Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Whilst squatting is not a criminal offence agreed, it is a civil 'offence'. In this case there is no dispute or doubt as to the land ownership, which is why the 'pikeys' didn't even think of claiming title as they knew it was a no,no. Which is sort of what I was saying here> "[i]No one in their right mind in this situation would not attempt to argue that they owned or had any similar right to occupy the land .. they were trespassing ffs.[/].

In any event I think squatting should be illegal to prevent rogues from obtaining property without working for it. Proviso> There should be adequate provision available through legal means, e.g. council accommodation.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

I honestly don't know if squatting should be made illegal, there are pros and cons to the arguments on both sides. What I do agree with entirely is the fact that rogues should not be allowed to benefit.

Adequate provision is a finely balanced thing. One of the problematic areas being that if all councils and local authorities are to be held on this then obviously there will be shortcomings in other areas of services which they are expected to provide.

Another problem is the desire of travellers to be nomadic and not tied to any one place or demographic. The points that Xaccers makes are quite pertinent to this.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Too right it should - if I went away for 2 weeks and found someone had got their way in to my house and decided to make it their own then too right I'd want them prosecuted. Of course, I'd like the power of discretion though.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Russ, what you are describing is not squatting - it is illegal occupancy / breaking and entering - two entirely different kettles of fish which are usually easily remedied by means of a cursory call to your local constabulary.

Unless your house has been derelict, abandoned or unoccupied for a length of time, very considerably longer than two weeks I might add, then anyone who would endeavour to occupy it woud be breaking the law - but certainly not squatting.

This is part of the problem - squatting, and the rationale / legal entitlement to do so, is very misrepresented and misunderstood.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

There's a former landlord in Port Talbot called David Dale who owned loads of properties around here. One day he came home to find someone had found their way in to his house through an open window and claimed it as their own. They were there for 3 weeks before they just vanished one night.

During that time the police said they could do nothing as they had not forced entry. Locks were changed from the inside and the occupants could not legally be moved without a court order due to "squatters' rights".

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Pretty much sums up what I said.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

We must have been reading two different posts then. I said that if I came home to find someone had decided to make my home their own then I'd want to have them prosecuted.

You then went on to suggest that squatting and breaking in and entering were 2 different things.

I demonstrated that that is not really the case.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Transfer of the legal title of the land takes 12 years, however due to a European ruling deemed this as illegal as no compensation needed to be given to the previous owner, which is against the human rights of the previous owner.
Squatting itself was criminalised The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994

There's a house over the road from my parents.
It's been vacant since it was built about a year ago.
Someone could smash a window (illegal act encouraged by many squatters advice web sites), get the window replaced, change the locks and refuse to leave.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Apologies Russ. I thought since you quoted it that you were replying to my "I honestly don't know if squatting should be made illegal" statement when you responded with " Too right it should - if I went away for 2 weeks..." sorry if that wasn't the case.

Yes. Squatting and breaking and entering are two different things - hence the police in the case you referred to saying they "could do nothing as they had not forced entry. Locks were changed from the inside and the occupants could not legally be moved without a court order due to "squatters' rights"."

You see had it been a case of forced entry or breaking and entering the police would, quite simply, have arrested them. Since it would appear that removing them from the property would have involved a court order due to squatters rights then we have to assume that they claimed squatters rights. Ergo, they had not comitted a crime.

That's what I was referring to in my "pretty much sums up what I said" comment.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

I beg to differ.
If they broke in, and repared the damage (ie bought a new window pane for a tenner) thus giving no evidence of the damage, they could (as advised to do so by many squatter's web sites) claim that the front door was open as they walked past.
A crime has been committed.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Xaccers, I agree, but that is circumstantial. In the particular case in question it appears that the occupants gained entry via an open window and the police did not feel confident enough to allege forced entry or breaking and entering.

Again, each case is unique.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Well, I think you are having a go at people named Adolf! Not everyone named Adolf (or Adolph) is a tyrannical dictator and I'm sure that people with that name are fed up with constant reminders that they share a name with one. :D

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Personally, I blame the parents.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Question to squatters: Did you obtain illegal entry
Squatters: Ooo no, the window was wide open, we didn't smash it then repair it, because that would mean we broke the law and you could evict us without a court order.

Mr Angry, while you are out shopping and have left your house empty, someone could break in, repair the damage and remove the evidence of the criminal activity, and then change your locks.
Until you can get a PIO showing that you have a right to be in the house, there is nothing that can be done.
The time required to claim squatters rights is simply the time to break in, clean up and change locks.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Sorry but I'm of the same opinion as many in this thread. True Romany travellers that get on with their own lifestyle whilst not intruding on the lives of others should be allowed to continue travelling as and how they wish. The ****/ faux-travellers that only use the term "traveller" to try and excuse their behaviour should be dealt with properly and fully by the legal system. Too many people currently use the description of "traveller" when they are nothing short of mobile criminals who only travel to keep one step ahead of the Police.
True travellers do not terrorise neighbouhoods that they travel into, they do not leave areas looking like rubbish dumps/ scrap yards, they do not intimidate local people and they do not immediately jump on the human rights band wagon when questioned.
True travellers have more respect for people and the areas they visit than these fakers and true travellers must be as angry as the people having to pick up the pieces or tidy up the mess left behind by the fakes.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Xaccers, with all due respect, I think you are trying to belittle the issue here.

.

PIO's apply only where the property in question was previously occupied by a tenant or in the ownership of a landlord, council, housing association or freehold owner - not a legal owner / occupier. Your analogy above applies only in those situations. In my situation, if the above were to happen to me, house owner as opposed to landlord / tenant, then a simple call to the police and, if necessary, my bank would be sufficient to prove criminal access (that, and my neighbours standing around asking who was in my house).

Russ D pointed out earlier the case of David Dale from Port Talbot. From his occupation (a landlord) I think we can see how Mr Dale ended up in the situation he ended up in. If there had been criminal activity engaged in to gain access, which in this case there was not, then I'm pretty sure the police would have acted appropriately.

You posted earlier about squatters websites advising potential squatters to break windows to gain access to properties. For the avoidance of doubt I feel it only fair and balanced that I point out that they refer, specifically, to empty / vacant houses (empty and vacant in the sense that they are standing unoccupied - not lived in).

This is not a legally constituted organization endorsing it's members to engage in the opportunist crime of burglary in the event that the current occupier has popped out to the shops or off to Bognor Regis for their annual holiday - that is breaking and entering. Any law abiding citizen would understand that, unless of course you're attempting to assert, contrary to the law and the police, that squatters exercising their legal right to squat in unoccupied / vacant properties are breaking the law.

You posted earlier that squatting was made "illegal" under the 1977 act - this is not correct. Squatting is, to this day, still legal.

Lord Hausham argued that conspiracy to commit tresspass (which, contrary to popular belief, is ulawful but not illegal) should be made illegal. He was defeated and the law commission instead introduced five new offences

1: Using or threatening violence to secure entry knowing there is someone present opposed to the entry (Section 6)

2: Being on premises as a trespasser and failing to leave after having been required to do so by a displaced residential occupier or a protected intending occupier (Section 7)

3: Trespassing with a weapon of offence (Section 8)


4: Trespassing on embassy or consular property (Section 9)


5: Resisting or obstructing a bailiff or sheriff executing a possession order under Order 113 or 26 (Section 10).



----------------------------------------------------------------


Paul, Your post is 100% spot on.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

If you left the door open, then no criminal access has taken place.
If they smash a window, unwitnessed, clean up the evidence, no criminal access can be proven (as is likely to have in the case Russ mentioned).
Once the locks are changed, the police have no legal access to evict them.
So make sure you set your alarm and video cameras going next time you go out.
You must make a claim for possesion (IPO) within 28 days of discovering your premises were being occupied by squatters.
So no, it's not a case of a quick phone call to the police and the bank.
It's no where to live until you get the IPO which then leaves 24 hours for the squatters to leave before they are considered criminals, although you can force your way legally into the property once the IPO is given.


I did not mention the 1977 act.
Squatting was criminalised in the 1994 CJA.

Re: Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?
 

In early February I left a window open, CID thought the resulting access by parties unknown illegal / criminal enough to send two forensics officers and a DC to come and fingerprint the entire house - how come?

You're missing the point. We are talking about abandoned, unused, council, housing association or landlord owned houses.

Illegal occupancy, and indeed entry, to anyone's house where they are currently living, registered as living, listed as an active rent paying tenant, are registered on the electoral roll or are a home owner is illegal. If you leave your door (or a window) open, in any of these circumstances, and someone enters your property without your express permission / invite they are breaking the law.

To suggest that someone entering your house after you leaving your front door open to pop out to the shops is not illegal entry is nonsense - otherwise we'd all be popping in uninvited to peoples houses and having a cup of tea without a second thought. Try it and see how long the police, or the occupier, let you sit there with your feet up before collaring you off to the local nick.

Again - we are talking about "vacant" (unoccupied) properties.

It is only when a property has been occupied as a result of being left "vacant" as opposed to "unattended" or where legitimate ownership / occupancy cannot reasonably be proven that there then arises the matter of obtaining an IPO to prove ownership / occupancy.

If occupying someone elses home was as simple as what you would have us believe then in the event that "It's no where to live until you get the IPO which then leaves 24 hours for the squatters to leave before they are considered criminals" then surely home owner occupiers who were victims of such practices would simply apply your logic and take over the house of the nearest neighbour who was unfortunate enough to leave their door or window open.

Apologies on the 1977 / 1994 CJA mix up - however, it still stands that there is a distinction in law between criminal and illegal.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

If those people who pop round for a cuppa, then change the locks, you do not have recourse to beat the door down or get them evicted by the police.
You have become a displaced residential occupier.
Your recourse is then to apply for a PIO within 28 days, otherwise its a much longer winded operation to get your property back.

To be a squatter, you must have no where else to live, ie you cannot squat in your neighbour's house while still keeping your own.
You must also be willing to obtain to obtain residence through dubious means, knowing full well it is to the detriment to the official owner.
Most people aren't willing to do that, and besides, since the 94 act with the ability to "fast track" evictions, it is more attractive for squatters to target unused properties.
Doesn't mean they still can't squat in your premisses until you get a IPO and evict them though.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Nor would you need to. As the legal owner / occupier you are within your right to force entry to your property (in much the same way you might elect to do so had you locked yourself out) but any potential confrontation thereafter is entirely illegal if you use anything beyond "reasonable force" to remove individuals.

The burden of proof in this regard lies "with title" and can be proven quite simply by various methods as previously mooted, not least of all by proving your identity and having the police call your insurers. Not one court in the land is going to charge you with illegal entry, breaking and entering or criminal damage to your own property retrospectively. Anyone who would consider accusing you of same would need to be in a position to provide their proof of occupancy in a court. How likely are they to do that?

Not so - as previously explained PIO's apply only in certain circumstances - certainly not in privately owned residential properties occupied by the owner occupier.

Yet by your logic, if every and any property can be broken into and occupied, there can be no such thing as "nowhere else to live".

Squatting is not a matter of residence - it's a matter of occupancy.

It has always been the case that squatters have targetted unused properties or vacant rental properties whose ownership, due to them being rented, is somewhat more difficult to prove. That is exactly what I've been saying - and what squatters rights sites seem to advocate - the occupancy of "unused properties" - not private residential homes where the owner has popped out to the shop or is away for a few days.

If it is "your", in that you legally own it, premises and it is not, nor has it been, available for rent nor occupied by a rent paying tenant then no, they can't. This is why we have "title deeds" held in trust by mortgators and distinctly different mortgage facilities and terms available to landlords, housing associations and councils.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

As they have changed the locks and made a claim on the property that they believed it was vacant and did not enter through illegal means, the only way to get them out is via a IPO which declares you as a DRO, and then allows you to use some violence to evict the squatters, such as being able to break the door down.

And the proof is given when you obtain the IPO, which you still have to as a DRO.
If you break in, and try to evict the squatters without a PIO, they can have you charged with assault.

I think you are getting your IPO's and PIO's confused.
A IPO is given by the court and basically says you have the right to the property, it gives you your DRO (as previous occupant) or PIO (as landlord etc) status.

Ah but if they admit to criminal entry rather than "it was an open window/door guv, prove me wrong" then they can be evicted by the police straight away, as they're not squatters then.
This is why squatters sites and organisations suggest criminal activities to enter the property, then to clean up and lie about how access was gained.

The reason for targetting rented accomodation is nothing to do with proof of ownership but thank you for discrediting your own earlier agurment that an owner only has to ring the bank to get an eviction (after all, the landlord still has the deeds held by the mortgage company, but as I explained, that doesn't matter until the court decides on a IPO), rather it is to do with the increased likelyhood of the property not being needed in the forseable future.
Unless the landlord has tenants waiting to move in, or needs to move in himself in the near future, then he cannot apply for an IPO, likewise, if you had a second home in the country and discovered squatters, because you don't need to live there, you could not use the fast track eviction processes of the IPO.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Oh I give up on this thread.It's becoming the Frick and Frack show...

:tiptoe:

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Your argument is tenuous in the extreme, as indeed is your ability to part interpret fact. I am talking about privately owned houses - not those available for rent or tenancy occupancy. Aside from gaining access, by whatever means, if an illegal occupant of your property changes the locks they negate your insurance on your house not your insurance on their house.

A cursory call to any relevant insurance company, mortgator, public service provider or utilities provider along with a written affidavit is sufficient to prove residence and ownership. Debt collection companies have been using these methods for years (even down to telephoning neighbours to ascertain residency) and they are all perfectly admissable in law and in court. Illegal occupancy of a private residential home is illegal, irrespective of the means of access - fact.

If you don't think that this is the case then feel free to go and occupy your neighbour's house and change the locks. Don't forget to get back to us with your experiences when you get out of jail.

Only if (a) you require an IPO to evict them or (b) you assault them - see my earlier post to which you were responding. There is nothing, in law, to prevent you damaging your own private (as in not for commercial use or gain) property to gain entry and effecting a citizen's arrest for burglary - with the provisio that you do not use excessive force on another individual (not, for the avoidance of doubt, on a door or window - I'm not aware of any doors or windows having successfully prosecuted anyone for the use of excessive force on them).

Since you're resorting to being pedantic it's "an" IPO. I afforded you the courtesy of not highlighting your own grammatical errors in previous exchanges on this thread - please show a bit of mutual respect.

Again we are talking about vacant or unoccupied properties and, admittedly and regrettably, some sites do suggest criminal entry in certain situations. Again though, this is not strictly illegal (suggesting the act) and the police would need to catch perpetrators and prove criminal damage to affect entry.

OK, let me explain this to you - there is a fundamental difference between a private landlord and a landlord. All private landlords are required by law and under the FSA regulations to have landlord mortgage status. This is, amongst other reasons, for public liability indemnity and taxable / capital gains purposes.

Most landlords (not private landlords), inlcluding housing associations, commercial landlords and councils are constituted under the Companies Order of 1986 for the purposes of the business of property rental. This is to facilitate liability indemnities under the guarantee of limited liability (ltd companies). Limited companies consist of at least one director and a company secretary - these are the primary shareholders.

They mortgage properties and acquire mortgages in respect of properties in an entirely different manner than you or I would. These mortgages are secured against the shareholdings of the company under the limited guarantee status. In effect they don't own the properties - the limited company does. More astute members of the legal profession exploit this fact with great effect. Their adversaries, in this matter the squatters rights associations, also employ solicitors who are quite adept at exploiting this fact in the negative. If a landlord, such as a housing association, council or commercial landlord wants to prove ownership then he / she / they have to jump through a very considerable number of hoops to do so. Not least of all the signiature of all parties to the memorandum and articles of association at an extraordinary general meeting to formally announce ownership - this exposes otherwise silent shareholders / partners and all of their business interests.

This is time consuming and generally takes weeks to coordinate (hence the statutory 28 day limit on IPO applications).

So you see - it is to do with proof of ownership. Many businesses / business people do not want their shareholdings and business affairs discussed in public as a matter of public record and squatters and their legal representatives are only too well aware of and exploit this fact.

Mr Dale, referred to earlier, was probably forced to apply for an IPO simply because of his landlord status and, if he was, then his business affairs would now be known to all and sundry in Port Talbot. I, personally, am familiar with one case where an estranged wife "arranged" for squatters to take posession of one of her ex husbands' properties to force him to apply for an IPO thereby exposing his business affairs and share dealings with his "new " parther going back 11 years.


He can apply for an IPO, but he needs to do so along with an accompanying written statement or certificate in compliance with section 12A of the Criminal Law Act, 1977 (inserted as part of a recommendation from your favourite Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994). Such statements are fraught with complications for landlords as they have to prove that any prospective tenant has been in discussions to take up a tenancy prior to the disputed occupancy. There is also a jail term and fine applicable in the event of perjury.

I look forward to hearing from you on your release.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Some light relief in a serious thread.....
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2006/03/16.jpg

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Now EVEN I have to laugh at that...:rofl:

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

If they did not enter your property by illegal means, ie without proof of them breaking in, and change the locks, they are then able to claim to be squatters, and an IPO is required to evict them, this gives you the status of a DRO and they must leave within 24 hours.

And in order to evict them you need to submit an IPO to get PIO or DRO status :rolleyes:
This is why people can go away for the weekend and come back and find squatters in their property and the police will do nothing.

I can't, you see, as they are my neighbour, it means I have a property, and as such I am unable to claim to be a squatter.

Why do you think there is the term DRO if you think squatters cannot displace residential occupiers? Did parliment add it because it sounds funky?

Sorry, I didn't think it was pedantic to point out the difference between an IPO and a PIO, both being completly different.
I suppose you think people are being pedantic if you start talking about cats when you're asked about dogs, and people point out your mistake?

Let me explain this to you.
If ownership is proven, which it generally always will be, an IPO cannot be submitted unless there is an imminent need for that property, ie a tennant is about to move in.
If this is not the case, then an IPO cannot be submitted, and the squatters cannot be evicted using this process.
This then gives the squatters longer in the property than if an IPO had been submitted, which would give them up to 29 days after they were discovered.
Now, in your fanciful scenario, as soon as ownership is settled, they can be evicted.
In reality, and law, they can only be evicted via a IPO which gives the landlord the status of PIO, if the landlord can prove that the property is needed iminently by someone else.
The immediate need of the property is pretty much guarenteed with a private residence, but not so likely with a rented property.
And this Mr Angry is why squatters prefer to target rented accomodation, not because ownership is harder to prove, but because the immediate need of the property is less likely, meaning they can stay for longer.


http://www.squat.freeserve.co.uk/notes.htm

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

There are times, and this is one of them, where the obstinacy of individuals trying to disprove the law are beyond belief.

I stated that I was referring to "privately owned houses - not those available for rent or tenancy occupancy". Your references to IPO's, DRO's etc bear no relevance, whatsoever, to the illegal occupancy of such residencies. IPO's, DRO's etc are required only in circumstances whereby landlords (commercial or otherwise), housing associations or councils (those who charge money (ie. rent) to third parties for occupancy and are predisposed to the occupancy of their properties on the basis of tenancy agreements) are involved.

This http://www.letlink.co.uk/GeneralInfo...-%20PE1977.htm is the law on the "Protection from eviction act 1977" - I respectfully suggest that you read it in its entirety whereby you will find that it refers, in no small measure, to "landlords" - and not private owners whose ownership of any given property is easily proved as referenced earlier.

Indeed, with reference to the cut and paste from the site you used - are you seriously suggesting that their advice of sending " ....a letter addressed to yourself in your new home. This is sufficient proof for the police that you live there." is considerably better proof of legitimate ownership than a mortgator, insurance company or utility company?

Sorry, I was working on the assumption that you lived in a tent, my mistake. However, given your new found confidence in your interpretation of the law I'm quite sure you'll be more than happy to forsake your current accommodation to find the time to conduct some factual research.

I "think there is the term DRO" in order to facilitate eviction from rented property - this is not something I've been referring to.

They may both be completely different but I can find "no where" that they are relevant to privately owned (not for rent) premises.

As previously stated, and in line with current legislation and statute, IPO's are relevant / pertinent only in a scenario where the occupancy of a rented property is in question.

Yes. Where the property is privately owned and not available for rent or tenancy occupancy.

I'll give you a "bye ball" on this - working on the assumption that you failed to realize that I was talking about "privately owned houses - not those available for rent or tenancy occupancy" - and hadn't read the aforementioned legislation at the time of posting (by the way, it's "an" IPO and you might want to spell "imminently", and "guaranteed" properly - just to avoid confusion).

I think the protection afforded under existing legislation, and my previous post, prove perfectly well the preference of squatters for rented accomodation.

The clue with regards to the illegal nature of occupancy of any private residency is contained in the sterling advice as proffered from the site that you decided to cut and paste from - insofar as they advise "Explain that you are not a burglar".

Yes, I can see that one standing up in court (not!).


http://www.squat.freeserve.co.uk/notes.htm[/quote]

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Don't apologise. It is an issue that affects many people, and it really doesn't help when there's an ignorant minority that has to make matters worse by making excuses for them.

I'm beginning to think this thread has been hijacked, though. If it wasn't for this from pop80 uk, you could think that the thread was about nothing to do with pikeys...

---------- Post added at 08:47 ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 ----------

The content of the article changed during that time - it was updated after the ruling was made, which was AFTER I'd started this thread.

A question that at that time was not answered in a meanigful way by anyone.

When that caravan/van turns up on the local roundabout during the night, will anyone even for one second think "oh, that might be respectful Romany Gypsies"? NO, everyone will instead think "bloody pikeys!"
As I just said, the experience that most people have of 'travellers' is from pikeys setting up their encampents at the local supermarket, or industrial estate - basically anywhere they don't have to go too far to steal stuff.
If you think my assessment was 'honest', then it cannot be bigotry - check your dictionary.
You're becoming less coherent all the time. I am entitled to an opinion, and that is that most people hate pikeys - and that is based on the FACT that most people posting in this thread have shown their dislike for them AND it is also based on the FACT that everyone in my street has the same opinion - at least, they did the last time we had pikeys encamped in the local park.
I have accurately demonstrated that I have not, in any way, presented a prejudicial attitude in this thread.

Your continued references to nazism and Hitler in particular are, however, much clearer signposts to YOUR particular prejudices. Because you are clearly referring to me in an unfavourable light, without knowing anything about me, using the jackboot stereotype and displaying some irrational need to challenge ME on this subject, while accepting every other poster's similar views.

YOU are quite obviously prejudiced...

---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 ----------

Mr Angry doesn't care whether what they did was illegal - since the court documents don't mention illegal occupation of land, then that obviously wasn't the issue.

Thing is, if it wasn't for their illegal occupation of the land, there would never have been any case in court, and we wouldn't be discussing this now.

---------- Post added at 09:16 ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 ----------

Incorrect. First of all, netiquette doesn't come into it, as the comments are not directed at anyone in this thread. Furthermore, so far nothing has been said that even remotely comes close to being open to litigation - except, possibly, some of the comments YOU have directed at ME.

Then you have been doing a very good impression of being one.

No wonder there's no pikeys in NI. Those wonderful paramilitaries certainly wouldn't have put up with that, would they?

Good. Even better that we've had none of that in this thread.
Are we supposed to accept that your opinion is better because you have been a mercenary?
What do you want, a medal?
Sure - you are so decent and fair minded that you don't mind a bit of name calling.
The White Knight rides against the dark forces!
Good getout clause.
Indeed you have offended people, and there is no excuse for doing so in order to "provoke meaningful discourse". And your idea of "based on fact" seems to be centred on obscuring the facts by using picking over them in order to talk about the facts, rather than the issue.
Then you do so with double standards, because you seem to think that in the process you may abandon that "mutual respect and understanding" which you value so highly.
Everyone here is open to discuss anything they feel like. Having an 'open mind' does not mean that we'll change our mind just because someone says so. Nor does it mean that we have to present a less robust point of view.

---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

There was me thinking he was BOTH!

---------- Post added at 09:24 ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 ----------

So suggesting that there should be allocated sites for travellers wasn't a constructive suggestion?

The 'usual rhetoric ranting' remains reserved for the excuses for humanity that travel the country like pirates sailing the high seas.
Why not simply come out with it and name names? Who are these unpleasant people that need dealing with? Considering that he's only 'specifically referred' to one...

---------- Post added at 09:27 ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 ----------

Whoopee! Now the thread has been completely diverted from the actual topic! :dozey:

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

I know, but you do keep trying it.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Its ALL WRONG!!!

WHERE is the really expensive 4X4?

WHERE is all the CHROME?

WHERE are all the CHAVS?

:D