Is It ‘Cos I’s Victimised?
‘Old man Dale had a Farm’, back in the days when farms were something you kept animals on and scraped a living from. He milked cows and herded sheep and did all manner of such things.
Times changed, the cosseted Guardianistas that still ate meat didn’t want to think of the times when meat walked to market on its own; they wanted clean, clinical, cling film wrapped slices of something the right shade of pink in two-for-one offers. Preferably with a microwavable sauce. Thailand did it cheaper.
Old man Dale abandoned his farm; it appears to have been leased from the council. The surrounding area of poor quality small tracts of land had always attracted the dispossessed, the underbelly of the agricultural community. The council weren’t too upset when a few English gypsies appeared and forced the council to abide by its legislated duty and provide a temporary resting place for their caravans.
Dale Farm cottage was leased* to one of the underbelly of the industrialised community, a scrap metal dealer by the name of Ray Bocking. Nobody really cared what went on down the deeply rutted track that led to Dale Farm. Some of the local councillors even sent their teenage children down there to buy back parts for their Vauxhall Crestas and Ford Anglias that had mysteriously gone missing. It was a reasonably amicable arrangement.
The land lay either side of Oak Lane. Half had permission for a temporary resting place for ‘Traveller’s’ as Gypsies were now to be known. Half had permission for Dale Cottage – now occupied by Mr Bocking – and surrounding Green belt ‘farmland’.
Somehow, the scrap dealer Mr Bocking maintained amicable relations with his neighbours; he doesn’t appear to have suffered from that well known malaise of getting any inch of scrap iron lying around nicked, at any rate. In fact his business prospered. He had no planning permission for it though.
Enter the ‘Saunders’ family in the 1980s. Bluey Saunders might have termed himself a traveller, but travelling was the last thing on his mind. He wanted a permanent resting place, and after many years of legal tussle with Basildon council, He won planning permission for the 20 temporary resting places to be re-designated permanent sites.
The might of the British housing market had entered the game!
Traveller’s caravans ceased to look as though they intended ‘travelling’ anywhere at all – they acquired outside lighting, garden fences, brick skirts around their base, garden gnomes even. This new land of ‘travellers’ that had no intention of travelling proved popular. Another 17 plots were applied for and granted.
By 2001, ‘getting a foot on the permanent housing ladder’ in Dale Farm was proving so popular with the previously nomadic community that families came to blows – or rather shots.
Paul Saunders was ultimately cleared of the murder of Billy Williams.
Now there were 37 legal permanent sites on which to display your garden gnomes, they had a value in Britain’s burgeoning housing market – and soon the Sheridan family, amongst others, arrived from Ireland, bearing copious pound notes; slightly rumpled, a little dirty, but legal tender.
The plots were changing hands at £50,000 a piece. No mortgage available.
More Sheridans arrived from Ireland, along with intermarried Flynns and McInerneys.
The English gypsies rediscovered the joys of travelling and left the site, clutching their wads of notes, to the Irish property developers, sorry, itinerant travellers.
All that green land just across the lane was a temptation when a small portion of it was worth £50,000 a throw. John Sheridan paid the erstwhile scrap dealer Mr Bocking £120,000 for his cottage and the green fields around it. Mr Sheridan and the rest of his family divided up the land and passed on small parcels of it for (???) to members of his clan. They complained about having to clear the land of rubbish and scrap metal before they could gentrify it and surround it with brick walls. (They can do irony).
The Taxpayer chucks in a helpful £250,000 a year in benefits to the site, and curiously, many were further benefitting from £7,650 a year in rent by way of housing benefit paid from one family to another. Some had left perfectly legal ‘permanent sites’ in order to join the great Dale Farm bonanza.
Soon, there were 52 of the ‘£50,000 a throw plots’ on the green land. Mr Sheridan senior built himself a luxury bungalow as he surveyed his ‘travelling lifestyle’ with pride.
Now the might of British multi-culturalism entered the game.
Channel Five came along with their cameras and supportive agendas. The Travellers learned fast. They sold the rights of a local wedding, not to Hello magazine in time honoured fashion, but to Channel 4 – and ‘My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding’ appeared on screen.
They installed a chapel. Any suggestion that they might have to comply with the planning laws was met with a chorus of ‘you’re destroying our cultural religion’. The chapel was at least used for the Big Fat Gypsy Wedding – and meetings with sympathetic members of the left wing luvvies.
‘How dreadful! This colourful community are being victimised’.
Community? Quick, build a community centre! The wails turned to ‘and they will lose their essential community centre’.
The Redgrave family – and no doubt outposts of the Longford clan, the Harman harridans, and various left leaning Chambers beat a path to their door. Following which, one of the Sheridans was visited by a bolt of insight into the legal process. Did they, or did they not have a 72 year old female resident, one of the Flynn family, who used a nebuliser to help her sleep at night? Indeed they did.
She was selected to represent the ‘people dying of cancer and on dialysis’ that were apparently on the site and too shy to come forward. Her ‘right to private and family life at home under Article 8 of the European convention on human rights’ was to be pressed at the High Court. A hugely pregnant member of the tribe was pushed in front of the cameras to announce that she was due to drop a sprog at any moment.
Oh cruel world!
Vanessa Redgrave was in the High Court to wail that ‘greenbelt considerations’ were being ‘put above human rights’. Brendan O’ Neill, past Editor of ‘Living Marxism’ has used his undoubted literary ability to pen oeuvres in the Guardian saying ‘what crime have the Dale Farm gypsies (very off-message Brendan, these are non-travelling travellers!) committed apart from getting up the nose of posh people’.
‘Posh people’ like the unfortunate builder Len Gridley, last seen being carted away from his lowly property by the local police for the crime of having tried to set light to a wooden barricade erected on his land by the determined ‘travellers’.
Banners were hastily erected saying this was ‘Ethnic Cleansing’…
‘Anarchists’ assembled at nearby ‘Camp Constant’ – not too many, their first act was to set up a SMS texting service so you can carry on creating havoc in London until the last minute and then hot foot it down to Dale Farm to join in the mayhem when summoned. They’ve been turning up from Sweden, Holland and Italy.
They don’t explain how they define ‘Anarchist’; it appears to be someone who believes in laws like Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, but reserves the right to beat up the long suffering local Plod when the Town and Country Planning Act is invoked….maybe it’s just someone who likes a good bun fight.
On Saturday, that section of the Jewish community which knows a thing or two about setting up illegal homesteads will be on hand showing solidarity, Rabbis included, manning the barricades. No word yet on an Imam or two to keep the diversity co-ordinators happy.
“It’s important that cultures with a shared history of oppression support each other when our fundamental human rights face being breached.”
Yesterday, Mr Justice Kenneth Parker received an assurance that the council would re-house (I don’t want a house, I want a caravan that looks like a house and doesn’t go anywhere) the nebulised 72 year old Mrs Flynn, and then ruled that 8 years was not a hasty planning decision:
“It is in the public interest that there should be finality to litigation,” he said. “I find no exceptional circumstances in this case that would justify the reopening of a judgment given by the court of appeal relatively recently, having specifically considered the challenge made under Article 8 of the convention.”
All that remains now is for the Taxpayer to stump up the estimated £12 million quid in overtime for the Police to go on riot duty as the ‘Anarchists’ and other hangers on do battle alongside the Irish property developers, to hang onto their £50,000 plots….oh, and the State Benefits of course.
Sky will love this. Wall to wall colour, religious leaders, famous actresses, screaming women in labour…..I spit on your Tripoli, and your Tottenham, and raise you the next week’s wall to wall coverage.
Unless the council just has the good sense to say nothing for another six months until they all get bored waiting, that is…..they wouldn’t, would they?
Edited to add: My information was that it was a leased farm once. (normal practice in poor agricultural areas). Whether it has remained that way or subsequently been sold by the council I honestly do not know.
Whether Mr Bocking started leasing it and then subsequently bought it, I do not know.
I shall endeavour to find out in the light of the ongoing conversation on Twitter. Either way, it only had agricultural land permission.
-
September 2, 2011 at 08:10
-
From someone who spent the first ten years of married life living in a
caravan, I know only too well the contempt with which caravan dwellers are
treated.
As I approach old age my heart turns once again to this happy way of life.
I can afford to buy the caravan but I can’t afford nor can I find a site.
- September 1, 2011 at 22:05
-
AIUI – the slogan for Dale Farm ‘resistance’ is –
“We are Travelers – we will not be moved!”
- September 1, 2011 at 19:55
-
The solutions are obvious.
Basildon must compulsory purchase the land and repay the “travellers”. The
land must be returned to its historical use-junk yard. Basildon should be
declared a UN site of special interest as an industrial wasteland.
“Travellers” should relocate to Hampstead Heath and various parks in
Primrose Hill to be convenient to the redgraves, harmans, milibands, BBC and
guardian detritus, to facilitate afternoon tea meetings for discussion of the
“traveller” heritage and great accomplishments.
“Traveller” children must be integrated into schools with the miliband and
toynbee children, important lessons can be learned.
The justice taking the piss should be elevated to the international court
of “justice” in the Hague to adjudicate the upcoming gaddafi fiasco.
A “traveller”‘ holocaust museum must be built in the Basildon town centre,
Cherie Blair must be drafted to officially open it.
PS Cascadian lived within ten miles of this farce, if you believe this is
bucolic countryside you are mistaken. The area has a long history of small
holdings replete with shanty buildings, Laindon Hills comes to mind.
- September 1, 2011 at 13:44
-
September 1, 2011 at 12:33
-
What the case law seems to me to suggest is the basic strategy adopted by
the travellers as follows. 1 Purchase vulnerable land; 2 Planning control is
knowingly flouted and houses are erected en masse; 3 Every possible legal
challenge is made to enforcement of planning control; 4 Central to this is the
argument that there is a de facto development which engages the planning
process in tandem to the legal process; 5 Whilst this is going on, evey
possible attempt is made to manipulate “Yuman Rights” issues and “Special
Circumstances”. Typical of this is the claim that children have “Special
Eductional Needs” and cannot be moved, and all the guff about being a racial
group and the argument that because they have been there so long, it is a
breach of “Yuman Rights” to move them.
………………….
This has been going on
just a couple of miles away from us for the last 5 years or so. The latest
full-scale appeal against planning refusal is being fought right now.
1. Purchase of vulnerable land – check
2. Immediate installation of
hardstanding & pitches – check
3. Every possible legal challenge is
mounted against enforcement of planning control – check
4. The de facto
development engages the planning process in tandem to the legal process –
check
5. Children with Special Educational Needs living at the development
– check
The previous appeals have been refused and the travellers have been
instructed to leave. Instead, another member of the family puts in another
application for planning and the whole thing starts over again. It seems
bonkers that the development has been refused more than once yet the whole
process has to be gone through over and over again. But I guess those are the
rules.
-
September 1, 2011 at 12:48
-
To pick up just a couple of the points, in this partcular case what is
immediately striking from the case law is the multiplicity of legal actions;
there are agreat many challenges and appeals, all in different names. If
they fail another takes it’splace, but if one succeeds it is used as
precedent to bend or break the rules still further. And sesond the number of
litigants with children with the inevitable “Special Educational Needs”.
Someone more suspicious than me might think it was not a coincidence, but
people wouldnt use their naughty little children just to dupe the ever
credulous State, would they…?
-
September 1, 2011 at 13:06
-
If they fail another takes it’splace, but if one succeeds it is used as
precedent to bend or break the rules still further.
………….
That’s
interesting. Not surprising, but interesting!
-
-
-
September 1, 2011 at 12:05
-
This is great stuff!
- September 1, 2011 at 11:29
-
Perhaps, I suggest you all read the only Libertarian argument I have yet
seen on the subject
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11039
“what is needed here is not a heritage approach that celebrates and
fetishises specific cultures much as eugenicists used to celebrate and
fetishise race. No, what needs to be championed here is the Dale Farm
residents’ right to build and inhabit homes of their choosing. And this means
being able to build on the Green Belt, that great moat of snobbery introduced
in the 1940s and expanding ever since, to protect country-dwelling toffs from
the sprawling reaches of town-based toilers. Moreover, this also means
challenging, as the 250 New Towns club has repeatedly pointed out, national
planning law. As the club writes, ‘Since [the 1947 Town and Country Planning
Act] there is no right to build freely. Local Planning Authorities are able to
insist that their changeable local plans are followed, and any unauthorised
developments that vary from their intentions can be demolished.’
This legislation is precisely what is being invoked by the local council
intent on demolishing part of Dale Farm. And it is this legislation that needs
to be challenged, not the supposed attitudes of Basildon-dwelling locals. As
Dale Farm residents have discovered to their cost, to accept that a
self-styled bunch of planning experts has the right to tell you whether or not
you can build a home on land you own is a cruel restriction on people’s
freedom and liberty.”
- September 1, 2011 at
11:36
-
September 1, 2011 at 11:49
-
Dear Mr OH
I shall read more with interest. I always find your
observations trenchant and logical (and often very witty) even though I do
not always agree with them. In fact, I think you will find a reasoned attack
on restrictive planning and development on this very site by Thaddeus J
Wilson (if I could find the link)…
I think one of the problems here is
not that the planning system makes sense – it is patently not in the ghastly
phrase “fit for purpose” – but rather the percieved favourable treatment of
one highly manipulative and highly disingenuous group who play a “human
rights” and “race”card to futher their pesonal gain without regrard for –
indeed with contempt for – the mainstream law abiding community.
- September 1, 2011 at
11:58
-
My argument is that planning laws are not even adhered to by the state.
New runway? Help yourself. High speed rail link? Get out of the way,
Citizens/Peasants.
Remove the “race” argument and the tragedy is that finally, at long
last, the State has finally gone after the one people it dared not ensnare
with “laws” and “permission”. Gypos. Everyone else was brutally
assimilated into the Borg a long, long time ago.
- September 1, 2011 at
- September 1, 2011 at
- September 1, 2011 at
10:47
-
“On Saturday, that section of the Jewish community which knows a thing or
two about setting up illegal homesteads will be on hand showing solidarity,
Rabbis included, manning the barricades. ”
I thought you were above such infectious anti semitism where Jews per se
are used as representatives of a small minority of Israelis. References to
Rabbis demeans you and your supporters.
- September 1, 2011 at
11:05
-
September 1, 2011 at 11:26
-
Whilst our learned editor is well capbale of looking after herself in
this matter, pray let me wade in too. I see nothing anti semitic about that
comment at all. As a supporter of Isreal’s right to exist and exist free
from constant terrorism attack, it is just a fact that some Isreali
settlements are for want of any better word illegal. And it is a fact that
there will be Rabbi’s on the barricade. La Raccoon’s comment, although
barbed, is factually accurate and a fair comment. It casts no aspirtions on
the Jewish community in general, and is in no way “anti semitic”. The
reaction which reads anti semtism into that comment is similar to the
mindset that reads “ethnic cleansing” into any attempt to uphold the law in
the face of illegal building, no matter what the facts: in short, a mindset
and not an analysis of the facts.
Just sayin’
- September 1, 2011 at
11:29
- September 1, 2011
at 11:51
-
Anna; the Organisation you quote, Jewish Solidarity, is as typical of
Jews as English Defence League is typical of Christians. The vast majority
of orthodox Jews and especially Rabbis would not consider manning
barricades on their sabbath as consistent with their requirements to
observe that day as one of rest. British Jews are British and Israeli
settlers are Israelis. To conflate one with the other is the thin edge of
a wedge which is unfortunately becoming bigger month by month. And you Mr
Gildas fall into the same trap……do not use an example of Israelis to
comment on Jews in general if you wish to escape similar suspicion. Anti
semitism which is an eduring social virus has been awoken from its dormant
state of 1945 owing to the extreme left and the right of politics from
their dissimilar ideologies jumping on the fascistic bandwagon of extreme
Islamism which would have the State of Israel annhilated
“I just find such mind boggling assumptions as to someone’s mindset
extraordinary from someone charged with the objective impartial
application of the law.Had it come from some mindless troll, I shouldn’t
have graced it with a response.”
To imply my impartiality as a J.P. is in question because you reject my
criticism of your post is a remark beneath contempt and will be treated as
such.
- September 1, 2011 at 12:01
-
I am searched my comment for a comment on either the Jewish faith, or
British citzens who are Jewish, or Isrealis (who may or may not be
Jeweish) or any combination of the above, and in particular for one
which is negative, deregatory or critical. I am pleased to say that I
have searched in vain, for there is none. Imerely observed that Anna’
comment that Rabbis will be at the barricadesis true (and I see no basis
for suggeting that anyone has suggested that they are typical of
anything or anyone, but they seem to be happy to be Rabbis, so I suggest
you take up any issues you have with them) and that there are illegal
settlements. Which as a supporter of Isreal, I am still bound to
acknowldge. If criticism or adverse comment on anyone who is Jewish is
anti semitism per se, then by definition you have just committed it, by
having a pop at the Jewish Solidarity group. A curious intellectual
position which I feel Plato may have likened to a man with his head up
his own posterior
- September 1, 2011 at
12:02
- September 1, 2011 at 12:08
-
Suspect you haven’t quite caught the nuances of the regular posters
here yet, JP.
I would venture that the bulk of La Racoons’ customers
are solidly behind the right of Israel to grow and prosper. FWIW, I
found her remark amusing – we can differentiate between a life or death
struggle and a group of chancers looking to circumvent the planning
laws, aided by the usual leftie suspects.
- September 1, 2011 at 12:38
-
“To imply my impartiality as a J.P. is in question because you
reject my criticism of your post is a remark beneath contempt and will
be treated as such.”
I’ve often wondered…is there a special training course for JPs where
they instill the paper-thin skin and bristling pomposity?
Or do they just recruit people who already possess that?
- September 1, 2011 at 12:01
- September 1, 2011 at
- September 1, 2011 at
- September 1, 2011 at 10:14
-
Vanessa Redgrave praises “strong, wise, warm and gentle community”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogdiFbA2-I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCRygfR9kvs
Oh dear!
- September
1, 2011 at 09:52
-
Apart from that, of course, excellent post.
“Unless the council just has the good sense to say nothing for another
six months until they all get bored waiting, that is…..they wouldn’t, would
they?”
That was my suggestion too. The publicity whores will quickly lose
interest, and the rest of the ‘anarchist’ rabble will have to go back to where
they came from to sign on.
- September
1, 2011 at 09:49
-
“Half had permission for a temporary resting place for ‘Traveller’s’ as
Gypsies were now to be known. “
Grocer’s apostrophe, Anna..? For shame! *wags finger*
- September 1, 2011 at 09:40
-
Try getting away with it on a farm near you. Buy a field and try to set up
a caravan park/run a business. Paint your door the wrong colour in a
conservation area. See what happens.
I’m told ‘Travellers’ are regarded by
local authorities as an an ethnic minority, a poisonous term which seems to
entail special treatment and consideration not given to others.
Perhaps the
Redgraves and their fellow associates would be prepared to fund the provision
of sites, built and operated within the law for anyone that wants to be a
Traveller?
-
September 1, 2011 at 10:57
-
Its the Alice in Wonderland Effect. Baliffs weren’t allowed to move new
age travellers from our green lane, because the social services childrens’
department said it would disrupt their schooling .
Then three of the
under 12 girls got excluded from the special measures school, for beating up
the other girls and stealing their lunch money and the the group moved to
the access road to a closed local council tip.
I have to say, I struggle
to find them any more objectionable than the f**kers who have bought 50 % of
the houses in the village as second homes and visit them for a couple of
days every few months. Interesting how we each have our own little
prejudices !
- September 1, 2011 at 16:17
-
BWM
I just think:
One law for all.
No pseudo ethnic special
cases.
Tolerance has been overworked.
- September 1, 2011 at 16:17
-
-
September 1, 2011 at 09:16
-
Brilliant Anna
I tried to research a piece on this yesterday. Looking
for a potted history of what has actually happened on the site, and rather
than trusting to the press, I deployed a legal database search, looking for
the actual case law and decisions which would I assumed set out the relevant
history. I did not find that. What I found instead was a plethero of decisions
in which every nuance of EU regualtions on the meaning of “gypsies” and
“travellers”, every line of every official “guidance” on planning and green
belt and every word of every planning inspector’s report was picked over,
scrutinized debated and appealed. It was mind boggling and instructive. Not
only was there a complete lack of context and reality in most of these cases,
but clearly these “travellers” have very deep pockets, because more often than
not they are represented by a QC and junior (unless they have the benefit of
legal aid, which is still available when “Yuman Rights” are involved). The
closest I could find to anything like common sense was in this case:
R (on the application of O’Brien, Casey, Berry, Doran and Killeaney) v
Basildon DC (2006) (notice the names?) in which the judge concluded this:
“153. Gypsies have the opportunity for their special circumstances to be
weighed at the planning merits stages and, where occupation of land for
residential purposes is a criminal offence, the resolution of planning merits,
if ultimately favourable to them, should precede rather than follow the
occupation of the land in breach of the criminal law. The courts have clearly
set their face against treating the special circumstances of gypsies as
justifying breach of their orders and avoiding committal proceedings….
show.
154. Although the breach of the criminal law may not be so serious as
the breach of a court order, because prosecutions can still be instituted to
punish the individuals, none the less the criminal law is to be obeyed and its
sanctions are intended to procure compliance. Whilst the strictures in those
two cases may not all be apt for the breach of criminal law here, the
principles are relevant…
155. The breach of the criminal law involved here
permits and even requires an approach to the proportionality of effective
steps to procure compliance with the criminal law, which puts rather more
weight on compliance with the criminal law than would be the case if the
breach of planning control consisted of an unlawful failure to obtain planning
permission for a material change of use, rather than the occupation of
land
in breach of the criminal law. This is particularly important where
the
circumstances upon which the claimants will rely when putting forward
their case at the inquiry will include reliance on factors such as the
stability of the children at school, which arise as a result of the occupation
of their land in breach of the criminal law.
156. They may well have
improved their case, and created circumstances more favourable to them through
their breach of the criminal law. That can properly be seen as bringing the
law into disrepute. The occupation of the land by the claimants, which
underlies Article 8, has always been in breach of the criminal law in the
first place, and t may be permissible to entertain some doubts about the
extent to which such acts can generate rights to be respected. But in any
event, interference with them is justified by law and by the enforcement of
the criminal law.
157. I see no reason for requiring a further intervention
of the court before direct action is taken. A court decision is not necessary
to sanction such action, let alone should it be one in which the court itself
decides whether such action is necessary. The provision of an opportunity to
contest such action, having regard to the harm done, the urgency of the
matter, their prospects of success, and individual circumstances does not to
my mind amount to a justification for requiring the interposition or prior
sanction of the court.
158. The fact that those latter considerations are
relevant to the grant of an injunction compelling the claimants to remove
caravans does not mean that they must be argued before a court where direct
action is at issue, which does not involve either the court’ssanction or a
court order which it would then enforce.
159. Nor do I see why selecting a
power given by Parliament, which does not require the local planning authority
to invoke the assistance of the court, becomes objectionable merely because it
avoids court proceedings and the risk of the refusal of relief by the court in
the exercise of its own discretion. That is of course different if the purpose
of the selection of the route is to avoid a challenge to the lawfulness of the
decision. But that is a very different issue….”
Let me try to translate. As I understand it that means that the travellers
argument was well, we know we are here illegally, but because we are here
illegally we have made all sorts or arrangements which suit us, and it would
be very unfortunate if we had to move, particularly because we have been here
illegally for so long because we have had the wherewithal to fight every
attempt to remove us by legal means. Therefore, having been here illegally for
so long, the court should stop the local authority throwing us of, because we
are travellers, y’know and we have successfully stalled the process. With
which the judge disagreed, and held the local authority were within their
rights to take action.
What the case law seems to me to suggest is the basic strategy adopted by
the travellers as follows. 1 Purchase vulnerable land; 2 Planning control is
knowingly flouted and houses are erected en masse; 3 Every possible legal
challenge is made to enforcement of planning control; 4 Central to this is the
argument that there is a de facto development which engages the planning
process in tandem to the legal process; 5 Whilst this is going on, evey
possible attempt is made to manipulate “Yuman Rights” issues and “Special
Circumstances”. Typical of this is the claim that children have “Special
Eductional Needs” and cannot be moved, and all the guff about being a racial
group and the argument that because they have been there so long, it is a
breach of “Yuman Rights” to move them.
Earlier this month Thaddeus J Wilson wrote excellent articles on housing
policy and the green belt. He made good points and housing policy in the UK is
in crisis. The cynical flouting of planning law by organised selfish and
lawless groups is not the way forward.
Hope this isnt too long!
G the M
- September 1, 2011 at 08:23
-
Anna,
Just wondered out of curiosity. In the sea of bullshit and obfuscation on
the net about this Dale Farm. Where abouts would you say you got most of your
information for this piece? I accept you had former links with the courts so
perhaps you have sources others might not but I just wondered ass like I say
thhere is so much distortion of the facts behind this, mainly by the
sandalistas who would run straight to the courts if the camp was at the bottom
of their own garden in Islington.
- September 1, 2011 at
07:52
-
“They don’t explain how they define ‘Anarchist’; it appears to be someone
who believes in laws like Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, but reserves the
right to beat up the long suffering local Plod when the Town and Country
Planning Act is invoked”
Brilliant.
- September 2, 2011 at 18:13
-
its pretty simple really. human rights, or rather the inalienable right
to life is very different from some facist government dictate telling
someone who owns land (possesion is ownership) what to do with it.
Another example of an all invasive oppresive state telling people what
they can and can’t do. Don’t these facists know that there supposed to be
representative, and not just representative of the laws that benefit their
capatilistic , financial system
-
September 2, 2011 at 18:44
-
Wrong.
There is one law in this country, and it applies to all. If I buy a
piece of agricultural land and build a whacking great factory on it
without applying for, and being granted, permission for a change of use,
I’ve broken the law. Building whacking great factories could well blight
the lives of local residents and cause problems on local roads. That’s why
there law exists; to see that all interested parties have their concerns
taken into account.
In this case, a piece of agricultural land has been filled with
dwellings, without an application having been made for a change of use.
That’s a breach of the law, because the other local residents haven’t had
their concerns considered. The Dale Farm ‘travellers’ should abide by the
same laws that rest of us have to. Simple – one law for all, applied
without fear or favour.
-
- September 2, 2011 at 18:13
{ 50 comments }