Dale farm evictions "may breach human rights"

[Thorpe Groyney]

No, only to be expected really. Let's waste even more tax payers' money than has already been wasted, let's blight people's lives more than they have been blighted already. Joke.

Osy, I really don't give a fig whether Basildon Council have done this right or wrong, if the bloody travellers hadn't done what they did in the first place, they wouldn't have HAD to do anything. It's the first, illegal actions of the travellers that have precipitated everything that's followed since.

Did you point out how illegal the actions of the travellers were when it first came to public notice? Or did you, say five years ago, when a certain Mr. Eastwood was at his most popular? Or maybe perhaps talked of taxpayers money being wasted, and how outraged you were two years ago? A year ago even? Or did you really even care about this legal issue before the main media began to feature it?

Given the choice, would you enforce the eviction now, knowing full well services to day centres for the elderly in the borough will be cut (and they will be), simply to say 'I'm right'?

I hope the judge takes a somewhat more neutral view when coming to the next decision on Friday, considering all the implications, all the way along the line.

 

[steveo]

. Or not you appear quite simple I can do diagrams if you like ?

That would be great Osy, but would anyone understand them?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Did you point out how illegal the actions of the travellers were when it first came to public notice? Or did you, say five years ago, when a certain Mr. Eastwood was at his most popular? Or maybe perhaps talked of taxpayers money being wasted, and how outraged you were two years ago? A year ago even? Or did you really even care about this legal issue before the main media began to feature it?

Given the choice, would you enforce the eviction now, knowing full well services to day centres for the elderly in the borough will be cut (and they will be), simply to say 'I'm right'?

I hope the judge takes a somewhat more neutral view when coming to the next decision on Friday, considering all the implications, all the way along the line.

I wouldn't have necessarily said about it at the time it first happened, but I've certainly been protesting about it for a while. I have a friend who lives off the Runwell Road who has had frequent trouble with people off that site, and for a fact I know that's been going on at least 6 years.

 

[steveo]

Given the choice, would you enforce the eviction now, knowing full well services to day centres for the elderly in the borough will be cut (and they will be), simply to say 'I'm right'?

I hope the judge takes a somewhat more neutral view when coming to the next decision on Friday, considering all the implications, all the way along the line.

So would you simply let anyone build anything on any land they own? If you let this go you are more or less saying planning permission will be non existent, then your day centres would have been knocked down and turned into casinos. or worse still pikey sites.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

So would you simply let anyone build anything on any land they own? If you let this go you are more or less saying planning permission will be non existent, then your day centres would have been knocked down and turned into casinos. or worse still pikey sites.

Absolutely right. Thankfully we have planning permission, otherwise it would be a free for all. Imagine your next door neighbour building any thing he wanted in his front or back garden.

Traveller sites could take over a huge area, ruining the local schools by sending their kids only once or twice a week, and letting them finish schooling altogether at 12 to 14. Fly tip could be everywhere. Innocent neighbours house prices would plummet, and could not be sold anyway. Locals would be threatened. All kinds of stuff would be thrown into the locals gardens. Tho old and the helpless would be preyed upon, and scammed.
Sound familiar?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Gyppos

This is a link http://www.matthewtree.cat/index.php?seccio=article&articles_id=462&idioma=to an article on the Dale Farm situation by Matthew Tree(who I know slightly)in the current copy of Catalonia Today(a current affairs magazine here published in English).Interesting read.In case anyone wants to know, Matt comes from London.

 

[Bielzibubz]

This is a link http://www.matthewtree.cat/index.php?seccio=article&articles_id=462&idioma=to an article on the Dale Farm situation by Matthew Treee(who I know slightly)in the current copy of Catalonia Today(a current affairs magazine published in English).Interesting read.In case anyone wants to know Matt comes from London.

And nowhere in that artical does he mention that they broke, and continue to break, the law of the land in the first place. Which consequently undermines both the artical and the writer in my ever so uninterlectual opinion.

Not once (but no doubt someone will be anal enough to prove me wrong) in this whole debate has anyone that has come down on the side of the 'travellers' actually come out and said that breaking the law in this case is imaterial and takes second place to their human rights.

So, you bleeding heart liberals on here. Does the law in this case play second fiddle to the European Charter on human rights, or whatever it's called. And please, lets not have a long winded arse about face conveluted answer. A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks :finger:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

And nowhere in that artical does he mention that they broke, and continue to break, the law of the land in the first place. Which consequently undermines both the artical and the writer in my ever so uninterlectual opinion.

Not once (but no doubt someone will be anal enough to prove me wrong) in this whole debate has anyone that has come down on the side of the 'travellers' actually come out and said that breaking the law in this case is imaterial and takes second place to their human rights.

So, you bleeding heart liberals on here. Does the law in this case play second fiddle to the European Charter on human rights, or whatever it's called. And please, lets not have a long winded arse about face conveluted answer. A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks :finger:

Scroll back a bit to that podcast I posted on here.Listen to it and you'll see that a spokesperson for the Travellers(a woman and ex-Liberal Councillor)admitted quite openly that the Dale Farm residents had in fact broken the law by building on the land without planning permission.
I'm sure you're familiar with the expression that "two wrongs don't make a right",however.:winking:

 

[Boreham Shrimper]

The geriatric old fool has put the judgement (which was apparently due tomorrow) off again until next Wednesday "at the earliest" :angry:

The pikeys must be laughing themselves silly at the way they are mugging off the council and more importantly, the local residents. I wonder how much they're paying the judge...

 

[Holy Joe]

Old but interesting article from the Echo

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/1823100.Dale_Farm__The_French_connection/?ref=ms

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Old but interesting article from the Echo

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/1823100.Dale_Farm__The_French_connection/?ref=ms

That is interesting, and worth a read. Just adds to the huge benefit fraud, and how they seem to get away with it. None of the men seem to be living at Dale Farm for the purpose of the women claiming benefits. Yet they will put down Dale Farm as their address in other circumstances. Like I said before, it explains why the men won't show their faces on the news. How can the benefits agency not investigate all of this? Once again, above the law we all have to abide by.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Scroll back a bit to that podcast I posted on here.Listen to it and you'll see that a spokesperson for the Travellers(a woman and ex-Liberal Councillor)admitted quite openly that the Dale Farm residents had in fact broken the law by building on the land without planning permission.
I'm sure you're familiar with the expression that "two wrongs don't make a right",however.:winking:

I am very familiar with it yes thanks but perhaps you could explain this. They broke the law = wrong. The council are upholding the law by trying to evict them = right. Now excuse me for being pedantic here but I count one wrong and one right, not two wrongs.

 

[osymandus]

I am very familiar with it yes thanks but perhaps you could explain this. They broke the law = wrong. The council are upholding the law by trying to evict them = right. Now excuse me for being pedantic here but I count one wrong and one right, not two wrongs.

Dale travllers= Broke law bad
Basildon council = implemented law incorrectly and broke it bad

Easy enough.

 

[Napster]

Dale travllers= Broke law bad
Basildon council = implemented law incorrectly and broke it bad

Easy enough.

Implementing law incorrectly is interpretation. Wilfully breaking the law is different.

 

[osymandus]

Implementing law incorrectly is interpretation. Wilfully breaking the law is different.

Not in the case of the last eviction order . They implemented for the removal of temporary structures while knowingly attempting to use it for the removal of permanent ones . Which the high court judge stated would have been illegal had they been allowed to do so .

Also it's not interpretation it's just wrong . Be like me using the Health and saftey laws (regarding the keeping of fresh fish for public consumption)to remove a child's plush goldfish.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Not in the case of the last eviction order . They implemented for the removal of temporary structures while knowingly attempting to use it for the removal of permanent ones . Which the high court judge stated would have been illegal had they been allowed to do so .

Also it's not interpretation it's just wrong . Be like me using the Health and saftey laws (regarding the keeping of fresh fish for public consumption)to remove a child's plush goldfish.

What the **** are you on about?

They broke the soddin law, end of story. The council have made mistakes along the way, no one is denying that. Now get your head out of your own backside and stop being such an insufferable bore.

 

[steveo]

I can never understand why people like Osy and Barna want to stick up for and defend these law breaking pikeys. Barna isnt a UK tax payer so it probably doesnt bother him, and presumably Osy is unemployed and still poncing off the state so see's the pikeys as sort of comrades in arms.
Strange.

 

[osymandus]

What the **** are you on about?

They broke the soddin law, end of story. The council have made mistakes along the way, no one is denying that. Now get your head out of your own backside and stop being such an insufferable bore.

I'm wondering if you can read . Please tell me what part of this post says "oh those poor travellers the wicked council are just prosecuting them , they ant broken the law " .... www.dictionary.com to help you .

What I write is my responsibility your lack of understanding is yours Get over it.

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

Health and safety requires any scaffolding to be constructed by professional companies. If any of us decided to repaint the outside of our homes and put up the scaffolding ourselves, within a couple of days someone from the council would turn up demanding it has to be taken down.
Seeing pictures of the 'barricade' scaffolding hastily erected by the 'travellers' at dale Farm recently, i would have thought that by now some official from the council would have shown up, and demanded it be dismantled due to health and safety regulations blah blah blah.
Yet again it would appear that there is one rule for some (the minority who dont pay tax etc, claim benefits but are able to own expensive vehicles) and another for the law abiding majority. Disgraceful.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Not in the case of the last eviction order . They implemented for the removal of temporary structures while knowingly attempting to use it for the removal of permanent ones . Which the high court judge stated would have been illegal had they been allowed to do so .

Also it's not interpretation it's just wrong . Be like me using the Health and saftey laws (regarding the keeping of fresh fish for public consumption)to remove a child's plush goldfish.

They broke the law, the council didn't. There is no interpretation of the law there nor are there any mitigating circumstances. No matter which way you choose to defend them and their 'rights' the facts are the facts, simples.

Oh, and just for the record it's this bit i was refering to when I asked what the **** you were on about. "Be like me using the Health and saftey laws (regarding the keeping of fresh fish for public consumption)to remove a child's plush goldfish"


Now pluck my banjo and call me Cletus but no matter how hard I tried it came back as complete bollocks every time i read it. Sorry