Dale Farm

[mikeluke]

Agree

"We want to be treated equally but we want special treatment on the basis of....(INSERT AS APPROPRIATE)"

[ToneMonkey]

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.

[Frank]

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.

[nfe]

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:

[Afghan Dave]

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.

[Afghan Dave]

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.

[nfe]

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...

[Afghan Dave]

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

[nfe]

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.

[Afghan Dave]

So we're reading peoples minds now?

"Often not to their faces"  :o

I'd like to know what "immaterial ostracism" looks like...  :lol:

[nfe]

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.

[Afghan Dave]

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.

[nfe]

You appear not to have actually read my post.

[Afghan Dave]

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!

[nfe]

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?