Dale farm evictions "may breach human rights"

[Clinton Baptiste]

Theyre scum all of them, filthy, foul mouthed illiterate tosspots. No manners, no scruples, create so much litter and pollution, dont pay taxes, dont contribute anything to society but take take take like hell. Send them all to Siberia if they love travelling so much and put the money into helping those who really need it.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

No real point in putting this subject up for discussion, as it's patently obvious that people's views are firmly entrenched, no matter what is based on fact and what isn't, and won't be changing their minds any time soon. Just pages of angry rhetoric. We have the Daily Mail for that.

 

[Perth Bambi]

yes it does motive is a large part of breaking the law and has a very large influence on the punishment .
Clearly you have never heard of domestic abuse case of a spouse having to assault or kill their partners to defend themselves or children (which last time i checked , ranges from ABH, GBH, manslaughter or murder ... defined by intent).

Generalisation again.

Well you obviously haven't checked as the criminal law act 1967 states that you can use reasonable force to defend yourself from threat. The only time you will have a problem is if a judge or jury decides that the force you used to defend yourself was unreasonable. So you are wrong.
However I feel that you are more then intelligent enough to use that law as burglary is a totally different crime from hitting someone in self defence.
Lets look at it another way. A few years ago whilst at uni I was walking home and a group of lads ran up, pulled a knife on me and stole my phone.
Now they were never caught but for a long time I wouldn't walk anywhere on my own after dark unless it was a busy street. If they were caught and not sent to prison because it affected their human rights in one way or another I would have been even less likely to go out after dark and that would have been effecting my human rights even more.
Now the guy who didn't go to Prison because of his children. He knew he had children before he committed the crime, and he knew the punishment and that it was against the law. Is it right that he can then complain about being caught?
For all we know he could have burgled ten houses and only got caught on the last one and used the kids as his excuse.
What happens now when every single dad gets caught for a crime? Should they be released? It sets a very dangerous precedent in my opinion.
Whether we agree with the law, or not, whether we think the law is unfair or not, or whether we think some people get away with the law or not, it doesn't matter. The law is the law and every single person in this country should have to live by it.
On a similar example, the recent debate about the TV programme when some people were let off after speeding and using a mobile phone whereas other people were not. The people that get let off are very lucky. People started complaining if they were let off, then everyone should be let off, well I am afraid that isn't the case. You break the law you live with the consequences.
I don't think any of the travellers should be treated any worse then any non-travelling folk in the country but on the other hand I don't think they should be outside the law either, they are still human beings and citizens or at least living in this country and as such should follow the laws of this country.
In Dubai, people get arrested for being too affectionate in public. Now I think that is a silly law but it is the law of the U.A.E. so as such if I go there and break the law of that country then I can not have one complaint about being arrested.

 

[Perth Bambi]

Just for the record I do not think they are all scum or should be shot or shipped out. I think some of them are scum.
However I think some of the people who are not in the travelling community are scum and some aren't.

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

No real point in putting this subject up for discussion, as it's patently obvious that people's views are firmly entrenched, no matter what is based on fact and what isn't, and won't be changing their minds any time soon. Just pages of angry rhetoric. We have the Daily Mail for that.

So im left wondering how much you would love it if these jolly nice people rocked up and moved in to your garden(if you have one) or if a young vest wearing chappy takes a liking to your daughter(if you have one)and fancys a bit of grabbing.
Sarko had the right idea.
Yes ive had dealings with the good folk of dale farm
Yes i skim the daily mail(im not much of a reader)
And no there is no point in discusing this subject because if other peoples views are all fluffy and in line then its just rhetoric.

 

[osymandus]

Well you obviously haven't checked as the criminal law act 1967 states that you can use reasonable force to defend yourself from threat. The only time you will have a problem is if a judge or jury decides that the force you used to defend yourself was unreasonable. So you are wrong.
However I feel that you are more then intelligent enough to use that law as burglary is a totally different crime from hitting someone in self defence.
Lets look at it another way. A few years ago whilst at uni I was walking home and a group of lads ran up, pulled a knife on me and stole my phone.
Now they were never caught but for a long time I wouldn't walk anywhere on my own after dark unless it was a busy street. If they were caught and not sent to prison because it affected their human rights in one way or another I would have been even less likely to go out after dark and that would have been effecting my human rights even more.
Now the guy who didn't go to Prison because of his children. He knew he had children before he committed the crime, and he knew the punishment and that it was against the law. Is it right that he can then complain about being caught?
For all we know he could have burgled ten houses and only got caught on the last one and used the kids as his excuse.
What happens now when every single dad gets caught for a crime? Should they be released? It sets a very dangerous precedent in my opinion.
Whether we agree with the law, or not, whether we think the law is unfair or not, or whether we think some people get away with the law or not, it doesn't matter. The law is the law and every single person in this country should have to live by it.
On a similar example, the recent debate about the TV programme when some people were let off after speeding and using a mobile phone whereas other people were not. The people that get let off are very lucky. People started complaining if they were let off, then everyone should be let off, well I am afraid that isn't the case. You break the law you live with the consequences.
I don't think any of the travellers should be treated any worse then any non-travelling folk in the country but on the other hand I don't think they should be outside the law either, they are still human beings and citizens or at least living in this country and as such should follow the laws of this country.
In Dubai, people get arrested for being too affectionate in public. Now I think that is a silly law but it is the law of the U.A.E. so as such if I go there and break the law of that country then I can not have one complaint about being arrested.

Actually i did we had a massive discussion a few weeks back about it when i quoted that law . However legally the actions i mentioned are still categorised untill the investigation shows that the force used can be related to the law (hence why people are arrested on suspicion of murder and can later be aquittal on self defence or changed to manslaughter) this is currently how it stands http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence.

The due process of investigation and trial degree this using the structure of current legal legislation so no i am not wrong .

I think your view of the law and life in general is far to black and white . Your personal experience of course colours your views on this you want a closure and a punishment that never happened there fore your protecting this on all crimes there fore . The law is open and must be to interpretation, the burglar you state . Why did he burglar what is the motivation why do people keep doing what are teh circumstance. The motivation is always key in the prosecution of any case it has to be . and while you might like to believe no one stills to survive its not true . Others do so from mental illness , others from greed or addiction. Every case must be judged on the evidence brought to it . Im afraid it can never be from an emotional aspect to see a form of justice performed to appease a notion of wrong doing. I see your other points where you note a balance must be sought which IMHO is the correct way to go . Yes these country has had its share of manipulation and poor laws , for the most part and having some experience and friends who work in it , the only criticism i can accept of the law's are from those who understand them. The failings many people complain off are the implication of these law's not the law itself.

Dubai may have that as their law , however many criticise them and many dislike and do not regard them as being a very "civilised" or advance culture . Their laws are made to assist those ... who created them even more so then what we believe occurs in the UK.

 

[Perth Bambi]

But your point doesn't make sense. The law in this country did look into his motivation and behind it and punished him with a custodial sentence. The judge of this country interpreted the law, looked at the motivation behind his crimes and gave him a custodial sentence. Then someone else decided it was against his human rights. It makes a mockery of the original decision.

Yet another point that doesn't make sense. I haven't argued that people may not be arrested for injuring someone in self defence. They will be arrested by the police, but it isn't the police who decide the law or punishment. That is decided by the judge and jury and the laws of this country. Your earlier point was clearly alluding to the fact that people who kill a spouse etc are punished for that action, now you are arguing against my point by saying they may be arrested for that.

 

[applelover]

'Human rights are what is very wrong with so many things in this world......' Classic:hilarious:. Could be my favourite OBLism ever.

Dale farm is a real problem as half the site has been built illegally. This is without doubt. Unfortunately the bill for removing them is estimated to be between £8-18 million pounds. For this reason alone I don't think the forced removal can be justified. The BBC documentary the other week stated that the top end prediction, £18 million, represents a third of Basildon's annual budget. Spending this money removing 400 people who the council is going to be forced to rehouse somewhere else seems ridiculous. There is talk that a new site is going to be set up just down the road. £18 million to move 400 people a mile is ludicrous.

I'd let them stay, and reimburse local land owners any value lost on their property (if as I suspect this will be a lot less expensive). If the eviction goes ahead the it looks like hundreds of other travellers and most concerning anarchist groups will descend on the area to protect the site basically all hell will break loose. If an amnesty was agreed then the site would have to agree not to expand any further. The council should then act immediately to deal decisively with any further breaches of planning permission.

The real problem however is the state of settled/traveller community relations. We hate them they hate us is a situation that both sides need to deal with us. This is a historical problem and both sides are equally at fault for the current situation. Neither side has any respect for the other at present and no solution with occur until this lack of respect is dealt with.

The travelling community is not going to disappear so it is in the settled community's interest to make the effort, likewise the travelling community are dependent on the settled community for their livelihood and also need to make the effort. Both sides can either carry on as we are or choose to try to improve realtions. I know which option I find preferable.

 

[osymandus]

But your point doesn't make sense. The law in this country did look into his motivation and behind it and punished him with a custodial sentence. The judge of this country interpreted the law, looked at the motivation behind his crimes and gave him a custodial sentence. Then someone else decided it was against his human rights. It makes a mockery of the original decision.

Yet another point that doesn't make sense. I haven't argued that people may not be arrested for injuring someone in self defence. They will be arrested by the police, but it isn't the police who decide the law or punishment. That is decided by the judge and jury and the laws of this country. Your earlier point was clearly alluding to the fact that people who kill a spouse etc are punished for that action, now you are arguing against my point by saying they may be arrested for that.

Yes because the judicial system allow this to be looked at . A law may and can be challenged , my points were that your argument is not clear cut , it simply isn't that cut or dry . Your original point was that there was no need to break the law to survive , i pointed out one case where the law is broken (if even just the letter of it) and that your infurance was that by the existence of the law alone not its usage or interpretation (of which you state that a judge has done so , however of course our judicial system allows appeals ) is the issue.

I wasn't saying your we saying they wouldn't be arrested just prosecuted in the way that you believed the law should be used. All your saying really is your not aware of how the judicial system works and are surprised it doesn't work in they way you want it to . With all due respect to many people who complain about a system , please look into it before criticise it .

My point on spouses or other domestics (you can also included assisted suicides in this ) is its a very good area for interpretation of the law , your seem to be suggesting all laws are absolute and with out recourse to any appeal ?

 

[Perth Bambi]

Maybe if this was his first rather then his forth offence I might feel slightly more for him.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

There seems to be an obvious solution here. After leaving Dale Farm (hopefully after having received a ****ing good kicking from the Old Bill), the 'travellers' can rock up at osy, applebollocks, and all the other bleeding hearts' houses and park their caravans in their back gardens. Or probably more accurately, their parents' back gardens.

 

[OldBlueLady]

There seems to be an obvious solution here. After leaving Dale Farm (hopefully after having received a ****ing good kicking from the Old Bill), the 'travellers' can rock up at osy, applebollocks, and all the other bleeding hearts' houses and park their caravans in their back gardens. Or probably more accurately, their parents' back gardens.

Lol!

I have no problem with "true" Romanys, they take a pride in their lifestyle, turn up at places where they won't cause any problem, stay for a few days, maybe do a few jobs locally for cash, tidy their campsite so there is little evidence they've been there and move on. I know in my former in-laws' village in rural Suffolk, they used to look forward to the annual visit by a small group of proper Romanys in their traditional caravans, their arrival coincided with harvest and celebrations.

Too many people have been brushed with the gypsy or traveller name, and the Dale Farmites are about as far away from the old meanings as you can get. If they want to be treated fairly, then they need to behave fairly, and that means they need to conform to the laws of the land.

 

[osymandus]

Maybe if this was his first rather then his forth offence I might feel slightly more for him.

Well true , but as ever everything must be taken into account for each offence and its motivation.

 

[Rudi Luftwaffe]

I find it disgusting that these 'travellers' just leave their rubbish behind where it could cause injury to children.When I fly tip I make sure anything dangerous is packed inside a fridge or chest freezer and safely out of the reach of small hands.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Theyre scum all of them, filthy, foul mouthed illiterate tosspots. No manners, no scruples, create so much litter and pollution, dont pay taxes, dont contribute anything to society but take take take like hell. Send them all to Siberia if they love travelling so much and put the money into helping those who really need it.

They're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't.

Imagine the vitriol if they didn't try and fit into the local community?

 

[applelover]

There seems to be an obvious solution here. After leaving Dale Farm (hopefully after having received a ****ing good kicking from the Old Bill), the 'travellers' can rock up at osy, applebollocks, and all the other bleeding hearts' houses and park their caravans in their back gardens. Or probably more accurately, their parents' back gardens.

I've got a challenge for you Rusty. Imagine for a minute that you are not a comic strip character from Viz. Imagine that you are capable of independent thought and responses not parroted from the 'sun says' column. treat this as a role plaing exercise.

I challenge you to come up with a solution to the issue of Dale farm that falls within the law and is good value for the taxpayer. Imagine that you are a policy officer at Basildon council. remember that even in your dystopian vision of society, breaking planning permission is not a capital offence. Also remember that as much as you hate them these people are British and so deportation is not an option either. I eagerly await your offering.

Probably unlike you I have lived near dale farm and in my work deal with travellers on a regular basis. Probably unlike you I am actually aware first hand of the social problems within the travelling community. You need to be careful what you wish for rusty because if the eviction goes ahead they may actually end up being moved to your (or your parents) back garden.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I've got a challenge for you Rusty. Imagine for a minute that you are not a comic strip character from Viz. Imagine that you are capable of independent thought and responses not parroted from the 'sun says' column. treat this as a role plaing exercise.

I challenge you to come up with a solution to the issue of Dale farm that falls within the law and is good value for the taxpayer. Imagine that you are a policy officer at Basildon council. remember that even in your dystopian vision of society, breaking planning permission is not a capital offence. Also remember that as much as you hate them these people are British and so deportation is not an option either. I eagerly await your offering.

Probably unlike you I have lived near dale farm and in my work deal with travellers on a regular basis. Probably unlike you I am actually aware first hand of the social problems within the travelling community. You need to be careful what you wish for rusty because if the eviction goes ahead they may actually end up being moved to your (or your parents) back garden.

To be fair to Rusty his character is from King of The Hill - the red neck neighbour.......what a coincidence.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I've got a challenge for you Rusty. Imagine for a minute that you are not a comic strip character from Viz. Imagine that you are capable of independent thought and responses not parroted from the 'sun says' column. treat this as a role plaing exercise.

I challenge you to come up with a solution to the issue of Dale farm that falls within the law and is good value for the taxpayer. Imagine that you are a policy officer at Basildon council. remember that even in your dystopian vision of society, breaking planning permission is not a capital offence. Also remember that as much as you hate them these people are British and so deportation is not an option either. I eagerly await your offering.

Probably unlike you I have lived near dale farm and in my work deal with travellers on a regular basis. Probably unlike you I am actually aware first hand of the social problems within the travelling community. You need to be careful what you wish for rusty because if the eviction goes ahead they may actually end up being moved to your (or your parents) back garden.

Good value for the taxpayer? Kill them all. Change the law to make this OK. I can't imagine being a policy officer at Basildon Council because I pride myself on being a member of the private sector, actively generating wealth and tax revenues rather than ******* them in.

As for these people being British, I believe Eire became independent from Her Britannic Majesty's Kingdom some time ago.

 

[applelover]

Good value for the taxpayer? Kill them all. Change the law to make this OK. I can't imagine being a policy officer at Basildon Council because I pride myself on being a member of the private sector, actively generating wealth and tax revenues rather than ******* them in.

As for these people being British, I believe Eire became independent from Her Britannic Majesty's Kingdom some time ago.

Classic :smile:. You're not very good at role playing are you.

 

[applelover]

Just tried to + rep you Rusty but wasn't allowed.