Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dale Farm - £8million for Traveller Evictions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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
    Res ipsa loquitur

    Comment


    • #17
      Tell us what it is about Harry Potter that makes you be obsessed with like it. When and how did you become a fan? Was it the books, the movies, something else? Did somebody drag you to the cinema to see the movie with them and now you're the one who is obsessed with them?


      Now purchasing Harry Potter 1-7 DVD Boxset requires only $ 33.99,it will be a not bad choice for you to enjoy them by yourself, present them to your friends, sell them out or dropship(dropshipping) them to your clients.

      dvdshopsonline

      Comment


      • #18
        Great minds think alike ... You're terrific ...
        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cort Haus View Post
          That's probably Vanessa Redgrave, at a guess. She's a luvvie-radical.
          My "WTF" was for how the actress was given more gravity by the quote than politicians. An actress supporting some social "cause" or another... is more surprising than pols? WTF?

          Comment


          • #20
            Thanks for share good sharing

            Comment


            • #21

              Comment


              • #22
                Gypsies and pikeys should be forced to settle down or convicted as vagabonds.
                Last edited by onodera; September 8, 2011, 01:57.
                Graffiti in a public toilet
                Do not require skill or wit
                Among the **** we all are poets
                Among the poets we are ****.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Adverse posession does not apply if the owner objected. In some countries even
                  verbally is enough, don't know about England. So the fact that they were there
                  for 10 years might not mean a thing.

                  And why is the municipality required by law to provide housing? Do they have to
                  provide housing for me if I move there?

                  And a related question. There are/were literally millions of Roma in Romania, Hungary,
                  Slovakia, etc. I know many Poles moved to the UK upon entering EU, what about
                  Roma, did many of them move to the UK?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I am in Romania now, Why aren't these people provided with housing and jobs?
                    urgh.NSFW

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Go out, buy a hamburger, support the local economy!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by VetLegion View Post
                        Adverse posession does not apply if the owner objected. In some countries even
                        verbally is enough, don't know about England. So the fact that they were there
                        for 10 years might not mean a thing.

                        And why is the municipality required by law to provide housing? Do they have to
                        provide housing for me if I move there?

                        And a related question. There are/were literally millions of Roma in Romania, Hungary,
                        Slovakia, etc. I know many Poles moved to the UK upon entering EU, what about
                        Roma, did many of them move to the UK?
                        the legal action over the site has been going on for years, so adverse posession wouldn't apply. the council objected pretty early on as far as i know.

                        councils in england are required by law to provide housing for certain groups of people, families with children, vunerable adults and the like. they are also required to provide suitable sites for travellers to settle on. the real answer to evil kenvil's question is that if the travellers feel that the council didn't comply with the law then they have an action against them and the courts will decide. that doesn't equate to a right to occupy any site they choose because they feel their rights have been infringed.

                        i don't know about your third question. a lot of travellers here come from ireland. many came over after the irish government took some tough action against them, forcing them to settle. many chose instead to come to the UK.
                        "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

                        "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I wouldn't be able to build on that land. Neither would anyone else who has posted on this thread. This is a straightforward case of equality under the law and they should be made to tear down their encampment pronto.
                          Visit the Vote UK Discussion Forum!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Oooooh, in a funny coincidence, a government commission has decided to resettle a couple of tens of thousands of Bedouin in Southern Israel. They have been constructing buildings out of pieces of cardboard and metal for years now, and the government decided to do something about it.

                            It is quite a question, is it? Regardless of ethnicity, do modern governments have the willpower to enforce building laws on subcultures and minority cultures that see the world as their playground?
                            urgh.NSFW

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Provost Harrison View Post
                              I wouldn't want them on my land, the land I paid for. So why should I have to tolerate more bleeding political correctness and tolerate people not paying rent crashing on my land. Sorry, they may not like the rules, but it is those rules that make our society work. They have been provided with sites in the past that do not interfere with other communities that they can stay on, but this never seems to be quite good enough. I have little sympathy.
                              Originally posted by Oerdin View Post
                              Someone should go set up their camping tent on her front lawn & **** in her flower garden every day just to see how she likes it when the shoe is on the other foot.
                              Originally posted by VetLegion View Post
                              Adverse posession does not apply if the owner objected. In some countries even verbally is enough, don't know about England. So the fact that they were there for 10 years might not mean a thing.
                              In general @ this thread. The land settled upon was owned by the people settling it, and that half the land did have planning permission . A lot of the comments demonstrated here in this thread aren't based on facts ("nothing new!" I hear), but it would help if people try to read up on the issue before opining with irrelevant drivel.
                              One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by *End Is Forever* View Post
                                I wouldn't be able to build on that land. Neither would anyone else who has posted on this thread. This is a straightforward case of equality under the law and they should be made to tear down their encampment pronto.


                                Who was the guy who built a castle hidden by haystacks?
                                One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X