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

You are hell-bent on having a go no matter what, aren't you?

It was not my suggestion to change the thread title.
I accepted the facts as reported.
Oh yes it was. When the pikeys moved onto that land they decided that the issue of ownership was for them to decide as they saw fit.
Oh, come on. You give me another way to look at it.
Yet that is exactly what you appear to have been trying to do in other ways. So wahy not actually come out with some of the 'evidence', as you see it, why I can't label pikeys?
Don't start thinking that because one or two people have mentioned making a distinction between pikeys and honorable travellers that they're disagreeing with my definition of pikeys.

I NEVER made a statement that applied any of this to ALL travellers - I clearly singled out the (I'll quote you here) "lying, thieving, cheating, dirty ****" that we commonly refer to as pikeys.

That disctinction has been clearly understood by everyone except you.
But on the other hand, it does allow you to make allegations of racism and nazism, right?
And you think I am insulting?

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

Yes, where there is blatant ignorance and prejudice I will have a go.

You just don't get it, do you? I pointed out that you changed the title of the BBC report to facilitate your attack on "pikeys", it's simple.

No, you didn't. What you did was edit and reproduce the headline of a BBC report - the general jist of which appealed to your own prejudices - with a simple manipulation of the headline's wording. You didn't even bother to read the ruling which they even went to the bother of making available on line.[/quote]

Not according to the ruling and judgement - see my earlier post of part seven thereof where it clearly states (in court documents no less) that the ownership and title of the land was not in question.

Well, you could try opening your eyes before letting your preprejudice expose you.

I'm not saying you cant - I'm saying you shouldn't (and, for the record, you started with "pikeys" and then went on to include almost every variation of displaced members of society that you could think of).

I'm not - go and read your posts again - you have, clearly, grouped all travellers, gypsys and romanys along with your disdain for "pikeys".

Pathetic! Now you're trying to tell me you can't even remember what you posted on a forum over the last two days - go have a read of some of the bile you've been spouting on this thread. Those "descriptions" were used by you - not me.

See my point above - you think of them all as the same - go and re-read your posts. Since you ask, and have a penchant for enquiring after alternatives and proof, then please tell me how else you would suppose anyone might interpret your prejudice?

Yes, moreso to your own integrity than to others.

If you're going to espouse opinions you'd best be prepared for discussion and to take on board the fact that there is no room for your type of prejudice in modern society. It should, and will, be challenged at every opportunity.

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

Now you're talking complete cr*p, since you can see on the BBC website it says 'Gypsy'. I didn't hack the BBC website.
So now I'm not entitled to choose my own title for a CF thread?

There was no ruling at the time of the OP. You're now so far up your own arrse you can't see clearly any more.
If that was the case then why did they illegally occupy land they did not own?

BTW - I wasn't referring to the case, but the simple fact that they did question the ownership and title by their own actions.
And once again you avoid answering a simple question.
Excuse me, but when you're calling me a racist, bigot and nazi I thing you're going a little further than saying I shouldn't.
I don't have to re-read my posts - I know exactly what I said. Until YOU came along and started calling me racist and twisting my words they were quite clear.
Yes, I have used some pretty strong words to describe pikeys. That's because they make the lives of ordinary, decent people a misery.
YOU have decided that I think they're all the same. I have never said anything to suggest that, except in your tiny mind.
They can interpret it as extreme hatred for all pikeys that camp illegally, steal, drive illegal stolen cars and then leave a mess when they finally move on. I believe that is a clear interpretation of my 'prejudice'?
I don't think you're living in the same society as the rest of us then, because as far as I can tell, my 'prejudice' towards pikeys is shared by the vast majority of the population of England. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, because then we'd see every town in England welcoming them onto their bowling greens for them to camp on.

BTW - a definition of prejudice goes as follows:
Now we're not dealing with inaccurate stereotypes here - I have SEEN what a pikey encampment looks like.

So it's not insufficient knowledge either - I KNOW what mess they leave behind - I have SEEN it.

Nor are my feelings irrational - it is well known that crime rates increase when pikeys set up camp.

Therefore, my antipathy towards pikeys is NOT prejudicial.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

I see this is going the same way as the other thread on the subject.
While most people realise that the anti-talk refers to the lying, **** criminals who travel the land setting up illegal camps and leaving trash and destruction in their wake, some people still ignore this and act as though the discussion is supposed to be about the law abiding travelling groups and the thread slips into oblivian of circular aguments while the anti-pikeys try and get the message across to the few like Mr Angry who seem hell bent on defending groups who aren't actually under attack in this thread (ie the law abiding travelling groups).

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

I ought to have ignored him by now, but the personal attacks are why I can't let him get away with it.
I believe all but one person actually realise that the distinction IS being taken into account.
My suspicion is that he's actually ALSO defending the pikeys...

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

This gives an impression that these people were 'displaced' through no fault of their own, i.e. homeless. This is patently untrue as all 'travellers' have 'no fixed abode' i.e. 'travel' by choice. :rolleyes:

In the case of the pikeys under current discussion this is, I suspect, to be conveniently relatively untraceable following whatever misdemeanours they perpetrate on local society. :erm:

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

Read it again, and this time try to understand it - please.

Really, that's amazing - where did you get the link? Oh, that's right - from the BBC news site which was reporting on the ruling - which according to you hadn't happened.

I don't know - but that is not what was in dispute.

Again, it says QUITE CLEARLY in the court documents that they laid no right or claim to the land.

Perhaps then you've learnt a valuable lesson in how other peoples comments can affect individuals.

If you know exactly what you said then why are you surprised at the accusations being levelled at you? Oh, that's right, you didn't say them according to your earlier post.

From post number 10 in this very thread "Travellers/gypsies/pikeys/**** - is there a meaningful distinction?"

From post number 14 in this very thread " The 'travelling community' is, on the whole, mainly represented by pikeys who have nothing to offer except trouble."

Any of those look familiar? They should - you typed them.

That's fine - an honest self assessment of your feelings toward "pikeys". Mind you, "extreme hatred" is hardly a jackboot in the behind away from bigotry - is it?

"As far as I can tell..." won't wash in this situation. Back it up with statistics or facts - otherwise you're just playing to the crowd.

Really Adolf, I think we've arrived at your "bunker scene" here - thanks to you own quote above.

Your opinion of "pikeys" could hardly be described as anything but unfavourable.

Evidence of insufficient knowledge on the matter can be provided courtesy of your earlier quote ""Travellers/gypsies/pikeys/**** - is there a meaningful distinction?"

I'm pretty sure "extreme hatred" counts pretty high on the irrational feelings scale and, correct me if I'm wrong but "" The 'travelling community' is, on the whole, mainly represented by pikeys who have nothing to offer except trouble." is a corking example of an inaccurate stereotyping.

Cheers.

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

So what were they doing on the land which they knew was not theirs?
Isn't that known as breaking the law? Ie illegal, thus making them criminals?

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

What exactly do you mean by that?:dozey:

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

And what the world needs now.. is love.. sweet love...

:D

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

I agree there are the original gypsies who seem to do little harm to anyone, however these people are a small percentage of the community who live in caravans. Unfortunately these people do get lumped into the same category as the stealing, anti-social group who make up the majority of travellers.

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

Rammy the problem here is that certain posters will defend these *******s till the end of the earth. However for those of us that have had these *******s close to there property, And then seen council tax money used to evict them from the land that they have taken without the owners permission its a differant matter all together.I bet that you would have a totaly differant outlook if you had.

I do not care btw if anyone on this forum objects to the word ******* if you dont like it sue me .

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Oh come on guys let's not have ANOTHER thread closed because we can't be adults.:(

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

The trouble is as has been shown time and time again some people on here CAN'T behave like adults.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

It must upset some people that a thirteen year old can act more mature than they do - eh ?

I love it :D