Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Gypsies

124678

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It strikes me as amusing in a perverse kind of way that just weeks after the BB row they're still remains a group that you can safely mak racist stereotypes of and with the exception of Blagsta and Skive no-one bats an eyelid.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    pah1986 wrote: »
    Work to get more authorised sites. Petitions, protests etc. Speak to local councillors. Get it brought up in parliament. Not break the law.

    There are people that work towards that, will you?
    Unfortunately there even more people that work against it, people don't generally want a traveller site in there community. It's fine idea until it's in your back yard eh?

    Until the time when they do have authorised site's, they have to to break the law. What else can they do?
    pah1986 wrote: »
    There's a solution. Get a house instead of moving from one illegal site to another.

    Because it is as easy as that isn't it?
    pah1986 wrote: »
    This is the thing that really bothers me with the racism/race equality umbrella. Gypsies are not above the law just because they're a race and have to live on the road. They can't just come and diminish our way of life because theirs have been affected by urban growth.

    They are still a racial group that often get racially abused. Fact. Search for the word pikey or gypo on this forum and see how many hits you get. To traveller those words are as offensive as n.gger to a black man, yet look how many people still think it's fine to use them.
    pah1986 wrote: »
    If they're on an authorised site, like the ones that lived close to me were, fantastic. All respect to them if they've come here, contributed to our economy and got jobs. Wonderful.

    Come here? Most of them are British not recent immigrants. And 'Our' economy is their economy.


    Not being funny mate, but as you will know (since you have known some gypo's yourself) that inside some of those caravans are like fucking palaces. So it's not really a question of cash is it?

    They're caravans and vehicles ar often well kept because in my experience they're very proud people. It doesn't mean they can afford to buy a house though.
    They should buy land like everyone else and pay the fucking taxes and bills that come with it!

    Most of them do pay taxes.
    In the 90's many authorised sites were shut down, and travellers were encouraged to buy land instead. Many have treid to do this, and although are able to buy land are unable to get planing permission for their caravans and amenities. Just have a search on google, and you'll see plenty of articles written about travellers who've tried to set up their own cmps on land they own, only to be refused permission to settle.

    Again, what are they to do?
    Weekender Offender 
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Travellers will pay to live on an authorised site, but these sites aren't being provided or they can't get planning permission to settle on their own land.
    Most work, don't claim benifits and pay taxes.

    Why can't councils provide a place for them to settle, because the overwhelming majority of people in don't want travellers in their communities. Travellers have been persecuted for hundreds of years, I can't see that much has changed.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    They're caravans and vehicles ar often well kept because in my experience they're very proud people. It doesn't mean they can afford to buy a house though.



    Most of them do pay taxes.
    In the 90's many authorised sites were shut down, and travellers were encouraged to buy land instead. Many have treid to do this, and although are able to buy land are unable to get planing permission for their caravans and amenities. Just have a search on google, and you'll see plenty of articles written about travellers who've tried to set up their own cmps on land they own, only to be refused permission to settle.

    Again, what are they to do?


    Come on, most of them pay taxes? No way!

    TBH though mate I can see the points you are making are very valid. It isn't fair...

    But at the end of the day, this is the society we live in.

    So if they (by which I mean the illegal travellers) can't live the way we do and abide by our laws (as in plonking themselves wherever they want and making a mess etc) then they should get registered as homeless and go to whichever shelter they need to and then moved into a council house.. if that's the only way?

    Sounds harsh I know but why should they be exempt?

    Why should I not just go to some random bit of land and put a house there?
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    But at the end of the day, this is the society we live in.

    The country we live in contains travellers. They've been here for hundreds of years.
    So if they (by which I mean the illegal travellers) can't live the way we do and abide by our laws (as in plonking themselves wherever they want and making a mess etc) then they should get registered as homeless and go to whichever shelter they need to and then moved into a council house.. if that's the only way?

    So they shoudl give up their possesions, and whole famillies get registered homeless? Would you?
    And there are not rows of council houses waiting for homless people, it doesn't work liek that as I'm sure Blaggy will tell you.
    Why should I not just go to some random bit of land and put a house there?

    Because you don't need to.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    There are people that work towards that, will you?
    No. Frankly.
    Skive wrote: »
    Unfortunately there even more people that work against it, people don't generally want a traveller site in there community. It's fine idea until it's in your back yard eh?
    I'm a NIMBY and not ashamed of it.
    Skive wrote: »
    Until the time when they do have authorised site's, they have to to break the law. What else can they do?
    This is frankly ridiculous. You cannot give anyone permission to break the law because "they have no alternative". They do have alternatives. Are homeless people allowed to shoplift, kip on my front door and take a shit in my garden because they have no alternative?

    Skive wrote: »
    Because it is as easy as that isn't it?
    It's not easy for anyone. But there are registers to get council houses. If they have money they can buy/rent places. Just because it's not easy gives them a right to park themselves on a pavement and call it a day.
    Skive wrote: »
    They are still a racial group that often get racially abused. Fact. Search for the word pikey or gypo on this forum and see how many hits you get. To traveller those words are as offensive as n.gger to a black man, yet look how many people still think it's fine to use them.
    I'm not calling them that nor racially abusing them. I don't think anyone so far has. Most people have commented on real life experience of misbehaviour and lawlessness of travellers.
    Skive wrote: »
    Come here? Most of them are British not recent immigrants. And 'Our' economy is their economy.
    Hang on a second...I thought they were a different ethnic group? British..Irish...Roma...:confused: And I made the comment about contributing to the economy because it has been commented that many don't work, not because they're foreigners.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    The country we live in contains travellers. They've been here for hundreds of years.

    The country we live in has killers and rapists for hundreds of years, should be we put up with that too?

    I'm not saying they are alike but the principal is the same.

    So they shoudl give up their possesions, and whole famillies get registered homeless? Would you?

    No, they should get registered with their families, they get to keep their posessions/sell them or put them in storage.
    And there are not rows of council houses waiting for homless people, it doesn't work liek that as I'm sure Blaggy will tell you.

    Unforunately that's tough and they'd have to wait their turn like everyone else, or at least REGISTER, and travel until they get offered a place!! But they have no intention of doing that.


    Because you don't need to.[/QUOTE]

    I don't need to now because I had to lend money off family, and work my bollocks to get my place.. my dad got served his eviction notice before he and his fiance just bought a new place, would it have been justified to do it then if I had lived there and been served eviction?
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    pah1986 wrote: »
    I'm a NIMBY and not ashamed of it.

    Why wouldn't you have a legal site in your community?
    pah1986 wrote: »
    This is frankly ridiculous. You cannot give anyone permission to break the law because "they have no alternative". They do have alternatives.

    No they don't. Not if they want to remain with their familly. Place yourself in their position if you can, what would you do?
    pah1986 wrote: »
    Are homeless people allowed to shoplift, kip on my front door and take a shit in my garden because they have no alternative?

    Do travellers do that to you?
    pah1986 wrote: »
    It's not easy for anyone. But there are registers to get council houses. If they have money they can buy/rent places. Just because it's not easy gives them a right to park themselves on a pavement and call it a day.

    They've been trying to buy land for a decade, ever since the Criminal Justice Bill came in and many authorised sites were closed. Unfortunately NIMBY's such as yourself only server to ruin their attempts at setting up homes for themselves on land they have worked and paid for.

    pah1986 wrote: »
    I'm not calling them that nor racially abusing them. I don't think anyone so far has.

    Some have come close.
    Anyway I was replying to your comment about the 'racial umbrella' There is a reason why you have to be aware of the race aspect, and it;s because they still cop racial abuse, and it goes largely unnoticed.

    pah1986 wrote: »
    Hang on a second...I thought they were a different ethnic group? British..Irish...Roma...:confused: And I made the comment about contributing to the economy because it has been commented that many don't work, not because they're foreigners.

    British citizens then if you want to be picky.
    Most do work. Most of the ones I know work as landscapers and tree surgeons.
    Weekender Offender 
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Unforunately that's tough and they'd have to wait their turn like everyone else, or at least REGISTER, and travel until they get offered a place!! But they have no intention of doing that.

    They don't homes they need the permission to build them on land they've worked and paid for. They're refused this because nobody wants travellers in their community - simply because they're travellers. When it comes down to it, it's racism that's preventing them from settling.

    As I said google it. There are plenty of cases where travellers have shopw the intention of setting up on their OWN land, yet have been provented by pressure of the local community.

    Ever watched Gyspy Wars?

    my dad got served his eviction notice before he and his fiance just bought a new place, would it have been justified to do it then if I had lived there and been served eviction?

    I wouldn't have had a problem with you doing it. Better than living on the street, where. Though you would have found it a little difficult living and working without the support of a close community like the travellers have.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Why wouldn't you have a legal site in your community?
    I think I already mentioned that I do have a legal site in my community (albeit at my home address, at uni atm). It's literally up the road, barely half a mile away. And I mentioned the problems caused whilst attempting to walk down this road.
    Skive wrote: »
    No they don't. Not if they want to remain with their familly. Place yourself in their position if you can, what would you do?
    Cry me a river. People have to be separated from their family all the time. With the amount of vehicles they have, it's hardly difficult for them to travel down the road to their grans like every one else. And I'm pretty sure you can fit a fair number of family members in a 3/4 bedroom house. Again, breaking the law so you can stay with mum is hardly justification for breaking the law.

    If you're saying that their family is the whole goddamn community of travellers, then you're verging on the ridiculously absurd. There is no way in hell I would allow a group of travellers to park on a pavement because they have to stay with their mum, aunt, great-gran, Bob, his wife, her nephews and their cousins, their cousins second removed and Jack at the end of the park.
    Skive wrote: »
    Do travellers do that to you?
    I was commenting on the fact that lawlessness isn't justification for not having an alternative. A homeless man has no home nor food, but does that mean he's exempt from British law to grab himself food?
    And actually, I commented on the gypsy shoplifting story, they do kip in "our backyards" and they leave a lot of mess afterwards. It's close.
    Skive wrote: »
    They've been trying to buy land for a decade, ever since the Criminal Justice Bill came in and many authorised sites were closed. Unfortunately NIMBY's such as yourself only server to ruin their attempts at setting up homes for themselves on land they have worked and paid for.

    Well, I've personally not done anything. I have no problem with them having authorised sites, it stops them from travelling to and ruining one unauthorised location after another.
    Out of interest, why did the "Criminal Justice Bill" close down authorised sites?
    Skive wrote: »
    ... I was replying to your comment about the 'racial umbrella' There is a reason why you have to be aware of the race aspect, and it;s because they still cop racial abuse, and it goes largely unnoticed.
    Fair enough. Despite their problems, I agree that this is uncalled for. I also wasn't aware that they did suffer racial abuse, so I've learnt something there.
    Skive wrote: »
    Most do work. Most of the ones I know work as landscapers and tree surgeons.
    I wasn't doubting this, just mentioning others had.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    pah1986 wrote: »
    I think I already mentioned that I do have a legal site in my community (albeit at my home address, at uni atm). It's literally up the road, barely half a mile away. And I mentioned the problems caused whilst attempting to walk down this road.

    People like you are leaving them with no choice. You want campigns for more authorised sites povided by the councils and yet say NIMBY.
    When Travellers buy their own land and try to settle themselves again the NIMBY argument prevents them from getting planning for basic amenities.

    Bassically you want them with no choice but to stop travelling? Depsite the fact travelling isn't a crime, and hs been part of their culture for over a thousand yearsm, simply because you don't like the way they live.
    Weekender Offender 
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    pah1986 wrote: »
    Out of interest, why did the "Criminal Justice Bill" close down authorised sites?

    "Local authorities used to have a legal duty to provide sites for Gypsies and Irish Travellers. In 1994 this obligation was removed following the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and, as a result, and along with a change in the use of land and more land being identified for housing, there are now too few sites to accommodate all Gypsies and Irish Travellers."
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    People like you are leaving them with no choice. You want campigns for more authorised sites povided by the councils and yet say NIMBY.
    When Travellers buy their own land and try to settle themselves again the NIMBY argument prevents them from getting planning for basic amenities.

    Bassically you want them with no choice but to stop travelling? Depsite the fact travelling isn't a crime, and hs been part of their culture for over a thousand yearsm, simply because you don't like the way they live.

    I don't give a shit if they get an authorised site and are well behaved. This gypsy site and my own house were both in a working-class, rough area. I will admit that if I was living in an expensive house in the countryside, I wouldn't want them in the field behind my house, which I'm sure I'll have to justify when you quote it.

    And sure, travelling isn't a crime. But living on land that isn't theirs, obstructing public highways and so on are crimes.
    "Local authorities used to have a legal duty to provide sites for Gypsies and Irish Travellers. In 1994 this obligation was removed following the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and, as a result, and along with a change in the use of land and more land being identified for housing, there are now too few sites to accommodate all Gypsies and Irish Travellers."
    OK, the duty was revoked after the CJandPO Act. You still haven't explained why this act caused them to revoke their duties.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    pah1986 wrote: »
    I don't give a shit if they get an authorised site and are well behaved. This gypsy site and my own house were both in a working-class, rough area. I will admit that if I was living in an expensive house in the countryside, I wouldn't want them in the field behind my house, which I'm sure I'll have to justify when you quote it.

    That's right, stick the gypsies with the working class as long as they don't buy land near your expensive house in the country? Stick them with the poor. This is starting to sound pretty bad.
    pah1986 wrote: »
    And sure, travelling isn't a crime. But living on land that isn't theirs, obstructing public highways and so on are crimes.

    Ok. Well lets not prevent them from building on land they've worked and paid for, simply because you don't want a site near you posh house.

    pah1986 wrote: »
    OK, the duty was revoked after the CJandPO Act. You still haven't explained why this act caused them to revoke their duties.

    I don't know, and I'm not goign to trawl through the Criminal Justice Bill at this time. I've got work in a few hours.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    That's right, stick the gypsies with the working class as long as they don't buy land near your expensive house in the country? Stick them with the poor.
    I'm working class and always have been. We've always been very poor. But one day, yes, I do want an expensive house in the country. It's a dream of working my way up through business and getting something nice at the end. Scenic beauty, peace and quiet, quaint villages. Transit vans and caravans don't fit in with this ideal and if we're going to be realistic, would bring down house prices and other factors such as tourism to that particular area. If that dream never realises and I stay with my family, I genuinely don't mind the authorised site up the road as long as we don't get mugged or harassed as experience has taught us.
    I don't know, and I'm not goign to trawl through the Criminal Justice Bill at this time. I've got work in a few hours.
    I was thinking the same. I was rather hoping you actually knew why a bill called the "Criminal Justice and Public Order Act" revoked the privileges the travellers once had.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    then they should get registered as homeless and go to whichever shelter they need to and then moved into a council house.. if that's the only way?

    You're having a laugh aincha? Do you know how long council waiting lists are?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    pah1986 wrote: »
    Are homeless people allowed to shoplift, kip on my front door and take a shit in my garden because they have no alternative?

    No. but often they have no alternative. That's what happens if you don't provide for people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    pah1986 wrote: »
    Out of interest, why did the "Criminal Justice Bill" close down authorised sites?

    Mostly political reasons. The government of the time wanted to smash the alternative travelling community ("new age" travellers), as they saw it as a threat. See also the Battle of the Beanfield, where the police smashed up and set fire to people's homes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    pah1986 wrote: »
    But living on land that isn't theirs, obstructing public highways and so on are crimes.

    Hmmmm...land ownership. That's a debate in itself. Why should a private individual own lots of land?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Why should a private individual own lots of land?

    As opposed to lots of individuals ? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    No. but often they have no alternative. That's what happens if you don't provide for people.
    I think this is interesting, now I'm all for a welfare state, up to a point, but why should I provide for them? Why can't they provide for themselves?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Your evidence for this being...?

    We have the same problem and i have sat and watched them try to steal stuff at work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    I think this is interesting, now I'm all for a welfare state, up to a point, but why should I provide for them? Why can't they provide for themselves?

    You expect homeless people (who often have mental health or other social problems)to provide for themselves? How's that then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tweety wrote: »
    We have the same problem and i have sat and watched them try to steal stuff at work.

    So they're all the same, yeah?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Blagsta wrote: »
    So they're all the same, yeah?

    Well, I m aware of many good gypsies. My mum has contact with some at work.

    However, this doesn't deter from the fact a very large number (I'd say 50% or more) do go about causing trouble.

    They're just raided two loads of stainless (empties hte factory once, then a second time, and took the truck and shelves) from a Mate's dad's stainless steel fabrication factory.

    The truck is byond repair, causing ALOT of problems - how do you ship large counters without it? They can't just afford to go out and get a new one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    You expect homeless people (who often have mental health or other social problems)to provide for themselves? How's that then?

    we arent talking about homeless people with problems, we're talking about gypsies....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    So they're all the same, yeah?

    Not they aren't all the same but the majority that park up near where i live, live off of stealing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    You expect homeless people (who often have mental health or other social problems)to provide for themselves? How's that then?
    You haven't answered the question, unless you're saying that all gypsies have mental health problems. I asked you why gypsies should be provided for, why should I have to provide for them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Most people's experiences of travellers stem from illegal occupation of land, such as playing fields and car parks. Mine do. And every single camp like that I have seen has left everything in an absolute state- as I say, the last travellers to grace Hebburn with their presence did over £100,000 of damage. That's a lot of damage for taxpayers to pay for.

    I didn't realise that as many as 72% lived in legal settlements. But that makes the 16% who live in illegal settlements on illegally-occupied land completely unjustifiable- so yeah, send the JCBs in. They clearly have somewhere else to go, they just don't want to.

    That article is typical CRE bullshit though- travellers are not "ethnically monitored", so that means there is "no evidence to suggest they commit more crime". And wow, because they pay VAT they "do pay taxes". True, I suppose, but it doesn't mean what they imply. Fantastic.

    Would I want a camp in my local area? I'm not sure. If I didn't have to look at it I probably wouldn't mind, so long as I didn't have to pay for it. If I did have to look at it I would mind- banks of caravans are an eyesore at the best of times. And before you ask, I'd say the same thing if it was a holiday complex opening up across the street.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Littleali wrote: »
    we arent talking about homeless people with problems, we're talking about gypsies....

    No, that particular post was about homeless people, if you care to follow it properly.
Sign In or Register to comment.