"Travellers" - rights, welfare, legalities?
Discussion
CAPP0 said:
Your attempt at a joke is in rather poor taste on all fronts.
If you think that was a joke, I don't know if I should feel offended or relieved that you find the event equally distasteful.My comments was most certainly not a 'joke' the emoticon was to convey geniune shock at 1) photos of armed police in Europe rounding up civilians because they were the 'wrong' race, 2) The sickening approval shown by posters that think this not only acceptable but laudable behaviour. 3) The very clear similarity with the Ghetos of WW2 (which aih included Gypsies). The only thing missing is a 'final solution' but given the disgraceful bigotry of some here, that suggestion will be along shortly.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Friday 25th July 19:21
Martin4x4 said:
If you think that was a joke, I don't know if I should feel offended or relieved that you find the event equally distasteful... The only thing missing is a 'final solution' but given the disgraceful bogotry of some here, that suggestion will be along shortly.
Don't be so stupid. It's nothing like that. I'm not sure of the legal status of the 'rights', but I gather they can just ride roughshod over pretty much whatever legal authority stands in their way. One only has to look at the Dale Farm fiasco.
I have heard it suggested by others that perhaps a way to end their destructive and often criminal lifestyle would be to detain them in purpose built camps where they can be monitored, with their assets being seized to help pay for this. It would certainly cut down on crime, and perhaps they could even be put to work on the roads or something similar. I'm sure though, that some law or right will stand in the way of this, so it will likely remain an academic argument, and I make no comment on my thoughts on the matter.
Baryonyx said:
Don't be so stupid. It's nothing like that.
I'm not sure of the legal status of the 'rights', but I gather they can just ride roughshod over pretty much whatever legal authority stands in their way. One only has to look at the Dale Farm fiasco.
I have heard it suggested by others that perhaps a way to end their destructive and often criminal lifestyle would be to detain them in purpose built camps where they can be monitored, with their assets being seized to help pay for this. It would certainly cut down on crime, and perhaps they could even be put to work on the roads or something similar. I'm sure though, that some law or right will stand in the way of this, so it will likely remain an academic argument, and I make no comment on my thoughts on the matter.
Had a gypsy fella come and work with us once. He was only there, in his words, 'so that I can drive around in my new car without the police asking where I got the money to pay for it from'. He couldn't read, couldn't write, was the laziest git I've ever met, if you didn't watch him constantly then he would just stop working and start talking, thereby stopping the entire squad working. I had to read his (extremely sI'm not sure of the legal status of the 'rights', but I gather they can just ride roughshod over pretty much whatever legal authority stands in their way. One only has to look at the Dale Farm fiasco.
I have heard it suggested by others that perhaps a way to end their destructive and often criminal lifestyle would be to detain them in purpose built camps where they can be monitored, with their assets being seized to help pay for this. It would certainly cut down on crime, and perhaps they could even be put to work on the roads or something similar. I'm sure though, that some law or right will stand in the way of this, so it will likely remain an academic argument, and I make no comment on my thoughts on the matter.
t) appraisal to him during which he suggested that he would quite like to murder me. He spent most of the job talking about only running diesel cars (cheap red mate) and how he was always looking for something to nick. He also got his knickers in a twist when someone mentioned thieving gyppos. The irony was completely lost on him.They have an easy life and don't want to change. Why would they?
Unsurprisingly that was the first and last time he worked for us.
CAPP0 said:
Can one of our resident lawyers answer me this please: Is it possible for a local authority to take out an injunction which prohibits travellers from pitching site anywhere within the curtilage of a locale, e.g. a village boundary? Possibly too much like common sense, but surely then they could immediately be evicted without all the usual pussyfooting around while they have free rent for a fortnight whilst they pillage anything not bolted down?
You would be much wiser (blood pressure wise) not to ask such questions, nor indeed investigate such matters..Baryonyx said:
Martin4x4 said:
If you think that was a joke, I don't know if I should feel offended or relieved that you find the event equally distasteful... The only thing missing is a 'final solution' but given the disgraceful bogotry of some here, that suggestion will be along shortly.
Don't be so stupid. It's nothing like that. I'm not sure of the legal status of the 'rights', but I gather they can just ride roughshod over pretty much whatever legal authority stands in their way. One only has to look at the Dale Farm fiasco.
I have heard it suggested by others that perhaps a way to end their destructive and often criminal lifestyle would be to detain them in purpose built camps where they can be monitored, with their assets being seized to help pay for this. It would certainly cut down on crime, and perhaps they could even be put to work on the roads or something similar. I'm sure though, that some law or right will stand in the way of this, so it will likely remain an academic argument, and I make no comment on my thoughts on the matter.
I am in no way a lawyer.
What i can't understand is this;
If I park in a council car park without a ticket, I can, in theory be clamped or towed.
If I have an arguement with someone in the street, I can be arrested for breach of the peace, or arrested in order to prevent a breach of the peace.
So why can't councils issue a law/bylaw that states any vechile parked on council land without lawful authority will be towed away.
Also, why can't the police arrest travellers as soon as they turn up in order to prevent a breach of the peace, and whilst under arrest, the council tow away the caravans.
What i can't understand is this;
If I park in a council car park without a ticket, I can, in theory be clamped or towed.
If I have an arguement with someone in the street, I can be arrested for breach of the peace, or arrested in order to prevent a breach of the peace.
So why can't councils issue a law/bylaw that states any vechile parked on council land without lawful authority will be towed away.
Also, why can't the police arrest travellers as soon as they turn up in order to prevent a breach of the peace, and whilst under arrest, the council tow away the caravans.
imagineifyeswill said:
Dont know about England but in Scotland every council has to supply official traveller sites, if they dont the travellers are free to set up camp wherever they like.
The Major Government foolishly repealed the legislation that required local authorities in England to provide supervised (open) camps for travellers. The legislation spread the burden more fairly across taxpayers rather than concentrating the burden locally on a few.The suggestion that people be forcibly detained in camps or forced to work because of a lifestyle others disapprove of would certainly takes this thread in a Godwin direction if it hadn't already gone there.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 25th July 20:34
rambo19 said:
I am in no way a lawyer.
What i can't understand is this;
If I park in a council car park without a ticket, I can, in theory be clamped or towed.
If I have an arguement with someone in the street, I can be arrested for breach of the peace, or arrested in order to prevent a breach of the peace.
So why can't councils issue a law/bylaw that states any vechile parked on council land without lawful authority will be towed away.
Also, why can't the police arrest travellers as soon as they turn up in order to prevent a breach of the peace, and whilst under arrest, the council tow away the caravans.
They can, they just don't have the ballsWhat i can't understand is this;
If I park in a council car park without a ticket, I can, in theory be clamped or towed.
If I have an arguement with someone in the street, I can be arrested for breach of the peace, or arrested in order to prevent a breach of the peace.
So why can't councils issue a law/bylaw that states any vechile parked on council land without lawful authority will be towed away.
Also, why can't the police arrest travellers as soon as they turn up in order to prevent a breach of the peace, and whilst under arrest, the council tow away the caravans.
Breadvan72 said:
The Major Goverment foolishly repealed the legislation that required local authorities in England to provide supervised (open) camps for travellers. The legislation spread the burden more fairly across taxpayers rather than concentrating the burden locally on a few.
Not really. They constantly complain about the council provided sites (supervised or otherwise) and often refuse to use them.Ok, etymology types, input please.
I note that Pistonheads censors the common term used for travellers, that beginning with a pastry-ensconced steak and kidney mixture, and ending with a device for opening and closing locks. But "Gypsy" is fine.
As I understand things, it seems to be considered reasonably accurate that the origins of the term "Gypsy" are in a mistaken belief that Roma people were from Egypt, and it is in effect an ethnic slur.
The other term's root is most commonly regarded as relating to the term "pike" for a road/highway (e.g. "turnpike"), and so is based on what such people do. It is therefore not an ethnic slur.
And yet it's the latter which is censored, and sets off the social justice warriors.
I note that Pistonheads censors the common term used for travellers, that beginning with a pastry-ensconced steak and kidney mixture, and ending with a device for opening and closing locks. But "Gypsy" is fine.
As I understand things, it seems to be considered reasonably accurate that the origins of the term "Gypsy" are in a mistaken belief that Roma people were from Egypt, and it is in effect an ethnic slur.
The other term's root is most commonly regarded as relating to the term "pike" for a road/highway (e.g. "turnpike"), and so is based on what such people do. It is therefore not an ethnic slur.
And yet it's the latter which is censored, and sets off the social justice warriors.
InitialDave said:
Ok, etymology types, input please.
Etymology is irrelevant. It's a word's use age which make it offensive, not its origins. Pi-key is used almost exclusively in a perjorative sense. Gipsy isn't. That's the difference.Similarly the word nig-ger is derived from the Latin niger, meaning black. So from that viewpoint it should be no more offensive than the word "black". But it is - one word is currently a racial slur, one isn't. Etymology has nothing to say about the current meaning and useage of words.
Aretnap said:
Etymology is irrelevant. It's a word's use age which make it offensive, not its origins. Pi-key is used almost exclusively in a perjorative sense. Gipsy isn't. That's the difference.
Similarly the word nig-ger is derived from the Latin niger, meaning black. So from that viewpoint it should be no more offensive than the word "black". But it is - one word is currently a racial slur, one isn't. Etymology has nothing to say about the current meaning and useage of words.
Almost right. A word is not in itself a racial slur. It only becomes so when it is used pejoratively. Which is not always the case, as evidenced by the usage of the N-word between some black people as a term of endearment. Unfortunately, most people seem to have lost the ability to process "context" these days.Similarly the word nig-ger is derived from the Latin niger, meaning black. So from that viewpoint it should be no more offensive than the word "black". But it is - one word is currently a racial slur, one isn't. Etymology has nothing to say about the current meaning and useage of words.
imagineifyeswill said:
Dont know about England but in Scotland every council has to supply official traveller sites, if they dont the travellers are free to set up camp wherever they like.
I work for Domino's and had to deliver a pizza to one of these sites a few days back. Never doing it again. I really, really fking hate s.
No point doing it by the book when they're not playing by the rules. They will just laugh in our faces whilst nicking whatever isn't tied down.
There like a plague; the descend on a once-lovely area, rape the fk out of it any then ps off leaving devastation and carnage for others to have to clear up.
king hate s.No point doing it by the book when they're not playing by the rules. They will just laugh in our faces whilst nicking whatever isn't tied down.
There like a plague; the descend on a once-lovely area, rape the f
k out of it any then ps off leaving devastation and carnage for others to have to clear up.Martin4x4 said:
CAPP0 said:
Your attempt at a joke is in rather poor taste on all fronts.
If you think that was a joke, I don't know if I should feel offended or relieved that you find the event equally distasteful.My comments was most certainly not a 'joke' the emoticon was to convey geniune shock at 1) photos of armed police in Europe rounding up civilians because they were the 'wrong' race, 2) The sickening approval shown by posters that think this not only acceptable but laudable behaviour. 3) The very clear similarity with the Ghetos of WW2 (which aih included Gypsies). The only thing missing is a 'final solution' but given the disgraceful bigotry of some here, that suggestion will be along shortly.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Friday 25th July 19:21
2) Do you think illegal behaviour should be ignored because it's committed by one group?
3) Absolute cobblers. You do know ghettos were created not demolished, don't you?
whoami said:
Breadvan72 said:
The Major Goverment foolishly repealed the legislation that required local authorities in England to provide supervised (open) camps for travellers. The legislation spread the burden more fairly across taxpayers rather than concentrating the burden locally on a few.
Not really. They constantly complain about the council provided sites (supervised or otherwise) and often refuse to use them.There was a council traveller site set up next to a scrapyard I use occasionally; a bit utilitarian and slightly out of the way, but there were toilet blocks, a bin block, water, sewage and power hook-ups. Within 6 months the toilets had been stripped of copper, everything else trashed and piles of filth and rubbish left everywhere; the scummers then refused to use it because it wasn't sanitary.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff