Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?
 

As if it isn't bad enough that they set up camp wherever they feel like, that they then trash the location and leave piles of rubbish if/when they leave, and never mind that they go around stealing to make ends meet.

Now they want that enshrined as their 'human rights'!
This case was started when some pikeys decided to set up camp on public land in Leeds.
So when they choose to move on (ok, under threat of eviction) and they're found a suitable location they steel feel they need to go to court?

Oh, and BTW - who is paying for this ridiculous waste of legal time?

And note that the pikeys have already had some sort of victory from Strassbourg:
Hang on a minute - these people choose to put themselves in that position. They don't have to live by lying, stealing and cheating - not paying tax and racking up thousands of costs for councils when they leave their sites as waste dumps.

They make a mockery of the law and then have the gall to use the law for their own ends.

I think it is high time the rest of us abused the system in the same way. Why should I pay council tax? And if I don't, why do the police think it's perfectly OK to arrest me? And if I'm caught in possession of an untaxed, uninsured, stolen car - why is that any reason to pull me over? Why can I not handle stolen goods safe in the knowledge that even if the police KNOW I've got them, they won't actually do anything?

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

It does rather take the mick. I personally know of cases where the perps of the theft are gypsies but the police wouldn't go in and recover the goods.....another case where there was theft/threats etc and the police wouldn't do anything because they were also being intimidated :rolleyes:

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

My first thought was - they have a bunch of lawyers defending their human rights, why not invite the local gypsies to camp in the lawyers neighbourhood. Our council seem to play a game of fencing off all the open areas after the gypsies have been moved on.

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

No! - Please! - I don't want to be taken anywhere... :D :disturbd:

Seriously though - A friend of mine from work, her partners car was broken into by Gypsy's, as they had set up camp just streets away. Police said car crime in the area had increased significantly since their arrival a week or two earlier. In this case the police stated, they stole the car to probably borrow it to do 'another job'.

The Gypsy's were then forced to move on after leaving a trail of distruction and they didn't move far - A local B&Q store had shut down and they just moved on to the disfunctional car park, apparently told to go there by the police...

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

No doubt the lawyers thought of that and had a NIMBY clause added to the contract...

Similarly around here. They just put these 'berms' (or whatever they like to call them) around fields - makes it look like we're on the Somme.

If it wasn't bad enough that we had to put up with pikeys making the place a mess, now we've got the council doing it too.

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

Some common sense prevailing (for once!)


Although now I'll bet the lawyers are rubbing their hands together at the thought of all the legal aid they will be getting to take the case to Europe.

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

Actually, I think it's the vulnerable majority we should be worried about.......

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

Theres noting stopping travellers buying houses legit.

And if they state they dont have the money then Its rubbish as we sold loads of £22,000 4x4's to pikeys in morecambe all cash deals.

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

Oh joy. Another well-balanced thread.

Well, I agree with the judgement. The travellers (AFAIK, they aren't actually gypsies, and there is a difference) squatted illegally on land, and were refused an appeal. This is right.

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

No pikeys on here to balance it, I guess. If anyone here feels like supporting pikeys, please do, but also state where you are located, so we can direct them all accordingly.
Travellers/gypsies/pikeys/**** - is there a meaningful distinction?

All I've ever seen is dirty people in clean caravans with way-too-expensive and/or should-be-written-off vehicles camping on land that isn't theirs (or anyone else's) to camp on. And if/when they leave, the place looks like landfill. I don't care what you want to call them - I know them by what they do.

So councils can keep trying to evict them. With the police being limp-wristed, spineless good-for-nothings in cases like this, this verdict doesn't change anything, unfortunately.

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

The kind of people that the media refer to as gypsies *are* what I would call Pikies. True gypsies (seemingly a dying breed) do try and live in harmony with their neighbours.

I am not defending Pikies, I hate them. I just don't like the fact that the media (and therefore most of the population, including, apparently, nearly everyone who has posted in this thread) don't draw a distinction between the two.

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

Maybe someone should claim they're selling Gollies?

Wasn't there a thread about this before which went round and round and round?
Where is Andyl anyway?

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

I'm from Belfast, Northern Ireland. We gave up on using racist, quasi fascist terms such as "pikey" to describe members of the travelling community many years ago in favour of endeavouring to understand their culture and aspirations.

The result has been the launch of several programmes such as this http://www.nihe.gov.uk/news/news.asp?Id=91

Nowadays there is no discernable degree of crime directly attributable to members of the travelling community. Indeed the PSNI report of February of this year noted that the one area of crime which showed an alarming increase here in Northern Ireland were those carried out by narrow minded bigots which fall under the term "race / hate crime".

Mind you, don't take that as an invite to move over here.

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

Maybe that's why they don't get much press, then...
Nicely over-generalised broadside there. I am more than aware of the distinctions, but also quite aware that the travellers/gypsies/pikeys that cause the trouble are all quite happy to call themselves gypsies.

Not all hoovers are made by Hoover, yet you'll find most of the population quite happy to refer to them as such. Does not mean we don't know the difference.

---------- Post added at 12:39 ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 ----------

What's there to understand about people wanting to freeload off society and furthermore steal whatever they can't get any other way?

The 'travelling community' is, on the whole, mainly represented by pikeys who have nothing to offer except trouble.
That must mean that yours are all those honerable gypsies gone home to get away from the pikeys, because the opposite is true in England.

When pikeys turn up, crime goes up.
And here in England there is virtually no bigoted hate crime against pikeys and it's certainly not causing any alarm.
I wouldn't dream of it. You want to call me a bigot? That's rich considering that you have the worst bigots of all of the UK! 30 years of virtually nothing but bad news - why should I want to move to NI?

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

Why sully their name by comparing them to pikeys then?

You may be more than aware of the distinctions, but you don't seem too bothered about drawing a distinction between the two.

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

Interestingly, not all nazis are called Adolf.

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

This is heating up nicely! :spin: :D

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

Now now, me doth think you're trying to stoke the fire. lol :)

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:40 ----------

But did you know, that all despots in history had facial hair?

There's nothing 'nazi' in despising the selfish, thieving pikeys for being the blight on life that they are. I'm not calling for their extermination, am I. I have been pointing out that they do not get the same treatment from the police as I would get for similar behaviour.

If you think that's OK, then you must be one of theose weirdo liberals that thinks that these kind of issues can be resolved by letting everyone have their own way - ah, except anyone who objects, of course.

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

Have you not realized this is the norm around here now Stuart?

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

Except of course for Pol Pot and several other despots who I can't be bothered listing.

Are you just jealous or do you not realize that your argument is with the ineptitude of the police as pointed out by Ramrod - who apparently knew who commited certain crimes and reported them to the police who then proceeded to do absolutely nothing.

I don't see you offering or suggesting alternatives. Instead you come on here to rant, in racist overtones, about your perception of unequal treatment by the police, you see what I did there? The police.

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

You know, its just not the same without Andyl around... :mis: ;)

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

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

Cool. No point wasting time if it doesn't insult someone...
The attitude of the police in these cases just adds to the ire.

The real bugbear is that these people treat the rest of society with contempt and yet expect society to respect them. Bugger off!
Council gets eviction notice. Police turn up and tell them they have x-amount of time to move on, otherwise they will be forcibly evicted. After the amount of time has passed, police move in with whatever gear they feel they need to be safe, a bulldozer and towing trucks and start dismantling the site. Anyone obstructing gets collared and thrown into the back of a van.

Or is that too radical for your liberal taste?
My 'rant' is about the liberties that pikeys take - that's what annoys me and that is NOT a racist issue - that slur is the typical liberal way of pointing the finger at anyone with a more uncompromising attitude.

The fact that the police are as useful as chocolate teapots is just adding insult to injury.

I suggest you start thinking twice before labelling people as 'bigots', 'nazis' or 'racist' - those are harsh accusations and not to be used lightly.

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

That pretty much hits the nail on the head. :tu:

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

Cheers.

And therein lies part of the problem.



There's nothing "too radical" about it at all. I believe it's the current due process of law as far as eviction from council properties is concerned. As such, it doesn't work. It simply results in the temporary displacement of the problem. The subsequent "moving ons" which result are a cumulative (and cyclical) expense borne out time and time again by ratepayers in various, and many, council areas. It is an idiom symptomatic of the "not in my back yard" mindset.

I think, with hindsight, you'll find that many of the generalizations which you have made on this thread do actually constitute racism / racist behaviour. You'd have been much safer starting your post with the comfort blanket statement "Now I'm not a racist, but..." Personally I don't consider myself a liberal - the fact that I took issue with your comments should be a clear enough indication of the fact. There's nothing "liberal" in contesting or challenging preconcieved prejudices. A liberal would be more likely to excuse your opinion as your "democratic right". No one has a democratic right to be racist.

So it would appear that I was correct - the police (or their attitude) are a major contributory factor to your malaise.

Might I respectfully suggest that you do likewise before labelling entire cultures of people as lying, stealing, thieving, cheating, selfish, dirty, pikey **** - perhaps then people wouldn't arrive at the obvious conclusions you afford them the opportunity to.

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

He didn't label entire cultures (plural), just one culture.
.....and most, if not all of those descriptors you mention are correct....in my experience :shrug:

---------- Post added at 17:44 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

Of course, if the 'pikeys' didn't break the law in the first place then we wouldn't be angry with the police with not prosecuting them because they wouldn't need prosecuting.

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

Not just that. If they stopped at designated sites they wouldn't get moved on, so it's their choice.
Eh, no, they do not.
Don't be silly - I'd still get called racist and a hypocrite too for trying to deny it.

I am Not racist, and I do NOT have to announce that here there and everywhere.
I think, with hindsight, you'll find that many of the comments and responses which you have made on this thread do actually constitute liberalism/liberal behaviour.

Your challenge is not evidence of your non-liberal attitude, because that kind of challenge is typical of the liberal way of attacking anyone who doesn't say nice wishy-washy liberal things they like. So they call them racist or bigot or nazi.
Sorry - no. My specific annyonace with the police in this respect extends to other areas of policing where the police are not even-handed and close their eyes to anything that might be a little too much trouble to deal with, when they've got so many petty criminals they could be harassing.
The pikeys we're discussing here have no culture. They are "lying, stealing, thieving, cheating, selfish, dirty, pikey ****" exactly as you describe and an insult to decent, civilised people.

Show me just ONE aspect of this wonderful pikey 'culture' that should make me stop and think because it challenges my perception of them...

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

I think you'll find that the romany, travelling, gypsy "just one culture" as you put it is, in actual fact, comprised of several cultures (plural) as indicated.

Unfortunately SWW didn't elaborate on which particular culture of "pikeys" he was specifically referring to. As such I afforded him the courtesy of generalizing several cultures (plural) within one culture (singular). It appears to be the easiest method of rationale for him, and yourself, to generalize.

Sorry, but I thought I was being helpful.

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

Fine, like I said, show me how their 'culture' challenges the perception that I (and millions of others) have of them.

Oh, and btw, if any of these cultured people camp on public land, drive untaxed, uninsured and stolen cars, go around stealing, half tarmac-ing driveways before doing a runner or dumping rubbish on their illegal campsites, then don't bother, because the people that indulge in that are PIKEYS!

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

lol, fair point.....i thought we were talking about our indigenous 'pikeys' rather than commenting on the pan-European gypsy community......(whom I personally have no problem with)

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

Sorry, but it's not up to me to change your mind / perception and I'm disappointed that you now feel the need to drag "millions of others" into it in some inane attempt at qualifying your opinion. I was merely pointing out that you appear to be a racist (certainly under the terms of the Race Relations Act and the definition of Racial Discrimination therein).

I don't write the law, therefore this is not my opinion, but according to the aforementioned Act it is very clear that anyone making sweeping generalization comments such as yours is quite evidently in breach of said law - and I quote

"A person harasses another on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins when he or she engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of:

• violating that other person’s dignity; or
• creating an intimidating or hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them."

This, by definition, quite clearly in the eyes of the law and legislation, defines you and your description of "pikeys" as racist.

racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.

Now, if you don't feel that your comments constitute racism there's little or no arguing to be done here but I would ask if your intolerance allows you to seriously purport that people who "camp on public land, drive untaxed, uninsured and stolen cars, go around stealing, half tarmac-ing driveways before doing a runner or dumping rubbish on their illegal campsites" are of a mindset unique only to the Travelling, Romany and Gypsy communities?

Thanks in advance.

RAMROD - Cheers, no malice intended.

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

The company I recently left had a Pikie problem a few months ago, I didn't post anything about it at the time because it involved a security issue and one of the members here would of probably gone on a rant defending them.

One of the companies sites had the electric gate forced open and they camped in the car park, the local council operated "A policy of Tolerance" this is prodly displayed on their website. The council and police were called to no avail, as the council were limp wristed. Some of the Pikies had tried to gain access to the buildings by trying to rush through the door as people opened it, and some even tried to get in through the office windows. Fortunately the site contained the facility that designed and tested some high grade crypto products used for government comms, it apparently took one phone call to the right government department and the police and local council shifted their backsides to get the problem sorted. Everyone was sent home, loads of police were brought in and that same evening they were removed from the site.

That should be standard practice in any situation where they have camped on land with no permission.

PS: forgot to mention the same night they arrived the metal gates were smashed down at the builders yard, and a load of stuff stolen!

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

But our 'pikeys' aren't of a different race or ethnic origin are they? They are just travellers :confused: :)

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

Ramrod, That's exactly what I'm getting at.

"Pikeys" are distinct from "Gypsys", "Travellers" and "Romanys" proper. I've no doubt that there are bad elements in all of these groups - but it's very unhelpful to generalize.

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

I am not harrassing anyone, nor have I suggested that pikeys have a common ethnic or national origin (or race, for that matter) and I have only categorised them in terms of their anti-social behaviour.
Which I believe describes pikeys very well and does not include even one word that fits with the definition of racism you trawled up.
Now YOU are making the connection between pikeys and the 'cultured travellers' you seem to think I am generalising about. Which means the racism is in YOUR mind.

I have not at any time made any racial, ethnic or national connection with the word 'pikey'. I have only used terms to describe their anti-social behaviour. Do you consider those things in any way 'cultured'? Do you really believe we should have respect for people that behave that way?

And yes, the pikey mindset is unique to them and their ilk. Unless you can point me to another population group that is equally anti-social?

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

Let me just say that in this area we had these traveling robbers and con artists, drive repairmen, traveling church roof lead removers call them what you want, Turn up and plonk themselves on a plot of land. There was a increase in breakins, cars where stolen. Local kids where attacked by gangs of traverkids and the land they where on had to be cleaned and i do mean cleaned after they where evicted. We are now paying for the eviction via council tax.

My point.

If i can go and find a job and then buy a house why can they not go out and get a job and buy a plot of land for there caravan and highly expensive 4x4 and merc. They are a blite on the lives of hard working people who have better things to pay for than evicting a load of freeloaders and robbers.

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

Exactly, so how can the word pikey be racist?

If you still think I got the definition of a pikey wrong - check this out :)

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------

I think you'll find that to most people the term 'pikey' means the ones of whatever cultural background that behave like anti-social ar5eh0le5.
Actually, in this case it's VERY helpful, because I don't actually care whether they are Gypsy, Traveller or Romany - if they camp illegally, steal, drive illegal cars and generally trash the place, then they royally deserve to be called pikeys.

If a 'proper Romany' gypsy were to do all the things I've mentioned, then what's the damned difference?

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

You get my full agreement on that. Of course those who have not had these pikeys move in very close to them have not had the full blown experience of them. For those of us that have had them move on to land close by, Then you will know why they are hated so much.

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

Sorry for this guys, But if you don`t "Pay your Way", IE through National Insurance contributions, I thought that you wern`t entitled to NHS care or the like and certainly not to have rights over good, Hard working citizens who pay their taxes.!
I f you want all the benefits from the Government, then pay your way!:tu:

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

Come on now

The Human Rights brigade had that little problem removed for them years ago. :mad:

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

I believe it is exactly this that the pikeys are trying to get around in court.

---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

:erm:
There you go being a nasty racist, bigoted nazi - assuming the pikeys did that... :dozey:

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

So you don`t agree with me then?
That if you want the benefits, you must contribute and abide by the law?

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

Sacred Web Warrior,

It pains me to point this out to you but it was you who titled this thread "Gypsy's - Human Rights - What about us?". Not "Pikeys", but "Gypsy's".

I'm not about to go round in circles on this and I've already established that there is a distinct difference between gypsys and pikeys - both racially and culturally. I've also provided you with a section of the Race Relations Act which you don't seem prepared to acknowledge as correct (somewhat surprising for someone who, given their published views on litter, theft etc, one can only assume to be on the side of the law).

I'm sorry to further point out to you that it's a fundamental tenet of law that it's not actually up to you to decide when you are and when you are not harrassing someone (for the avoidance of doubt I was pointing out to you the fact that you were violating another persons dignity - I thought the fact that I had highlighted that particular phrase may have been a clue). Your idea of harmless name calling is someone elses interpretation of harrassment / bullying.

Your comments quite clearly have the potential to offend and undermine someones dignity. As I tried to point out there are law abiding and successful members of the travelling community who integrate well with the settled society. Your generalizations are an affront to their continued attempts to do so.

You've been called out on this and you don't like it - fair enough. Don't, however, try to dance around the core issue of your inability to treat people as individuals by twisting / misinterpreting my words to try and somehow validate your stance. Not all gypsys and travellers are how you would have us believe, As I said before- there are bad elements in every socioeconomic group - labelling them all as the same shows a fundamental lack of willingness on your part to believe that anything other than socially disfunctional is the norm where these people are concerned and that is patently not true.

I asked you earlier - Is it only gypsy's who camp on public land, drive untaxed, uninsured and stolen cars, go around stealing, half tarmac-ing driveways before doing a runner or dumping rubbish on their illegal campsites?

Are you prepared to give a straight honest answer?

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

I do agree, However when have you ever seen them give. They only take.

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

[QUOTE=ScaredWebWarriorThere you go being a nasty racist, bigoted nazi - assuming the pikeys did that... :dozey:[/QUOTE]

I apologise, it was obviously a huge coincidence.:rolleyes:

:D

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

Indeed it is. They are the ones that are doing this. The real Gypsy's dont do it. I am not and would never call real Gypsy's "pikeys".

The group that plonked themselves on the land by me called themselves "Gypsy's" i called them pikeys as they fit your description completely. Depends how you look at them. By the way have you had them parked at the back of your house and you have had to have someone in your house at all times so you dont get robbed ? or had to have you windows closed because they have emptied the chemical toilet right at the back of you house.

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

How come you are so sure? Do you have personal experience of honest, non littering, non scamming, tax paying pikeys?

Actually, the way the pikey tarmacking thing works in Kent is one of 2 ways.....either they give you a price which is quite reasonable, do the job and then say that the quoted sum was per meter......or (now that people are wise to that one) they quote a price and then once the work is done they merely say that they had actually quoted a higher (exorbitant) price and demand you pay up (with menaces) .......I have personal experience of both of those situations. (my father and a neighbour)
oops, sorry....I forgot a third scam.......they roll up and demand that you pay them for earlier tarmacking (that you didn't want and didn't know anything about before it appeared on your drive)

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

I had the last happen many years ago, they kindly filled in the pot holes on my grandfathers driveway. He had told them not to touch it but they ignored him, he called the police but I arrived before them.

They got the message from me alright!

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

Good job they didn't know where you lived! :erm:

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

They did, because I lived with my grandfather then, they had apparently been hanging about and driving up and down the road over the period of a few days. I guess they had decided that he was an old guy living on his own and an easy target, they probably had a few targets in the area.

They do not want physical violence, but they gamble that 99% will either pay up or run in the house and call the police. I suppose you could say they would be more likely to come back if the police had arrived, I may of used threatening behaviour but they were able to go on and scam someone else without having to face the police.

They always seem to find an excuse or lame story to come onto your property for a look around, usually asking about tarmac or removing garden rubbish is just to see if you have anything worth stealing.

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

I think that we are getting a little to hot unde the collar about this.:erm:

I will always champion the rights of true gypsies or Romanies because they are very strict about matters of hygiene and morality and have a very strict code by which they live.It would be rather tedious if we were all the same and living the same.I can't but wonder why we should become homogenised as one kind of cultural grouping?Why should our way of life be considered better than theirs?If they pay their way and live decent lives but on the move who am I to call them names and object to their way of life.Why do we all have to be the bluddy same?

Those travellors who don't cause trouble(and I'm sure there must be some)and leave places as they found them, well good luck to them if they can find a decent legal site.

As for the others well I reckon the thought of them living in a council house somewhere on your estate might be rather more than you could bear.Better they are roaming from place to place perhaps?After all how many are there of awful families that make their communities a living horror?No getting rid of them easily and the damage they cause a community can also be expensive plus the costs of cleaning up after them falls on the local taxpayer anyway.

And before you ask if I'd like them next to me..yes to true Romanies and those decent travellors that exist and of course no to to the last sort.

I think it is time for a proper discussion of how to deal with these differing groups was undertaken by the government and some solid provisions and plans were made for those who genuinely need more legal sites.At the moment nothing is done while the problem is just moved on and on..

Perhaps if we wrote en masse to the government and relevant agencies in large enough numbers something might be done about it.

Ranting hate filled threads like this won't sort the problem however. I have been very uncomfortable reading this thread in it's entirety as I know that the majority of the people here are decent,kind and generous human beings.:(

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

As I have stated before, there is a family in my area who were originaly gypsies, the one woman around my age goes in my local pub. If you mention these travellers/scammers to her it makes her blood boil. True gypsies will have nothing to do with these new age travellers or pikies, however true gypsies appear to be a very small percentage of the people who live in caravans these days.

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

You talking to me?
You are absolutely right. I'm sure the suffering you went through to point that out was bareable.

Except you ARE going around in circles and you ARE continuing to accuse me of racism, yet it is quite plain that there is NO racism involved in this debate - except in your head!
If I offend a pikey, then I willnot apologise for it - after all THEY don't apologise for being anti-social.

My only generalisation is that the thieving, anti-social, morons that camp on public land ARE pikeys. Therefore, it is also clear that any travellers that are "law abiding and successful members of the travelling community who integrate well with the settled society" are NOT included in that generalisation.

I will not tolerate pikeys. Any travellers/gypsies that stick to legal and social rueles - fine. Live and let live, I say.

No at all. You've been going on, and on about racism where there was none. Whatever point you were trying to make has been lost in your attempt to whitewash the pikeys.

You are the only one to have twisted words. You attributed racism where there was none.
No, but all pikeys are pikeys.
Maybe there are other people who do some of these things sometimes - only pikeys do ALL of them all of the time.
To what question? I've responded to everything you've posted. Even the stupid attempts at trying to bring racism into the debate.

BTW - you have so far avoided answering a single of my questions.

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

If your problem is with Pikeys, why not call the thread "Pikey's human rights - What about us?"

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

I may have come in on this thread late, but I always thought the word "gypsy" was synonymous with "traveller", i.e. gypsies travel around. The idea of a permanent encampment - there's one near me with permanent buildings, never mind caravans - seems to contradict that. Any camp a true gypsy might make is, by definition, temporary. A stationary gypsy is a contradiction in terms.

Or have I missed something?

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

True, but our settled (in large bungalows) Gypsies still refer to themselves as Travellers and would not in any way be associated with Gypsies, Tinkers, Pikeys or New Age Travellers. Those that travel mostly with the fairs during most of the year have regular sites with space for a static and mobile van and contribute to the local community.

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

Be my guest to change the thread title - you can - I can't.

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

Apologies, unintentional.

It would be considerably more bearable if it were to produce a factual answer rather than a predisposition to a racist attitude which seems unrelenting even when confronted with the law of the land.

I'm sorry, but that was a point of law which I quoted earlier - not my opinion or something in my "head". You obviously have a problem in understanding that.

It's a secular, fascist attitude like this which prevents any progress in modern socety. "Two wrongs don't make a right"

Why didn't you make that particular distinction / generalization earlier? The burglars who broke into my house and stole my car several weeks ago - they didn't camp on public land. Based on your rationale - should I advise CID to rule out "Pikeys" from their initial line of enquiries? Please advise.

That generalization pretty much substantiates my previous assertion that your tendancies are more racist and preprejudiced than formed from any type of proven social interaction or personal experiences(s).

Hooray!! for you - However, there's something ironic about someone espousing the sociological merits of a particular group who "stick" to legal rules (that's a new concept - "legal rules" - here on planet earth we call "legal rules" "the law") when they themselves would question the validty of tenets of law quoted to them.

My earlier quote from the Race Relations Act refers, as indeed do comments attributable to, and by, you which have been made and published in the context of this thread.

See above.

This is not in dispute.

I don't actually recall you asking a direct question - I may be wrong - but I seem to recall that anything you have mooted on this subject, including the thread title, you have put forward as a statement of fact without any substantive evidence to endorse same.

If you're intent on arguing then please at least make the effort. Otherwise, if you've a question to ask, feel free to do so.

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

I thought the maximum spend on a car in cash was £10,000 , this is to stop money laundering.

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

I'm getting tired of your continued attempts to brand me as racist.

You will note that several others have agreed with what I have said, and they too have used the word pikey. I note that you have, however, chosen to single me out for the racist label.

Go find a new bridge...

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.

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

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.