Yes, as I said previously. I also know someone who was killed by an uninsured driver who wasn't a traveller, so do I make a judgement on everyone else based on that one person?

Since section 165 came in, you'll find that the large majority of them have their vehicles fully legal. They found out to their cost when the police, customs, DVLA etc do these roadside checks, early on they were all loosing their cars, so now they are mostly legal ('ish)
We had similar to this on a local industrial site, where the previous year it took for ever to get them moved via the council and hand wringers, but even scrotes need to sleep, so it was organised that whenever anyone drove past the place, you sounded your horn, loud & long, it didn't really matter to anyone else as there weren't any houses, just businesses. They moved off within 24 hours!!

I did say "most"

My Dad is a classic car dealer and deals with a couple of the local gypsies who also deal in cars and import cars and caravans from the USA.

Their cars are always taxed and MOT

I read somewhere that the Irish changed Trespass from a Civil to a Criminal Offence - hence why all they are all now here.

Meaning everyone is too st scared to do anything about them. bds!

I hate to throw some facts into the ranting, but here goes.

1. Travellers in general are not an ethnic group and have no special status in the law.

2. The sub group known as Irish Travellers is an ethnic group. NB, many of these are not actually from Ireland.

3. Roma Gypsies form an ethnic group. They are heavily discriminated against in many parts of Europe.

4. Travellers do not always break the law with impunity. Go to a Magistrates' Court and see how many of the defendants are travellers (answer: often a lot of them).

There is some anecdotal evidence that people who self identify as gypsies tend on average to behave better than those who may self identify as travellers or Irish travellers. "My big fat gypsy wedding" is mis-named, as the people depicted in that show are not gypsies.

It is, however, difficult to generalise reliably about a group of people based on how some members of the group behave. Criminality and anti social behaviour is more common amongst travelling groups than it is amongst settled populations, but this is not to say that all travellers are criminals, any more than it is to say that all settled people are law abiding.

The Major administration abolished the legal requirement for local authorities to make available sites, with wardens, for travellers to stay on. No Government since then has restored that provision. This arguably was and is a mistake, as at least the old system allowed for some control and monitoring of bad behaviour, and reduced random camping on private and public land.

Article 8 of the ECHR has arguably been misinterpreted in the context of planning controls, allowing too much leeway to travellers to circumvent planning rules, although in many cases travellers are eventually removed, after long legal fights.

I have had numerous experiences with them in the past when I worked in Gypsyville (sorry Doncaster) and can say without hesitation that they are like cockroaches. They give nothing to the world and it would be a better place if they were eradicated.

So how does one tell the difference? Because i have had many dealings with them in my line of business with plant theft, it is amazing how polite and well spoken they can be one second and then full on nasty vermin pie key the next.

One does not normally feel the bad side of them until they have shafted you.

If only you could tell the good ones from the bad - i go on the more sensible notion to stay well clear of everyone of them, sadly a fair high percentage of them offer little to society other than an extremely negative aspect.