"Travellers" - rights, welfare, legalities?

"Travellers" - rights, welfare, legalities?

Author
Discussion

whoami

13,151 posts

240 months

Wednesday 30th July 2014
quotequote all
CAPP0 said:
he gave me a very similar explanation for his inaction in the face of my demand to nick the : those vehicles tow childrens' homes (yeah right, well fk off back to your brick-built homes in Ireland then) and therefore if the police confiscated the vehicles, there would be welfare issues as the children could not "use their homes".
How very convenient.

CAPP0

Original Poster:

19,582 posts

203 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
So, they have finally been evicted (which sadly means that some other location is going to wake up to the anguished view of this lot pitched up outside their homes). The Parish Council have had the rubbish and refuse removed, but the village have bern advised to avoid the area due the (and I quote) "vast" amounts of human excrement around the trees and in the stream. The plan to address this is to "wait fir the rain to wash it away". In the middle of summer.

Apparently they also need to "sanitise" the kiddies playground which was taken over by the gyps.

Dirty filthy vermin scum.

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
whoami said:
CAPP0 said:
he gave me a very similar explanation for his inaction in the face of my demand to nick the : those vehicles tow childrens' homes (yeah right, well fk off back to your brick-built homes in Ireland then) and therefore if the police confiscated the vehicles, there would be welfare issues as the children could not "use their homes".
How very convenient.
Indeed. Having multiple homeless children who'd need emergency housing would be a significant legal / practical burden that would outweigh the benefits.

Local Authorities who are more used to dealing with these types of things tend to be much better at applying the legislation to require them to move.

Mr Will

13,719 posts

206 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
ndeed. Having multiple homeless children who'd need emergency housing would be a significant legal / practical burden that would outweigh the benefits.
Short term pain, long term gain. Take them in to care and stop them growing up into another generation of scum.

whoami

13,151 posts

240 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
whoami said:
CAPP0 said:
he gave me a very similar explanation for his inaction in the face of my demand to nick the : those vehicles tow childrens' homes (yeah right, well fk off back to your brick-built homes in Ireland then) and therefore if the police confiscated the vehicles, there would be welfare issues as the children could not "use their homes".
How very convenient.
Indeed. Having multiple homeless children who'd need emergency housing would be a significant legal / practical burden that would outweigh the benefits.

Local Authorities who are more used to dealing with these types of things tend to be much better at applying the legislation to require them to move.
As I said, how very convenient.

Best just let them get on with doing what they please.

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
People above appear to be objecting not so much to travellers (a diverse group, some of whom behave badly and some of whom behave well) as to itinerant criminals and scumbags. It can seem that these people act with impunity, but that is not always so. Go to a magistrates' court and you may find that many of the defendants are traveller types, so some action is taken against them, but it can seem like nothing is done when they are close by. As usual, lack of resources and sometimes lack of will are the problems but lack of resources is often the key issue.

There is a traveller park just up the road from where I live and the people there seem well behaved and mostly seem to be economically active in apparently legit ways. The place is kept tidy and some families appear to be pretty much settled there. Most of the local crime is generated by settled types living in a nearby large village.

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
Mr Will said:
La Liga said:
ndeed. Having multiple homeless children who'd need emergency housing would be a significant legal / practical burden that would outweigh the benefits.
Short term pain, long term gain. Take them in to care and stop them growing up into another generation of scum.
There is no magic wand. Life outcomes for children in care tend not to be very good, and quite a few of them end up becoming criminals or otherwise becoming burdens on the State. Apparently quick and easy pub solutions to societal problems tend to unravel when faced with reality.

Martin4x4

6,506 posts

132 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
People above appear to be objecting not so much to travellers (a diverse group, some of whom behave badly and some of whom behave well) as to itinerant criminals and scumbags.
... and as I understand it we have policies and institutions to deal with this very situation.

Johnnytheboy

24,498 posts

186 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
People above appear to be objecting not so much to travellers (a diverse group, some of whom behave badly and some of whom behave well) as to itinerant criminals and scumbags. It can seem that these people act with impunity, but that is not always so.
I agree with you broadly, but there is a perception that the law is applied less stringently to some groups than others, and that creates resentment.

I certainly believe that if I parked my caravan on the village green and crapped everywhere I'd get into a heap more trouble than a bunch of travellers would.

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
Martin4x4 said:
... and as I understand it we have policies and institutions to deal with this very situation.
Yes, we do. Sometimes those charged with enforcing the law could do with a bit more lead in their pencils, but it's not the case that scumbags have enhanced rights or special protection. I agree that sometimes enforcement bodies appear unduly timid in taking on anti social behaviour.

As with any type of criminality the question is always will someone take effective enforcement action, and answering that question may involve a utilitarian balancing act in relation to things such as seizing places where children live. The same issues can arise when you have a scumbag family living in a council house and plagueing their neighbours, the problem being scumbaggery rather than nomadic lifestyle.

Martin4x4

6,506 posts

132 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Suggesting that anyone who lives in a caravan is a criminal scumbag is just as daft as suggesting that everyone Scottish is mean with money. Suggestions of internment, seizure of property etc without due process are very PH (this must be one of the most illiberal net fora in the UK), but such suggestions are as expensive (who pays?) and unworkable as they are contrary to basic principles of British liberty.
Agreed and in a civilised society people should be free to travel as they please. The bigots here would be very quick to object if _their_ right to travel was curtailed in the same way.

I have no doubt if travellers were treated in a civilised way the majority of them would respond similarly, it is human nature to 'fight' back when subject to oppression.

TurboHatchback

4,160 posts

153 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
They are utter human vermin. I've had the misfortune of coming across many groups of them and it doesn't matter whether they are Roma, Irish or home bred, they are all the same. They have no respect for the law, other humans, peoples property or anything at all for that matter. They are violent, unpleasant, dirty filth who leave excrement and rubbish everywhere, steal everything that isn't nailed down and make life a misery for normal people wherever they go. I would be willing to bet that they pay no tax at all and contribute nothing to society whatsoever.

It might not be very PC but if I could I would napalm their camps have every single one of them arrested and charged for every offence that could be laid upon them (which would be many), any foreign born ones deported, their vehicles and any items of value confiscated, their caravans crushed and burned, their children taken into care. It might seem extreme but as long as they are allowed to do whatever they like they will continue to be a plague on the land and will grow ever more a problem as Britain gains a reputation as the softest country to be a dirty thieving scummember of the travelling community in. Once word got around that they were not welcome here and their lives would be made a living hell then they would go elsewhere and cease being a plague on the rest of us (or live like humans, or go to prison).

Martin4x4

6,506 posts

132 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The same issues can arise when you have a scumbag family living in a council house and plagueing their neighbours, the problem being scumbaggery rather than nomadic lifestyle.
Very much so; as some one who grew up on a rough northern council estate; I can speak from experience when I say most residents are decent and honest when treated the same way. They are not the stereotypical layabouts and wastrel we are commonly painted as. However if you cross them they will respond combatively. While I've escaped that it is still a part of my disposition.

I think if the bigots got their way with travellers they would move on to others in the way Niemoller cautioned against.

CAPP0

Original Poster:

19,582 posts

203 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
I strongly resent the inference that to be anti- (I dislike the word "traveller" which for me implies some level of respect) is to be bigoted.

dictionary definition of bigot said:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people
IMO there is nothing unfair in being against a massively antisocial group of people who do not, in any way shape or form, comply with or fit into society, who ignore if not actively try to destroy normal resonable social mores, and who would consider it normal behaviour to st in your front garden before smacking your kids in the teeth and wandering around your property helping themselves with impunity and an utter lack of conscience to anything they so desire.

The above statement is based upon factual, documented evidence of what took place in my village last week.

I suggest that those who suggest we show them some love and give them a hug have yet to experience them at first hand; further, I think you'd be abnormal if you didn't alter your views after their visit. They are a fking plague and a curse upon every level and class of society.

In fact, I'll go further:

Martin4x4 said:
I have no doubt if travellers were treated in a civilised way the majority of them would respond similarly, it is human nature to 'fight' back when subject to oppression.
I'm sorry but you really have not the first idea what you are talking about. Not one jot. That statement would almost be amusing were it not so incredibly fantastical.

Edited by CAPP0 on Thursday 31st July 12:35

bigee

1,485 posts

238 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
Fully agree with Cappo....in general in society you give and take,pay taxes and have use of services etc that they have paid for, this 'lot' give F all and takes the P...
If (when ) they pitch up near/next to you and you see it first hand you WOULD agree with the overriding sentiment of them being scum. And again as I said before,and has been reinforced firsthand, the authorities taking no or minimal action because its easier to leave them be,well I'm sorry but that is almost as bad.
Shame on the lot of them.

jimbop1

2,441 posts

204 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
Guybrush said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
"A group of gypsies has been driven out of a Belgian town after the mayor hired a DJ to blast rock music at them.

The Roma had amassed 30 caravans at a site in Landen, a small town with a population of less than 15,000, around 30 miles east of Brussels, with no plans to leave.

But after a DJ played Dire Straits at a volume of 95 decibels - equivalent to the sound of a pneumatic drill from 50 feet away - they caved in and agreed to go."

Of course in our country the DJ would be served a noise abatement notice withing 15 minutes and the police would charge the Mayor with encouragement to harass or some such nonsense.
Yes, limp wristed wets here wouldn't have the guts to do that. What a great idea though.

Want to know how it should be done? Learn from the French:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194704/Sa...
I wonder what it is like to live in a country that isn't afraid to do the right thing for its people?

Ours is too scared of upsetting anybody... Even if they are scrotes.

jimbop1

2,441 posts

204 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
Martin4x4 said:
Agreed and in a civilised society people should be free to travel as they please. The bigots here would be very quick to object if _their_ right to travel was curtailed in the same way.

I have no doubt if travellers were treated in a civilised way the majority of them would respond similarly, it is human nature to 'fight' back when subject to oppression.
Do you live underground, far away from reality?

Red Devil

13,060 posts

208 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
CAPP0 said:
(yeah right, well fk off back to your brick-built homes in Ireland then)
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1463386/The...
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/a-...

Much has been talked about recently on the issue of the citizens of certain eastern European countries coming here and burdening the UK's economy and infrastructure.
So the irony revealed by this article is palpable - http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/...


CAPP0 said:
I strongly resent the inference that to be anti- (I dislike the word "traveller" which for me implies some level of respect) is to be bigoted.

dictionary definition of bigot said:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people
IMO there is nothing unfair in being against a massively antisocial group of people who do not, in any way shape or form, comply with or fit into society, who ignore if not actively try to destroy normal resonable social mores, and who would consider it normal behaviour to st in your front garden before smacking your kids in the teeth and wandering around your property helping themselves with impunity and an utter lack of conscience to anything they so desire.

The above statement is based upon factual, documented evidence of what took place in my village last week.

I suggest that those who suggest we show them some love and give them a hug have yet to experience them at first hand; further, I think you'd be abnormal if you didn't alter your views after their visit. They are a fking plague and a curse upon every level and class of society.

In fact, I'll go further:

Martin4x4 said:
I have no doubt if travellers were treated in a civilised way the majority of them would respond similarly, it is human nature to 'fight' back when subject to oppression.
I'm sorry but you really have not the first idea what you are talking about. Not one jot. That statement would almost be amusing were it not so incredibly fantastical.
You missed a trick. Should have passed his location on to them for their new pitch. Then he could have dropped by for a chat over a cup of tea and cucumber sandwiches. wink

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
TurboHatchback said:
...

if I could I would napalm their camps have every single one of them arrested and charged for every offence that could be laid upon them (which would be many), any foreign born ones deported, their vehicles and any items of value confiscated, their caravans crushed and burned, their children taken into care...
OK, you are now Secretary of State for Anti-Scrotery and your policy is going to be made law, but a note from your civil service team says: Define "them", please. Also, once we have arrested every one of "them", what about the small matter of proving specific criminal conduct. Lastly, how is all of this to be funded?

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Thursday 31st July 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Define "them", please.
I suggest "those that commit crimes"
Breadvan72 said:
what about the small matter of proving specific criminal conduct.
Video of them driving across the village green? HMRC asking for sources of funding for their vehicles might be helpful, too. If it's good enough to nail Al Capone............
Breadvan72 said:
Lastly, how is all of this to be funded?
I think that long-term it would pay for itself in reduced criminality.

A few years ago, Ireland stated a new policy whereby traveller crap wouldn't be tolerated; large numbers of their itinerant chavscum then chose to visit UK. I suggest a new policy of reduced tolerance for their illegal ativities in the hope that they'll behave or bugger off from UK too.