Travellers

Can anybody tell me when is the closing date for win a foodie trip to Italy competiiton?

Thanks mishap. I think more information is needed for people like me. I hold my hand up and admit my opinions on this subject are very one-sided. Welcome to GN

Many thanks for your kind words em.

Its usually IMHO - in my humble opinion.

I can see why you wouldn't want to put that 'em.

That was a tease/joke. Don't be cross.

Jacey In my opinion. Being not altogether au fait with all the jargon and acronyms we find here, I have decided to 'make a note' and use those I encounter which I think will be useful. Fat lot of good abbreviations are when they obscure the meaning, eh??!

Sorry em but what does "imo" mean?

Thank you mishap - I found your well-informed and balanced post very helpful. Welcome to GN - hope you enjoy some of the more light-hearted threads but you started out with a very useful contribution, imo!

I am certainly aware that many travellers do pay into society in exactly the same way as the rest of us do - I cannot speak for all of them, any more than I could speak for all non-travellers! Those on permanent sites are treated no differently from the rest of us as far as council tax etc are concerned. They are in effect council tenants where the site is a council-run one; private tenants on private sites. Some travellers own their own sites and would be subject to council tax as we all are; travellers who are salaried (there are many) will be on PAYE; self-employed travellers (of which there are many) are required to pay tax in the same way as the rest of us. I cannot vouch for whether they all do - but, as I said before, I cannot do the same for non-travellers either.
I guess there will be those dodging these contributions - but many non-travellers are very good at tax-evasion/avoidance too.
I think there is a general assumption that travellers do not contribute, but very little real evidence to bear this out.

A question: if travellers are settled on a permanent site, do they pay taxes? This is what makes the difference to me. It seems from my limited perspective - although I have dealt with travellers from a court viewpoint - that it's a lot of take but not much give from the travellers. What do they contribute to the community? Perhaps it is this lack of understanding from people like me that raises the tension.

I wonder why the requirement of the local authorities to provide sites was withdrawn. Wasn't anything put in place instead at the time to decide where they should go?

It is a very large piece of land at Dale Farm. Perhaps it wasn't the wisest thing to purchase such a big piece.

I contributed to a discussion about this on another forum and the thread was closed as people were so dogmatic in their views, so it is very hearteniing to see such a balanced discussion on this forum.
It is a difficult isuue. I worked for many years as the picture editor of the Travellers' Times, which is the national mag for Gypsies and Travellers - so I could spend a long time answering this thread.
In summary, I can see both sides.
Historically Travellers/Gypsies did indeed travel - they followed the seasonal work and were a valued part of local communities. Farmers would set aside part of a field for them to settle on during the season. Then a law was brought in that limited the number of trailers that could be in one place, effectively outlawing their lifestyle. Because of the huge problems that this caused (having to live on the roadside etc.), some years later a new law was brought in forcing local authorities to create sites - however it was not as easy as that, because every time a LA tried to comply with the law, local objections and planning laws made it very difficult for them to set these up. The requirement on LAs to provide sites has since been withdrawn.
So...what are Travellers to do?? Their lifestyle has been outlawed and they are pretty well sunk really.
"Once a Traveller, always a Traveller" is something that has been said to me so many times - the reason many are settled in houses and on permanent sites (if they can get one) is not because they do not want to travel and pursue their lifestyle, but because they have no choice. Also, many have now recognised the importance of education to their children and wish to be settled for parts of the year for this reason.
The dilemma facing many travellers is that they want to create a site legally, but cannot - 90% of planning applications from the likes of us get granted, and 90% of those from travellers are refused - what are they to do?
Now, I am not naive and know that travellers can create problems because of the clash of cultures, and I have sympathy with those who do not want a site on their doorstep. And there are some aspects of traveller culture that I do not like at all, and some others that I hugely admire. I have met some whom I would never wish to see again, and others who are wonderful characters, full of courage and humour ( a bit like all of us really).
I have no axe to grind on their behalf, as I do understand the problems, and do agree that huge sites are a blight - but if you ask most travellers what they want, it is a small family site with good relations with their neighbours. The current legal suituation has forced them to gang together in the sort of site we see at Dale Farm.
Whilst I can see both sides, I do think it is important that people are informed about the very real Catch 22 in which the travelling community finds itself. They wish to comply with the law in the main, but cannot do so without abandoning their lifestyle and all that they hold dear.
I often wonder what it would be like if the situation were reversed - i.e. if travelling around and living in trailers was the norm and being settled in a house was the exception - how might we feel if living in a house was outlawed? What would be our response? - how would we deal with it?
Yes I agree with all you say GG - therein lies the problem, there are good and bad. I do understand the difficulties that can be faced when the two communities come up against each other.
Travellers should not be any different when it comes to complying with the law and (like all of us) they should be obliged to obey the law, but they are faced with the additional problem that the law is stacked against them. This is where some action needs to be taken.
As a society we have taken many steps to ensure that other cultures are accommodated sensitively (e.g. granting planning permission for mosques) - we have not done so well with the travelling community.
I do not have any easy answers, and share the feeling that I would not want a large site in my community. I suppose it is a question of "not understanding someone till you have walked in their shoes" - I have tried on travellers' shoes to some degree by having close contact with many, and sympathise with their dillemma. But I also symapthise with those in the settled community who have faced the sort of problems you outline.
I wish I knew what the answer was. I just know that we cannot solve the problem by tarring all travellers with the same brush.
I do feel for those young children on Dale Farm, who have not chosen this situation and must be terrified by what is going on.
This is the first time I have posted on here - I promise the next one will be shorter!!!

In my childhood, Irish itinerants, who usually came over to Scotland for the 'tattie howking' were known as tinkers, though these were traditionally people who mended pans. Romany Gypsies are a distinct ethnic group and shouldn't be lumped together with other so-called 'travellers'. The ones at Dale Farm seemed to be predominantly Irish and also seemed to be attached to a settled lifestyle. In that case, should they be referred to as 'travellers'?

I understand that travellers constitute an ethnic group, so much so that the council was accused of "ethnic cleansing". Who decides what constitutes an ethnic group and on what criteria? It's not DNA so what is it? The Welsh and Irish are ethnic groups – but not people from Cornwall in spite of a Celtic ancestry. I don't know about the Scots although I'm sure there's a granny who does. I thought most, if not all, of them (travellers not Scots) came from Ireland so why aren't they Irish and what does traveller mean?

supernana thank you, rant over now

nannym

carbon you seem to be missing the point. The council HAD provided a legal site, but these so called travellers decided that it wasn't big enough, took the law into their own hands (and by doing so broke it!) and extended it. They knew damn well that planning permission would be refused but went ahead anyway. How anyone can have any sympathy for these people is completely beyond me.

The traveller saga seems to be over: they've departed peacefully in the end. From what I can pick up, most of the violence was from the outsiders who were there to 'support' them.

Just to clarify misunderstandings. they do own the land; but it is green belt land and they are not allowed to build on it. They knew this but built anyway, then cried foul when they were taken to task. They dragged it out for 10 years using the law - although they were quite happy to break the law at the same time.

I think other travellers will come to hate the Dale Farm people, because I doubt it there will be a council in Britain who will not be watching new traveller arrivals with deep suspicion, especially if they buy green belt land, and every area will have residents watching out at bank holidays for illegal buildings.

Oh bless you jinglej ...no I didn't

Do understand what you mean about children seeing things on the news that can be inappropriate ...a case in point being some of the Gaddaffi pictures earlier tonight ...at least yahoo gave a warning and one could decide whether to view them or not.

Did you think I had had my own personal little run-in with the law jacey?!

Yes, Carboncareful - something has gone wrong; why did it to this, when the councils must have known for years that the law was being broken? And yes, sites should be provided. Trouble in, no one will want them!

Thanx jj ...I was just curious ...or may be nosey?

What have I got against the police? How about the brutality that my grandsons have seen on television news? These days they play at policemen and look as though they are killing people!

"should do their job fairly" - if travellers break the law the police should deal with the crime in exactly the same way they would non-travellers.

Sorry JJ but it isn't difficult ...if they want to live a more settled life then they need to abide by our laws and pay their contributions to access the amenities, that we all still contribute to via a range of taxes.

Curious ...what have you got against the police?? ...'should do their job fairly'??
Oh so true whatamess!

jinglej I do think they can afford to pay their way with regard to Council Tax etc,media information (but who can trust if true) state's that the person who bought the land in the first place has property worth million's in County Limerick so where does all this money come from I wonder and is it come by legally I ask.

Council Tax isn't a tax on property anymore is it? Not like the old Rates were. Or is it? Not sure.

If not, why shouldn't they pay what they can fairly afford? If that's not much, well who'd envy that?