UKC

Just wondering if the Labour party consulted their own West Midlands parliamentary candidate, Geoffrey Robinson, before making their manifesto pledge to 'protect the right of travellers to a nomadic way of life'.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/labour-mp-calls-change-law-13042937

In reply to Pekkie:

That's not necessarily a conflict of opinion.
Most people would agree the current system doesn't work - travellers pitch on private or public land even if the site is wholly inappropriate to locals and travellers alike - and can stay there for weeks until a court orders them to move.

Far better would be to have increased availability of 'approved' sites where travellers can stay, distant from local housing areas, and where they might have more responsibility for keeping the site clean (and more legal accountability for their actions whilst staying).

In reply to Pekkie:

Of course not, but then he doesn't actually 'lead' his party in any true sense. On the slim chance that he does win the election this will rapidly become apparent when his parliamentary party start fighting with the 'leadership' over most of his well meaning but ill thought out policies.

In reply to Pekkie:


What, this "way of life"?

http://www.essexlive.news/travellers-leave-piles-of-rubbish-on-beautiful-gr...

In reply to Big Ger:

This is going against the grain as I'm sure most people on this forum dislike all travellers and that's that BUT......
There are (at least) two distinct and very different groups of travellers who don't associate with each other that much and quite often even dislike each other. One is the Gypsies the other is new age travellers, or to put it another way. One group are straight travellers and one group much more alternative.
Contraversial as this may sound but judging from my experience the people on the new age traveller side are much more earth conscious and therefore not likely to leave unrecycleable waste behind. I've witnessed it many times they will clear up every last thing after they leave a site or a festival especially to avoid bad press. Not so with the gypsies.
In the article you linked to with all that garbage it didn't say which type of travellers, gypsy or new age? What do you think?

In reply to Pilo:

In the article you linked to with all that garbage it didn't say which type of travellers, gypsy or new age? What do you think?

Probably the Gypsy type and the rubbish they've left behind is probably from jobs where they've charged people for waste removal.

In reply to Pilo:

I thought New Age travellers had largely grown out of it and dissipated? I've never been aware of any around our way, although I dare say they're a a lot more low key than others.

The two largest groupings I would say are Roma and the Irish Travellers, and trouble seems to follow a subset of one of those groupings far more closely than the other.

There's a reasonable number of people living a travelling lifestyle for much of the year with carnivals, but I've never heard of any illegal camps, littering or allegedly associated crime waves with them.

I see the current state of affairs as very racist against the travelling community, because the state disproportionately fails travellers and especially their children and women in terms of health, education and protection from violence (largely internal to the communities). Their children should have their rights realised equally to the settled community at all costs. Talking to one Irish Taveller born and raised in northern England, the level of poverty experienced by him and his 11 siblings was appalling and not something becoming of a leading democracy. I also don't think it was atypical of those at the bottom end of the community, and it all seems to happen outside the state's welfare systems, which really don't cope with highly mobile vulunerable people.

In reply to wintertree:
I'm not sure if it was simply 'growing out of it' or being forced further underground or abroad by such draconian laws put in by Tory and New labour govt. The people resented that even though they were cleaner than the gypsies they were disriminated against much more by the police. Maybe because of the hugely growing festivals which after being commercialised didn't belong to them any more and was a massive culture and income for the whole scene.
They were almost outlawed but still exist now in a few sites and travel more in summer. They have been hugely discriminated against and deprived of basic rights as have the gypsies. The gypsies ended up blaming the new age rave starters for laws against them and the new age travellers blamed the gypsies for garbage so in the end everbody hates each other and normal people with houses could despise all of them which suits the goverment perfectly.

Meanwhile the politicians and sun readers kids can go to the new festival/parties for £200 a ticket. Money which doesn't go to any travellers even though they started the whole thing. What was it called that old British govt never fail tactic... Divide and rule. It worked again. Keep people hating each other so they don't hate us.

In reply to wintertree:


What aload of absolute bollocks. What fails the gypsy community is their own apalling attitudes to all of these things. Its entirely a lifestyle choice to live as they do outside of society whilst still taking whatever they can from the state and contributing nothing.
The only way to ensure the rights of their children would be to take them off them.

In reply to pec:


Can you elucidate rather than rant?


Do their children choose the lifestyle? No. Can they get out of it even as a young adult? Only with great difficulty and subject to much prejudice. So don't call what I am saying about the suffering of their children bollocks.


If needs be. Identifying and keeping track of individual children with a system that can cope with them moving around would be a start. Applying existing laws to protect all children without discrimination would be a good start.

In reply to wintertree:


So its their parents that are failing them and then the children go on to fail their children and so on. Its not the state that's failing them.


Do you really think that's possible when their families live effectively as outlaws who obstruct all forms of officialdom (except ones giving them money) and can upsticks and move on overnight without telling anyone where they're going?


Well as I said, the only way to effectively protect their children would be to remove them all from their parents at birth. How likely do you think that is?

Basically the gypsy lifestyle is incompatible with 21st century society in a country as densely populated as ours.

In reply to pec:

What type of world do we want? Identifying and keeping track of every single person. Taking children away from their parents for even tiny reasons and put them in the 'care' of the state. How far have we wandered from humanity? Do we want more controls than we have already? It sounds like you are saying, "everbody MUST live in a house!"

In reply to Pilo:


Why are you asking me this? Its Wintertree who feels we should be keeping tabs on all the gypsy kids to ensure the state doesn't 'fail' them.
Re the rights of gypsies, I don't care whether they live in houses or not, nor do I care if they want to move about every few weeks. If that has consequences for their health and education etc then that's their problem not mine, but I don't see why we as a society should run around after them (at great expense) trying to ensure they have equitable life outcomes when its their lifestyle choice to not have them.
What do I object to is them leaving a trail of shit (often literally) behind them wherever they go and generally acting as if they are above the law because the police are too scared to deal with them because the bleeding hearts brigade will be up in arms about it on their behalf.

In reply to pec:


When a child's parents fail them badly the state is supposed to step in and ensure the welfare of the children. So it is entirely possible for both the parents and the state to fail.

You go on yourself to explain that - in your view - it's impossible for the state to ensure the welfare of traveller's children. So you yourself suggest that the state fails! Yet you tell me it doesn't...

If the state fails victims of a legally defined race in a highly disproportionate way, then there is racism at play. It may be unintentional, and it may be largely due to the inability of the state to adapt to the unusual characteristics of that group.


Just like the state keeps tabs on all settled children to ensure they have a minimum level of welfare. Comprende?


Because we as a society are legally and morally bound to ensure a minimum level of child welfare and to protect all people from violence.


Funny because you object vociferously when I suggest that the law is applied to them in terms of child welfare and to protect victims of violence (domestic abuse). So you want to be angry at them for the fact the state finds it difficult to apply the law to them, but you also want to be angry about the state applying the law to look after their children?

You seem very confused.

In reply to wintertree:


But apparently we don't seem to apply that same burden of responsibility to them and whilst we throw resources at people who contribute nothing, the law seems powerless to protect those who suffer from the gypsies lifestyle choice i.e. those whose lives are blighted when the gypsy camp rolls up in their neighbourhood, where's our moral and legal duty to those people?

Basically there are two options, either they want the benefits of living in a civilised society in which case they need to adapt their lifestyle to one more compatible with benefitting from it, which incidentally would mean having to actually contribute to it.
Or they want to live apart from society in which case they can live with the consequences.
Rights come with responsibilities, except if you're a gypsy it would seem.

In reply to pec:


Yes, I agree entirely with you. The only difference is that I have been looking at it from the perspective of some of their children. When you think about it they have far more to loose than a settled community that suffer a transient visit.

My point is that the most vulunerable members of the travelling community suffer from a failure to apply the law equally to the travelling community, and that this changes the failure from one of annoyance to the settled community to one of racism against the travelling community, because it significantly disadvantages their vulunerable people compared to the settled community.

In reply to wintertree:
Perhaps we're finding some convergence here, I have little to no sympathy for the 'plight' of the travelling community in general but I accept that their children have no choice in how they are brought up, even if they do go on to perpetuate the problem with the next generation.

The primary responsibility for the upbringing of children lies with the parents which is why I find the mantra that WE are failing them so annoying, as it shifts the blame from those who bear the greatest responsibilty to the already overstretched resources of local authorities with the law abiding tax payer picking up the bill.
Anyway, given the travellers attitude to outside interference and their habit of clearing off if they sniff trouble then I don't see how social services can ever be effective short of taking all their kids away at birth which isn't going to happen and I'm not advocating.

In reply to wintertree:


You have been very lucky then.
Last year a bunch of them cut the lock off the gate of the engineering Collage opposite my workshop and in broad daylight I watched them taking crow bars to the shutters on the building trying to get in.

Through the night my cctv showed torch light in the compound behind be at various points through the night and shadows could be seen crossing the road to the camp and back.
The next day they had gone, as had every catalytic converter from the 20 or so van's in the compound.

I come across them on sewage works regularly too, mainly metal theft but a few guys I know have been physically assaulted for asking them to leave the works.

In reply to Pekkie:

A racist stirring racism. Maybe you should join the EDL.

In reply to Sandstonier:


I put it to you, sir, that you are a moron.

In reply to Pekkie:

Just to clarify. Whenever you post anything even mildly critical of travellers on here, you get loads of dislikes and are accused of racism. The Labour Party pledge should have read 'to protect the right of travellers to a nomadic life....AND...to try and resolve the problems this causes for local communities'.

In reply to Pekkie:

Pekkie you said... Whenever you post anything even mildly critical of travellers on here, you get loads of dislikes and are accused of racism.

So is that why Pec got so many likes (23) for his lovely post...
'What aload of absolute bollocks. What fails the gypsy community is their own apalling attitudes to all of these things. Its entirely a lifestyle choice to live as they do outside of society whilst still taking whatever they can from the state and contributing nothing.
The only way to ensure the rights of their children would be to take them off them'.

Was he being mildly critical?
Judging by this reaction people here mostly dislike travellers more than mildly.

In reply to Pilo:

+1
The level of vitriol towards travellers/gypsy's on here always shocks me. It's the.... 'they're all the same' mentality that troubles me most. Replace the word gypsy/traveller with black, Pakistani, Jewish and it would not be accepted at all but somehow it appears acceptable to some to some on here.

There was a thread on here about a year to 18 months ago about some travellers on a field in Macclesfield. I was house sitting for a mate at the time who's house backed on to the field. The title referred to 'loads' of gypsies when in fact there were about 6 caravans, they moved on after a few days, left the place clean and tidy but you would never have thought so reading the comments on here.

In reply to abr1966:

Unfortunately not everyone's experiences of travellers is as positive as yours. Reasonably recently there have been two 'campings' on an industrial estate where I work and both times the amount of rubbish, devastation and shit (literally. Human and animal) had to be seen to be believed.

In reply to abr1966:
"The level of vitriol towards travellers/gypsy's on here always shocks me. It's the.... 'they're all the same' mentality that troubles me most. Replace the word gypsy/traveller with black, Pakistani, Jewish and it would not be accepted at all but somehow it appears acceptable to some to some on here."

The subject certainly gets some emotional responses - including one accusing me of being a racist. I just thought that the Labour Party manifesto pledge to support travellers' rights to a nomadic lifestyle ignored the very real problems that local communities - often working class, traditional Labour-voting and in the north of England - suffer because of the behaviour of some members of a disparate and varied traveller community. Is it not better to face these issues and come up with solutions rather than presenting a one-sided, romanticised view?

In reply to abr1966:
If Blacks, Pakistanis and Jews behaved like the Irish traveller community in their visits to our villages and towns then they would be met with the same level of vitriol on here. The fact that they aren't should tell you something.

And if we're doing anecdotes, I can tell you why the passage/ ginnel I use on my way to the Co-Op became unusable during the last stay of travellers on our local playing field: it was inches deep in human excrement. The reason? Having a toilet in your caravan is incompatible with traveller hygiene codes so defecation has to be done elsewhere.

I am aware that "mochadi"is a practice they have done for centuries but it is completely incompatible with the lifestyle of the rest of us. It might work if they only set up camp in desolate rural places but not in built up areas.

In reply to Pekkie:


Precisely why it would be beneficial to reverse the most recent legislation which does not require local authorities to consider traveller/gypsy communities within their housing/development plans.
Gypsy/ travellers do exist and will continue to do so, I'm not sure how ignoring this fact is beneficial to anyone.

Is it not better to face these issues and come up with solutions

Precisely....what solutions do you suggest?

... rather than presenting a one-sided, romanticised view?

I'm not sure if you are referring to my post here....if you are then it's a crass comment. I expressed my concern about the language and manner in which a community of people are referred to on here....previous threads on this topic has included language such as 'scum' and 'vermin' as examples.
My experiences of gypsies has mostly been ok, I've had some limited contact in my current work in the NHS but during my former career in the forces had a very positive experience with Kurdish gypsy groups during the gulf war.

In reply to abr1966:

Theres a big difference between Gypsies and 'travellers'. The chaps in transit vans with a penchant for horse/dog/metal/anything not nailed down stealing, burglary, dog fighting, poaching, GBH and generally leaving shit/asbestos/rubble everywhere tend not to be 'gypsies'.

In reply to abr1966:

I'm pleased that your experiences with gypsies have mostly been positive.
Mine are not entirely negative. In an hour I'll be in the pub drinking with a couple of full blooded but settled gypsies.
I'm quite sure that if a gang of Irish travellers set up camp anywhere within half a mile of your house, you might have a rethink, and that would not make you a racist at all.

In reply to Ridge:


So what is the difference. Which label do we put on the "chaps in transit vans with a penchant for stealing" if they are not gypsies? Pikeys, Gippo scum, hippies, NAT's or just thieves? From your description sound like nasty uncaring thugs to me. Problem is they all get lumped in together.
So many travellers are really sweet and would do anything to help you or anybody in need. Look at this short vid and tell me these people are bad.

youtube.com/watch?v=hdiC09W1ry8&

Then google her name to see what became of that child.

In reply to Pilo:


That video is about New Age Travellers. "Pikey" is as good a term as any for the majority of 'travellers' I've had the misfortune to encounter. Itinerant families of criminals who like to pretend they're some opressed minority, as it's a good way to scare away the Police.

In reply to Pilo:

Without even watching your link I can tell you that most New Age Travellers would be the very first to want to distance themselves from the practices of Irish travellers.
Ridge has got it more or less right.The label we put on the chaps in Transit vans with a penchant for stealing etc etc is "Irish travellers". (I am aware there are also Scottish and Welsh versions)
Since 2000 these people have been accorded ethnic minority status in the UK. It has taken the Irish government a further 17 years to give them the same. Perhaps they know something we don't.
I have no doubt in my mind that New Age Travellers are a completely different kettle of fish, treating their women as equals, caring about their kids' education, adopting 21st century hygiene habits and so on. I wish Irish travellers would learn from New Age Travellers but I doubt that they will.
I wouldn't dream of "lumping them in together"

In reply to Pekkie: I say you are a racist with a strange fixation upon these people. You could talk about, for example, much more important issues for example the problem fly tipping of hazardous materials like asbestos or even the the presence of PCBs in the food chain. Instead you focus on travellers etc. Kind of remind me of Hitlers obsession with the Jews.

In reply to Sandstonier:


Are you trolling me? All I'm saying is that the Labour Party policy should have included some reference to the problems that can arise from some (note the word 'some') groups with a nomadic lifestyle and the need for measures to alleviate those problems. Others have given the details of the problems, not me, though I have had some experience of them. Positive or what? Then you bring Hitler and the Jews into the discussion. In fact, it's not a discussion, it's just you making totally uncalled for - and anonymous - insults.

In reply to Sandstonier:


I call Godwins law

In reply to ThunderCat:


Ah, so that means the discussion is over? OK by me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

In reply to Pekkie:

Then you bring Hitler and the Jews into the discussion. In fact, it's not a discussion, it's just you making totally uncalled for - and anonymous - insults.

Albion is Ruckman, so to expect any rational thought is perhaps asking a bit much...

In reply to Pekkie:


Yup. Reductio ad Hitlerium

In reply to Sandstonier:
What an absurd analogy.
We are talking about real problems in a current setting.
I doubt that anyone on here is "obsessed" by gypsies, but many of us have had real life experiences of them and have formulated opinions based on those encounters. Some of us have even gone a step beyond, willing to learn about other cultures either from first hand dealings with gypsies or from internet research.
Unfortunately the reality is far from palatable, but the main thing to remember is that the gypsy community is a varied one, like that of most other ethnic groups. At one end you have the sort of person you'd have a pint with: at the other end are people whose lifestyle is completely incompatible with civilised society.
But I shouldn't need to persuade you; your best course of action would be to find your nearest Irish traveller camp and get an invite inside so you can judge for yourself. Good luck.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

A patronising racist.

In reply to Sandstonier:

Bit more detail , please.

In reply to Tom Valentine:
You haven't been courteous enough to reply to my request for details backing up your unfounded slur of16:14 so I'll open up other avenues for you.
My full name is Tom Valentine. ( Sorry, didn't get yours)
My phone number and address are in the Barnsley phone book.
My mobile number is 07932 521883.
You can e mail me via UKC.

You're probably busy so no real rush.
Off out myself now, coincidentally to a gypsy wedding reception.
I can't work out yet which that makes me - patronising or racist?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Well called out sir!

Respect!!

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Ok if their Irish travellers they probably hate the English And who can really blame them when you consider that Britain and its armies have been terrorising Ireland for the past 500 years.

In reply to Sandstonier:

Well if you are right and they are only shitting all over the place to pay perfidious Albion back for its historical excesses then that would imply that in the republic of Ireland they adopt different hygiene habits.
They don't.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Interesting to see that these forums are still haunted by the usual bevy of Little Englanders, dirty arsed Tories and narcissistic racists posing as bleeding heart liberals. Some things never change. Back to your whisky piss heads !

In reply to Sandstonier:

You haven't taken up my offer.
1.) Get in touch and tell me your name, as a matter of courtesy
2.)If at all feasible, come out for a pint with me. I'll buy.
3.)Sit round a table with some real gypsies, put across your point of view and listen closely to their responses.
4.) Come back to the forum and tell UKC what you have learnt.