Travellers

GMA - as I explained in my earlier post the men may well be away working. The women tend to have had more formal schooling, because they have spent more time at settled sites, helping with the younger children and atrtending school. It tends to be the women who attend to 'business' on behalf of their families. We had (have?) a local travellers liaison group and the attendees were exclusively women and children.

During my working life I learnt a great deal about traveller culture which IS different but in many ways much stricter and more moral than standard 'British' way of life. As in all cultures some people adhere to the codes and some do not.

Zepharine says How would you feel if someone bought land next to you and set up a motor bike track, or a caravan site - well the answer to that is very annoyed but we would just have to suck it up. Our village has trebled in size over the last few years with the addition of dormitory housing, in spite of objections from every local organisation, residents, councillors, petitions - resulting in overload of schools, community facilities and the drainage system. The stringent planning regulations are no barrier to development, even in green belt, when money and big business are involved. Methinks it is the Planning Laws which are in need of overhaul such that they serve the ordinary populace (including travellers) rather than the interests of the rich and powerful.

One further wee aside - the whole family had a lovely sunny day out and picnic last month at beautiful Loch Lubnaig, only spolied by the discovery that every tree, boulder and bush in the vicinity had a pile of poo and paper hankies behind it -(and not a gypsy traveller in sight!).

Yet more rational words from Granny23 Thank you.

PS G23 that happens in popular tourist spots here in Wales, too, and most of our visitors are people enjoying the scenery (when not behind trees, boulders or bushes, that is).

Well said, granny23. We are constantly shocked by the mess left behind in Scotland by visitors to the beautiful countryside. A friend of mine runs mountain marathons and she always carries a bag just for collecting the litter she finds up mountains!!! You'd think people who like walking in the hills would look after them, but no. Of course, it only takes a few slobs to spoil it for the rest of us. What beats me is that they carry full cans/bottles up the hill but leave the much lighter empty ones instead of carrying them away again. People are weird.

And planning laws, as you say, are even weirder, and very unfair.

No doubt Baggy these are the same people who drop litter in towns too!!
I'm just far enough away from the 'corner' shop ...to get all sorts dropped over my garden wall.
I, too, like fell and mountain walking (though never visited Scotland to do so) and am shocked by what people leave behind.
Whatever happened to the "leave nothing but footprints ...take nothing but pictures"?

Granny23. They need this book. www.amazon.co.uk/How-Shit-Woods-Environmentally-Approach/dp/0898156270

Wise words granny23. The phrase "fiddle while Rome burns" springs to mind. I am referring to the proposed legislation to dramatically change the planning system. At the moment the proposals are out for consultation. However after watching Jeremy Paxman interview Greg Clarke MP it was apparent to me that whatever the outcome of the consultation the Tories intend to implement their changes. The green belt protection that we have now will be under threat. Local authorities will find it more difficult to refuse planning to supermarkets, new roads or housing development. Iconic landscapes will be lost forever. The planning system we have at present protects all that we love about the English countryside. I don't live in the countryside, I am a Londoner. Maybe that's what makes be appreciate our wide open spaces all the more. The National Trust, RSPB, WWF and more have grave reservations. Come on all you Grans - get your banners out!!

Yes, Supernan. I find the proposals really worrying too.

What with our government going down this road, and Obama backing out of his committments to reduce emmsisions, it gets very depressing.

And all in the name of economic growth.

Much more important than our planet, of course.

Perhaps they should go and build a few industrial units in the extensive grounds of the bankers' country houses.

Oh ...like that idea jangly

Didn't the government propose something about selling off woodlands earlier? Wasn't there such a fuss that they dropped the idea? Or am I imagining it?

This does seem to be a "listening" government - that is, it changes its mind when there is sufficient public outcry. I wonder if they are worrying about the next election? By then the economy is likely to be in such a mess, they will need all the friends they can get...

One thing that never changes, though is the importance of big business. No good trying to fight an election if you haven't enough money to do it properly.

By the way, the green belt is not being threatened - it is a bit of a sacred cow. What is beign threatened is the countryside - that is, beyond the green belt, which is just a cordon sanitaire around towns, preventing them from spreading out too much. I think it is a 60s invention, but I may be wrong there. So actually, it is bankers' country houses that are being threatened, or would be if any of the wretched individuals actually lived in the UK.

Nothing wrong with people 'travelling' quite fancy being footloose myself. But once you decide to become a permanent part of any community you should abide by the basic rules of that community.Yes, these people have the right to send their children to school and all the other benefits that anyone else can claim. However, they do not have the right to live outside the laws that the rest of us have to abide by.

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England has said "The green belt is under threat from a new community right to build that will allow a local referendum to overrule protection for the countryside". That doesn't sound like 'beyond the green belt' to me Jangran.

Since I posted, I have had mixed messages about that one, so I am no longer sure. But all the same, the main point is relaxing "restrictions" so that developers can get their way. They mostly do anyway, so it won't make much difference, except that they will be able to do it in what we commonly regard as no-go areas for building.

And, I think I am right here, there is masses of undeveloped "brown field" land that developers own but are just sitting on waiting for better times. Close to me is a 1920s originating industrial complex rusting away in an exceptionally ugly fashion. It already has planning permission for an "urban village".

In any case, does anyone really believe that the main reason we are in a depression is because of unnecessarily restricted planning rules? Or that some people are occupying land that they own but do not have planning permission for? Or a 50% tax rate on high earners for that matter.

Just like the previous governments, this one is dealing with only one side of the problem - the wrong side.

I agree about the mess that travellers leave behind but I do wonder about the difference between true travellers and others. I knew of a traveller couple who built a house [all above board] to live in and genuinely couldn't live in it..their children moved into the house but they continued to live in a caravan in the garden. Took themselves off travelling periodically. They absolutely couldn't live any other way. And, in the days when I had a pony it was always a traveller friend that I turned to for advice about her health before I contacted a vet; one of them turned up in their real gypsy caravan one day with two beautiful coloured ponies pulling it; quite a site But, why some of them are supposed to love the countryside and yet leave so much detritus behind them is beyond me. Didn't Barbara Cartland [of all people] support the travellers years ago?

Eviction day! Watching with dread and hoping there is a peaceful resolution.

Good debate folks. There is right and wrong on both sides. And different traveller groups as well. I live in an area where there were, at one time, lots of travellers passing through and I used to walk past them while out with my dog. Some were well off with huge trucks etc and some had very little. Some left the area in a mess and some left no trace, or at least made the effort to bag up their refuse when they left/were evicted.
We house-dwellers are the dominant culture and we make all the rules. There is not much space in the country we have created for travellers is there? Go back 150 years and maybe people were more welcoming to the tinker/travelling family that mended their pots and pans, provided cheap temporary labour on the land or sold trinkets to country housewives?
Our houses permanently change the land and use a huge amount of resource. Lots of us break the law... Is there anyone who can stand up and say that they have never broken a single law of the land.
There are no easy answers.

I don't think they are 'travellers' if they have a permanent site. And if they have a permanent site, do they pay council tax for the services they use?

As for the human waste found in beauty spots, I agree this is awful but where are the toilets??? Some providers build loos that blend in with the landscape and are not eye sores eg have grass roofs

What ethnic group do 'travellers' consider themselves -they have'nt moved for ten years so certainly don't qualify as travellers, unless of course they use their Social Services payments for oversease holidays!!!

The so called 'travellers' are actively disliked by most citizens and you probably hit the nail on the head, nothing to do with colour, race or creed just the fact that they happily disregard the law and expect the public
to support them.

Some years ago we had a traveller site up in the woods close to where we live, about 200 caravans. One day decided to do a walk through the woods which would take us past the site, thinking it would be a friendly experience. However, people came out of their caravans and stared in a hostile, even threatening manner, dogs barked, one child even threw a stone. So much for live and let live. I don't know whether it's true that most people don't like travellers (as someone said above) but I get the feeling some travellers don't like non-travellers very much (unless it's Vanessa Redgrave)!

FirstDruid - The so called 'travellers' are actively disliked by most citizens Really? Which extensive survey did you glean that 'fact' from? Even on this thread there have been as many supporters as detractors. Replace 'actively disliked' with 'tolerated' and you might be nearer the mark.

Please consider for a minute or two the difficulties faced by people who prefer a travelling rather than a settled life style. Hounded and evicted from most of their traditional stop over places, unable to register with a doctor or dentist, no entitlement to Social Security benefits, or right to vote UNLESS THEY HAVE A PERMANENT ADDRESS, required by law to send their children to school but struggling to find schools which will accept them short term. Little wonder that many are trying and sometimes failing, to adapt to a settled lifestyle. I cannot help but think that if this were some native animal or bird species whose habitat was under threat that the public and the powers that be, would be pulling out all the stops to help them survive.

I do not understand your comment about colour, race and creed. Why should any of these be an issue in this discussion? Or do you consider that it is OK to make prejudiced remarks as long as they are against those with whom you share a colour, race and creed?

Granny23 I feel in tune with much of what you have said and find the idea of people being evicted from their homes quite distressing, even though there seems to be sound legal reasons for it. It would, of course, have been better if a negotiated settlement could have been reached some years ago – and there goes another flying pig. However, the issue of "race" or "ethnicity" is not something invented on gransnet and there have been accusations of ethnic cleansing. I think this might be why the UN felt called upon to intervene – pity they didn't do it with Rwanda. Travellers are, apparently, a discrete ethnic group, though who decides this and on what scientific basis has never been explained.

I am all in favour of the travelling life style and allowing people to live their lives as they choose, but not when it affects others in a negative way. We had some travellers camp in a public field next to our house. There is a play area near by that all the local primary school kids stop at on the way home from school, my GCs included. We have never had ANY problems with any of the school kids playing together there, but the first time the travelling kids were there one of then scowled at my GS and kicked him hard, at the top of the slide, and then just stared at me defiantly. As a result we had to leave as no way was I going to say anything, and anyway there were no parents of the travelling kids there either. Also when they were moved off the field the mess that was left, including human waste, was dreadful. I tried to keep an open mind but I am afraid my feelings were very negative as a result. When the police were asked to move them on, the people who requested this were told that the travellers have rights. Do we not have rights too? I chose, and paid money to live next to an open space. Surely I have the right for my GCs to play without fear of being abused by a travelling child, and to be allowed to enjoy that space and not worry about what my dog is going to roll in........

A basic truth is that travellers simply don't travel - they set up ghettos to bypass all the niceties that make living in a wide community acceptable to everyone - and they do it riding roughshod over planning and call themselves travellers to avoid/evade paying for their privileges the rest of us would be sent to prison for if we failed to pay. Police recognise travellers' sites as no-go areas and they just get bigger and bigger.