[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I'm all for a change of thread title if that'll make it easier for everyone.

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

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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.

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

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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.

It's slipping....

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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.

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,

Originally Posted by Escapee

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.

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.