Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: MrBump on October 19, 2011, 09:44:59 AM
-
So, the cops are moving in to the Dale Farm travellers site.
Twenty million quid seems perfectly reasonable to me for a Local Authority eviction...
To be honest, I live about 5 miles from the site, and I've never seen or heard of any problems with it until about a year ago.
-
Thing is, travellers don't pay income tax and council tax. They pay VAT but that's only because it's on top of the cost of food and drink and in the case of Dale Farm where they completely avoided planning permission which any one else would have to do. If we built a house without planning permission, we'd have to knock down the house and wait for planning permission. I think it's taking the p*ss and is a kick in the crotch to others who do pay their way in society and abide by laws. I heard one of the travellers say that the government/council should have built it for them then they wouldn't be in this muddle, why should the council do that?
Why should they get special treatment.
-
I'm with Steve. There are systems in place for homeless people and they should pay into the system/play by the rules like everyone else is expected to.
-
Pikey's revenge: http://youtu.be/AR8SkOhKG9Y (http://youtu.be/AR8SkOhKG9Y)
-
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/79744-pikey-is-now-a-race-hate-word
-
Thing is, travellers don't pay income tax and council tax.
False. Some don't, but some settled folk don't either. Is the rate of avoidance higher? Yes, but that's because:
in the case of Dale Farm where they completely avoided planning permission which any one else would have to do.
"Completely avoided planning permission" is total bollocks. After 1994 when the requirement to provide sites for travelers was removed by the government travelers started buying plots of land and applying for planning permission. With a 90% knock back rate (the settled community is refused 10% of applications). So they began to buy land and retroactively apply for planning permission (totally legal) and still got knocked back, but decided to live there anyway and continue to look for sites where planning permission would be granted. They don't pay council tax because the councils don't recognise their dwellings.
If we built a house without planning permission, we'd have to knock down the house and wait for planning permission.
Nope. You'd apply after the fact and provided it's safe you'd get it granted.
Why should they get special treatment.
They want equal treatment, not special treatment.
If you owned a patch of land and a caravan and were made homeless. Would you go and live in it? That's the origin of the problem. Most of the bricks and mortar homes on the site are in the legal half with planning permission.
Also worth noting that 1 square mile would house every traveler in the nation who lives in an illegal home. Yet it's too much of an ask for any council to grant planning permission an area that size on the shedloads of land travelers own because it's acceptable to be institutionally racist towards them and because the high percentage of their constituents who are cretins would be in uproar off the backs of appallingly misleading press.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/79744-pikey-is-now-a-race-hate-word
It always has been. Still, "Violent Racist Thug Convicted" would have had less of a slant on it as a headline.
-
as i understand it, they were told by a government agency before buying the land that they would get planning permission there, but Basildon council then refused to do so. there are always at least three sides to every story, of course, and the whole truth of the matter is quite hard to find.
the riot gear clad army of police, the tasers and the "storming" of the settlement all have a rather distasteful feel to them. a bit too reminiscent of 1930's Germany.
i totally agree that these people must follow the same laws as the rest of us, but it is certainly a fact that they don't be treated the same as the rest of us when they try to.
-
and as Mr. Bump says, they've blown 20 Million quid on this! at a time when councils are supposed to be making massive cutbacks. presumably there won't be any bin collections in Basildon for the next while then
-
Interesting insight from you both, nfe and blue.
-
and as Mr. Bump says, they've blown 20 Million quid on this! at a time when councils are supposed to be making massive cutbacks. presumably there won't be any bin collections in Basildon for the next while then
They have money for 10,000 homes, though... Looking to build 10,000 homes for settled people, but they couldn't find an area to allow people to buy plots to house a few hundred people?
Incidentally, East of England Regional Assembly instructed Basildon Council that they need to find 81 sites for travelers over the course of the court case, but Basildon Council refused to find any and a representative stated that they weren't looking to find anywhere because "We've got enough of them" on Jake Bowers BBC radio show. If a council is being instructed to provide sites, and a very small area can solve the problem, it seems a worry that said council simply refuses to comply and it isn't a stretch to imagine planning permission's simply being refused out of hand (especially with the way our planning councils can be hamstrung by one or two members).
The whole thing is farcical.
-
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/79744-pikey-is-now-a-race-hate-word
I'm so glad that was East Sussex, not Essex!
-
This eviction is simply racist.
Those kids have been going to schools around there for years. There is no sense in using such police force to evict famlies with small children from their homes on property that they own.
Plus whatever people flame me for, 20million ££££?????????????????????? I want to see the moron who signed that off crucified when we are laying off staff because we can't afford their 14.000-20.000£ salaries a year.
-
Let them find somewhere & buy it... let them be happy... Ensure they observe EXACTLY the same laws as the settled community (the same laws they are happy to exploit) and ensure they pay the same taxes as the rest of our diverse multi-racial country and I'm 100% with you.
Give them ANY special treatment based on their self serving interpretation of "culture" ?
F**K RIGHT OFF!
http://youtu.be/TOSZwEwl_1Q
These f**kers aren't even "gypsies" (Romani a genuine race) but they are Tramps And Thieves.
-
This eviction is simply racist.
Those kids have been going to schools around there for years. There is no sense in using such police force to evict famlies with small children from their homes on property that they own.
The same schools that they have shown the nationwide highest truancy rates since these people bothered placing the kid names on the register?
Oh, and this same community who do not believe in educating their daughters equally?
Sexism is OK is it so long as it is in their "culture"?
-
Interesting insight from you both, nfe and blue.
I agree - interesting insights.
Having grown up near Epsom I must say I do harbor some sort of negative feeling towards the travelling community. Naturally I'm sure many of them are fine pillars of the community. But every time the Derby was on, and they set up their fair, the amount of crime some of them caused in the area was quite notable. They totally trashed every field in the area they set up on, and a number of their cars/caravans and fairground rides were in a very dangerous state.
The parents of an old girlfriend of mine owned a farm and they had a number of run ins with them, completely decimating a number of good fields over the years.
Maybe this is just a small percent, but it surely doesn't help their image. Even if forced in to illegal inhabiting (either through lack of planning permission or simply squatting) respect should be paid to the surroundings.
Now I have no idea if this is the case in Dale Farm, it sounds like it was indeed a peaceful co-existence, but my own experiences of the travelling community have sadly been bad ones.
edit: so I have very divided feelings about the whole thing - apparent police brutality was very worrying, and maybe indeed this was some sort of 'success story' at settling travellers.
edit 2: but due to some increasingly bias media coverage of this whole story, its in fact impossible for me to make a judgement about the whole issue.
-
Let them find somewhere & buy it... let them be happy... Ensure they observe EXACTLY the same laws as the settled community (the same laws they are happy to exploit) and ensure they pay the same taxes as the rest of our diverse multi-racial country and I'm 100% with you.
Give them ANY special treatment based on their self serving interpretation of "culture" ?
F**K RIGHT OFF!
http://youtu.be/TOSZwEwl_1Q
These f**kers aren't even "gypsies" (Romani a genuine race) but they are Tramps And Thieves.
The whole first paragraph, that's what they want. They buy lots of land. The have been actively They are refused planning permission out of hand on 90% of it.
"Gypsy" is not exclusive to Romani and Roma people.
Tramps and thieves? The entire community? On what basis do you make that statement?
This eviction is simply racist.
Those kids have been going to schools around there for years. There is no sense in using such police force to evict famlies with small children from their homes on property that they own.
The same schools that they have shown the nationwide highest truancy rates since these people bothered placing the kid names on the register?
Oh, and this same community who do not believe in educating their daughters equally?
Sexism is OK is it so long as it is in their "culture"?
Would you be keen to go to school regularly (or to send your children there) when a significant proportion of the school population (and the community they come from) have had it ingrained that your society is, to a person, scum?
General illiteracy is a problem amongst traveling peoples (of all ethnicities) no doubt. Extreme patriarchy is oft brought up, but other than anecdotal evidence (from good strong sources like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and The Daily Mail) I've seen little said to actually demonstrate it, and my experience of them, which is admittedly limited - went to school with a few, see some in the pub whenever I'm home, some of my family went to chapel with travelers so we'd meet now and again - is actually of a pretty overtly matriarchal society. The traditional totalitarian Catholic grandmother type affair :lol: Of course, I'm able to grasp this can't be assumed to apply to a whole ethnicity...
All that said. What that has sexism to do with the topic at hand?
-
edit 2: but due to some increasingly bias media coverage of this whole story, its in fact impossible for me to make a judgement about the whole issue.
i'd be agreeing with that. it's very difficult to figure out the whole truth of the situation. and it's had all sense taken away from it with the heavy handed approach of the council and police and the inflammatory presence of completely unconnected protesters. a lot of the actual residents cleared out this morning, and it's these protesters that are fighting the police.
what rarely gets mentioned is that half of the site is completely legal, they're being evicted from the other part. surely the legal part already being there would be seen as grounds to grant permission for an extension? it certainly would if it was a big, rich, respectable supermarket
-
Sexism, tenancy, tax avoidance, criminality, fly tipping... "badly tar-maced drives, in this country" ....
We should just ignore any of these societally damaging issues if apparent in the traveler community... because it's their culture.
OK, I'm fine with that..
Simple
Please don't steal electricity, use the NHS or schools, appeal to the law courts or be protected by a standing British army... Grow your own food and live on a self sufficient small holding...
OH Yeah, it can't be done in the modern world can it?
-
Best evict the upper echelons of virtually all large business too, then?
Nobody is saying any of these should be ignored. They should all absolutely be tackled. The problem is relating these issues to an entire community.
What other minority communities have higher than average rates of criminality? Oh yeah, all of them! Would you be so derisive of black people? Or just the bad segments of their community? Probably the latter. But it's ok to knock ALL travelers.
Guess what, you almost certainly deal with travelers (be they nomadic or settled) on a regular basis and think they're lovely folks. But then they don't go to the effort of wearing "I'm a Gypo" badges to make sure you know they're definitely a wife-beating thief :roll:
-
I'm 100% with you! No fear nor favour should be shown.
The filth rich avoid more tax than the poor ever defraud via benefit claims... Hit the non-doms hard first and work down the list.
The problem is relating these issues to an entire community.
They're not!
The legal portion of Dale Farm "travellers" are being left alone!
The opportunist illegal settlement (about 60% of the total numbers) are being evicted after 10 YEARS of appeals.
Pretty fair as far as I can see.
Rich or poor criminals, Black or AFGHAN criminals... ANY fricken criminals do not get special consideration.
-
Yes, the legal half of Dale Farm is fine. The illegal half is only illegal because it is travelers who want to live there. That's the problem. They're only opportunists in that having been relentlessly knocked back for planning permission on land they owned, they decided to built and apply retroactively (legal) but were again refused. So that they'd at least have homes for a while whilst they looked for other places to live but continue to be refused all the time. They DO NOT WANT to live illegally and have been ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW HOMES for a decade but councils simply refuse to grant planning permission to these people anywhere.
Absurd amounts of money would be saved by simply granting planning permission, but Basildon council wont grant it because of who they are. So instead of just giving them planning permission, making them ABLE to pay council tax, removing a huge part of the divide between them and the settled community and thereby massively improving integration and saving years of legal nonsense, they figure "Theiving pikeys, get rid, get rid!" like a bunch of spectacularly bigoted morons.
-
Those kids have been going to schools around there for years. There is no sense in using such police force to evict famlies with small children from their homes on property that they own.
The same schools that they have shown the nationwide highest truancy rates since these people bothered placing the kid names on the register?
Would you be keen to go to school regularly (or to send your children there) when a significant proportion of the school population (and the community they come from) have had it ingrained that your society is, to a person, scum?
there is another issue that strongly affects the truancy rates. When you tell an 11 year old traveller they are allowed to make all their own decisions about their life from now on - chances are they wont choose to stay at school. although it often works the other way too, with children being kept away from school as they can be more use at home.
So, there is a bit of a cultural thing about when you become and 'Adult' able to make your own decisions. This can isolate some traveller children from their peers as hey often have many more responsibilities at a young age compared to the average 11 year old.
this is coupled with a negative view of education within the culture due to years of racism, misunderstanding and often simple naivety (a lot of the current traveller parents/grandparents will not have attended school at all). luckily these attitudes are changing, albeit slowly
the problem is made worse by the lack of relevance for traveller children, but you could say that about a lot of kids.
i have a friend who worked with the local traveller community to encourage school attendance. the job was mainly split into educating parents about the benefits of education for their children's lifestyle, getting schools to understand that the students may have other responsibilities which prevent them from attending school all the time, and educating teachers about the needs and expectations of those students
-
So, let's get this right...
We skip over the part where they DID get planning permission.
That doesn't count because they didn't get ALL the planning permission they want? On green belt (let's not argue if it was a scr@p yard - legally it WAS green belt)
This land was bought for peanuts - no reflection of its value if sold with development in mind.
For arguments sake, a traveller buys a plot for £100.000 then applies for retrospective planning permission supported on grounds that "planning committees are institutionally racist" - this is granted and sets a precedent.
Plot now worth £10 million plus..
Traveller sells to the billionaire Candy Brothers to build luxury apartments in the Stock Broker belt.
Travellers move on because "travelling is part of our cultural identity" with £9,900,000 profit in the back pocket.
Repeat....
And OF COURSE the travellers will pay capital gains tax & the Candy brothers are based in Monaco with incorporation in the Cayman Islands.
EVERYONE'S A WINNER!! PDT_038
-
We don't skip over their getting planning permission on the settled part. I was clear that the problem arose with legislation from 1994 - which the legal half far precedes. It was at that point, when councils were no longer required to provide land for travelers to live on, that the refusal of planning permission started en masse. The idea was that the councils wouldn't need to bother and the travelers would buy and settle land and everyone was happy with that, until everyone just told them no.
It is not a case of them not getting ALL the planning they want, it's the fact that EIGHT TIMES as many (as a %) traveler applications get denied as those from settled people.
The land was bought at extremely low cost, yes. Because they decided instead of buying land earmarked for development (which they had been doing to no avail) they'd by other land, build on it, apply for permission afterwards and even if it got denied, they reckoned that by the time it all went through they'd have gotten permission for somewhere. They've paid massive money for lots of sites which they get refused planning permission on.
Does that make it ok? No, but it makes it totally understandable.
-
I heard a spokeswoman from the site say that they had been offered houses by the council but they did not want them as they were travellers and didn't want to be rooted down (which would violate their human rights and dissolve their culture)
What they do is buy cheap land, lots of it and then erect huge houses on there without planning permission.
Nobody else buys it because they know they won't get planning in green belt and if they would they would have to buy it at full price. So they buy the land and then try to apply retrospectively. That's the reason 90% gets knocked back. The settled comunnity get's 90% accepted becuase they are mainly extensions on existing dwellings in urban areas or new dwelling in brown field plots.
-
Thank you!
How about this for a novel idea... buy a F**king house on the open market and live in it!
Or do we approve of ghettos or segregation if it's elective and part of your "culture" ?
-
I blame Thatcher
-
:}
-
Following up on the discussion with Blue
I watched the TV news coverage of this last night, and was relatively happy with the way the police handled the situation. Considering the footage of quite violent resistance to the eviction there were in fact very few injuries.
Now this morning I read in the papers all kinds stories of heavy handed police approach, which seems a bit rich, considering the protestors were throwing bricks, iron bars, and setting fire to things.
More and more I become disillusioned with todays media.
-
Now - forgive me for being very simplistic here but....
Most of these travellers are actually IRISH...
So where does this cultural identity, heritage fit in? They did not get Irish accents by living in Essex...
If they don't like the UK rule - go back to Ireland - there are plenty of green fields to park your caravans in over there...
-
I heard a spokeswoman from the site say that they had been offered houses by the council but they did not want them as they were travellers and didn't want to be rooted down (which would violate their human rights and dissolve their culture)
I don't want to get too involved in this, because I'm not sufficiently well-informed. But I've heard several Dale Farm residents saying exactly the above.
So culturally they're "travellers" (which implies, er, travel.... ) and don't want to be rooted down. But on the other hand they apparently do want to be rooted down if it's on their own terms in Dale Farm. :?
-
It is not a case of them not getting ALL the planning they want, it's the fact that EIGHT TIMES as many (as a %) traveler applications get denied as those from settled people.
The land was bought at extremely low cost, yes. Because they decided instead of buying land earmarked for development (which they had been doing to no avail) they'd by other land, build on it, apply for permission afterwards and even if it got denied, they reckoned that by the time it all went through they'd have gotten permission for somewhere. They've paid massive money for lots of sites which they get refused planning permission on.
Does that make it ok? No, but it makes it totally understandable.
But according to Afghan Dave they're buying Green Belt land expecting to get planning permission, and then kicking up a fuss when it gets refused? :?
Non-travellers would have this kind of planning permission refused too, but we know the rules and don't start a fight from a losing battle...
-
I heard a spokeswoman from the site say that they had been offered houses by the council but they did not want them as they were travellers and didn't want to be rooted down (which would violate their human rights and dissolve their culture)
I don't want to get too involved in this, because I'm not sufficiently well-informed. But I've heard several Dale Farm residents saying exactly the above.
So culturally they're "travellers" (which implies, er, travel.... ) and don't want to be rooted down. But on the other hand they apparently do want to be rooted down if it's on their own terms in Dale Farm. :?
I think they want to be rooted down in a place with plenty of space that they could not afford legitimately.
They own property back in Ireland accordind to most sources anyway:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8752704/Travellers-facing-eviction-from-Dale-Farm-gipsy-camp-have-their-own-homes-in-Ireland.html
-
Since when has the Telegraph been a 'source'?
-
Now - forgive me for being very simplistic here but....
Most of these travellers are actually IRISH...
So where does this cultural identity, heritage fit in? They did not get Irish accents by living in Essex...
If they don't like the UK rule - go back to Ireland - there are plenty of green fields to park your caravans in over there...
Really? They're British people. Several (at the least) generations from immigrants in most cases.
It is not a case of them not getting ALL the planning they want, it's the fact that EIGHT TIMES as many (as a %) traveler applications get denied as those from settled people.
The land was bought at extremely low cost, yes. Because they decided instead of buying land earmarked for development (which they had been doing to no avail) they'd by other land, build on it, apply for permission afterwards and even if it got denied, they reckoned that by the time it all went through they'd have gotten permission for somewhere. They've paid massive money for lots of sites which they get refused planning permission on.
Does that make it ok? No, but it makes it totally understandable.
But according to Afghan Dave they're buying Green Belt land expecting to get planning permission, and then kicking up a fuss when it gets refused? :?
Non-travellers would have this kind of planning permission refused too, but we know the rules and don't start a fight from a losing battle...
I'm not sure how many times I've said on the previous pages, but it's certainly a few: They bought and built on Dale Farm BECAUSE they get refused planning permission everywhere, hoping that by the time they got moved on they'd have been able to buy and build legitimately.
I heard a spokeswoman from the site say that they had been offered houses by the council but they did not want them as they were travellers and didn't want to be rooted down (which would violate their human rights and dissolve their culture)
I don't want to get too involved in this, because I'm not sufficiently well-informed. But I've heard several Dale Farm residents saying exactly the above.
So culturally they're "travellers" (which implies, er, travel.... ) and don't want to be rooted down. But on the other hand they apparently do want to be rooted down if it's on their own terms in Dale Farm. :?
I think they want to be rooted down in a place with plenty of space that they could not afford legitimately.
They own property back in Ireland accordind to most sources anyway:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8752704/Travellers-facing-eviction-from-Dale-Farm-gipsy-camp-have-their-own-homes-in-Ireland.html
So by actively attempting to buy and build on land legally and using Dale Farm as a stopgap they are trying to buy big areas they couldn't legitimately? Guffaw.
What relevance does their having passed down property in Ireland have to do with their wanting to live in the UK?
The word "traveler" is an easy term which they've taken on, it doesn't have to imply a lifestyle any more than "Welsh" designates a place of residency. Indeed most travelers live in homes within the settled community.
-
nfe
Sorry to disagree but regarding the folk on the news items - the only people with British accents seem to be the activists - the travellers seem to be uniformly Irish
-
Accent =/= nationality.
-
"Not all of them are criminals."
Not all grass is green.
"It's racism"
Choice of lifestyle is not a race, neither is nationality.
"it's culture"
Then chasing them away is culture too. In some regions canabalism is culture.
-
I'm sure there's a point hidden in there :lol:
Incidentally, in legal terms, discrimination based on ethnicity falls under racism. And Irish travelers ARE a distinct ethnicity.
-
"Not all of them are criminals."
Not all grass is green.
"It's racism"
Choice of lifestyle is not a race, neither is nationality.
"it's culture"
Then chasing them away is culture too. In some regions canabalism is culture.
AMEN!
If female circumcision is "in your culture" it doesn't make it right.
I'll say again... BUY A HOUSE & LIVE IN IT!
Do you think I could simply turn up to any "traveller" site with my Winnebago like Chevy Chase on vacation and be welcomed?
They're segregated by their own cultural intolerance.
-
I'm sure there's a point hidden in there :lol:
Incidentally, in legal terms, discrimination based on ethnicity falls under racism. And Irish travelers ARE a distinct ethnicity.
How many generations have you got to be away from the "home country" to be English then?
Let's just self define away any hope of integration..... then bitch about discrimination.
Like when I hear the Islamist c*nts who' have lived for 3 generations in Bradford or Luton, then bang on about the kufar and Pakistan as home.
"You're from England you sh*t!"
-
I'm sure there's a point hidden in there :lol:
Incidentally, in legal terms, discrimination based on ethnicity falls under racism. And Irish travelers ARE a distinct ethnicity.
How many generations have you got to be away from the "home country" to be English then?
Let's just self define away any hope of integration..... then bitch about it!
Irish Travelers and Romany Gypsies are ethnic minorities because they have their own history and traditions which go back hundreds of years. Even if you call them English by nationality, the existence of that history etc which differs to the main population is what makes them an ethnic minority... unless im wrong.
-
I'm sure I could find "a dash of Viking" pissed somewhere into my messy gene pool.
Rape and pillaging is in "my culture" so I assert my human right to practice it.
Or we could stop all this cr@p and when Her Majesty passes, agree to something like this:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
-
If female circumcision is "in your culture" it doesn't make it right.
You're not comparing a nomadic or partly nomadic lifestyle to female circumcision, one hopes? Thought not, so what relevance does it have?
I'll say again... BUY A HOUSE & LIVE IN IT!
Why?
Do you think I could simply turn up to any "traveller" site with my Winnebago like Chevy Chase on vacation and be welcomed?
They're segregated by their own cultural intolerance.
If you are part of a community which has been discriminated against for some time you're probably not all that keen to integrate with the majority population. Especially when they all think you and your whole community is made up exclusively of thieves and criminals. People used to make the same accusation towards black people until folk stopped being morons and understood that it was unacceptable and made efforts to improve their situation - efforts to integrate then came about from the minority community too.
I'm sure there's a point hidden in there :lol:
Incidentally, in legal terms, discrimination based on ethnicity falls under racism. And Irish travelers ARE a distinct ethnicity.
How many generations have you got to be away from the "home country" to be English then?
Let's just self define away any hope of integration..... then bitch about discrimination.
Like when I hear the Islamist c*nts who' have lived for 3 generations in Bradford or Luton, then bang on about the kufar and Pakistan as home.
"You're from England you sh*t!"
If you're eligible for an UK passport you're British in my book. I'm not sure what you're getting at? "English" is an ethnicity, but it's quite possible to be nationally English and ethnically Jewish, for instance. Or nationally French and ethnically English.
I'm sure I could find "a dash of Viking" pissed somewhere into my messy gene pool.
Rape and pillaging is in "my culture" so I assert my human right to practice it.
Gods, you ARE likening harmless cultural traditions to harmful ones :lol:
-
I don't get the discrimination bit.
If I went into a farmer's field and built a house without planning permission or parked my caravan there and made a huge mess could I claim discrimination on ethnic grounds on the basis that the law was written in English, which is not my first language and therefore does not apply to me, or that all Welsh people are genetically messy bar-stewards?
-
I don't get the discrimination bit.
If I went into a farmer's field and built a house without planning permission or parked my caravan there and made a huge mess could I claim discrimination on ethnic grounds on the basis that the law was written in English, which is not my first language and therefore does not apply to me, or that all Welsh people are genetically messy bar-stewards?
Have you read through the thread?
90% of planning application made by travelers on land they own are knocked back. Compared with 20% of settled people.
The blatant disregard of their entire community as scoundrels by the majority of the nation might be cited as somewhat discriminatory, too. Just a touch.
-
Ye gods, what kind of thread have I started?
:lol:
One thing I'm never particularly happy with is the generic term "traveller", as that just seems to be too generic a term for a group that is clearly made up of distinct sets of cultures, ethnicities and background, including your "traditional romany travelling folk" (to quote Viz) and your traditional post graduate crusties.
Also - I'm wary on some of the stats being used here; 90% of planning applications may have been rejected for travellers, but the question must surely be "why?"... because they are raised by travellers, or because they would get turned down anyway? It's likely to be traveller interest groups publishing the data...
-
I don't get the discrimination bit.
If I went into a farmer's field and built a house without planning permission or parked my caravan there and made a huge mess could I claim discrimination on ethnic grounds on the basis that the law was written in English, which is not my first language and therefore does not apply to me, or that all Welsh people are genetically messy bar-stewards?
No we're generally just an argumentative bunch, but we're allowed to be like that as it's our culture. So I'm off to burn some holiday houses - read caravans - in Borth whilst singing 'Ta Ta, Ty Ha' as it's all just part of our culture and stuff.
Back to the point, I'd like to see both sides of the fence support their arguments with references to documentation that collaborates their statement please. Otherwise I'm going to have to think you're all talking bollocks.
-
nfe, have you read the thread?
People who you at one point said were living among us, unrecognisable because they weren't wearing "Gypo" ID are also according to you apparently so different that because they 90% of the time apply for retrospective planning permission on Green Belt land and get it rejected 90% of the time... (don't know about the validity of any of your figures but on green belt i'd hope it would be 100% rejection)
They ARE NOT different to us!
Black, White, Jew or Afghan.
That's the price we all pay for equality under the law.... You can't pick and choose discrimination only when it becomes advantageous.
They break the law... then use the law when it suits.
They build ghettos.
Do you believe we (regardless of ethnicity) should be moving toward or away from these values?
-
90% of planning application made by travelers on land they own are knocked back. Compared with 20% of settled people.
"Mr planner, i'd like to build a conservatory or loft conversion"
Vs
"Mr planner, i'd like to settle my community on this land and build a road for access & I need school places and NHS resources earmarked for those who come and... oh btw... it's only a bit greenbelt. That OK? Cause I've done most of this already over the last bank holiday when your office was closed"
Take a guess why there might appear to be a disparity in approval rates..
-
Ye gods, what kind of thread have I started?
:lol:
One thing I'm never particularly happy with is the generic term "traveller", as that just seems to be too generic a term for a group that is clearly made up of distinct sets of cultures, ethnicities and background, including your "traditional romany travelling folk" (to quote Viz) and your traditional post graduate crusties.
Also - I'm wary on some of the stats being used here; 90% of planning applications may have been rejected for travellers, but the question must surely be "why?"... because they are raised by travellers, or because they would get turned down anyway? It's likely to be traveller interest groups publishing the data...
Etymology is definitely a problem. I tend to use traveler to mean Irish travelers and specifically say Roma/Romani if I am referring to those folks.
I've looked for data on actual reasoning for refusals of permission but have struggled to find any. I suppose it might be confidential? There was the example I gave of the Basildon Council official stating on record on a radio show that they turned down traveler applications on the basis that "We have enough of them".
I don't get the discrimination bit.
If I went into a farmer's field and built a house without planning permission or parked my caravan there and made a huge mess could I claim discrimination on ethnic grounds on the basis that the law was written in English, which is not my first language and therefore does not apply to me, or that all Welsh people are genetically messy bar-stewards?
No we're generally just an argumentative bunch, but we're allowed to be like that as it's our culture. So I'm off to burn some holiday houses - read caravans - in Borth whilst singing 'Ta Ta, Ty Ha' as it's all just part of our culture and stuff.
Back to the point, I'd like to see both sides of the fence support their arguments with references to documentation that collaborates their statement please. Otherwise I'm going to have to think you're all talking bollocks.
Documentation on what specifically?
nfe, have you read the thread?
Yes.
People who you at one point said were living among us, unrecognisable because they weren't wearing "Gypo" ID are also according to you apparently so different that because they 90% of the time apply for retrospective planning permission on Green Belt land and get it rejected 90% of the time... (don't know about the validity of any of your figures but on green belt i'd hope it would be 100% rejection)
I didn't say they were different because of anything to do with planning permission. I've also never said that the apply for retrospective planning permission 90% of the time on Green Belt land (half of Dale Farm and an Essex site are the only cases of their building on Green Belt land that I'm aware of).
They ARE NOT different to us!
Black, White, Jew or Afghan.
That's the price we all pay for equality under the law.... You can't pick and choose discrimination only when it becomes advantageous.
They are a distinct ethnicity. Whether you think that makes them "different" or not is irrelevant. I don't think it does either, but lots of people do, and BEHAVE like it does. And that's what has impact.
They break the law... then use the law when it suits.
They build ghettos.
Some do. Just like some of all other communities.
Do you believe we (regardless of ethnicity) should be moving toward or away from these values?
Is that a joke? Away, quite obviously. I do not, however, think we need to attempt to create a nation which opposes people following harmless traditions, like living in a caravan if you so choose.
90% of planning application made by travelers on land they own are knocked back. Compared with 20% of settled people.
"Mr planner, i'd like to build a conservatory or loft conversion"
Vs
"Mr planner, i'd like to settle my community on this land and build a road for access & I need school places and NHS resources earmarked for those who come and... oh btw... it's only a bit greenbelt. That OK? Cause I've done most of this already over the last bank holiday when your office was closed"
Take a guess why there might appear to be a disparity in approval rates..
Would you like to find me some examples (other than Dale Farm or the Essex site which did get planning permission) of people trying to get planning permission on Green Belt?
I thought they didn't bother going to school?
-
I can't be arsed to edit the quote NFE, but as an example of what I'd like to see, can you point me in the direction of the information about the planning permission statistics you're stating please. You may have linked, but I may have missed it, so apols. if I have.
At the moment I lack enough facts to form an unbiased opinion. All I see in the previous posts - by all sides - is a pile of hyperbole.
'kinell, look at that, a Taff using hyperbole, oh me Mam would have been proud!
-
I originally pulled it from the IPPR, but their search function isn't working. This article cites it (as do tons): http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/09/local-authorities-rights
-
Shobet,
Duw, there's posh, in it?
-
I originally pulled it from the IPPR, but their search function isn't working. This article cites it (as do tons): http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/09/local-authorities-rights
Why have settled peoples refusals changed from 10% to 20% during the course of the thread? Will the travellers change to 80% in a few pages?
I don't get why you think the approval rates should be the same? Do you not think setled people in urban areas might have a better chance of putting up a boundary wall or conservatory than a new dwelling that has a good chance of being in Greenbelt?
I work for a company who make planning applications for a large FTSE100 company and it makes no difference to the decisions we get. The decision is arbitary. If you do not make their criteria, it fails. If you appeal it might still fail, it does not matter who you are at all. It also depends on the local population if there is a consultation their comments are taken into consideration.
I also know a guy who was a local planner. He told me stories of being offered money, threatened with a gun and harrased but he would never change a decision no matter what. Like a parking attendant, if he wants to issue a ticket he will.
So the reason the applications fail is that they do not meet the criteria for them to pass.
BTW tou're tarring them all with the same brush as much as the people that call them all theives.
They want equal treatment
Some might but since you are not their spokesman you wouldn't know that they all do. How do you know what a whole race want's. If they all got equal treatment many of them would be f%$cked. Once you get equal treatment the authorities come right into you community and I don't think every 30,000 of them would like that too much.
-
Shobet,
Duw, there's posh, in it?
Dim ond saeson twp a cegau mawr!
-
I originally pulled it from the IPPR, but their search function isn't working. This article cites it (as do tons): http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/09/local-authorities-rights
Why have settled peoples refusals changed from 10% to 20% during the course of the thread? Will the travellers change to 80% in a few pages?
It hasn't. Or rather, if it has, it was a typo.
I don't get why you think the approval rates should be the same?
I don't.
Do you not think setled people in urban areas might have a better chance of putting up a boundary wall or conservatory than a new dwelling that has a good chance of being in Greenbelt?
Yep. But by that margin?
And "good chance of being in Green Belt"? I know of two examples*. One of which has planning permission. Do you know of loads in order to make that statement?
*Though there may well be more. It's totally legal to build new sites on the Green Belt on previously developed land.
BTW tou're tarring them all with the same brush as much as the people that call them all theives.
I'm definitely not.
They want equal treatment
Some might but since you are not their spokesman you wouldn't know that they all do. How do you know what a whole race want's. If they all got equal treatment many of them would be f%$cked. Once you get equal treatment the authorities come right into you community and I don't think every 30,000 of them would like that too much.
They're not a race. I've not said they universally want equal treatment, every time when I've said "they" it should be pretty clear that I'm generalising since in most of the same posts I've acknowledged that their ARE criminals and arseholes amongst the populations and also that there IS a higher number of them as a percentage than found within the settled community.
-
Just out of interest nfe, were you just as outraged when Brits had their homes in Spain bulldozed for not meeting Spanish Planning laws?
Or not being a minority, do they not matter as much? I don't recall the UN or Unicef getting involved....
FWIW, I'd let them all stay on Dale Farm if it was my choice, if they are settled there why not. Get them all paying council tax and pay for a new school somewhere.
-
Don't know anything about Brits in Spain having their houses knocked down.
-
Don't know anything about Brits in Spain having their houses knocked down.
Exactly, that speaks volumes.
-
probably serves em right for going over there, taking local peoples jobs, all living in the same area and refusing to integrate with the rest of the population, being an added burden to local heathcare services... pff. the english!
-
Does it? I'm busy and generally read UK-centric press.
30 seconds on google tells me it was a crackdown on housing fraud and corruption, which saw mayors and officials arrested and Prime Minister's houses taken down. Brits owned some of them, so did a smorgasbord of disparate people. So it hardly seems to be a comparable situation, nor one that should breed outrage, more sympathy for the people who bought homes not knowing they were illegal (which prosecutors seem to think were in the significant minority).
-
..more sympathy for the people who bought homes not knowing they were illegal (which prosecutors seem to think were in the significant minority).
That's the "minority" I read and cared about.
They should have recruited the rent-a-mob from Dale Farm on a Spanish jolly under the cry of:
"As settled, tax paying, law abiding British citizens being granted planning permission is part of our culture - it happens 90% of the time in the Old Country!"
-
Just heard Police marksmen opened fire at Dale Farm.
One of them won a goldfish and a go on the dodgems.
-
nfe
Unfortunately most people's experience of travellers is not that of law-abiding folks, who just want to be left alone to have a quiet life. Hence the lack of sympathy to their situation.
I would also come back to the question of ethnicity - if these travellers are IRISH travellers, as you suggest, why are they not travelling in IRELAND? If that is their cultural heritage, what makes Ireland so much less attractive than Britain? I just can't reconcile the dichotomy of wanting to retain their Irish cultural roots and heritage but not actually wanting to live in Ireland.
-
a lot came because of the potato famine (middle of the 1800's) and for labour during WWII, some maybe even came after the Irish famine of the 1700's. Romani people have been here since the 1600's easily.
-
a lot came because of the potato famine (middle of the 1800's) and for labour during WWII, some maybe even came after the Irish famine of the 1700's. Romani people have been here since the 1600's easily.
A guru of mine once said:
‘If it was only the potatoes that were affected, at the end of the day, you will pay the price for being a fussy eater. If they could afford to emigrate, they could afford to eat at a modest restaurant.’
-
a lot came because of the potato famine (middle of the 1800's) and for labour during WWII, some maybe even came after the Irish famine of the 1700's. Romani people have been here since the 1600's easily.
A guru of mine once said:
‘If it was only the potatoes that were affected, at the end of the day, you will pay the price for being a fussy eater. If they could afford to emigrate, they could afford to eat at a modest restaurant.’
was your guru ever on the Jeremy Kyle show?
oh i see... Alan Partridge.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Aw4w2oldXHw/S6ux0gt4ntI/AAAAAAAAABY/y6FJIpZOCKk/s320/Afbeelding+Alan+Partridge.jpg)
-
Just heard Police marksmen opened fire at Dale Farm.
One of them won a goldfish and a go on the dodgems.
Nice to see a bit of levity in this thread.
-
probably serves em right for going over there, taking local peoples jobs, all living in the same area and refusing to integrate with the rest of the population, being an added burden to local heathcare services... pff. the english!
Yeah, never mind the fact that the council blew out 20 million £ for that, which are going have to be cut from somewhere.
-
nfe
Unfortunately most people's experience of travellers is not that of law-abiding folks, who just want to be left alone to have a quiet life. Hence the lack of sympathy to their situation.
As earlier, I'd attest that the vast majority of people's experience with travellers is actually positive -they just don't know they're dealing with travellers and so it's the ones living up to the stereotype that they notice.
would also come back to the question of ethnicity - if these travellers are IRISH travellers, as you suggest, why are they not travelling in IRELAND? If that is their cultural heritage, what makes Ireland so much less attractive than Britain? I just can't reconcile the dichotomy of wanting to retain their Irish cultural roots and heritage but not actually wanting to live in Ireland.
Should all English people live in England? Should all Muslims live in Muslim majority nations?
-
Nope but if you live anywhere then you have to abide by the laws of the country in which you live....
-
Absolutely. That's not at all what your statement says though. And the majority do. Getting back to tarring a whole community for the misdemeanors of a minority of arseholes again...
-
Good God man... Can't you see that most people who's opinion is worth caring about generally don't give a shiteee about divisive ideas based on culture or race?
That's a massive leap forward!
Something that should be embraced.
The ones who seem hell bent to shout about it and care most about their status as "outsiders" are the self selecting "minorities" because it has become highly beneficial.
The also goes for the people who seek to justify their actions.
"We're SO different"
THEIR actions cost the taxpayer 20+ million because they want to be "special" & that goes double for the professional activists who are as egocentric as any banker or politician they despise.
They define themselves via opposition or group differentiation.
How about being an "individual"!
What part of equality don't you understand?
-
Agree
"We want to be treated equally but we want special treatment on the basis of....(INSERT AS APPROPRIATE)"
-
I wasn't going to join in this thread as these boards are usually such a lovely place, but you only live once.
I don't know much about the politics of the situation, but I do know quite a bit about Planning. If you apply for retrospective planning on something, then you really can't be suprised if it gets knocked back. I build a lot of shite, generally as part of a much larger building shite excercise. I've only ever known one person dumb enough to apply for retrospective planning on a building project and the only reason he got it was that he had a quiet word with the Queen over lunch and she got the Secretary of State to sort it out.
Building something and applying for planning afterwards is not the same as adding a skylight and then applying (although I don't think you need to apply for skylights anymore). When we say that 90% of the applications have been knocked back, then I'd like to see what they've been knocked back for rather than just the percentage.
-
Just heard Police marksmen opened fire at Dale Farm.
One of them won a goldfish and a go on the dodgems.
Nice to see a bit of levity in this thread.
It seems to have disappeared again. I might post some pictures of kittens.
-
Good God man... Can't you see that most people who's opinion is worth caring about generally don't give a shiteeeeeee about divisive ideas based on culture or race?
That's a massive leap forward!
If it was remotely true it would be. Of course it isn't. Well, I suppose with the qualification of 'worth caring about' it can be, but the overwhelming majority of the nation care very much about cultural divisions. A great shame.
Even if they didn't, not caring about social divisions of that nature DOES NOT mean those cultures should be forced to disappear.
The ones who seem hell bent to shout about it
Like the 'why don't you live in a house!' cretins?
and care most about their status as "outsiders" are the self selecting "minorities" because it has become highly beneficial.
Let's not make monstrous generalisations, eh? It definitely can't be the case that some people just enjoy living in a fashion that they identify with. Should probably stop Scots wearing kilts and English people wearing football strips if they live abroad . Fucking awkward, self serving outsider separatists.
The also goes for the people who seek to justify their actions.
"We're SO different"
Eh?
THEIR actions cost the taxpayer 20+ million because they want to be "special"
The council's action costs the taxpayer money. The council's efforts to push a 'problem' onto another area whilst refusing to adhere to their superior body's requests.
That goes double for the professional activists who are as egocentric as any banker or politician they despise.
Yep.
They define themselves via opposition or group differentiation.
How about being an "individual"!
I'm an individual. Can I not be part of a community too? Are being Scottish and an individual mutually exclusive?
What part of equality don't you understand?
I'm pretty confident I understand it fully. Do you? At all?
I actually find your general line here a bit revolting (if I read it correctly, I quite hope I don't) it seems you've expanded from generalised digs at :shock: :shock:one community to think that any communal tradition is a negative and appear not to be able to comprehend that community identity exists, is not automatically a bad thing, does not prevent integration unless the majority community forces it to do so and frankly should be encouraged. Multiculturalism makes the world exciting. We don't want homogenous boredom.
All of the above is written from a hungover haze on a phone, please forgive the spelling abortions that predictive texts may have laden on me :lol:
-
The barefaced hypocrisy of seeking redress through the courts whilst standing outside the system when it suits seems not to have registered.
The exacts limits of "Freedom To Vs Freedom From" appear to be as little understood today as when Berlin wrote Two Concepts of Liberty.
A man can be part of a family / a village / a county / a country / a football club... choose whatever self image you want as and when appropriate.
A man can choose when a single sub identity can trump the other myriad identities he passes through every day of his life.
He is still a man & a man in a civilised democratic society MUST stand within or contra to the law.
Democracy is your tool to change that law. It may be a blunt instrument with many faults but it has worked for good and minimised harm when in the hands of good men.
And, I have consistently defended the premiss of equality and should that line revolt you I suggest we shall never see eye to eye.
-
The council's action costs the taxpayer money. The council's efforts to push a 'problem' onto another area whilst refusing to adhere to their superior body's requests.
That local council was defending the rights of its own community - the Basildon electorate - under the LAW.
That is a democratic community of many sub cultures and races.
On a wider level it was defending the rule of law - a concept which underpins all our rights and freedoms.
-
I quote quite clearly what I found revolting and it's not what you've just tried to crowbar into my mouth.
You obviously still can't grasp that it is not a whole community which exists outside the law, but is a whole community which is ostracised. Is it honestly so difficult a concept?
Regards the second post: I cited earlier Basildon council's legal requirement to find plots for many (still on phone, can't be arsed to check exact number) travellers which would be given planning permission so the could buy them and simply didn't bother.
Moving them from that site is perfectly fine under law, and was something the community were perfectly happy to do provided any of the dozens of sites they applied for planning permission for were granted. Alas...
-
You obviously still can't grasp that it is not a whole community which exists outside the law, but is a whole community which is ostracised. Is it honestly so difficult a concept?
No and by YOUR OWN WORDS earlier you said many live together with and are fully accepted by the settled community.
Once again I remind you of your statement that we wouldn't know because they don't wear a "thieving gypo" badge or somesuch...
Are they any less "travellers" by your classification? No.
So in your own earlier posts you made it clear the entire "community" (and oh what a flexible definition that is) ARE NOT OSTRACISED!
Only that part that break the law or segregate THEMSELVES.
PDT_038
-
The entire community ARE ostracised. Often not to their faces, because people simply don't knowe they're dealing with them, but continually in print and in dialogue. Its not exactly uncommon to hear someone state that 'Pikeys are all thieves' and it's socially acceptable to do so. Which is appalling - it's every bit as offensive as if you were to swap pikey for nigger or spic.
-
So we're reading peoples minds now?
"Often not to their faces" :o
I'd like to know what "immaterial ostracism" looks like... :lol:
-
Just think for two minutes :lol: Fifty years ago there were plenty Pakistani shopkeepers accepted by the communities they worked within, but no one sensible would argue asian people were accepted as a whole. Similarly plenty traveller individuals are entirely accepted whilst their community is denigrated. A general "Yeah, he's ok for a Paki, but the rest of them..." applies.
-
Some people seem to love presupposing petty prejudices and righteous finger wagging at perceived injustice don't they... ?
Let me tell ya, as an immigrant from a small place kinda close to Pakistan, some of us are doing OK and not feeling too ostracised.
It's called progress and integration.
I've lived a life under all the laws of this land, I've questioned some but I have a vote here and I'm grateful for it and use it. I lobby my MP too!
And guess what I'm no less Afghan for it!
Funny that... But thanks for your concern.
-
You appear not to have actually read my post.
-
You can't get past it can you?
ME vs WE vs I vs US...
(I'll feel more comfortable to use Afghan instead of "Pakistani" because I am one)
If I were an Afghan shopkeeper 50 YEARS AGO (how is that still relevant?) and I was totally accepted by my community (my British community) I'd be happy.
THEY are as much MY community as ANY other!
I have no duty or right to speak for ALL Afghans, Nobody has a special obligation to me because of it.
I have no duty or right to speak for all shopkeepers!
Let them each make up their own minds about me... I'm NOT all Afghans or all shopkeepers so why do I care if some people don't like some Afghans?
I don't like some Afghans and nobody ever said I had to to still be one.
BUT THE CRUCIAL THING IS I HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED... Great Stuff!
-
It's relevant as an example because it seemed to be a monstrous leap to actually grasp what I was saying. Of course individuals can be perfectly happy if they're accepted. And yes, a person's local community is their local community, irrespective of race, ethnicity, nationality and so on.
Have I opposed this at any stage?
Was it an issue that once upon a time it was socially acceptable to slag off Jews as an ethnicity? Or was it an issue that once upon a time it was socially acceptable to slag off black people as a race? Didn't those things hinder integration? Or were both of those things fine and dandy?
-
I advise you to stop guessing what the experiences of any group that you are not a part of might be.
I also think it unwise for any individual to speak for a group they are part of unless they have a mandate.
Speak for yourself and expect to be judged as an individual is my motto...
-
Guffaw. What guesses was I making there? Was it not socially acceptable once upon a time to badmouth certain ethnicities? Have I guessed that?
Nor am I speaking for any group. I'm commenting on reasons why a division is in place with this particular community that leads to it further separating itself.
Expecting to be treated as an individual is all fine and well, but if others treat you as a single entity, and negatively, folks are inclined to band together, and some are indeed likely then to live up to the stereotype imposed upon them. This is hardly a questionable observation.
EDIT: And by all means answer my question. Because if those things weren't ok, I'm curious why we shouldn't care about the same type of opinions being held about travelers?
-
I'm enjoying this thread.
-
"Was it not socially acceptable once upon a time to badmouth certain ethnicities? Have I guessed that?"
Yes you are guessing that.
Was it more prevalent? Yes.
Was it right? Never.
Good people didn't do it then and good people don't do it now!
Is it right to criticise lawbreakers of ANY race religion or community? YES!
Is segregation right? NO - It is either racism or inverted racism.
You obviously believe in some sort of moral relativism. That what is right or wrong changes over time or between cultures.
If that's your standpoint I think we've found the "mental block" you're suffering from.
It's OK you're not alone there are many like you. You are part of a "community" of moral relativists. :lol:
-
I said socially acceptable, I did not say right.
Regards moral relativism, there is no objective morality, so all morality is subjective and relative.
And it isn't remotely a guess on that point, it's a fact.
Edit: I also agree with Frank, it's jolly fun.
-
Regards moral relativism, there is no objective morality, so all morality is subjective and relative.
And it isn't remotely a guess on that point, it's a fact.
That's fine, I already said it was OK.
We've spent alot of time uncovering the justification behind your perspective on Dale Farm. And now I see it is underpinned by moral relativism.
I've never been convinced of moral relativism. But each to his own
May I add that after many years of talking with and studying Moral Relativists not one has called it a FACT.
You seem alot more confident of your FACTS than any of the deontologists I've studied. So when your work gets published I promise to read it with vigour.
Back on topic....
THE LAW IS NOT RELATIVE - THE PEOPLE ON DALE FARM BROKE IT.
-
I didn't call moral relativism a fact (though I suppose my lack of specifity might make it read like that) Though I think, is you're an atheist, it is.
And yes, they broke the law. I don't mean to excuse that, just argue that it's understandable given the circumstances.
-
I'm enjoying this thread.
I'm not. Don't know why I'm reading it really.
(Philly No Mates :| )
-
I'm enjoying this thread.
I'm not. Don't know why I'm reading it really.
(Philly No Mates :| )
Shhh... It's Daves go now.
-
:lol:
-
What pickups for Pikey-Metal?
-
Mules, defo.
-
What pickups for Pikey-Metal?
Stolen ones nailed into a guitar to stop anyone from removing them... They wont work either. :lol:
-
Irish Tourers, surely..?
-
And the prize goes to Mr Bump PDT_015
The man who started it has finished it with aplomb..
-
Afghan Dave - didn't realise that you are called Afghan Dave 'cos you really are Afghan!
Passed me by somehow!
-
Yes, I'm actually an Afghan Irish Yorkshireman + I could get a USA passport as well.
It's f**king hard to find an Anglo Afghan Irish community to hang out with!
I'm so lonely :(
http://youtu.be/xh_9QhRzJEs
-
So, the Irish part...
Was this from some travellers who found their way to Bradford via Kabul?
:lol:
-
Sadly not noble traveller folks... just a law abiding mother who felt actual travelling offered more opportunities than making a nuisance of yourself in Essex. :lol:
I mean she regrets it now, cause quite frankly Afghanistan is a shitee hole and Bradford isn't much better but you live and learn.
I think Bradford really went downhill because of too many bloody immigrants.
Send 'em home I say! :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I can sense a whole new thread starting here.....
-
PDT_023
No!!!
Go here.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/index.html
-
Ah! THe good old Daily Fascist!
-
Strange how corporatism is confused with capitalism and then confused with democracy.
-
Good point.
-
Strange how corporatism is confused with capitalism and then confused with democracy.
Regularly so. But has it come up anywhere in this thread? :?
-
Strange how corporatism is confused with capitalism and then confused with democracy.
Regularly so. But has it come up anywhere in this thread? :?
No, I was referring to the Daily Mail link and all the other stuff in the media.
It looks like both sides of the media are singling out the idiots.
There are real problems going on and to solve that we need to see beyond political dogmas.