h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

if they own the land
which in many cases they do
and if there not causing trouble
why force them to leave and move on
I know many people dislike travellers
but of they have started building lives and sort of settling down
why must we push them around and kick them out?

and where will they go? wont they just become someone else's problem
the community has been there for ten years
your forcing them to split up

would any council Ever give them planning permission?
is this all a nonsense?

I'm quite upset over what they are planning to do to these people

I can't think of a single reason to move them. They should spend some of that huge projected policing bill on fencing them off from the complaining neighbours.

I agree, the bill to move them on is huge
provide some fences for those who think they need them and leave it at that

What about the issue of building on the green-belt?

yes but they own the land and have fought for planning
its next to an existing town
if it were a developer wishing to build on it I'm sure they would be given permission I think that because it's a traveller community they are being treated unfairly

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=502685&post=110134383#p110134383 Post 12156 Throw open your doors to them Dr Anthea Now they are homeless, show them how concerned and charitable you are

because i live in a small house and bairly have room for the one's here
but I would gladly welcome travellers into the community if they chose to live nearby

What about setting a precedent for other developers to move in on the green belt?

people are already building on the green belt
towns are expanding all the time
look at the town you live in, are there really no housing developments?
I'm sure greenbelt should be preserved
but we are talking about a large population of people here
where else can they go?
town councils drive them out so they cant stay there
they buy unused farms and then its greenbelt so they get moved on and the land goes to waste because they own it so no-one else can use it
there should be something that can be done but there isnt

<>

Not really, but even then, only if they can make a convincing case at the planning stage. The fundamental is "ask first".

<>

In a controlled and sustainable manner, led by elected councils who act on behalf of the entire community.

<>

90% of "travellers" live in regular houses, like everyone else.

<>

By abiding to the law and applying it equally to all.

<>

They buy this land because it's cheap. It's cheap because farming is jiggered and they're not allowed to build on it. If it was land suitable for building on (and there are loads of brownfield sites available for development in the UK) it would be far more expensive and they wouldn't buy it.

The reason they're on that land is financial. Nobody has any problem with travellers buying sites suitable for development, applying for planning permission and abiding by the law. But these travellers don't seem to want to do that.

Try this one for size...


---------------
Multinational construction company buys up a parcel of land in a protected greenfield site, knowing fine well they won't get permission to build.

They then construct a housing estate, not only in complete disregard for planning laws, but also ignoring building regulations.

When the local residents complain, the government and local authorities take the side of the construction company and ignore the laws of the land and the strident complaints of local residents.
---------------

Sound OK to you ?

Well sorry, in my opinion, if you are defending the travellers' right to do what they've done then you must either be quite happy with the scenario I've described above or you're applying double standards.

Your choice!

If you're talking about Dale Farm then it's illegal, they were told that pretty quickly and have refused to move. Green belt land round here is always protected because it's all that keeps London from taking up all the land around it.

These people are *NOT* travellers, or they wouldn't have lived there for 10 years! Yes you're right, they have to go somewhere, why can't they do what everyone else does and move into a house, a LEGAL mobile home park or traveller site?? Some of them with kids will be entitled to social housing, and yes, it IS hard to get into round here because the south east is crowded. Try *travelling* around to a quieter area of the country. Oh? Don't want to leave the area? Then you're not travellers and should do what everyone else does, as I said above.

I don't live in the same town, but it's pretty close (less than 10 miles from me) and we have had people spill out from there, concrete over huge areas of land and move in. Always on green belt land.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1170464/Travellers-tarmac-new-camp-bank-holiday-weekend-helpless-villagers-watch.html Moved in, *then* requested permission for 6 pitches. For 60 of them!!

They've broken the law. Yes, it is right to force them to move, since that is what is required to conform to the law. If they don't like the law, they can
(a) campaign to have it changed or
(b) "travel" to somewhere with a law more to their liking.

Logic doesn't come into it -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/8729716/The-travellers-of-Dale-Farm-face-judgment-day.html

"Basildon council is keen to stress that, “This is a planning row.” That’s not quite how they see things over on Dale Farm. One woman tells me she has been so stressed that she smashed all her windows.

What, of your own home? “Yes, every single one of them,” says Margaret Flynn, a 29-year-old mother of three who lives in an immaculate caravan. She predicts that any clearance will bring a death: “Every time talk of an eviction starts, someone dies.”

"Every time talk of an eviction starts, someone dies"

Can't we just start talk of an eviction enough times that the problem solves itself? Seems a civilised way of doing it. I mean, when you're talking about people who, under stress, smash all the windows of their own home, and who if someone mentions eviction they actually DIE... all I'm saying is it doesn't sound like the community would be worse off without them.

Shrewd, smart and getting richer

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/archive/2007/01/11/Travellers+-+the+truth+%28travellers%29/1110634.Shrewd__smart_and_getting_richer/

Just in case anyone's in any doubt that this is about money & greed.

smashing all your own windows is a bit ridiculous
but if shes not going to be living there and it's all going to be bulldozed then she won't miss them

Is it only Essex that categorises scrap yards as "green belt"?

What - the illegal scrapyard that was on part of the site Icy?

Oh, I thought it was a legal scrapyard before the travellers bought it? Maybe I'm wrong.