Travellers

I can understand us women standing their corner and fighting to keep their lome's but I would expect my DH to be there to support also.

They have been given enough time to leave - looks like most of the protesters are no more travellers than I am. Whilst I can empathise with the travellers to a degree, I am sorry but the law applies to all with no exceptions.

Apart from the local bobbies, I don't think I like our police force anymore.

I think there may be more women there because it is their homes they are defending. Its what women do.

Did anyone hear the excitement mount in the voice of the presenter on the Today programme?

Having watched has gone on to-day at the site concerned I noticed that no men where in the crowd of people who where being evicted only the women.

Just seen what is happening on the TV - makes you proud to be British, does it not?

I believe in live and let live - but people who live lives that infringe on the happiness and peace of others need to be taken to task. If they are breaking the law as well, then it is even more important.

Green belt land is there for a purpose - to make life better for us all - to provide green space for aesthetic and practical reasons. Building on it is just not on.Wanting to get rid of an illegal, noisy eyesore is fully understandable.

Where I live there is no traveller problem, but sometimes there is a noise problem when people play music with a lot of bass. My husband always goes and politely asks them to turn it down, especially the bass. Most people comply. One lot got nasty, so he simply came back with our two big, soldier sons standing with him.

They complied. Sometimes old fashioned ways work best.

Those who make life unpleasant for others around them, clearly don't believe in 'live and let live', so they should not be surprised they get hostility.

I also remember the old gypsies. Apart from scary dogs, I don't remember any trouble at all. They came, they did some work, sold pegs and lucky heather, and moved on.

It is not written to protect people that have a permanent place to live, many people do not have a permanent place to live but have to put up with grotty flats (my daughter at one stage) my niece and her husband who have 3 children in a 2 bed flat and are desperate to move to a house.

It is written to protect the land and unregulated development. My 2 children would have loved to stay in the town they were born in, as would their 3 cousins and where they can trace part of their genetic make up (family tree) back to 1597) On their Father's side they have a "showman" inheritance

However as people moved out of London to the "country" house prices have risen above what young people can afford. They have therefore had to move further north of the County. How far would my sister and I get if we purchased a field and stuck caravans on it to house our children and grandchildren - not far I bet.

We have a travellers camp near us that did all the usual, buy the field, start the work over a bank holiday (no local authority officers available) put in septic tanks etc etc. They have make a lovely job of the site, it is tidy etc and they have caused us no trouble.

My point is that there appears to be one law for them and one for us. This is not fair or equitable and causes resentment. Everyone should have to live under the same laws and rules.

Many of us live near people we should prefer not to live near, but we can't do much about it because they have the (house dwellers') law on their side.

People that live in houses don't always behave as other people would like them to, so why should travellers have to behave perfectly to be acceptable?

As to why travellers sometimes behave in a hostile manner - it may be that they just like to behave that way - some house dwellers do too - or it may be that they are more used to hostility than to intelligent curiousity on the part of the rest of society.

I am sure the "real" Romany people (I am not really sure what the distinction is, but never mind) were picturesque and useful, but again, many house dwellers are neither picturesque and useful either, but they still have rights.

Yes, travellers may break the law in order to continue with their way of life, but it isn't their law that they are breaking - it is ours, written to protect people that have a permanent place to live.

I think a lot of people are confusing the real Romany people with the layabouts or New Age Travellers that we have nowadays. To me, in my youth, Romany People or Gypsies were very clean people who travelled around the countyside in caravans stopping in fields (usually near farms) for a few weeks at a time. Nobody minded this and the farmer was often glad of the extra help on the farm.
The women washed, cooked and looked after the childen and sold lucky heather and other good luck charms door to door. They also told fortunes. The men worked at labouring on building sites, collected and sold scrap, worked on local farms etc for cash in hand. When they left they didn't leave any rubbish behind either, and dug out toilets to use while they were there. Unfortunately, todays travellers are a far cry from this and this is why they are not liked

Me too gma.

I think you are right gma not wanting to be found after doing a shoddy job. I'll stand beside you because it is my opinion too.

Agree entirely Nanban - Well said!!!! We had a pensioner here in my city who decided not to pay her council tax as she did not think it fair that all the facilities were being axed (luncheon clubs, libraries,and social care) What happened....she served a couple of weeks in gaol and still had to pay it. Sorry Granny 23 dont believe what you said about traveller men. I dont think that they are away working - far from it. Perhaps they do not want to be seen and recognised by people they have 'worked' for and done a crappy job. Why dont they come on TV and explain their situation rather then leaving it all to the women??? I always thought the men were the head of the traveller family and womens business was cleaning and cooking. I'll stand by for an onslought, but its just my opinion.

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.

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........

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.

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?

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)!

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.

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!!!

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

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.

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

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?

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.