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

It might be because it appears that some people have different opinions of what constitutes 'racism'.

Traditionally it has always referred the colour of someone's skin but in recent years people have expanded it to include someone's nationality (which is actually xenophobia but never mind) or even their culture.

Just a thought.

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

I am getting truly sick of the words 'racist' or 'racism'.

Why is it that we can no longer discuss anything about another race or social group, including critisisms or negative comments without being branded racist or accused of racism ? :(

If I or anyone have 'issues' with any particular social group or race I should be able to state them, just as they are free to have 'issues' with my group or race.:erm:

I feel it is just a smoke screen to avoid discussing the real issues of differences between us all and rather than solving problems simply exacerbates them.

All these new PC laws of race and religious hatred are making matters worse. We should be able to discuss and perhaps resolve our differences without feeling we are breaking the law ? :rolleyes:

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

Fine. But then those people ought to accept that it is their opinion of what constitutes racism.
Racism is the prejudicial treatment of people on the basis of race. That does NOT include nationality, sex, or lifestyle.
Who are these people that have arbitrarily re-written the dictionaries?

You have identified correctly, that a fear of foreigners is in fact xenophobia - it is not 'racism'. In any case, I didn't think nationality was an issue in this case.

As to the idea of 'culture' - we've had plenty of threads here arguing about culture. More often than not a denial of anything called 'British Culture', and usually centred around the inability to define a culture.

Yet when it comes to this topic, all of a sudden the notion of a 'culture' in respect to travellers/gypsies/pikeys is accepted without question.

I have asked (yes Mr. Angry - that was one of those straight questions you couldn't answer) for some indication of what defined that 'culture', so that I could see what it was that was so special about travellers/gypsies/pikeys that meant we should give special consideration to them.

My contention is that when I refer to the illegal and anti-social activities of pikeys, then I am NOT attacking a 'culture' - unless someone were to suggest that indeed, these activities were part of this special traveller/gypsy/pikey culture, in which case I'd gladly criticize all of them on the basis that those activities do not fit with ANY social/political/ethnic/racial grouping that believe they have a place in British society.

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

I think nationality is (tenously IMO) brought in to this as traditional gypsies are of Romany descent.

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

Extremely tenuously, since Romany gypsies are, apparently, NOT the issue here, since they do not, on the whole - so we are told - engage in these illegal or anti-social activities.

Anyway, is Romany a nationality?

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

I have no idea but I'm sure someone will insist it is.

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

Romany & Traveller Family History Society:)

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

I have to admit, I never intended to bring Nationality into it, but I mentioned Romany Gypsies as I don't think it's fair that they are lumped in with Travellers and Pikies. They are not the same group of people, in much the same way that while Yardies may be Jamaican, I would not consider them the same group of people.

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

I've looked around, and there is nothing to suggest that it is a nationality, although one reference described Romany as a nationality without territory.

Some interesting stuff on Wikipedia.

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

I think in this thread we need to establish the differences between all those referred to as 'gypsies'. That I can think of we have the traditional Romany gypsies and we have the Irish travellers, are there any others?

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

My personal impression is that the 'pikeys' we are referring to are an entity distinct from Romanys, possibly loosely associated with Irish travellers in some cases.

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

So is anyone going to ammend the thread title then? (the suggestion was to change gipsy's (sic) to Pikeys)

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

Not so sic, really - as I was referring to the human rights - hence the 's.

I'm all for a change of thread title if that'll make it easier for everyone. I would just point out the title came about in response to the BBC article which has the title:
The case in question, btw, was to decide if the people illegally camped on public land could claim a breach of human rights.

Correctly, it has been decided that they could never consider the land as theirs, and consequently Councils have every right to evict them.

Considering that this case concerned the illegal camping on public land, is anyone still wanting to maintain that these people are 'proper Romany'? Because if that is the case, then the Romany are as much part of the problem as any other category of traveller.

Personally, I'd like to see sites designated for overnight stops, so that travellers can make stops without having no options. And I think for longer stays, they should make use of appropriate designated sites. I mean, they could become members of the Caravan Club. If they use the sites and then leave them as they found them (including leaving neighbour's property in place and intact) then no reasonable person could object.

But seeing them block up parking bays along roads and then leave behind several skips full of rubbish, is NOT the way to get acceptance from the community.

BTW - why do they always leave those gas cylinders behind? The deposit on those must run into hundreds of pounds. That can only mean that either they have more money than sense - in which case I'd like to know the source of their income and why they're not paying tax - or, more likely, in my view, they stole the cylinders in the first place, in which case trying to get the unpaid deposit on them would be rather stupid.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

I could never understand why someone can be accused of being racist if they state somthing that is widely accepted by the majority and statistically proven.

When Pikies arrive in an area the crime rate rockets and they leave a mess behind. Surely anyone who points this out is not responsible for being racist, these people have drawn attention to themselves on a daily basis with their anti-social habits.

Racism is to descriminate against someone for the sole reason of race, for example

Pointing out that Somalians in Cardiff have a reputation of stealing is not racist.

Pointing out that Pikies have a reputation of stealing from people and leave a mess behind them is not racist.

Pointing out that Jamaicans have a reputation for smoking joints is not racist.

All those views are accepted by the majority, and the reputation is their own doing. If however I said for example all English people are thieves, it would be wrong because it statistically isn't true.

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

Obviously, since you elected to change the original to read "Pikeys" as opposed to "Gypsy" to enable you to vent your spleen.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. If you're going to try and be factual in debating this matter then at least have the decency to familiarize yourself with the facts.

From the actual ruling itself:

7. The Council claimed possession as freehold owner against the
appellants as trespassers. The appellants did not challenge the Councilââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s title, and they claimed no leave or licence to enter or occupy the land. They based their defence on article 8, averring that, although the statutory scheme for the protection of gipsy families, taken with the Government guidance, was compatible with the Convention, the Council could not rely on this when it was itself in clear and substantial breach of its obligations under the scheme and the guidance. They also asserted that their personal circumstances and those of their immediate family were exceptional, and so required the Council to justify evicting them.

If you could just set aside you blinkered prejudice for a moment or two - and perhaps spend some time reading the appeal judgement - you would realize that this is quite obviously not the case. The occupancy and ownership of the land is not, nor was it ever, in dispute.

A reasoned, some may say surprisingly "liberal", and more modern approach on your part.

It's slipping....

You just couldn't help yourself there, could you? Bye, bye mask.

I did respond to your earlier "question" - I advised you that it wasn't up to me to change your mind. I see that others have since been posting highlighting their unease with how you not only manipulated the original headline to facilitate your agenda but the fact that you are insistant, at every twist and turn, in genreralizing and badmouthing every gypsy, traveller, romany or "pikey" (that terminology in itself shows you up for what you are) as some form of illegal abomination that you consider to be (in your words) lying, thieving, cheating, dirty ****.

Any law abiding right thinking member of society has the right to be offended, and in some cases insulted, by the illegal actions of others. It doesn't give them, or you, the right to misrepresent facts and spout your vitriol on a message board in between polishing your jackboots.

Sorry Adolf - but you've a lot of learning to do.

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:03 ----------

escapee,

Correct, none of these comments are racist because you are not making them as a statement of fact. The inclusion of the word "reputation" affords you protection in that you are alluding to a general consensus / popular belief and, by usage, are not necessarily claiming these statements as your own opinion or beliefs.