Home Politics & Debate
We've started our first discussion for our Christmas campaign which is focusing on religion or cultural beliefs that help you when you're feeling down. Some of the responses will be used anonymously on social media as a video. If you'd like to take part, head over to this thread.

Gypsies

1234568»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    What is so wrong with people in genuine need, recieving more from the taxman than they give?

    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.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,243 Skive's The Limit
    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?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    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.

    That's fair enough, if they are 'renting' the right to live on the land etc then I see no problem with it.
    Even better, why not actually start giving them planning rights when they want to settle on their own land?

    I don't understand the reasons they could be refused on..? Is it just local shitty opposition?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,243 Skive's The Limit
    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.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah I know what you're saying.

    I don't think the green belt should be built on, but then it shouldn't be for rich people either :mad:

    :banghead:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think the green belt should be built on, but then it shouldn't be for rich people either :mad:

    :confused: The green belt isn't 'for rich people.'

    I like wikipedia's explanation of green belt aims:
    protect natural or semi natural environments;
    improve air quality within urban areas;
    ensure that urban dwellers have access to countryside, with consequent educational and recreational opportunities; and
    protect the unique character of rural communities which might otherwise be absorbed by expanding suburbs.

    Once the green belt is gone, it's gone forever. There's no way any part of it should be built on.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When gypsies want to build on the green belt its declined, and when its Bovis wanting to build a fuck-load of executive houses its not. That's wrong. House prices are only affected because of prejudice too.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    When gypsies want to build on the green belt its declined, and when its Bovis wanting to build a fuck-load of executive houses its not.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JsT wrote: »
    Argument lost so resorting to mindless insults.

    Top work Blagsta!

    You haven't been following the thread have you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    It's quite clear that most people experiences of travellers are related to those living on illegal sites

    ...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!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not really foolish if we don't know - most people base their opinions on thier own experience rather than on statistics.

    No. Most people base their opinions on experience, reading, watching the news, talking to other people and thinking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    When gypsies want to build on the green belt its declined, and when its Bovis wanting to build a fuck-load of executive houses its not. That's wrong. House prices are only affected because of prejudice too.

    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 weren't just being critical of them. You were calling them all scum.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rachael wrote: »
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    It isn't worth causing a fuss because they're foul people who will probably come and attack you out of pure spite.

    That's always the trouble with the gypsies and the new age travellers- they get away with everything because everyone is too scared of them to stand up to them.

    I wouldn't bother reporting them, the police are scared of em too, but I agree, its absolutely disgusting the way they block everything up.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :confused: The green belt isn't 'for rich 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.. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, you were calling people scum because, what? They blocked a footpath?

    Get some perspective mate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i have just found this website, i am a romany gipsy. you can get good and bad in everybody so dont think that we are all the same because were not. me and my family have our own land and dont bother anybody. we do stop on road sides when we go to fairs but we clear our rubbish up and dont cause any hastle. I have got some very good friends that are not gipsys and i try to get on with evry one
Sign In or Register to comment.