"Travellers" - rights, welfare, legalities?
Discussion
"Those that commit crimes": that is exactly my point. Committing crimes is already, er, against the law.
I was teasing those who argue for some sort of draconian policy of internment and confiscation, and particularly the suggestion that we should arrest every member of some undefined group of travelling types, and charge them with assorted crimes.
Your reference to someone driving across a green is a reference to an individual crime committed by an individual that should be tackled using extant powers. We should, I think, resist this constant urge for new legislation and new State powers. The trick is to enforce extant rules against anti-social behaviour. That, as I said above, needs will and resources, and both are sometimes lacking.
I was teasing those who argue for some sort of draconian policy of internment and confiscation, and particularly the suggestion that we should arrest every member of some undefined group of travelling types, and charge them with assorted crimes.
Your reference to someone driving across a green is a reference to an individual crime committed by an individual that should be tackled using extant powers. We should, I think, resist this constant urge for new legislation and new State powers. The trick is to enforce extant rules against anti-social behaviour. That, as I said above, needs will and resources, and both are sometimes lacking.
Breadvan72 said:
OK, you are now Secretary of State for Anti-Scrotery and your policy is going to be made law
That would be fantastic.Rovinghawk said:
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.
- If the police detained an entire camp then went through 'their' belongings I imagine the 'owners' would not be able to provide proof of purchase for any of them and a fair amount would be traceable through theft reports. Even if pinning the theft on an individual is difficult handling stolen goods is easy enough to prove.
- Same with the vehicles and caravans. Brand new Range Rovers and Q7s don't grow on trees and are beyond the means of most people with jobs, I can't imagine it's that tricky to prove that they are stolen
- Last time I checked criminal damage was an offence, these individuals usually cause a fair bit of it breaking into the sites
- I know you're the lawyer and I'm not but I'm pretty sure that if I used a playground as a toilet, a rubbish bin, a dog fighting venue, a scrapyard and a tip I would get done for an array of offences
- Dangerous dogs
- Child abuse/neglect of some variety and failure to provide education, normal people don't get away with sending filthy, non toilet trained children in stinking clothes with every parasite known to man to the local schools or not bothering with school or home education at all
Yes it would cost some money up front but it would pay for itself many times over in the long run when the parasites are no longer leaching off our society.
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.
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.
There speaks someone who has never had the misfortune of going within 100yds of any of these people. They are not civilised, they are animals.
As above again....no new laws are required at all it merely requires the 'idiots' who are charged with upholding the law to act. As for defining/proving breaking the law well again,just sit and watch activity on any camp and you will see lots of illegal activity. HMRC ? randomly select a few and check their earnings/self assessment returns (ha ha !! ) compared to their belongings etc...after all this is what the vast majority of us have to adhere to is it not?
As Breadvan sais it takes 'will' to do so and sadly this is severely lacking.
As Breadvan sais it takes 'will' to do so and sadly this is severely lacking.
No problem - http://www.holocaust-trc.org/sinti-and-roma/
Funding? Increase the basic rate of income tax.
The cost of a 'solution' would have to be spread across the whole UK population.
Not just those areas immediately affected.
And for the absence of doubt it was the British who invented concentration camps.
The basic military formation in the Boer militia was the commando.
Any dialogue between people of different mores who are incapable of understanding each other's POV will always be fraught with difficulty.
One thing puzzles me. How do 'travellers' manage to register a vehicle if they have no fixed abode? Are they all on false plates?
Funding? Increase the basic rate of income tax.
The cost of a 'solution' would have to be spread across the whole UK population.
Not just those areas immediately affected.
And for the absence of doubt it was the British who invented concentration camps.
The basic military formation in the Boer militia was the commando.
Any dialogue between people of different mores who are incapable of understanding each other's POV will always be fraught with difficulty.
One thing puzzles me. How do 'travellers' manage to register a vehicle if they have no fixed abode? Are they all on false plates?
If the police came to my home and demanded that I produce documents to prove lawful possession of all of its contents I could not do so. Could anyone here do so in respect of all of their possessions?
The suggestion above that proving handling stolen property is a straightforward matter does not appear to be based on practical experience of the difficulty in proving the requisite element of knowledge.
These brilliantly simple bloke in pub solutions always fall apart when subjected to some real world analysis. Also, doesn't the idea of police rounding up groups of people on spec in order to fish for evidence of crimes strike some of you as being fundamentally at odds with the life of a free society? As always, what we need is targeted and evidence/intelligence based policing. As always, that costs a lot. I'd vote to pay for it, but the Government prefers to buy other stuff, such as a whole bunch of nukes of questionable utility instead of spending on policing.
The suggestion above that proving handling stolen property is a straightforward matter does not appear to be based on practical experience of the difficulty in proving the requisite element of knowledge.
These brilliantly simple bloke in pub solutions always fall apart when subjected to some real world analysis. Also, doesn't the idea of police rounding up groups of people on spec in order to fish for evidence of crimes strike some of you as being fundamentally at odds with the life of a free society? As always, what we need is targeted and evidence/intelligence based policing. As always, that costs a lot. I'd vote to pay for it, but the Government prefers to buy other stuff, such as a whole bunch of nukes of questionable utility instead of spending on policing.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 31st July 17:13
Breadvan72 said:
Your reference to someone driving across a green is a reference to an individual crime committed by an individual that should be tackled using extant powers. We should, I think, resist this constant urge for new legislation and new State powers. The trick is to enforce extant rules against anti-social behaviour. That, as I said above, needs will and resources, and both are sometimes lacking.
Agreed.My question is this: When will the powers that be finally acquire sufficient spinal fortitude to actually do something about the gits in question rather than just letting them carry on? This question could be addressed to police or both local & central government.
I have to obey the law under threat of sanction- why do they get away with it other than the fact that it's a bit more difficult to enforce the law on them than it is on me?
Rovinghawk said:
Agreed.
My question is this: When will the powers that be finally acquire sufficient spinal fortitude to actually do something about the gits in question rather than just letting them carry on? This question could be addressed to police or both local & central government.
I have to obey the law under threat of sanction- why do they get away with it other than the fact that it's a bit more difficult to enforce the law on them than it is on me?
This is precisely my question/issue, and a large part of why I started the thread in the first place. My question is this: When will the powers that be finally acquire sufficient spinal fortitude to actually do something about the gits in question rather than just letting them carry on? This question could be addressed to police or both local & central government.
I have to obey the law under threat of sanction- why do they get away with it other than the fact that it's a bit more difficult to enforce the law on them than it is on me?
There are a very small number of gypsies in this country. They are transient by their nature. They typically operate in a cash economy, trading amongst themselves.
In other words, they have a way of life very different from our own and they use society's resources equally differently.
If you want to attract the same benefits, of being difficult to prosecute for committing crimes, you'll also need to make the same sacrifices (try getting regular mail, a regular job, your bins collected, a mortgage, protection from the Police against those committing crime against you, etc.). You'd probably decide the sacrifices didn't justify the benefits.
That's not to justify their law breaking, but to bring some balance to the assumption that travellers get the same/better benefits as the rest of us without any downsides.
As an example of where their influence is positive, planning law has been driven on spectacularly by gypsies funding Appeal and Supreme Court disputes (take a look on Bailii for the number of disputes involving travellers).
In other words, they have a way of life very different from our own and they use society's resources equally differently.
If you want to attract the same benefits, of being difficult to prosecute for committing crimes, you'll also need to make the same sacrifices (try getting regular mail, a regular job, your bins collected, a mortgage, protection from the Police against those committing crime against you, etc.). You'd probably decide the sacrifices didn't justify the benefits.
That's not to justify their law breaking, but to bring some balance to the assumption that travellers get the same/better benefits as the rest of us without any downsides.
As an example of where their influence is positive, planning law has been driven on spectacularly by gypsies funding Appeal and Supreme Court disputes (take a look on Bailii for the number of disputes involving travellers).
tenpenceshort said:
There are a very small number of gypsies in this country. They are transient by their nature. They typically operate in a cash economy, trading amongst themselves.
In other words, they have a way of life very different from our own and they use society's resources equally differently.
If you want to attract the same benefits, of being difficult to prosecute for committing crimes, you'll also need to make the same sacrifices (try getting regular mail, a regular job, your bins collected, a mortgage, protection from the Police against those committing crime against you, etc.). You'd probably decide the sacrifices didn't justify the benefits.
That's not to justify their law breaking, but to bring some balance to the assumption that travellers get the same/better benefits as the rest of us without any downsides.
As an example of where their influence is positive, planning law has been driven on spectacularly by gypsies funding Appeal and Supreme Court disputes (take a look on Bailii for the number of disputes involving travellers).
I'm not sure that I remember you being quite so magnanimous when you lived where they hold the horse fair.In other words, they have a way of life very different from our own and they use society's resources equally differently.
If you want to attract the same benefits, of being difficult to prosecute for committing crimes, you'll also need to make the same sacrifices (try getting regular mail, a regular job, your bins collected, a mortgage, protection from the Police against those committing crime against you, etc.). You'd probably decide the sacrifices didn't justify the benefits.
That's not to justify their law breaking, but to bring some balance to the assumption that travellers get the same/better benefits as the rest of us without any downsides.
As an example of where their influence is positive, planning law has been driven on spectacularly by gypsies funding Appeal and Supreme Court disputes (take a look on Bailii for the number of disputes involving travellers).
Or am I mistaking you for someone else?
whoami said:
I'm not sure that I remember you being quite so magnanimous when you lived where they hold the horse fair.
Or am I mistaking you for someone else?
I think they can be utterly inconsiderate toe rags and the Police don't or are unable to do as much as they should in dealing with them. That doesn't mean I'm obliged to overlook reality to quench my thirst for a pitchfork parade.Or am I mistaking you for someone else?
stitchface said:
Would it not be simpler to make trespass criminal, so that those who stop where they are not entitled could be moved on or arrested immediately? Am I being naive?
Criminal damage is criminal- the law is simply not enforced on these people. 10PS suggests that it makes up for the difficulties in the p1k3y lifestyle, but I don't accept the argument.
Rovinghawk said:
Criminal damage is criminal- the law is simply not enforced on these people.
10PS suggests that it makes up for the difficulties in the p1k3y lifestyle, but I don't accept the argument.
I do no such thing. What I suggest is that if you wanted to benefit from the same criminal behaviour without being held to account, you'd also have to put up with the different lifestyle.10PS suggests that it makes up for the difficulties in the p1k3y lifestyle, but I don't accept the argument.
I wanted this thread to remain semi-serious but I couldn't let this go.
- a regular job: you jest, of course. If they're not busy extorting cash for dodgy tarmacing jobs, they simply rob whatever they want/need/fancy
- your bins collected: their waste is collected. Usually after they've been moved on, at a significantly-higher cost to the LA than a regular bin round, or if not, from a lay-by in an area of (otherwise) outstanding natural beauty
- a mortgage: now you're just bring silly
- protection from the Police against those committing crime against you: Do ypu really imagine they would ever call the police? For anything??
tenpenceshort said:
(try getting regular mail, a regular job, your bins collected, a mortgage, protection from the Police against those committing crime against you, etc.).
- getting regular mail: I don't believe enough of them are adequately literate for this to cause them any issue- a regular job: you jest, of course. If they're not busy extorting cash for dodgy tarmacing jobs, they simply rob whatever they want/need/fancy
- your bins collected: their waste is collected. Usually after they've been moved on, at a significantly-higher cost to the LA than a regular bin round, or if not, from a lay-by in an area of (otherwise) outstanding natural beauty
- a mortgage: now you're just bring silly
- protection from the Police against those committing crime against you:
Do ypu really imagine they would ever call the police? For anything?? Red Devil said:
And for the absence of doubt it was the British who invented concentration camps.
I always thought that the Spanish were the first to use concentration camps, but looks like I am wrong. Turns out it was the Russians:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment
TurboHatchback said:
There speaks someone who has never had the misfortune of going within 100yds of any of these people. They are not civilised, they are animals.
Martin4x4 said:
TurboHatchback said:
There speaks someone who has never had the misfortune of going within 100yds of any of these people. They are not civilised, they are animals.
tenpenceshort said:
...There are a very small number of gypsies in this country...
A very small number of gypsies, but a fairly large quantity of caravan-dwelling scumbags of a wide variety of different races. They are two very different things.I have nothing against gypsies, so let's not drag them in to this. I do however hate criminal scum, whether they live in a caravan, a council house or a multi-million pound mansion. I hate them even more when they seem able to avoid justice and run rings around the laws of the land.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff