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.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Sorry mate I think you have mis-understood me.
Not more from the taxman than they give, that is fine, that is how society helps those less fortunate.
What am I saying is, if someone with no where to live could be emergency sheltered for 3 months at a cost of £1000 and then re-housed at a cost of £4000 per year but it costs £8000 to house someone in a 'gypsy style' site - that would not be fair..
I am trying to say that we should not be responsible for housing them as they would like in a perfect world at a higher cost to us - it should be in-line with the cheapest possible housing option available - or thereabouts.
As far as I know travellers pay for these autorised sites, they certainly do at the sites local to me.
That's good enough for me.
Even better, why not actually start giving them planning rights when they want to settle on their own land?
That's fair enough, if they are 'renting' the right to live on the land etc then I see no problem with it.
I don't understand the reasons they could be refused on..? Is it just local shitty opposition?
Yeah.
People don't want gypsies in their community.
A lot of the land they buiy to settle happens to be in the Green Belt you see so planning is refused.
That would be alright, except for the fact when rich London types come doen with the balls all shiny, and start splashing the vonga about, developments in the green belt don't seem so bad.
It's bullshit.
I don't think the green belt should be built on, but then it shouldn't be for rich people either :mad:
:banghead:
The green belt isn't 'for rich people.'
I like wikipedia's explanation of green belt aims:
Once the green belt is gone, it's gone forever. There's no way any part of it should be built on.
The constant bandying about of terms like "racist" are a bit unsettling though. It isn't racist to be critical of the travelling community who live on illegal sites, espeically as 1/3 of them do and I personally have yet to see an illegal site maintained properly.
You know that's a pretty stupid generalisation. If that were true the green belt would have ceased to exist years ago. I don't care if it's luxury apartments or gypsies, there should be no construction on the green belt. Whilst there has been some building on the green belt most applications are still rejected - no matter who they're from. - But personally I think they any application to build on it should be automatically rejected.
You haven't been following the thread have you?
...and not even based on all legal sites. I've known illegal sites to be kept clean and tidy and even left in a better state than when the travellers moved on!
No. Most people base their opinions on experience, reading, watching the news, talking to other people and thinking.
You weren't just being critical of them. You were calling them all scum.
Was I? Thanks for telling me.
I thought that I was calling the travellers in the OP scum, and I was calling those on illegal sites filth, but obviously I was mistaken.
Thanks for clarifying that.
To be fair man, the way your expressing your arguements makes much more sense now - but that post above it clearly a generic attack on a whole group of people.
No shit, I was talking in reference to Skives comments about rich executives etc being able to build on it but the gypsies getting declined..
Yes, you were calling people scum because, what? They blocked a footpath?
Get some perspective mate.