Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Yeah, but hope springs eternally. :D

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

I don't know what they were doing on the land which was not theirs, in much the same way that I don't know what you do on land which isn't yours when you're out pursuing your hobby.

I would have imagined that if they were breaking the law then the court (that's the big grown ups who decide who is and who isn't breaking the law) would have stated so. As it sits they didn't state this so I can only logically conclude that they weren't and, as such, are not criminals.

What exactly (for added emphasis) do you think I meant by that?

That's very magnaminous of you Bill. However, you must surely know, even with a modicum of net etiquette and a fundamental grasp of the law, that were you to make a comment worthy of litigation on this forum then it wouldn't be you who would be sued but the "publisher" / "owner" of the site - unless, of course you were prepared to make such a statement or comment whilst simultaneously posting your name and address - thereby substantiating that any such statement or comment was, indeed, made by (and the express and sole opinion of) yourself and in no way representative of the publisher or owner.

I hardly think you are about to do that - so lets move on.

Let me be straight about a few things;

1: I am not an apologist for illegal behaviour.

2: As a recent victim of crime I have no time for "wishy washy" resolutions for anti social or criminal behaviour. I grew up in a "society" policed by paramilitaries who shot people for anti social behaviour (I am referring specifically to anti social / criminal behaviour) and that was the accepted "norm".

3: I am of the opinion that tarring people with the same brush, whether that is because of religion, colour or race is wrong. I have served a foreign country in foreign lands and I have witnessed first hand actions and atrocities borne out of ignorance and a lack of understanding of other cultures and religions committed in the name of democracy - a fickle mistress.

4: I neither bear grudes nor harbour malice, nor do I respect or fear those who do.

5: I am an advocate of discussion and tolerance - but not at the expense of the rights of third parties.

6: I will challenge intolerance, ignorance and bigotry at every turn and wherever they present themselves as fact over hypothesis / opinion - it is my moral responsibility as a human being to do so.

7: I am not perfect - but I also have the ability to recognise that fact.

If I have offended anyone, in particular scaredwebwarrior, in this thread I have done so only to provoke meaningful discourse based on facts - nothing more.

Aside from cursory debates / chitter chatter on more menial or general matters I have no agenda in engaging any contributors to these forae other than to counter that and those which fly in the face of mutual respect and understanding. If and when any such debates arise and only one side to any particular argument is presented where, clearly, a more unbiased debate can be had, and I feel I can contribute to same, I will do so.

I am happy to discuss / debate anything, including points of law and modern society, with anyone who wishes to do so - with the provision that an open minded approach is adopted.

I have just realized that it's 3:58am.

I am going to bed.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

Welcome back Graham/Andyl :D








(that's a JOKE before anyone says anything - Mr Angry is neither of the above people)

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

too many essays in this thread.

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

Eh ?? HOBBY ?? :rolleyes: Squatting (which is what this is) isn't a bloody hobby .. it's illegal occupation. :erm:

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.

The 'crime' was a given. The legal arguments were whether the illegal occupation could be justified by some other nebulous stretching of Human Rights legislation. :dozey:

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

Thank you for clarifying your position.

Perhaps we can now calm things down and try to listen to one another's position without getting worked up about it.It's just a discussion thread after all.

I still haven't heard any suggestions as to what the solution is and none of the usual rhetoric ranting would be nice...:) :tu:

Yes the people you (insert everyone who hates pikeys)are specifically referring to aren't pleasant but what is the way to deal with them?

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

I think you should have added, "....which doesn't involve explosives" :D

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

What is needed are more properly organised sites. Those we have locally run by the council work extreemly well. Taxes are paid and the people who live there make a valued contribution to the locale (one local school lost their star performer when the family went on the road again).

Unfortunately Mrs T recinded the law which forced councils to provide properly organised sites so now we have an excess of need to provision. So we end up with illegal occupation of land. Sites going in inappropriate places and all round bad feeling.

Re: Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

There are many council provided sites laying empty, some even where travellers have left a legal site to set up an illegal one.
Other incidents have included situations where sites provided with coin meter electricity supplies, the travellers have bypassed these in order to obtain free electricity.

If more sites are to be provided, then the travellers should use all the current ones, and use them properly and within the law.

Law abiding travellers already do this, and so don't have a problem.

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

Hello Basa,

I wasn't suggesting that squatting was a hobby - I think Xaccers, at least, will understand the point I was making.

Squatting is not "illegal" occupation. Squatting itself is a legal right which has been exercised over many years where there is a dispute over ownership or the registration entitlement to land, title or property.

In any regard, and as previously stated on numerous occasions, the family involved made no claim as to ownership or title of the land in question.

Under the Land Registration Act 2002 (Adverse posession of registered land - points 3.1 - 3.3) no one can be deemed to be a squatter / squatting or claim squatters rights if they do not lay claim to the intention to posess.

They may well have been guilty of trespass in the earlier scenario which led to the latest appeal, nevertheless my earlier points (above) still stand.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. No crime, by either party to this appeal, has been alleged or proved. The legal arguments were not about "illegal occupation" they were on the matter of whether the Council had failed in its statutory duties to the homeless family in question. This is not actually a criminal offence but falls remiss under "abuse of process" or "negligence".

EDIT.

Great - I see that now we're getting some serious debate on a serious issue, lets keep it up.

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".