hamster Posted 31 August, 2011 Share Posted 31 August, 2011 I say it is, or at the very least is a sad indictment of which some should look long and hard at themselves and how they wield their proxied powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-scooby Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 You buy some land, you move on to your land, you build without permission and live their without permission. Would be nice if we could all do that. Does not matter who is doing it, they are breaking the law. Black, yellow, gay, trans-sexual, pre opp, post opp, Irish traveller The law is the law.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 If you read 'the travellers thread' you'll see just how racist some of our fans are. Really shocking reading. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?31466-Travellers-at-Dowds-Farm-in-Hedge-End.&highlight=travellers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 They choose to live the laws when it suits them, they scream human rights abuse whilst failing to obey the law of the land in other respects, they can't have it both ways. Apparently there was a site there already with 10 pitches on that caused no problems at all and then they decided to expand, its their own fault they've got to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 Ethnic cleansing? Do people actually know the meaning of terms that they use on here, or are they so caught up in their own hyperbole that they actually believe these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 Ethnic cleansing it certainly is not. To be honest, I don't know enough about the personal circumstances to cast comment on whether they are a nuisance or not. However, from what I understand they do own the land legally, but have no planning permission. I wonder how the local infrastructure is coping with them? I guess it's sort of like the shanty towns of Rio de Janeiro and what not. You can either leave them there, even if the construction is illegal and accept the necessity that the people living there have to live somewhere. To do this you allow integration into amenities and just accept it as a new settlement. Or you can bulldoze it all and move everyone on, but then what? It's a tricky one, the law can't start making exceptions though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 Ethnic cleansing it certainly is not. To be honest, I don't know enough about the personal circumstances to cast comment on whether they are a nuisance or not. However, from what I understand they do own the land legally, but have no planning permission. I wonder how the local infrastructure is coping with them? As I live not too far away, i can answer some of Andy's questions. 1) Nuisance? Not really, in the typical "here some the gypos!" way. They have been there a long time, and the locals in Crays Hills are used to them and they dont disturb them. The areas further afield (Billericay, Brentwood etc) have seen some trouble that is linked to new arrivals, but nothing to get excited about. Nusisance as it "they have ruined the land", then yes there is a point here. The "builders" that are based on the farm are known in the area and do a lot of work on the old 50s garages that proliferate that bit of Essex. These nearly always have asbestos problems, but rather than having the roof properly disposed off, they are dumped on the farm land. Also, as was the case last summer, a large number of large, long burning bonfires have caused problems on the local main roads and residential areas. Also, other travellers have been attracted to thee area due to the high profile of the farm, and this has caused issues to land-grabbing and squatting on farm land and the local parks. These were nipped in the bud quickly. 2) Local Infrastructure. Again, this seems to be fine. The main way to get to the farm in on a side road off the A127, which can be a pretty major route and turning off at the turning can be, shall we say, an experience sometimes. As for other inf, such as power and water, I believe all the land is powered and watered from a main inlet which is all 100% paid and above board. Another item of note is that there have been a lot of reports of the travellers racing their horses and traps up and down the A127 - Ive seen it myself enough times. There have been a few crashes, injuries and traffic problems relating to this. The general feeling is that there are no problems with them exercising the animals on lesser roads, but not on the A127, A12 and the trunk roads. 3) Legality. The original farm is IIRC brown belt and they own it and have permission to constrained development. The problem is the growth of the site onto green belt land (which they purchased) and the illegal building on this without planning permission. The "excess" population have been offered over 50 alternative sites in the general area (ranging from Southend to Thurrock, and from Chelmsford to Romford) but they steadfastly refuse to move. Remove the fact of the "ethnicity" of the group and ask yourself if you would condone someone building hundreds of buildings on green belt land they owned, contravening planning permission. I would hope that most people would want any development removed in that case, so why not this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snopper Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 I thought the whole idea of being a `traveller` was to travel - the love of the open road and all that. Not to insist on staying put in some Essex backwater and refusing to `travel on.` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 How are they travellers if they own the land, and have been resident on it for so long? There doesn't seem to be a lot of travelling going on. Ethnic Cleansing (according to wiki, the official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.") is over dramatising it a bit. Eviction, certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 I thought the whole idea of being a `traveller` was to travel - the love of the open road and all that. Not to insist on staying put in some Essex backwater and refusing to `travel on.` Meh, dont get confused between Romany Gypsies who move freely and at will with Travellers who take up temporary residency someone (where temporary can mean any length of time you want) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 Remove the fact of the "ethnicity" of the group and ask yourself if you would condone someone building hundreds of buildings on green belt land they owned, contravening planning permission. I would hope that most people would want any development removed in that case, so why not this case? I think I do agree with your conclusions. They can't just be allowed to build on green belt land. Fair enough on the other land which isn't green belt and fair enough if you get planning permission elsewhere, but they don't have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snopper Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 Meh, dont get confused between Romany Gypsies who move freely and at will with Travellers who take up temporary residency someone (where temporary can mean any length of time you want) Thank you - it was merely a feeble attempt at irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 If they are a different race, it would be racist to let them break the law that everyone else have to abide by. Send in the bulldozers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 Thank you - it was merely a feeble attempt at irony. Sorry, tired today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 I guess it's sort of like the shanty towns of Rio de Janeiro and what not. It's comments such as this that impress me so much about the youth of today. They might not get out into the real world very often, but their finger is right on the pulse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffton Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 If they are a different race, it would be racist to let them break the law that everyone else have to abide by. Send in the flame throwers. Fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffo Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 If they're breaking the law then f*ck 'em. Off they go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 Fixed it for you. sounds much better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 (edited) It's comments such as this that impress me so much about the youth of today. They might not get out into the real world very often, but their finger is right on the pulse. Great, take one sentence of my post totally out of context. It actually is a lot like it. Both are illegal settlements and the choices of what to do with them have similar consequences. Edited 1 September, 2011 by Saintandy666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 I say it is, or at the very least is a sad indictment of which some should look long and hard at themselves and how they wield their proxied powers. Don't be stupid. I wish I could pay no tax and live on someone else's land. F*ck them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 Don't be stupid. I wish I could pay no tax and live on someone else's land. F*ck them. In fairness, they do own the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 Don't be stupid. I wish I could pay no tax and live on someone else's land. F*ck them. They also work and pay tax. What an ignorant post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 this is a wind up teread - right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 They also work and pay tax. What an ignorant post. Sure, they pay all their taxes. Good one. Mind you, loads of single mother benefit scrounging types also gyp everyone off. There, I am no racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 All I know is, if Id built my own house to live in on my land Id be out the front with a baseball bat defending it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 All I know is, if Id built my own house to live in on my land Id be out the front with a baseball bat defending it. You can buy grazing land for next to nothing, compared with land that has permission to build on. There is a difference. I have a large enough garden to build an extra three houses with space to spare, that would sort my pension for a start.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 1 September, 2011 Share Posted 1 September, 2011 All I know is, if Id built my own house to live in on my land Id be out the front with a baseball bat defending it. I don't doubt you would but you probably would have got planning permission before building the house too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 2 September, 2011 Share Posted 2 September, 2011 (edited) Ethnic? Since when was a disparate bunch of benefit scum 'ethnic'? These f-ckers have decided to flout the laws of this land, yes they purchased the land, and it will still be theirs - after the rule of law is applied and their pikey ramshackle ILLEGAL dwellings are ripped down. Rule of Law. They have no planning permission. End of. Edited 2 September, 2011 by 1976_Child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 September, 2011 Share Posted 2 September, 2011 If you read 'the travellers thread' you'll see just how racist some of our fans are. Really shocking reading. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?31466-Travellers-at-Dowds-Farm-in-Hedge-End.&highlight=travellers That thread was truly shocking. Its painful to know a number of these board members have Nazi ideologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 2 September, 2011 Share Posted 2 September, 2011 Napalm is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 2 September, 2011 Share Posted 2 September, 2011 We should put them all in a massive sack, do it up and then throw it in the North Sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 September, 2011 Share Posted 2 September, 2011 We should put them all in a massive sack, do it up and then throw it in the North Sea. I agree. Why stop at gypsies? We should do this to Jews as well and blacks and asians and chinese and foreigners and the disabled and midgets and anyone else who doesn't conform to our Nazi ideals we hold on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 2 September, 2011 Share Posted 2 September, 2011 I agree. Why stop at gypsies? We should do this to Jews as well and blacks and asians and chinese and foreigners and the disabled and midgets and anyone else who doesn't conform to our Nazi ideals we hold on this forum. Surprised you missed out gingers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 2 September, 2011 Share Posted 2 September, 2011 I agree. Why stop at gypsies? We should do this to Jews as well and blacks and asians and chinese and foreigners and the disabled and midgets and anyone else who doesn't conform to our Nazi ideals we hold on this forum. I assume you and dune would be organising this? I appreciate you were posting tongue in cheek, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 September, 2011 Share Posted 3 September, 2011 I assume you and dune would be organising this? I appreciate you were posting tongue in cheek, but still. check my post on the proper thread. I am embarassed by the racists in our fan base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 3 September, 2011 Share Posted 3 September, 2011 Ethnic? Since when was a disparate bunch of benefit scum 'ethnic'? These f-ckers have decided to flout the laws of this land, yes they purchased the land, and it will still be theirs - after the rule of law is applied and their pikey ramshackle ILLEGAL dwellings are ripped down. Rule of Law. They have no planning permission. End of. The law is an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millbrook Saint Posted 3 September, 2011 Share Posted 3 September, 2011 How is this ethnic cleansing, it is about building on property without planning permission, not to do with their race. I have no doubt they knew when they bought the land that it was green belt and as such were unable to build on it, if they didn't then they are idiots for not checking. I bought land off the council to build an extension onto my house, before I bought it I spent 2 years and a couple of thousand pounds (maybe more) trying to get planning permission as I knew the council would force me to knock it down if I just built on the land. Maybe I should have just built on it and claimed ethnic cleansing when the council tried to force me to knock it down. Anyone who is falling into the 'they're being picked on because they're travellers' is an idiot, it is the law of the land, you need planning permission before building anything. 1. Do you really think if an Englishman bought land and built on it without planning permission he wouldn't be forced to remove it. 2. What happens the next time they decide they want to ignore the law of the land 'forcing us to pay taxes is taking food out of our childrens mouths, you're starving them' 3. Does this mean that any ethnic group will be able to break the law of the land and just blame the enforcement of law on racial prejudice. 4. Finally does this mean we no longer need planning permission then, I can just buy a bit of grazing land in the forest nice and cheap, then build a nice 6 bedroom house on it, no planning needed. In fact I could start a business buying cheap land, build on it (no costly planning permission) then sell it at a nice profit. Wake up, these people are conning you all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 3 September, 2011 Share Posted 3 September, 2011 i have mixed feelings about the issue has the site was a scrapyard before so i would say it was not green belt land and thy have lived there for 10 years it reminded me of when saints wanted planning permission to build a new ground and athletics track at stoneham and a certain paedophile leader of hampshire council probably upset has he was not getting a a cut from the deal said it would be built over his dead body and used everytrick in the book to stop the plan including the green belt argument and anyone who knows the area with its motorways all around it knew what a joke that was ,but the rose bowl hampshire ground which i would say was more a green belt argument passed without no problems . .the law is not black and white has history has proved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 3 September, 2011 Share Posted 3 September, 2011 Napalm is the answer. Provided it's the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrhsaint Posted 4 September, 2011 Share Posted 4 September, 2011 They claim to be "travelers" but want to live in a static caravan park. Does not make sense. This is a perfect example of "travelers,gypsies or pikies!" thinking that the law of the land does not aply. It is about time the law of of the land had the balls to deal with type of arogant disregard of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now