Eviction of the travellers at Dale Farm [Archive] - SV650.org

Messie

19-09-11, 03:25 PM

Even though I live on the other side of Essex, there has been a lot of talk today about the eviction of the travellers from the illegal bit of their site in Basildon.

I've looked at this from many angles, seen the news, listened to the reports and read many articles but I still can't make up my mind. I really can see both sides in this sorry situation. The travellers set up camp without planning permission, and have been difficult about it ever since. Basildon council are being so over jobsworthy it's now becoming a stupid massive expense.

I'd like to hear some other org views (so long as they're not nasty or racist or inflammatory) because as far as I see it, they're all in the wrong!

maviczap

19-09-11, 03:32 PM

Sorry but they've broken the law and its an illegal site. If you let them stay then the whole of the country will have a legal president to sty if they can do this, so can we.

You're not allowed to steal things its against the law

you're not allowed to break the speed limits its against the law.

One half of this site is legal, so why couldn't they ask for planning permission when they first set up the site?

Just to balance this up a bit, even in their native Ireland they are seen as a problem, its not just in England

Oh and they're supposed to be travellers, I don't see much evidence of them travelling with permanent buildings being errected

SoulKiss

19-09-11, 03:38 PM

How can you be a "Traveller" and own a brick built house?

As said - they broke the law now the law needs to sort it out.

Messie

19-09-11, 03:41 PM

Yep, I see all those points.

But 10 years arguing and going to court and millions already spent, and the eviction costing more? All over land that strictly speaking was once a scrapyard?

Bri w

19-09-11, 03:41 PM

Travellers, in one form or another, have been with us for hundreds of years. And for what ever reason there has always been mistrust, veiled hostility and downright open warfare on occasion between them and residents.

From my perspective they take from society, and give little in return. They may say they take nothing but just who pays for the clean up of a site after they've moved on? Who cleans up whilst they're there? And more often than not, talking from bitter experience, they cause trouble in town - we get 1/2 doz vans several times a year move onto a field near us. They usually arrive late in the week, and get at least a week before they're moved on.

However, doing nothing will not resolve a perpetual problem.

Personally I'd like to see permanent sites established for them that they must use. That they pay a site fee, in effect a council tax. If they won't do either then their vehicle is impounded until they pay. If they haven't paid within a set time then the vehicle is sold to pay their overdue fees.

As for Basildon Council being in the wrong, what law have they broken?

maviczap

19-09-11, 03:43 PM

They keep quoting that their Human Rights have been infringed

But this is about Planning Law, if you or I had irrected an illegal building and retrospective planning permission had been refused then the council would tell you to remove the building, otherwise they would have the power to demolish it.

Seen cases of this happening to Joe Public, so why do these Travellers think they can flout the law?

maviczap

19-09-11, 03:44 PM

But 10 years arguing and going to court and millions already spent, and the eviction costing more? All over land that strictly speaking was once a scrapyard?

Change of use from commercial to residential

maviczap

19-09-11, 03:46 PM

From my perspective they take from society, and give little in return. They may say they take nothing but just who pays for the clean up of a site after they've moved on? Who cleans up whilst they're there? And more often than not, talking from bitter experience, they cause trouble in town - we get 1/2 doz vans several times a year move onto a field near us. They usually arrive late in the week, and get at least a week before they're moved on.

However, doing nothing will not resolve a perpetual problem.

Personally I'd like to see permanent sites established for them that they must use. That they pay a site fee, in effect a council tax. If they won't do either then their vehicle is impounded until they pay. If they haven't paid within a set time then the vehicle is sold to pay their overdue fees.

As for Basildon Council being in the wrong, what law have they broken?

Yes if you impounded the brand new Range Rover I saw on the site, then they might pay their dues. ;)

Specialone

19-09-11, 03:49 PM

I've got zero sympathy tbh, I have to pay tax and bills for everything and abide by the rules so why shouldn't they.

The council aren't in the wrong at all so how can they "both" be to blame?

Let this one go and before long you'd have illegal sites everywhere, it's their lifestyle choice, nothing more.

Messie

19-09-11, 03:50 PM

maviczap

19-09-11, 03:56 PM

Couldn't they have found a compomise somewhere down the line?

Everything I've heard so far is that the travellers have turned down every option offered to them, council houses, free spaces on other travellers sites etc.

Because of their unwillingness to compromise, this has resulted in the massive costs incurred so far.

As we've said you can't let them break the law otherwise they'll all do the same thing. Its the price we have to pay for enforcing the law

Bri w

19-09-11, 03:56 PM

Bri - I completely agree that the council haven't broken any law. For once I'm not being a bleeding heart liberal here. The travellers have broken a law and shouldn't just get away with it, as we wouldn't if we didn't abide by planning laws.

I just find it difficult to reconcile this with the millions spent on the legal fight and now the eviction. Not all, but a significant proportion, will have to be paid by local people through council taxes. This area has a lot of unemployment and many people are not well off, and that seems unfair to me.

Couldn't they have found a compomise somewhere down the line?

In general terms I don't like compromises under these circumstances because in reality it devalues the law. This brings in the Humna Rights Law that the current Govt wants to abolish in Britain. Too often we see criminal activity, just like what the travellers have been doing, being argued as legal under the H.R. Act.

I'd hate to see the Act abolished as it is another freedom taken from us but I would like to see its scope restricted to what it actually is, not something someone wants it to be...

Relax Bri, think of your BP.

SoulKiss

19-09-11, 04:07 PM

Couldn't they have found a compomise somewhere down the line?

The only acceptable compromise was "tear down the illegal buildings, and if you want to put some back up go through planning just like everyone else".

Otherwise we are into setting precedent.

Here are some other cases that show its not just part of a witch-hunt against Travellers. (http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/press-release/watch-out-planners-are-about)

MisterTommyH

19-09-11, 04:10 PM

Couldn't they have found a compomise somewhere down the line?

Yeah, compromise is that they apply for planning permission like everyone else. Hang on, lets even give them a chance to apply for retrospective planning permission (just as everyone else can do).

The council then give it a fair hearing, according to planning regulations.

Yes there's been lots of money spent, but is that a reason not to enforce the law? The fact is it's got to such an amount of money and 10 years because the council weren't tough enough at enforcing the law in the first place.

Human rights are fine, but they do not extend to doing whatever you want to do and bugger the neighbours rights.

Just out of interest, I wonder how many slaves they will find when they go into the camp? What about their human rights?

Messie

19-09-11, 04:28 PM

EssexDave

19-09-11, 04:32 PM

If I built a building, or an attachment to an existing building which breached planning codes. I would most likely receive a fine and be forced to take it down at my expense.

Agree: Get them out. (Plus my manager lives fairly close and she wants them gone and has been banging on about it all day.)

dizzyblonde

19-09-11, 04:39 PM

I am beginning to lose the small bit of sympathy I had for the travellers.
They now applied for, and just won, another stay of eviction in the High court. Nothing can now happen til friday. So, several days more pay for the army of bailiffs and other assorted costs. They are a stubborn lot

You have to remember that they had a load of idiot tree hugging yoghurt knitters come and invade the site, with their wisdom of how to chain your neck to a gate, and expanding foam your arm to a brick wall, nonsense.

Pain of death, come and evict....cause this woman will choke to death if you open the gate...I bet the woman didn't even live in one of the caravans involved in the eviction!

How can any person in their right mind even try battling against a load of prats like that? They can only give them what they want as a temporary resolve until they get rid of the tree huggers making the process more difficult.

martin15s

19-09-11, 04:41 PM

No sympathy - these travellers want it all their way.

pookie

19-09-11, 04:43 PM

I heard the travellers did try to compromise by agreeing to move on for 6million pounds

http://www.basildonrecorder.co.uk/news/9234383.Travellers_asked_for___6m_to_leave_Dale_Fa rm/

not sure if this is factually correct but the idea of paying someone for doing something illegal in the first place really annoys me. I guess its the principal of upholding the law and not giving in to the law breakers.

Wideboy

19-09-11, 04:49 PM

i was going to start a thread about this subject but decided not to as gypo's just seem to **** me off

evict the scumbags, they do nothing but drain society...... can't even tarmac well

Messie

19-09-11, 04:49 PM

You have to remember that they had a load of idiot tree hugging yoghurt knitters come and invade the site,
.

I completely agree that a load a no good triouble makers have turned up in so-called 'support' ogf the travellers. In fact in a way I'm more worried about what they will do when the bailiffs enter.

But please don't call them tree hugging yoghurt knitters - most of this lot are hardened semi-professional 'protesters' - I want to say 'anarchists' but I don't want to give peaceful, thoughtful anarchists a bad name - the real liberals gave up on the situation in confusion some time ago.
Yohurt knitting is a peaceable way of life, full of compromises ;)

slark01

19-09-11, 04:56 PM

I'd like to know which idiot judge allowed them to carry on. This situation should have been resolved years ago. It's now time for the bully boys to get in there and kick some butt. I really detest these kind of people, always think that they can get away with anything and as soon as someone says no, they try and take the fooking high road.
OOOOOOOOOhhhhh I could crush a grape :smt019:smt013:smt076:smt097
Ste.

dizzyblonde

19-09-11, 04:59 PM

I completely agree that a load a no good triouble makers have turned up in so-called 'support' ogf the travellers. In fact in a way I'm more worried about what they will do when the bailiffs enter.

But please don't call them tree hugging yoghurt knitters - most of this lot are hardened semi-professional 'protesters' - I want to say 'anarchists' but I don't want to give peaceful, thoughtful anarchists a bad name - the real liberals gave up on the situation in confusion some time ago.
Yohurt knitting is a peaceable way of life, full of compromises ;)

Ahh see I was being ever so polite, but couldn't quite find the right description for them either! thats all I could think of!:p
Once these sort of people get involved in something like this, its extremely hard to get rid of them without a fight, and it really diverts attention away from the original job. Now the law and council have two battles to fight...and the 'idiot professional protesters' play a lot nastier than the travellers.

Just a side note, is this the same site that was in the news last week for holding kidnapped men against their will? Homeless fellas, they promised to give jobs to in exchange for a place to stay? But they ended up being held prisoner in locked barns at night?

timwilky

19-09-11, 05:05 PM

unfortunately their illegal tactics have been copied all over the country. However local councils tend to be quick to go to court and get things resolved.

Locally it is costing my local council £145,000 to fight 2 non travellers who are abusing the planning laws (http://www.chorley-guardian.co.uk/news/local/travellers_get_fresh_inquiry_1_3766186). Another local group hit some land on the good friday knowing they would then have a a good couple of days before the council good halt their illegal development (drains, hard standing, electricity, water etc.)

You have to feel for those who bought homes near dale farm, to suddenly get this illegal occupation on their doorsteps. Causing know doubt over occupancy of schools, doctors etc. as there numbers would never have been envisaged in local plans.

Messie

19-09-11, 05:07 PM

No DB, the 'slaves' were found at a site in Bedfordshire (I think)

maviczap

19-09-11, 05:12 PM

BigBaddad

19-09-11, 05:31 PM

Yes which will mean that the council have even less money to spend on esential things

Like education?

Think of those dopey student types that stuck their arms in barrels laying on cold damp ground all week now...d1cks! Travellers go travel.

Quiff Wichard

19-09-11, 05:39 PM

I would get the fire brigade in and hose them all with freezing cold water for an hour .. cut off the electricity to the site and block the road so they cant get supplies..

problem is- all this money and time.. and they will just move a few miles down the road for it all to start again .. or fragment and cause the same chaos in pockets across the country

maviczap

19-09-11, 05:42 PM

Think of those dopey student types that stuck their arms in barrels laying on cold damp ground all week now...d1cks! Travellers go travel.

Oh yes and we're paying them as well :smt019

orose

19-09-11, 06:12 PM

NTECUK

19-09-11, 06:50 PM

The council has tried to compromise but the travelers are not people who compromise.
They have no understanding of our social conventions.
The law is a odds with the majority allowing another postponement .
They have had enough chances to move into houses or.move on.
Enough is enough .

tinpants

19-09-11, 07:00 PM

Give me an armoured D8 and an hour, then we'll see who the winner is. Human rights shouldn't apply to freeloading scum like this lot. As for the "semi professional protesters", WTFlyingF is that all about? Since when was being a protester a worthwhile profession? I'll bet their parents are so proud of them.

Really makes my p*** fizz!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH HH!!!

:smt092:smt092

Scrawf

19-09-11, 07:09 PM

Pikeys the lot of em. You know that they actually think they are a race apart and they see us 'normal' folk as a source of income! People to be swindled, cheated and abused. They even have words for us: Gorjer, Gawgaz or Gadjikane

I sugest you all read this before you comment: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Pikey

That was supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek BTW [-o< but I do have one comment to make: I suggest we leave them on their site in peace. Cos every time I have ever seen these so called 'country people' leave one of their makeshift roadside sites all I can see is hedges chopped down for firewood, old tyres, fridges, scrap and rubbish left by the roadside -fly tipping bas*ards. And no I don't resent paying council tax so all that can be cleaned up!

Scrawf

MisterTommyH

19-09-11, 07:15 PM

My limited understanding is that part of the site is legal, while a later extension is not. If this is the case, then the whole site can't be cleared with heavy plant. Maybe the approach to take is a little distraction, and see if you can get the idiots to chain themselves to the legal part before trashing the rest.

True. Part of the site was brownfield - They applied for and got planning for this. The rest of the site was greenfield - the part for which they have been denied, or haven't applied for planning permission.

Heard one of the say "we didn't know we were breaking the law" as an excuse today. Wonder if that'll work for me if I get pulled over?

yorkie_chris

19-09-11, 07:37 PM

Basildon council are being so over jobsworthy it's now becoming a stupid massive expense.

I'd like to hear some other org views (so long as they're not nasty or racist or inflammatory) because as far as I see it, they're all in the wrong!

Good on the council for standing up to these bloody pikeys.

Sorry but I can't be anything other than nasty and racist against these particular group. They only take from any area blighted by them, never give.

I say clear the site. Give them an hour warning. Then clear it with immediate and decisive force.

That IMO is a pretty reasonable suggestion. A lot of people would like to see them exterminated. Lets just say turning up and nicking everything in sight isn't the best way to make friends and influence people.

Messie

19-09-11, 07:41 PM

maviczap

19-09-11, 07:44 PM

I'm not sure how true this is but there was a report that one group of travellers own large parts of a town in Limerick, Eire, and that many of this group are on the Dale Farm site.

Yep I'd heard the same and they go back there for 6 weeks holiday every year

If this is the case then they should just go back there. Why live here, illegally, where they're not wanted, when they have a home elsewhere .

Do you really have to ask, money, lots of it, our money :rolleyes:

Lozzo

19-09-11, 07:47 PM

Not all, but a significant proportion, will have to be paid by local people through council taxes.

How much of those 'local taxes' has been contributed by travellers who live in the area and make full use of the services such as Police, waste collection, road maintenance etc provided and paid for by the council?

I see a huge number of very expensive vehicles parked up on that and other traveller sites, but I've yet to hear how many of them pay taxes, like every other law abiding citizen does, to fund their existence in this country.

Scrawf

19-09-11, 07:47 PM

Basildon council are paying £8m to clear the site and another £10m for the Police! FFS! The land is only worth £120,000!!! :mad:

Teejayexc

19-09-11, 07:48 PM

I'm not sure how true this is but there was a report that one group of travellers own large parts of a town in Limerick, Eire, and that many of this group are on the Dale Farm site.
If this is the case then they should just go back there. Why live here, illegally, where they're not wanted, when they have a home elsewhere?

They claim poverty, and every other flaming benefit they can get their grubby hands on. Yet they run about in '11 plate Range Rovers, live like Lords, own half of Ireland, and get tax payers the likes of you and I to fund it all.

Who's the mugs? :(

Lozzo

19-09-11, 07:50 PM

That IMO is a pretty reasonable suggestion. A lot of people would like to see them exterminated. Lets just say turning up and nicking everything in sight isn't the best way to make friends and influence people.

The residents of the small close I used to live in made sure they didn't stay when they pitched up on the playing fields our kids used. Under cover of darkness on the third night - after three vehicles had been stolen in an area where none had ever gone missing - a barage of fireworks was aimed at their vans and let off, it lasted about 20 minutes and kept the local kids amused - they were gone in half an hour and never returned, no-one's had a car nicked there since.

Scrawf

19-09-11, 07:58 PM

Who is acting for these people? Some layers somewhere has managed to get them a reprieve. Where there's much there's brass.

What about this guy? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5537013/Former-Lib-Dem-planning-spokesman-advises-gypsies-on-running-illegal-camps.html

Messie

19-09-11, 08:02 PM

Only til friday Scrawf. Then the circus starts again

Gordon72

19-09-11, 08:10 PM

I lived in Eire for a few years and have been onto many a traveller site in my previous job as a paramedic there.
Most of there money in ireland came from drugs and the rest from running scams etc like pitching up on a farmers site and moving on for just less money than the legal eviction would cost.
Bunch of criminals the lot of them and we should pull out of europe so we can deport them back to Ireland.
I have also seen the aftermarth of two familys fighting each other witch involved meat hooks and shotguns.
At the end of the day they have broken the law and if they don't like the repercussions of that then they can travel back to ireland.
Sorry if my views offend anyone but i am just giving my views after dealing with them.
I would like to add though that i have also met nice polite law abiding travellers but they do seem to be in the minority.

Sid Squid

19-09-11, 09:55 PM

I still can't make up my mind. I really can see both sides in this sorry situation. The travellers set up camp without planning permission, and have been difficult about it ever since. Basildon council are being so over jobsworthy it's now becoming a stupid massive expense.
I don't see why you say the council have been jobsworths, surely they have duty to uphold the law, I know how irritating it is to be denied planning consent, but if it's the law, then it's the law.

Sadly there is a racial discrimination element to this sorry business - the 'travellers' wish other racial groups be subject to the law but not them - that's racist.

As an aside, perhaps someone knows better, but as I understand it the disputed area is land defined as 'Greenbelt', thus planning consent could not be granted under any circumstance. If this is the case then the local authority have a specific and particular duty to ensure its status.

dizzyblonde

19-09-11, 10:02 PM

If it was greenbelt land, then how did they allow a scrapyard to put on it...surely that particular aspect would have also allowed 'temporary buildings', which is what they live in....and didn't the travellers own that scrapyard in the first place(Which is how I was led to understand the situation), just not have planning permission for 'permanent' buildings?

Sid Squid

19-09-11, 10:16 PM

If it was greenbelt land,
I am under the impression that the disputed part is greenbelt - the part that is legally occupied is brownfield - as it was once commercial/industrial - I have heard scrapyard mentioned, but I'm still not certain of that.

Not that it matters what it used for of course - that's not the disputed piece of land.

dizzyblonde

19-09-11, 10:28 PM

I am under the impression that the disputed part is greenbelt - the part that is legally occupied is brownfield - as it was once commercial/industrial - I have heard scrapyard mentioned, but I'm still not certain of that.

Not that it matters what it used for of course - that's not the disputed piece of land.

Ahh right, so basically they had a bit of land, and slowly they crept over onto another bit, and thought nobody would notice :rolleyes:
Makes more sense now.
Now usually when someone pinches a bit of land at the bottom of their garden theres not many folk that would notice, but when its kinda sprawled over an acre or two, people start getting a bit annoyed!

Hence the poor fella who does legally own a house and garden slap bang next door to them. How the hell he copes is anyones guess, but I do seem to remember the BBC painting hims as some nutter.

squirrel_hunter

19-09-11, 10:38 PM

You have to remember that they had a load of idiot tree hugging yoghurt knitters come and invade the site, with their wisdom of how to chain your neck to a gate, and expanding foam your arm to a brick wall, nonsense.

Spotted that one on the news earlier, someone sat with their arm expanded foamed into a barrel of concrete apparently. For pure comedy value I hope they film the moment when they tell the chap its all off until Friday.

But on a serious note. The problems as I see them are thus:

The planning laws, local council, Parliament, and the English courts are so flawed that this situation was allowed to carry on for 10 years.

The part of the building that does not have planning permission is just that. It has no planning permission and must be removed as it would be in any other situation.

I am amused that while it is widely acknowledged that the travelers have broken the law (planning) they are doing their very best to then use it to their advantage.

The solution as I see it can only be legal and planned Traveler sites. Local councils already provide some, as they also provide housing for some non Travelers. However the councils do not have enough housing for the non Travelers let alone the Traveling community. Therefore it is up to themselves to provide their own accommodation. The Travelers here had the money to buy the land, why don't they buy other land that has permission? If the land is to expensive then they need to buddy up and make sacrifices until they can afford the land. Think of all those still living with their parents long after they wanted to leave while they continue to save for a deposit...

-Ralph-

20-09-11, 12:33 AM

Basildon council are paying £8m to clear the site and another £10m for the Police! FFS! The land is only worth £120,000!!! :mad:

The 18 million quid being spent has nothing to do with the travellers, or the planning laws, or whether or not they should stay or go. The money spent is an entirely different issue, called the public sector gravy train, and it's the key reason that we pay so much tax and still have a massive deficit.

If you were to go to competitive tender and get a private company to bid for the job of evicting the travellers and cleaning up the site afterwards, and you could give them the legal powers to do it, what would they quote? Lets say it took 100 people working full time a month to secure and clear the site, at a wrapped employment cost of 50k including a nice margin, that's £400k, another £100k on equipment hire, another £200k gives you 1000 hours of legal work, etc, etc. It'd be no more than 1.5 to 2 million quid for sure. Our public sector wastes money hand over fist, and I'd say paying 4-5 times the real cost is fairly typical.

Give me an armored D8 and an hour

And tinpants would do it for free

Sid Squid

20-09-11, 08:27 AM

Our public sector wastes money hand over fist, and I'd say paying 4-5 times the real cost is fairly typical.
At least. Probably more, but it's OK - it's government money, (that is; your money), and you're a Nazi if you'd like it to be responsibly, carefully and reasonably spent.

The solution, (I know this as a student told me and she seemed very sure), is for everyone, (except students et al obviously), to pay yet more.

Crashing back to the point:

Even at the cost, it's correct to take action in this circumstance - what price the rule of law? I still think it's worthwhile upholding the law. That comes at a price, and I'm not sure that the law's action or inaction should be decided by the bill, (that's the bill as in the cost, not The Old Bill - we shouldn't be letting them make the decisions).

20-09-11, 08:50 AM

Our public sector wastes money hand over fist, and I'd say paying 4-5 times the real cost is fairly typical.

I can't let you get away with that. I work in the public sector nowadays. Apart from one area, I'm not allowed to spend anything. Budgets are strictly controlled. The one area I can spend is to buy JCT contract forms. They are hideously expensive, £18 - £29 for one contract depending on which, a minor works one is £18, a measured term contract £29, many would simply copy the document and hope nobody notices, but we pay JCT for each one. And I produce loads of them...

Local authorities have to comply with so many irritating laws - the Freedom of Information Act is damned expensive to comply with because it means having a team of people to answer idiot questions from the local press so that the paper can then run a story on how inefficient the council is. Or think of the cost of collating all the ridiculous NIS info that councils have to send to central government, a cost that private sector doesn't have. Or the cost of complying with the EU directives on public sector procurement, notices in the Official Journal and so on. I could go on and on. Don't blame local authorities or health trusts, blame the government for imposing so much bureaucracy.

Specialone

20-09-11, 09:20 AM

My wife works in the Nhs so ralph is correct with SOME sections of public services being stupidly expensive and excessive.

We pay way too much for some things, outside contractors for example( excluding you Ed obviously) and you can buy pain killers cheaper at asda than the Nhs pay for them, it's no suprise we are skint.

SoulKiss

20-09-11, 09:50 AM

The one area I can spend is to buy JCT contract forms. They are hideously expensive, £18 - £29 for one contract depending on which, a minor works one is £18, a measured term contract £29, many would simply copy the document and hope nobody notices, but we pay JCT for each one. And I produce loads of them...

Whats a JCT form?

-Ralph-

20-09-11, 04:21 PM

Not even going to enter into debate on it Ed, that battle is won before it starts.

I work in the both public and private sector, for a private sector organisation delivering large IT projects and Im directly responsible for the commercials. These dont have significantly different requirements, for instance whether or not you need to employ people to comply with FoI the back end IT infrastructure you store the data on can be identical in private or public sector. The public sector still spends multiples of that spent by the private sector to deliver the same end result.

Its not just in my experience that this is evident, construction sees exactly the same, education, healthcare, all the same too. I think its clear to all that 18m quid to evict these gypsies is rediculous.

Messie

20-09-11, 04:51 PM

I'm not absolutely certain ( sometime I have other things to think about than this)but I think I heard that most of the costs so far - so excluding bailiffs fees - are for legal costs. I'm also pretty certain that most legal representation is outsourced from local councils these days. The days are long gone, I believe, where each council had it's own fully staffed legal depatment.
People's comments here, and further information today, is really making me think that the travellers are extracting t p now. This latest High Court action is just a stalling tactic. The Leader of Basildon council has said that when they win again on Friday he will bill them all for the additional costs incurred. The travellers have been offered alternative places to live, but they are not culturally suitable, apparently. If I was homeless I'd take whatevr I could and work up from there

maviczap

20-09-11, 05:28 PM

I think its clear to all that 18m quid to evict these gypsies is rediculous.

Yes it is ridiculous, and by all accounts if the council had nipped it in the bud earlier there wouldn't have been this problem.

However if it costs £18m to stop this happening again anywhere else in the country, by upholding the law, then its £18m well spent.

-Ralph-

20-09-11, 06:20 PM

The question of spend doesn't usually relate to who carries out the work. Though of course private organisations profit from outsourcing of public sector work, I strongly believe that in IT that is to the advantage of the taxpayer, as they have more experience, better skills and are more efficient at it, so sometimes charge more per unit of work (though not always when you add up internal costs properly), but spend way less time on the task.

The issues are usually (a) how more how much more work is carried out that wouldn't be deemed necessary in the private sector, (b) how much work is delayed because the public sector organisation can't adhere to it's own timescales, or (c) how much work is repeated because the public sector organisation got the original specification wrong or reversed a decision, and sent the contractor back to the drawing board (a specification or decision which they probably contracted another organisation to make in the first place).

In the private sector you get a job to do, a timescale, and a budget, and your success is measured by whether or not you stick to it.

Biker Biggles

21-09-11, 02:30 PM

Another pinko anarchist bleeding heart liberal here says they should be slung out.They illegally built a village on land that didnt have planning permission.Now anyone can make a mistake with planning,and build something that is a tad too big/high or whatever,and hope that sensibly adjustments can be made,but to deliberately build a whole camp?Then insist they have a right to stay there just because they are there?Naff off.Actually it should be a criminal matter to deliberately flought planning law on such a grand scale,and most important it should have been legal to nip it in the bud ten years ago and get em out then and there.
God I hate Pikeys.

DMC

21-09-11, 03:07 PM

Whats a JCT form?

Its a standardised contract used in multi-contractor construction works;)

punyXpress

21-09-11, 03:12 PM

[QUOTE=tinpants;2604679]Give me an armoured D8 and an hour
Mick Spreader could do it in half! ;)

SoulKiss

21-09-11, 03:17 PM

Its a standardised contract used in multi-contractor construction works;)

So would it not make sense for the council to employ Ed and give him a few thousand pounds to draft something that is functionally the same that they could then use for free from then on?

DMC

21-09-11, 03:36 PM

gruntygiggles

21-09-11, 03:53 PM

More stalling will come around on Friday no doubt.

What would I do? Well...you've got someones neck tied to a gate...stuff the gate and demolish the wall next to it to gain entry.

Protestors won't let you near person attached by neck to gate or person whose arm is concreted to whatever...well, so what. Demolish everything around them and leave them where they are. They chose to put themselves there...leave them there...they'll be wondering why the hell they are stuck chained to gates or expansion foamed to concrete barrels when all that is left on site is rubble and a clean up team.

£18m IS worth it in order to set the precendent that this will not be tolerated and the publicity surrounding this should be used by the council to spread to the message far and wide.

In the process, we should be seeing their range rovers and top of the range caravans seized and sold to recover some costs.

They own property in Ireland? Well great...if they live in that property, all is fine, if they live on other land legally and with all correct consents, fine...but next time they live on other property, breaking the law and causing more cost to the public, those houses should also be sold. They won't have to worry about where they will have to live, they are travellers...go travel!

The bit that REALLY gets my goat is that they are saying that the alternatives offered are not culturally suitable. Well...I would not find it culturally suitable to have these people at the bottom of my garden. Can I use that as a reason to have them evicted? No!

If our country doesn't suit your culture...go somewhere that does!

Before anyone says that is very narrow minded of me...I have no problem with anyone from any country coming to our country to make a better life for themselves when they live by our laws and support themselves. I don't have a problem with people bringing their religions with them...they have every right to believe what they want to believe...I only disgaree when I am told that I cannot support the religion I choose because it offends them. I am a very very tolerant person...but when laws are broken and flouted...that tolerance is gone and quite rightfully so I think.

It may not be legally possible to use the methods I would like to use but hey ho...I'm not doing it, I'm just saying it's what I would do if I could.

MisterTommyH

21-09-11, 04:30 PM

So would it not make sense for the council to employ Ed and give him a few thousand pounds to draft something that is functionally the same that they could then use for free from then on?

It's a form of contract built on the experiance of an entire industry with lots of add and omit claused for specific circumstances (like a booklet).

It's doubtful one guy could draft something like that in a reasonable time and get it right....and if he did it would be so close to the JCT that they'd probably shout Plagiarism.

JCT is a copyrighted form and you pay what the copyrighted owner wants for it.........£18 isn't much in the scheme of a big contract, problem is the councils insist in breaking things into small contracts.

Bluefish

21-09-11, 05:00 PM

Yep, i was just going to say the exact same thing GG ;) I'm Laughing at all those stuck in barrels :smt019

Messie

21-09-11, 05:14 PM

Yep I'm getting all the views here and I really do now swing to the council.

Just one thing now bugs me - the cost. Someone has to pay the bailiffs, the legals bods, the Police, even the extra teaching staff for the travelling kids and so on.

I know you are going to say to take the travellers stuff to pay for it, but it really isn't that simple and anyway, that wouldn't bring in that much; well not 18 mil type of money.

I think it should come out of Central Government funds, but then, the whole country is strapped for cash. We can't afford to build anything now, as a country

I can't see that it's right for the local to pay the bulk of it via their council tax? In a way many of them have suffered already

-Ralph-

21-09-11, 05:19 PM

Is there any currently legal avenue, through which Joe Bloggs, an ordinary member of the 'settled' community, would be fined for breaking planning laws?

Messie

21-09-11, 05:24 PM

That's a good question

yorkie_chris

21-09-11, 05:27 PM

Just one thing now bugs me - the cost. Someone has to pay the bailiffs, the legals bods, the Police, even the extra teaching staff for the travelling kids and so on.

I'd turf some pikeys out for free, why didn't they ask for volunteers?

Messie

21-09-11, 05:37 PM

That is a noble and brave offer of help YC, which I'm sure should be appreciated. I think you'd have some support from Tinpants and probably others too lol!

Trouble is, that wouldn't be legal, and you'd all end up in more trouble than the orignal problem. If we're going to go down the 'always uphold the law' route ( which I think we should) then the way they are evicted muct be legal too.

And anyway - I thought you didn't like Essex ;) ;)

yorkie_chris

21-09-11, 05:40 PM

Honestly with the chance to inconvenience some pikey scum I'd even help out Lancashire.

Messie

21-09-11, 05:53 PM

Bluefish

21-09-11, 08:26 PM

Honestly with the chance to inconvenience some pikey scum I'd even help out Lancashire.

Hey, it's so bad round here even the pikey's won't move here :rolleyes:

timwilky

22-09-11, 07:19 AM

Speak for yourself Andy, your problem is you are too near Burnley that is why the pikeys wont appear. Here in Chorley we have a problem of two pikey families buying land for grazing and converting in to a pitch for their caravans.

The council have been to court, rejected the planning applications, the inspector has rejected the appeals, back to court, more appeals and it has been going on for years. I know the sums are nowhere near what Basildon has to spend. but for a little town council they are having to put aside £145,000 just for the next round of court battle against these 2 pikeys. It would have been far cheaper to give them the cash and tell them to p155 off back to paddyland.

Sid Squid

22-09-11, 08:01 AM

I can't see that it's right for the local to pay the bulk of it via their council tax? In a way many of them have suffered already
It's a difficult question, and I sympathise with Essex Council Tax payers, but ultimately it is a local authority planning matter, (albeit that it may well have nationwide ramifications - well, I hope it will), and I think it should be viewed in terms of the LA's yearly budget/spend - I have a feeling that £18M will seem like a droplet.

Which is not to say it's right, or a irrelevant figure.