Dale Farm

[nfe]

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.

[MrBump]

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...

[shobet]

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.

[Afghan Dave]

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?

[Afghan Dave]

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..

[nfe]

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?

[shobet]

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!

[nfe]

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

[mikeluke]

Shobet,

Duw, there's posh, in it?

[tomjackson]

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]

Shobet,

Duw, there's posh, in it?

Dim ond saeson twp a cegau mawr!

[nfe]

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.

[tomjackson]

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.  

[nfe]

Don't know anything about Brits in Spain having their houses knocked down.

[Afghan Dave]

Don't know anything about Brits in Spain having their houses knocked down.

Exactly, that speaks volumes.