/Jews/Mexicans. They seem to have figured it out.
#11 Mar 08 2006 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
****
5,311 posts
What I can't figure out from the article is the exact reason for the denial to allow them to develop the land.
#12 Mar 08 2006 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
What I can't figure out from the article is the exact reason for the denial to allow them to develop the land.


I'm guessing it's because it's not theirs?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Mar 08 2006 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
... My great grandma was a gypsy... I have gypsy blood. So I say they stay.
#14 Mar 09 2006 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm guessing it's because it's not theirs?
Who'd have thought it? Gbaji wrong again?

In England most Cities, towns and villages have "Common Land" which since the late 11th century has been held in common ownership for grazing beasts and for passers-by to stay on if they need to.

For almost a millenium this has worked out fine until the 1980s where the (Conservative) Government passed an act allowing Councils to sell the land and use the income to build profitable Golf Courses and 7 bedroom houses.

Since then, travellers have had a much tougher time finding places to stay legitimately. Some have saved the money to buy the common land themselves and return it to "Common Land" status.

Now some ****-waffles in Councils are refusing to sell the land, or using subterfuges to ensure that the only people able to stay in the village are white, middle-class chinless fu[Aquamarine][/Aquamarine]ckwits with 2.3 children and the social conscience of a baboon.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#15 Mar 09 2006 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Codyy da Basher wrote:
... My great grandma was a gypsy... I have gypsy blood. So I say they stay.
Quick everyone! Hide the silverware and ornaments! The Pikeys are Coming!
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#16 Mar 09 2006 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Nobby wrote:
Now some ****-waffles in Councils are refusing to sell the land, or using subterfuges to ensure that the only people able to stay in the village are white, middle-class chinless fu[Aquamarine][/Aquamarine]ckwits with 2.3 children and the social conscience of a baboon.

Nothing as untrustworthy as a person with no chin.
#17 Mar 09 2006 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nobby wrote:
In England most Cities, towns and villages have "Common Land" which since the late 11th century has been held in common ownership for grazing beasts and for passers-by to stay on if they need to.
Dude, I bet you a drink at Boston that Gbaji will now reply as if he's studied 11th century English law his entire life.

It was part of his computer ethics course
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Mar 09 2006 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nobby wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm guessing it's because it's not theirs?
Who'd have thought it? Gbaji wrong again?

In England most Cities, towns and villages have "Common Land" which since the late 11th century has been held in common ownership for grazing beasts and for passers-by to stay on if they need to.


I was responding to the issue of the travellers "developing" the land, Nobby, not just staying there. Developing implies ownership.

While I agree that the issue is further complicated by the fact that previous Councils have allowed just that (but only for people/groups they liked), the basic issue is still that this is "public" land, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Mar 09 2006 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Nobby wrote:
In England most Cities, towns and villages have "Common Land" which since the late 11th century has been held in common ownership for grazing beasts and for passers-by to stay on if they need to.
Dude, I bet you a drink at Boston that Gbaji will now reply as if he's studied 11th century English law his entire life.

It was part of his computer ethics course
I don't fancy those odds my friend.

He'll cite Limbaugh's article on "The Geneva Convention, post-Norman Conquest Medieval Liberalism and 1001 facts about gyppo-scum you always wanted to know"

But the first round is on me
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#20 Mar 09 2006 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
gbaji wrote:
I was responding to the issue of the travellers "developing" the land, Nobby, not just staying there. Developing implies ownership.

While I agree that the issue is further complicated by the fact that previous Councils have allowed just that (but only for people/groups they liked), the basic issue is still that this is "public" land, right?
Minus 8 bajillion points for reading comprehension.

The travellers are "Buying" formerly Common Land from Councils so thqat they and other travellers (and anyone who feels like it) can enjoy the benefits. They don't develop it; just camp their trailers there for a while, own it, but make it "available" to others when they ain't around.

Councils, on the other hand are restrict. . .

D'oh! Why am I even arguing with you? Green will be black, up will be down, and the All American way will show me the error of my ways.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#21 Mar 09 2006 at 4:48 PM Rating: Good
***
3,118 posts
I don't think I'm quite understanding the concept of "Common Land" very well. Is it like a Campground in the US? Do people just set up shop and live there, like in tents and ****?

All I know is you shouldn't f'uck with a Gypsy. They'll either steal all your **** or bare knuckle box you in the face, after which some freako guy will cut you up and feed you to his pigs.
#22 Mar 09 2006 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nobby wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I was responding to the issue of the travellers "developing" the land, Nobby, not just staying there. Developing implies ownership.

While I agree that the issue is further complicated by the fact that previous Councils have allowed just that (but only for people/groups they liked), the basic issue is still that this is "public" land, right?
Minus 8 bajillion points for reading comprehension.

The travellers are "Buying" formerly Common Land from Councils so thqat they and other travellers (and anyone who feels like it) can enjoy the benefits. They don't develop it; just camp their trailers there for a while, own it, but make it "available" to others when they ain't around.


Eh? First off. I was responding to Yanari, who used the word "developing". And in fact, the linked article says the same thing:

Quote:
Gypsies bought the land - field 7920 in the officialese - knowing it did not have planning permission for development. They do not dispute this.

Within days, the community of 50 or so people laid drives, pipes and electricity cables. Fences soon divided the plots up and created to all intents and purposes a permanent enclosed space for the families. At the same time they put in a retrospective planning application - a legal tactic used elsewhere by Gypsies who say they expect to be turned down without having a fair hearing.


I don't really have a position on the issues of them staying there. I was responding as to why there would be opposition to them "developing" the land. Let's see... The zoning for the property does not allow development. They are laying pipe, electricity, building permanent dwellings, and subdividing the land.

Isn't that development?

And yeah. I'm aware that my snippy "they don't own the land" bit was wrong. But the basic argument is valid. They don't own the rights to develop the land. The terms underwhich they purchased the plot do not allow them to build permanent dwellings and infrastructure. Regardless of *why* that is, my understanding is that they don't have that legal right in this case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 272 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (272)