France expels its gypsies

Originally Posted by Escapee

Perhaps Belfast would be the best place for all the Romanian Gypsies to set up camp, considering you are so concerned about their welfare. I would certainly be pleased to contribute to a fund to repatriate our local gypsies of Irish origin if you want those too.

I think you will find they are Travellers, not Gipsies (there is a difference).

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Escapee

Perhaps Belfast would be the best place for all the Romanian Gypsies to set up camp, considering you are so concerned about their welfare. I would certainly be pleased to contribute to a fund to repatriate our local gypsies of Irish origin if you want those too.

Thanks for that valuable input Escapee.

My earlier link regarding the treatment of Romanian gypsies in Northern Ireland by British Loyalists seems to have escaped your notice.

It is clear that Romany gypsies, whether in France, Belfast or wherever are fair game as far as certain British xenophobes are concerned. That you would extend your offer in relation to Irish gypsies speaks volumes about the ongoing persecution that these people are subjected to.

Cheers.

---------- Post added at 15:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

You Sir are the one who does not fully cook their information before digesting it.

I think not.

Originally Posted by Pierre

EU countries are only obliged to accommodate fellow European citizens (if they intend to stay for more than 6 months) as long as the citizens entering the country have:

either be engaged in economic activity (on an employed or self-employed basis);
or have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances;
or be following vocational training as a student and have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay;
or be a family member of a Union citizen who falls into one of the above categories

Given that these romanians are living in shanty town I doubt they qualify in any of the above conditions. And certainly anyone found to be involved in criminal activity can be expelled immediately.

Notwithstanding the fact that the context which you quoted above has been superceded by the "Right of Residence" as defined in COM/99/0127 which afforded the right of residence even to those who were / are not economically active the core issue here is "or have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances".

Simples - it is a loophole - but an entirely legal constitutional loophole which France has subscribed to. On that premise the Romany are entitled to be there and France is duty bound to accomodate their being there.

Originally Posted by Pierre

The report you linked to covers South East Europe only, namely Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Kosovo, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania and Serbia.

Not Northern Europe, so intresting and applicable in may be in Serbia, it has no relevance in France.

I believe I stated "The UNICEF report which I linked to, together with various other quantifiable sources - somewhat more enlightened than your opinion on the matter - clearly identify persecution as a systemic issue as far as Roma gypsies are concerned." Perhaps you could help me by pointing out any specific reference to France therein by me?

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'm sure that incertain areas of Europe, these people have a dreadful time, indeed other wise they wouldn't come to France, and other Northern European countries. But that doesn't mean they can set up camp in France and expect to treated differently.

Nor does it mean they should be treated just as badly, or worse, in France.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I would argue that anyone living in a shanty town, in unsanitary conditions, and staying beyond their legal limit - is a trouble maker.

That would be a rather opinion based argument - and given as highlighted above that there is now a right to residence for the economically inactive - a flawed one at that. Perhaps equally, or indeed more, important is the failure of the host state (in this case France) to honour it's responsibilities by letting people live in squalor / shanty villages.

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's not xenophobic, once again the last resort of someone has no real argument is to turn to race, I'm so tired of that.

See below.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'm sure that if such a camp was set up at the bottom of your garden, you'd welcome them with open arms and share a vodka or two. Then maybe not so much when the lead disappears from your roof, and you're offered your way with a 16yr old girl for a few quid as you walk home.

Has any of this happened to you personally or are you just hypothesizing / generalizing again?

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's all very well being righteous when the issue is hundreds of miles away in another country,

Yes it is, which begs the question of why you are so worried if you are "not xenophobic".

Originally Posted by Pierre

but what of the decent French folk having to endure this?

It's "hundreds of miles away" again, what are you so worried about?

Originally Posted by Pierre

Send in the bulldozers.

Sorry, run that "It's not xenophobic" by me again....

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I think you will find they are Travellers, not Gipsies (there is a difference).

I am sure it would be politically more incorrect to refer to the group as travellers, when in fact they refer to themselves as Gypsies.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Thanks for that valuable input Escapee.

My earlier link regarding the treatment of Romanian gypsies in Northern Ireland by British Loyalists seems to have escaped your notice.

It is clear that Romany gypsies, whether in France, Belfast or wherever are fair game as far as certain British xenophobes are concerned. That you would extend your offer in relation to Irish gypsies speaks volumes about the ongoing persecution that these people are subjected to.

[/I].

My valuable input as you call it, is probably the same view as that of the majority in this country. Gypsies or whatever they call themselves should not set up camp where ever they take a fancy, I say good on countries who unlike the UK have the goolies to do something about it.

I think you will find little support of your sympathy from the working class tax payers in this country.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Escapee

My valuable input as you call it, is probably the same view as that of the majority in this country. Gypsies or whatever they call themselves should not set up camp where ever they take a fancy, I say good on countries who unlike the UK have the goolies to do something about it.

I think you will find little support of your sympathy from the working class tax payers in this country.

Escapee, there's absolutely no need for you to essentially repeat what I said.

You are, of course, assuming I am offering "sympathy" rather than an objective and factually based viewpoint. I should point out that nowhere in this thread have I mooted sympathy, it's something you appear to have imagined my having done - but if it helped get something of your chest I'm glad.

By the way, now that I have your attention, in the benefits cheat thread here in post number 130 you mentioned that you were "recently told a minimum and maximum figure for an alcoholic by what I would consider a trusty source. (Employed in a position where they would be expected to know the answer)".

I notice that you never elaborated on the statement. If it's not too much bother could you revist the thread and post the figures and the "trusty source" details?

Thanks old chap.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Escapee, there's absolutely no need for you to essentially repeat what I said.

You are, of course, assuming I am offering "sympathy" rather than an objective and factually based viewpoint. I should point out that nowhere in this thread have I mooted sympathy, it's something you appear to have imagined my having done - but if it helped get something of your chest I'm glad.

By the way, now that I have your attention, in the benefits cheat thread here in post number 130 you mentioned that you were "recently told a minimum and maximum figure for an alcoholic by what I would consider a trusty source. (Employed in a position where they would be expected to know the answer)".

I notice that you never elaborated on the statement. If it's not too much bother could you revist the thread and post the figures and the reliable source details?

Thanks old chap.

As there was no reply to my post in the benefit cheats thread, I did not post because I assumed no one was interested. On this forum that is usually the case when there are people who know the answer but the answer doesn't fit in with their political agenda.

I am unable to answer the minimum and maximum figure, because the reality is that there is no answer. Whilst an alcoholic receiving this extra benefits usually gets a maximum of approx £20 a week extra in benefits, they can by discretion be given more than this. Hence the reason I cannot answer what the upper limit is, although some claimants locally are reputedly receiving up to £80 a week for alcohol dependency.

I wonder why you ask in this thread though, you could have sent a PM and asked me to update the original thread instead of taking this thread off topic.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Escapee

I wonder why you ask in this thread though, you could have sent a PM and asked me to update the original thread instead of taking this thread off topic.

I didn't intend taking the thread off topic, hence why I asked "could you revist the thread and post the figures and the "trusty source" details?"

That said, I was hoping for a more factually based reply which you had indicated previously was available to you rather than one based on "the reality is that there is no answer" or "reputedly receiving".

Thanks anyway.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I didn't intend taking the thread off topic, hence why I asked "could you revist the thread and post the figures and the "trusty source" details?"

That said, I was hoping for a more factually based reply which you had indicated previously was available to you rather than one based on "the reality is that there is no answer" or "reputedly receiving".

Thanks anyway.

My original question was open ended, because I wanted to know if anyone else had any idea if my information was correct. I did find it hard to believe that it was discretionary with no upper limit in certain cases, although internet searches did not reveal this.

Subject closed from me.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Escapee

My original question was open ended, because I wanted to know if anyone else had any idea if my information was correct. I did find it hard to believe that it was discretionary with no upper limit in certain cases, although internet searches did not reveal this.

Subject closed from me.

Sorry, I was under the impression that when you wrote

"I was recently told a minimum and maximum figure for an alcoholic by what I would consider a trusty source. (Employed in a position where they would be expected to know the answer)

I found the figure to be unbelievable".

that you meant you had been told a minimum and maximum figure which you found to be unbelievable.

My mistake, obviously.

As you say, subject closed - let's stick to the topic.

Apologies to all for the temporary drift.

Any one know if the French are just as vigorous with other illegal immigrants to their country as they are being with the Roma gypsies ,I know the Roma gypsies aren't technically illegal immigrants if i read Daddy's links correctly but they are being treated as such

[Osem]

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding has urged the European Commission to take legal action against France over its deportations of Roma (Gypsies).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11301307

Hmmmm, this'll be interesting....

Here's some 'previous' when it comes to the European Commission and fines on the French.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...e_british_beef

What's the betting the outcome will be the same this time?...

[PeteLockwood]

i dont understand what france are doing wrong ?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by PeteL

i dont understand what france are doing wrong ?

upsetting the liberal tree hungers who want the whole world to love each other
?

Originally Posted by papa smurf

upsetting the liberal tree hungers who want the whole world to love each other
?

I think treating people humanly is what 'liberal tree huggers' want. Not a large scale displacement under the guise of crime reduction, for which the French government has decided an entire ethnic group shall be held accountable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11302013

It is not often that the midday briefing at the European Commission makes for compelling listening, but this was one of those days.
Dressed in a fiery red jacket, the immaculately coiffed Viviane Reding banged her fist on the lectern as she directed an unprecedented attack on France. European commissioners tend to refrain from publicly using words like "disgrace" and "shocking" about EU member states, especially about a big founder member state. But the lady from Luxembourg did just that

The rest of the article seems to indicate that France may find it'sself in the doghouse and is a strong message to Italy that may be considering a similar action.

[PeteLockwood]

france are in a position to tell the eu to do one, after all france britain and germany are the eu the rest of the countrys are leeches