I think you might be getting mixed up a little bit. This isn't a case of trespass, rather of them building on restricted land. I understand objections to having someone on your land, or even a big mass of people coming in and overwhelming local facilities. But, here, this a 10 year occupation of a development, that has largely been peaceful.
You could argue they've broken the law, but, remember the law is always an evolving concept. If I had built something in plain sight, without planning permission, and kept for 3 years, I would have full rights to it (similarly with rights of access and pathways; adverse possession etc). You've also got to consider that, the local authority failed its legal duty to provide enough sites, and that their actions are quite disproportionate, and will greatly effect the travellers human rights.
To answer the question about Wimbledon Common :P I would support their occupation, if sufficient provision didn't exist elsewhere. HHowevcer, WC is a public, historic, green space used by the community, and not just empty land. By a better analogy, I would support them moving to the scrap-land next to the railway station :P
You could argue they've broken the law, but, remember the law is always an evolving concept. If I had built something in plain sight, without planning permission, and kept for 3 years, I would have full rights to it (similarly with rights of access and pathways; adverse possession etc). You've also got to consider that, the local authority failed its legal duty to provide enough sites, and that their actions are quite disproportionate, and will greatly effect the travellers human rights.
To answer the question about Wimbledon Common :P I would support their occupation, if sufficient provision didn't exist elsewhere. HHowevcer, WC is a public, historic, green space used by the community, and not just empty land. By a better analogy, I would support them moving to the scrap-land next to the railway station :P
Comment