PieFacE Posted October 19, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 19, 2011 Okay, Am I the only one who thinks it's really fecking stupid that they took it to court? I hate pikeys, we get them all the time round here in Droitwich, they just shit everywhere.... They were putting shit on door handles of peoples cars too.... horrible horrible people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Okay, Am I the only one who thinks it's really fecking stupid that they took it to court? I hate pikeys, we get them all the time round here in Droitwich, they just shit everywhere.... They were putting shit on door handles of peoples cars too.... horrible horrible people. But what about their human rights... :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 i have no sympathy what so ever for this lot and it cracks me up that there are no gypsies there only a few middle class rebels. Yes it is a mob mentality but I feel no guilt as I have seen first hand how they not omly freeload but rip off tax paying citizens. As a copper mate of mine said, "this is one of the few times that you will see the police go on a gypsie site" they get away with murder! I had my house robbed of its boiler by some locla gypsies and got the van details, when they tracked it down the Police off the record told me thatI had no chance of them going on a gypsie site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted October 19, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 19, 2011 But what about their human rights... :winkold: **** 'em. They're not above the law, and if they try and fight back against this eviction they should be treated in the exact same way as the rioters were a few months back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 But what about their human rights... :winkold: **** 'em. They're not above the law, and if they try and fight back against this eviction they should be treated in the exact same way as the rioters were a few months back. Exactly mate, the behave like animals they deserve to be treated like animals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Listen to that silly bint on Sky News, from Cleveland, Ohio coming to protest with the gypsies, she hasn't got a clue what she's talking about. Brilliant, that guy on Sky is picking her arguement apart "Are you one of these well off people who get a kick out of going to these kind of protests?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I'm glad this thread hasn't fallen fowl of PC crap. You can't say a bad word about Gypsies in my work without being labelled as some kind of racist bigot. Very easy for someone to defend them when they've not been on the receiving end of their uncivilised behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 They're not above the law In some instances, and indeed in this one for a long period of time (10 years or so), it seems they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I think they should be evicted, as they have broken the law and have no "legal right" to be there. If they weren't to be evicted, it really does give carte blanche to anyone wanting to build on green belt/protected land. Had they donated enough money to a political party and been wanting to build a new retail centre (a new Next store as a hypothetical example), they may have got their way. "We can't have one rule for one and one rule for others," the local Tory MP said. Indeed. Tut tut naughty naughty Snowy FWIW I am with Jon and Mike here. The people on the camp have broken the law and need to be evicted, but I do not think anyone should take pleasure in the discomfort of them for that. Compassion is called for. And that from a Tory! However for Jon on your comment that "it really does give carte blanche to anyone wanting to build on green belt/protected" not really no. This is an illegal encampment on green field and removing people from it will not stop others legally wanting to develop on green field or those developments being allowed. If someone owns a piece of land, develops a plan which is in line with local and national planning policy then they are very likely to get permission granted to develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Can anyone summarise this whole story? I live in a bit of a bubble.... From i can work out it's a load of pikeys, who setup their own campsite on land they shouldnt have, and have tried to go to court to not be evicted? I believe it goes something like this (from what I have gathered - some of it may be wrong): A bunch of travellers bought some land adjacent to a scrap yard in the 70s, applied for planning permission for pitches and were granted it. The guy who owned the scrap yard fell out with the council (I think over something about permission to carry on his business) and sold it to the travellers next door (as a bit of an FU to the council). Some of the land sold was green belt land though how much of this was 'green' and not covered in concrete (and whether this had been covered either with the council's knowledge or, perhaps, by the council themselves) is a matter of contention. At some point a lot more travellers came along (a lot, I believe, were Irish travellers who didn't get on with many of the originals - there was some sort of killing, too, I think) and the site spread to the former scrap yard area for which there was no planning permission. Local council did nowt about it for a while until the extra plots were declared illegal and they decided to go for enforcement action and since then there has been a public inquiry, many council votes, a few telly programmes, something from the UN, a few court cases and a lot of media coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makouns_grin Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I love the posh lot protesting, some oxford educated. Why dont the pikey's go and live in their village or green belt land next to their house. I'm sure they wouldn't say boo to a goose then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Can anyone summarise this whole story? I live in a bit of a bubble.... From i can work out it's a load of pikeys, who setup their own campsite on land they shouldnt have, and have tried to go to court to not be evicted? Pretty much smack bang on the money PieBoy. i think its worse the council has already paid to build an offical site with ammenities next door but only around half of them agreed to move onto it, the council then offered to buy the land from them for the going rate in the area iirc for something like £150k, they rejected it and demanded £4m for the land, the council then offered them all brand new houses in the area and they rejected that too **** em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted October 19, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 19, 2011 Can anyone summarise this whole story? I live in a bit of a bubble.... From i can work out it's a load of pikeys, who setup their own campsite on land they shouldnt have, and have tried to go to court to not be evicted? I believe it goes something like this (from what I have gathered - some of it may be wrong): A bunch of travellers bought some land adjacent to a scrap yard in the 70s, applied for planning permission for pitches and were granted it. The guy who owned the scrap yard fell out with the council (I think over something about permission to carry on his business) and sold it to the travellers next door (as a bit of an FU to the council). Some of the land sold was green belt land though how much of this was 'green' and not covered in concrete (and whether this had been covered either with the council's knowledge or, perhaps, by the council themselves) is a matter of contention. At some point a lot more travellers came along (a lot, I believe, were Irish travellers who didn't get on with many of the originals - there was some sort of killing, too, I think) and the site spread to the former scrap yard area for which there was no planning permission. Local council did nowt about it for a while until the extra plots were declared illegal and they decided to go for enforcement action and since then there has been a public inquiry, many council votes, a few telly programmes, something from the UN, a few court cases and a lot of media coverage. Cheers dude! 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 They have got into the crows nest and I thought they were going to arrest them but the police are just throwing all their food and water over the side. so their comment of "we have food and water to last plenty of days" is gone I ask the same question again, where are the gypsy men? I hear all the caravans have been put on the legal side of the camp so can see them moving back on there as soon as the coast is clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I ask the same question again, where are the gypsy men? I heard most of the residents have already left and it is now Swampy and his mates along with some middle-class types occupying the camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Tut tut naughty naughty Snowy :winkold: If someone owns a piece of land, develops a plan which is in line with local and national planning policy then they are very likely to get permission granted to develop. The 'localism' bill makes it plain that there is going to be a presumption in favour of 'a sustainable' yadda yadda, doesn't it? Alternatively, one could just do what people around this area have been doing for a fair old while which is either nobbling the local council(lors); building things without any planning permission anyway (because they aren't 'pikeys' or a group about which people are willing to get themselves exercised, the council wouldn't have any support for spending any of their precept on legal cases) or just get far enough through their building process before planning permission has been granted that it seems more effort than it is worth not to grant it. Or any combination of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 However for Jon on your comment that "it really does give carte blanche to anyone wanting to build on green belt/protected" not really no. Had the travellers "won" and the council had been denied the right to evict them, then it would have, yes, surely? It would have set a precedent that Green belt land could be illegally built upon, and councils would not have had the power to evict. That's what I was trying to get at. This ruling simply applied that law as it stood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted October 19, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 19, 2011 So why is it that police will not go into a gypsy camp site and move them? Is it just a case of when they do move them they will end up somewhere else? There should be a law where you can burn the caravan down if it's on an illegal site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 iirc what there is in place is some sort of law that says each council has to be able to accomodate a certain number of them, so if the council doesnt have controlled sites to move them on to they are pretty much down shit creek in terms of moving them on quickly this is why the likes of sandwell and worcs are building them like mad, worcs are meant to be building 12 sites next year, the one currently being done in sandwell is costing £1.4m... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Well I have the eviction live on TV Are you **** kidding me? Ok, evict them, but showing it live in TV? Every time I think the media has hit the ultimate low, they find a whole new depth to sink to. They must be salivating, getting to comment on these people's misery as they display it to everyone in the country. words removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts