The amazing ongoing hideousness of Michael Howard (Part XXXIV)

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by MikeH
C0ckney:

Average planning permission applications are refused 10% of the time.

Travellers planning permission applications are refused 85% of the time.

As you said: "a more clear cut case of 'one rule for one group, another for everyone else' is hard to imagine "

The reason that travellers often don't apply for permission before they build is that they know the system is so biased against them they will be refused.

i suspect (well tbh i know) that this difference is because of what the people who make the applications are asking permission to do, surely you know this too.

the truth of the matter is that if a council is faced with two applications, one from a normal member of the public and one from a traveller, seeking permission to do the exact same thing. the council, under the current guidelines will favour one over the other, simply by virtue of the fact he is a traveller. so yes there certainly is bias...

[MikeH]

the truth of the matter is that if a council is faced with two applications, one from a normal member of the public and one from a traveller, seeking permission to do the exact same thing. the council, under the current guidelines will favour one over the other, simply by virtue of the fact he is a traveller. so yes there certainly is bias...

Exactly. It's totally unfair, no wonder the Travellers are forced onto illegal sites etc.

[C0ckney]

way to miss the point

[MikeH]

I knew what you meant but do you seriously think that a traveller application (for an identical thing) would be approved when a non traveller's wouldn't? That's just not what happens.

[child of Thor]

C0ckney, to be fair i dont know the figures, but if your right on that '4000 illegal sites' bit, dont you think that is an indicator that something isn't quite right in the balance of the situation?

I've lived by Traveller sites twice, one was no problem the other was a mess and fairly anti-social.
Still i could level that argument at just about any of my regular neighbours from the many places in the uk i've lived in.

I think if the government went some way to address the problems created under the last conservative government and continued under this labour one, especialy over the allocation of legal sites, then it would help many of the problems we are facing over this on both sides of the arguement.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by MikeH

Average planning permission applications are refused 10% of the time.

Travellers planning permission applications are refused 85% of the time.

The reason for those figures is probably due the fact that while most people apply to extend their kitchen or put a spare bedroom on top of their garages, the pikeys apply to build 16 houses, a toilet block and some stables in the middle of the local cricket pitch.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by MikeH
I knew what you meant but do you seriously think that a traveller application (for an identical thing) would be approved when a non traveller's wouldn't? That's just not what happens.

it depends on circumstances of course.

however, when making decisions on things like planning applications local authorities take various things into account (in planning law these are called 'material considerations'), these are outlined in regulations, guidelines and other types of secondary legislation. under john prescott's guidelines, councils must take more things into account when looking at applications from travellers, which is obviously to their advantage.

child of thor, i don't know how to solve the problem (and if i did i probably wouldn't be here telling you guys about it ), but i know that favouring one group at the expense of everyone else isn't the way forward.

[C0ckney]

reds, calling a spade a spade

[child of Thor]

i've never heard the expression 'pikey' before - where does it come from? and is it as rude as it sounds?

[reds4ever]

From the English "turnpike", the place where itinerent travellers and thieves would camp near a settlement.

Pikey is not a racial group, the term is used to describe anyone who lives in a caravan or shares the same values and "culture" of "the travelling community", and whose main sources of income are as follows:

Stealing cars, flogging roses in pubs for "childrens' charities", nicking lead off roofs, burgling garden sheds, blagging entry to old peoples house to rob them, doing dodgy tarmac jobs ("we've got some black stuff left over from a job up the road"), sometimes with mint imperials used as a substitute for white chippings, or, reportedly, using snow to lay slabs on when the sand ran out, stealing your bollocks if they weren't in a bag and anything else that's not nailed down and anything that is nailed down but will fit in the back of an untaxed Transit when nobody's looking.

Characterised by lurchers on a string, a unintelligible language that "isn't English, it isn't Irish, it's just Pikey" (source: Film: Snatch), a penchant for harecoursing, ketamine, lighter fuel, fighting in pubs and shopping at Lidl.

Best avoided.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by C0ckney


didn't you read law at university? if so you might want to study your old books and look up equity.

i for one would certainly be very interested to hear how equity will assist a traveller who is in violation of planning laws, because it won't.

Equity

(Law.)
"Justice applied in circumstances covered by law yet influenced by principles of ethics and fairness. "

Looks pretty straightforward to me. What's your point here?

(nice work there. sneaking in a few buzz words without actually saying anything feel free to elaborate on why you think it's flawed etc. btw...)

OK- here we go.

You say "the council or the police can't touch them".

The council can evict them. And they do, frequently. That's why the travellers are trying to buy their own land. There we have a solution for the council in Civil law. That's one flaw under a point of law.

The police, under the circumstances of "trashing the area" or "causing problems for residents" have access to the charges of Criminal Damage, Behaving in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace, and a raft of other offences to cover illegal behaviour. If they break the law, you bet your arse they can be touched by the police. That's another flaw under a point of law.

ok well let’s take a look then. a man buys a plot of land, he wishes to build a house, so he applies for planning permission, the council refuse, as they are perfectly entitled to do and he cannot build the house. now if he goes ahead and builds it anyway, the council can (and will) order him to demolish/remove it, they can use the courts to force him to comply.

now let’s take the same scenario, except this time the man in question is a traveller. now under john prescott’s guidelines, travellers are given priority over ordinary people because they suffer 'racial discrimination' (his words, not mine) in planning applications. the welfare of travellers should be the first priority for the council when considering planning applications, and enforcement notices when planning laws are violated. councils are encouraged to grant permission, and not to seek the removal of travellers who do not have permission, under these guidelines. so the man who wants to build his house in this case has all this extra protection, simply by virtue of the fact that he is a traveller.

a more clear cut case of 'one rule for one group, another for everyone else' is hard to imagine and this is what the argument is about.

It's a flawed comparison. There's no mention in your "travellers" example of the fact that travellers were directed by Councils to land they could buy to inhabit under Home Office Circular 1/94. Before subsequently being threatened with eviction from their own land under planning laws.

You see?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Equity

(Law.)
"Justice applied in circumstances covered by law yet influenced by principles of ethics and fairness. "

Looks pretty straightforward to me. What's your point here?

well in that case it should be pretty easy for you to explain how equity will assist a traveller who is in violation of planning laws...

OK- here we go.

You say "the council or the police can't touch them".

The council can evict them. And they do, frequently. That's why the travellers are trying to buy their own land. There we have a solution for the council in Civil law. That's one flaw under a point of law.

The police, under the circumstances of "trashing the area" or "causing problems for residents" have access to the charges of Criminal Damage, Behaving in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace, and a raft of other offences to cover illegal behaviour. If they break the law, you bet your arse they can be touched by the police. That's another flaw under a point of law.

you're confusing the issue, deliberately i suspect...:/

two situations here. firstly where travellers camp on land owned by councils (or other public bodies), under the guidelines councils are encouraged not to seek the removal of them and that when considering any action the welfare of the travellers should be their first consideration. if you or i did the same then you can be quite sure that our welfare wouldn't be the first consideration for the council.

secondly where travellers buy land and build on it, when they seek planning permission (as i've already explained), councils are obliged, under the guidelines, to take things into account which they do not normally, simply because the applicants are travellers.

in both the situations, travellers have an advantage over everybody else. whatever you might think of that, you can't argue with the fact they have these advantages.

It's a flawed comparison. There's no mention in your "travellers" example of the fact that travellers were directed by Councils to land they could buy to inhabit under Home Office Circular 1/94. Before subsequently being threatened with eviction from their own land under planning laws.

You see?

and?

you or i or anyone can buy land and build on it, subject of course to planning controls. it should be the same for everyone, which is kinda the point here.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by C0ckney


well in that case it should be pretty easy for you to explain how equity will assist a traveller who is in violation of planning laws...

Okey-dokey. By appealing against the eviction order in the courts under the general principle of equity and, quite possibly, the Human Rights Act too- in view of the inequitable effects of the Planning laws.

Meanwhile the Government, keen to avoid nasty and expensive wrangling in the courts against defendants receiving legal aid, instructs councils to honour the spirit of their original guidance under circular 1/94. That's how.

you're confusing the issue, deliberately i suspect...:/

two situations here. firstly where travellers camp on land owned by councils (or other public bodies), under the guidelines councils are encouraged not to seek the removal of them and that when considering any action the welfare of the travellers should be their first consideration. if you or i did the same then you can be quite sure that our welfare wouldn't be the first consideration for the council.

That's equity for you. If, on the other hand, we had been guided to such land under the auspices of circular 1/94, and it was set against the backdrop of the numbers of existing living-spaces declining, the result could well be different.

secondly where travellers buy land and build on it, when they seek planning permission (as i've already explained), councils are obliged, under the guidelines, to take things into account which they do not normally, simply because the applicants are travellers.

in both the situations, travellers have an advantage over everybody else. whatever you might think of that, you can't argue with the fact they have these advantages.

Again, that's equity for you. And Circular 1/94, I might add.

You keep failing to place your arguments in context with the history of the situation- hence your missing of the point.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Okey-dokey. By appealing against the eviction order in the courts under the general principle of equity and, quite possibly, the Human Rights Act too- in view of the inequitable effects of the Planning laws.

Meanwhile the Government, keen to avoid nasty and expensive wrangling in the courts against defendants receiving legal aid, instructs councils to honour the spirit of their original guidance under circular 1/94. That's how.

i don't really fancy explaining all the law in this area to you, so i'll try to keep it short and simple.

you can challenge a planning decision in one of two ways, you can appeal against the decision itself, or you apply for a judicial review of the decision. neither of these (you shouldn't be surprised to here) are equity.

what the government does, as i have explained before, is instruct councils take more things into account when making decisions of this nature for travellers than it will for ordinary people. whether or not this is under the 'spirit' of circular 1/94, it gives travellers an advantage.

That's equity for you. If, on the other hand, we had been guided to such land under the auspices of circular 1/94, and it was set against the backdrop of the numbers of existing living-spaces declining, the result could well be different.

no it isn't. please show me where in circular 1/94 it says that travellers can buy land AND take free from planning controls, because it doesn't.

i can think of one situation where a traveller (because of a council's actions) MAY raise an equity that they can rely on to defeat a planning decision, but this should NEVER arise in practice. however, and i hate to be rude here, since it's become fairly clear you don't understand this area of the law, i doubt very much you will have thought of it.

Again, that's equity for you. And Circular 1/94, I might add.

You keep failing to place your arguments in context with the history of the situation- hence your missing of the point.

once again, no it isn't. you keep failing to place your 'legal' arguments within the context of the law, which is a pretty serious defect.

what i wrote in my last post (the two situations) is an accurate statement of the law. if you want to say that some of the tories' ideas in this area are bad (they are) then go ahead, if you want to try and justify the preferential treatment of travellers with regard to planning feel free. but please don't try to argue by making statements about the law which are inaccurate or simply untrue.