Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Nor would you need to. As the legal owner / occupier you are within your right to force entry to your property (in much the same way you might elect to do so had you locked yourself out) but any potential confrontation thereafter is entirely illegal if you use anything beyond "reasonable force" to remove individuals.

As they have changed the locks and made a claim on the property that they believed it was vacant and did not enter through illegal means, the only way to get them out is via a IPO which declares you as a DRO, and then allows you to use some violence to evict the squatters, such as being able to break the door down.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The burden of proof in this regard lies "with title" and can be proven quite simply by various methods as previously mooted, not least of all by proving your identity and having the police call your insurers. Not one court in the land is going to charge you with illegal entry, breaking and entering or criminal damage to your own property retrospectively. Anyone who would consider accusing you of same would need to be in a position to provide their proof of occupancy in a court. How likely are they to do that?

And the proof is given when you obtain the IPO, which you still have to as a DRO.
If you break in, and try to evict the squatters without a PIO, they can have you charged with assault.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Not so - as previously explained PIO's apply only in certain circumstances - certainly not in privately owned residential properties occupied by the owner occupier.

I think you are getting your IPO's and PIO's confused.
A IPO is given by the court and basically says you have the right to the property, it gives you your DRO (as previous occupant) or PIO (as landlord etc) status.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yet by your logic, if every and any property can be broken into and occupied, there can be no such thing as "nowhere else to live".

Ah but if they admit to criminal entry rather than "it was an open window/door guv, prove me wrong" then they can be evicted by the police straight away, as they're not squatters then.
This is why squatters sites and organisations suggest criminal activities to enter the property, then to clean up and lie about how access was gained.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It has always been the case that squatters have targetted unused properties or vacant rental properties whose ownership, due to them being rented, is somewhat more difficult to prove. That is exactly what I've been saying - and what squatters rights sites seem to advocate - the occupancy of "unused properties" - not private residential homes where the owner has popped out to the shop or is away for a few days.

The reason for targetting rented accomodation is nothing to do with proof of ownership but thank you for discrediting your own earlier agurment that an owner only has to ring the bank to get an eviction (after all, the landlord still has the deeds held by the mortgage company, but as I explained, that doesn't matter until the court decides on a IPO), rather it is to do with the increased likelyhood of the property not being needed in the forseable future.
Unless the landlord has tenants waiting to move in, or needs to move in himself in the near future, then he cannot apply for an IPO, likewise, if you had a second home in the country and discovered squatters, because you don't need to live there, you could not use the fast track eviction processes of the IPO.

Oh I give up on this thread.It's becoming the Frick and Frack show...

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

As they have changed the locks and made a claim on the property that they believed it was vacant and did not enter through illegal means, the only way to get them out is via a IPO which declares you as a DRO, and then allows you to use some violence to evict the squatters, such as being able to break the door down.

Your argument is tenuous in the extreme, as indeed is your ability to part interpret fact. I am talking about privately owned houses - not those available for rent or tenancy occupancy. Aside from gaining access, by whatever means, if an illegal occupant of your property changes the locks they negate your insurance on your house not your insurance on their house.

A cursory call to any relevant insurance company, mortgator, public service provider or utilities provider along with a written affidavit is sufficient to prove residence and ownership. Debt collection companies have been using these methods for years (even down to telephoning neighbours to ascertain residency) and they are all perfectly admissable in law and in court. Illegal occupancy of a private residential home is illegal, irrespective of the means of access - fact.

If you don't think that this is the case then feel free to go and occupy your neighbour's house and change the locks. Don't forget to get back to us with your experiences when you get out of jail.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And the proof is given when you obtain the IPO, which you still have to as a DRO. If you break in, and try to evict the squatters without a PIO, they can have you charged with assault.

Only if (a) you require an IPO to evict them or (b) you assault them - see my earlier post to which you were responding. There is nothing, in law, to prevent you damaging your own private (as in not for commercial use or gain) property to gain entry and effecting a citizen's arrest for burglary - with the provisio that you do not use excessive force on another individual (not, for the avoidance of doubt, on a door or window - I'm not aware of any doors or windows having successfully prosecuted anyone for the use of excessive force on them).

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I think you are getting your IPO's and PIO's confused.
A IPO is given by the court and basically says you have the right to the property, it gives you your DRO (as previous occupant) or PIO (as landlord etc) status.

Since you're resorting to being pedantic it's "an" IPO. I afforded you the courtesy of not highlighting your own grammatical errors in previous exchanges on this thread - please show a bit of mutual respect.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Ah but if they admit to criminal entry rather than "it was an open window/door guv, prove me wrong" then they can be evicted by the police straight away, as they're not squatters then.
This is why squatters sites and organisations suggest criminal activities to enter the property, then to clean up and lie about how access was gained.

Again we are talking about vacant or unoccupied properties and, admittedly and regrettably, some sites do suggest criminal entry in certain situations. Again though, this is not strictly illegal (suggesting the act) and the police would need to catch perpetrators and prove criminal damage to affect entry.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The reason for targetting rented accomodation is nothing to do with proof of ownership but thank you for discrediting your own earlier agurment that an owner only has to ring the bank to get an eviction (after all, the landlord still has the deeds held by the mortgage company, but as I explained, that doesn't matter until the court decides on a IPO), rather it is to do with the increased likelyhood of the property not being needed in the forseable future.

OK, let me explain this to you - there is a fundamental difference between a private landlord and a landlord. All private landlords are required by law and under the FSA regulations to have landlord mortgage status. This is, amongst other reasons, for public liability indemnity and taxable / capital gains purposes.

Most landlords (not private landlords), inlcluding housing associations, commercial landlords and councils are constituted under the Companies Order of 1986 for the purposes of the business of property rental. This is to facilitate liability indemnities under the guarantee of limited liability (ltd companies). Limited companies consist of at least one director and a company secretary - these are the primary shareholders.

They mortgage properties and acquire mortgages in respect of properties in an entirely different manner than you or I would. These mortgages are secured against the shareholdings of the company under the limited guarantee status. In effect they don't own the properties - the limited company does. More astute members of the legal profession exploit this fact with great effect. Their adversaries, in this matter the squatters rights associations, also employ solicitors who are quite adept at exploiting this fact in the negative. If a landlord, such as a housing association, council or commercial landlord wants to prove ownership then he / she / they have to jump through a very considerable number of hoops to do so. Not least of all the signiature of all parties to the memorandum and articles of association at an extraordinary general meeting to formally announce ownership - this exposes otherwise silent shareholders / partners and all of their business interests.

This is time consuming and generally takes weeks to coordinate (hence the statutory 28 day limit on IPO applications).

So you see - it is to do with proof of ownership. Many businesses / business people do not want their shareholdings and business affairs discussed in public as a matter of public record and squatters and their legal representatives are only too well aware of and exploit this fact.

Mr Dale, referred to earlier, was probably forced to apply for an IPO simply because of his landlord status and, if he was, then his business affairs would now be known to all and sundry in Port Talbot. I, personally, am familiar with one case where an estranged wife "arranged" for squatters to take posession of one of her ex husbands' properties to force him to apply for an IPO thereby exposing his business affairs and share dealings with his "new " parther going back 11 years.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Unless the landlord has tenants waiting to move in, or needs to move in himself in the near future, then he cannot apply for an IPO, likewise, if you had a second home in the country and discovered squatters, because you don't need to live there, you could not use the fast track eviction processes of the IPO.

He can apply for an IPO, but he needs to do so along with an accompanying written statement or certificate in compliance with section 12A of the Criminal Law Act, 1977 (inserted as part of a recommendation from your favourite Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994). Such statements are fraught with complications for landlords as they have to prove that any prospective tenant has been in discussions to take up a tenancy prior to the disputed occupancy. There is also a jail term and fine applicable in the event of perjury.

I look forward to hearing from you on your release.

[pop80_uk]

Some light relief in a serious thread.....

Originally Posted by pop80_uk

Some light relief in a serious thread.....

Now EVEN I have to laugh at that...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Your argument is tenuous in the extreme, as indeed is your ability to part interpret fact. I am talking about privately owned houses - not those available for rent or tenancy occupancy. Aside from gaining access, by whatever means, if an illegal occupant of your property changes the locks they negate your insurance on your house not your insurance on their house.

If they did not enter your property by illegal means, ie without proof of them breaking in, and change the locks, they are then able to claim to be squatters, and an IPO is required to evict them, this gives you the status of a DRO and they must leave within 24 hours.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

A cursory call to any relevant insurance company, mortgator, public service provider or utilities provider along with a written affidavit is sufficient to prove residence and ownership. Debt collection companies have been using these methods for years (even down to telephoning neighbours to ascertain residency) and they are all perfectly admissable in law and in court. Illegal occupancy of a private residential home is illegal, irrespective of the means of access - fact.

And in order to evict them you need to submit an IPO to get PIO or DRO status
This is why people can go away for the weekend and come back and find squatters in their property and the police will do nothing.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If you don't think that this is the case then feel free to go and occupy your neighbour's house and change the locks. Don't forget to get back to us with your experiences when you get out of jail.

I can't, you see, as they are my neighbour, it means I have a property, and as such I am unable to claim to be a squatter.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Only if (a) you require an IPO to evict them or (b) you assault them - see my earlier post to which you were responding. There is nothing, in law, to prevent you damaging your own private (as in not for commercial use or gain) property to gain entry and effecting a citizen's arrest for burglary - with the provisio that you do not use excessive force on another individual (not, for the avoidance of doubt, on a door or window - I'm not aware of any doors or windows having successfully prosecuted anyone for the use of excessive force on them).

Why do you think there is the term DRO if you think squatters cannot displace residential occupiers? Did parliment add it because it sounds funky?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Since you're resorting to being pedantic it's "an" IPO. I afforded you the courtesy of not highlighting your own grammatical errors in previous exchanges on this thread - please show a bit of mutual respect.

Sorry, I didn't think it was pedantic to point out the difference between an IPO and a PIO, both being completly different.
I suppose you think people are being pedantic if you start talking about cats when you're asked about dogs, and people point out your mistake?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

OK, let me explain this to you - there is a fundamental difference between a private landlord and a landlord. All private landlords are required by law and under the FSA regulations to have landlord mortgage status. This is, amongst other reasons, for public liability indemnity and taxable / capital gains purposes.

Most landlords (not private landlords), inlcluding housing associations, commercial landlords and councils are constituted under the Companies Order of 1986 for the purposes of the business of property rental. This is to facilitate liability indemnities under the guarantee of limited liability (ltd companies). Limited companies consist of at least one director and a company secretary - these are the primary shareholders.

They mortgage properties and acquire mortgages in respect of properties in an entirely different manner than you or I would. These mortgages are secured against the shareholdings of the company under the limited guarantee status. In effect they don't own the properties - the limited company does. More astute members of the legal profession exploit this fact with great effect. Their adversaries, in this matter the squatters rights associations, also employ solicitors who are quite adept at exploiting this fact in the negative. If a landlord, such as a housing association, council or commercial landlord wants to prove ownership then he / she / they have to jump through a very considerable number of hoops to do so. Not least of all the signiature of all parties to the memorandum and articles of association at an extraordinary general meeting to formally announce ownership - this exposes otherwise silent shareholders / partners and all of their business interests.

This is time consuming and generally takes weeks to coordinate (hence the statutory 28 day limit on IPO applications).

So you see - it is to do with proof of ownership. Many businesses / business people do not want their shareholdings and business affairs discussed in public as a matter of public record and squatters and their legal representatives are only too well aware of and exploit this fact.

Let me explain this to you.
If ownership is proven, which it generally always will be, an IPO cannot be submitted unless there is an imminent need for that property, ie a tennant is about to move in.
If this is not the case, then an IPO cannot be submitted, and the squatters cannot be evicted using this process.
This then gives the squatters longer in the property than if an IPO had been submitted, which would give them up to 29 days after they were discovered.
Now, in your fanciful scenario, as soon as ownership is settled, they can be evicted.
In reality, and law, they can only be evicted via a IPO which gives the landlord the status of PIO, if the landlord can prove that the property is needed iminently by someone else.
The immediate need of the property is pretty much guarenteed with a private residence, but not so likely with a rented property.
And this Mr Angry is why squatters prefer to target rented accomodation, not because ownership is harder to prove, but because the immediate need of the property is less likely, meaning they can stay for longer.


http://www.squat.freeserve.co.uk/notes.htm

Dealing with the Police

If the police arrive, don’t open the door, speak to them through the letter box. Explain that you are not a burglar; you are living there because you have nowhere else to live. Do not say that you broke in. You can say you were walking past and the door was open.

Be polite but firm with them. Once you are inside a place and have "secure access", (i.e. your own lock on the door) the main danger of arrest and prosecution is over. Try to get the front door reasonably secure as fast as possible (i.e. change the lock).

If the police insist on coming in, tell them that no arrestable offence is taking place and they should leave you alone. In the unlikely event that you are arrested, phone RELEASE (0171-603 8654) and they will put you in touch with a solicitor. You have the right to make one phone call. The police must release you within 24 hours, or charge you. You still do not have to tell them anything other than your name, address and date of birth.

Staying In

Send a letter addressed to yourself in your new home. This is sufficient proof for the police that you live there. Make sure that there is somebody in as much as possible in the first week or two, especially if the place is being worked on. It is often a good idea to keep a copy of the squatters’ legal warning by the front door, because the owners may come round and try to repossess the place by pretending that they thought there was no-one living there. It is illegal for them to throw you out if you are in physical occupation of the place when they arrive. They can be prosecuted if they do this.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If they did not enter your property by illegal means, ie without proof of them breaking in, and change the locks, they are then able to claim to be squatters, and an IPO is required to evict them, this gives you the status of a DRO and they must leave within 24 hours. And in order to evict them you need to submit an IPO to get PIO or DRO status
This is why people can go away for the weekend and come back and find squatters in their property and the police will do nothing.

There are times, and this is one of them, where the obstinacy of individuals trying to disprove the law are beyond belief.

I stated that I was referring to "privately owned houses - not those available for rent or tenancy occupancy". Your references to IPO's, DRO's etc bear no relevance, whatsoever, to the illegal occupancy of such residencies. IPO's, DRO's etc are required only in circumstances whereby landlords (commercial or otherwise), housing associations or councils (those who charge money (ie. rent) to third parties for occupancy and are predisposed to the occupancy of their properties on the basis of tenancy agreements) are involved.

This http://www.letlink.co.uk/GeneralInfo...-%20PE1977.htm is the law on the "Protection from eviction act 1977" - I respectfully suggest that you read it in its entirety whereby you will find that it refers, in no small measure, to "landlords" - and not private owners whose ownership of any given property is easily proved as referenced earlier.

Indeed, with reference to the cut and paste from the site you used - are you seriously suggesting that their advice of sending " ....a letter addressed to yourself in your new home. This is sufficient proof for the police that you live there." is considerably better proof of legitimate ownership than a mortgator, insurance company or utility company?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I can't, you see, as they are my neighbour, it means I have a property, and as such I am unable to claim to be a squatter.

Sorry, I was working on the assumption that you lived in a tent, my mistake. However, given your new found confidence in your interpretation of the law I'm quite sure you'll be more than happy to forsake your current accommodation to find the time to conduct some factual research.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Why do you think there is the term DRO if you think squatters cannot displace residential occupiers? Did parli(a)ment add it because it sounds funky?

I "think there is the term DRO" in order to facilitate eviction from rented property - this is not something I've been referring to.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Sorry, I didn't think it was pedantic to point out the difference between an IPO and a PIO, both being complet(e)ly different. I suppose you think people are being pedantic if you start talking about cats when you're asked about dogs, and people point out your mistake?

They may both be completely different but I can find "no where" that they are relevant to privately owned (not for rent) premises.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Let me explain this to you.
If ownership is proven, which it generally always will be, an IPO cannot be submitted unless there is an imminent need for that property, ie a ten(n)ant is about to move in. If this is not the case, then an IPO cannot be submitted, and the squatters cannot be evicted using this process.
This then gives the squatters longer in the property than if an IPO had been submitted, which would give them up to 29 days after they were discovered.

As previously stated, and in line with current legislation and statute, IPO's are relevant / pertinent only in a scenario where the occupancy of a rented property is in question.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now, in your fanciful scenario, as soon as ownership is settled, they can be evicted.

Yes. Where the property is privately owned and not available for rent or tenancy occupancy.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

In reality, and law, they can only be evicted via a IPO which gives the landlord the status of PIO, if the landlord can prove that the property is needed iminently by someone else.
The immediate need of the property is pretty much guarenteed with a private residence, but not so likely with a rented property.

I'll give you a "bye ball" on this - working on the assumption that you failed to realize that I was talking about "privately owned houses - not those available for rent or tenancy occupancy" - and hadn't read the aforementioned legislation at the time of posting (by the way, it's "an" IPO and you might want to spell "imminently", and "guaranteed" properly - just to avoid confusion).

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And this (,) Mr Angry(,) is why squatters prefer to target rented accom(m)odation, not because ownership is harder to prove, but because the immediate need of the property is less likely, meaning they can stay for longer.

I think the protection afforded under existing legislation, and my previous post, prove perfectly well the preference of squatters for rented accomodation.

The clue with regards to the illegal nature of occupancy of any private residency is contained in the sterling advice as proffered from the site that you decided to cut and paste from - insofar as they advise "Explain that you are not a burglar".

Yes, I can see that one standing up in court (not!).


http://www.squat.freeserve.co.uk/notes.htm[/quote]

Originally Posted by Paul

Sorry but I'm of the same opinion as many in this thread. True Romany travellers that get on with their own lifestyle whilst not intruding on the lives of others should be allowed to continue travelling as and how they wish. The ****/ faux-travellers that only use the term "traveller" to try and excuse their behaviour should be dealt with properly and fully by the legal system.

Don't apologise. It is an issue that affects many people, and it really doesn't help when there's an ignorant minority that has to make matters worse by making excuses for them.

I'm beginning to think this thread has been hijacked, though. If it wasn't for this from pop80 uk, you could think that the thread was about nothing to do with pikeys...

---------- Post added at 08:47 ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

The content of the article changed during that time - it was updated after the ruling was made, which was AFTER I'd started this thread.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

A question that at that time was not answered in a meanigful way by anyone.

When that caravan/van turns up on the local roundabout during the night, will anyone even for one second think "oh, that might be respectful Romany Gypsies"? NO, everyone will instead think "bloody pikeys!"

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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."

As I just said, the experience that most people have of 'travellers' is from pikeys setting up their encampents at the local supermarket, or industrial estate - basically anywhere they don't have to go too far to steal stuff.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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?

If you think my assessment was 'honest', then it cannot be bigotry - check your dictionary.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"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.

You're becoming less coherent all the time. I am entitled to an opinion, and that is that most people hate pikeys - and that is based on the FACT that most people posting in this thread have shown their dislike for them AND it is also based on the FACT that everyone in my street has the same opinion - at least, they did the last time we had pikeys encamped in the local park.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

I have accurately demonstrated that I have not, in any way, presented a prejudicial attitude in this thread.

Your continued references to nazism and Hitler in particular are, however, much clearer signposts to YOUR particular prejudices. Because you are clearly referring to me in an unfavourable light, without knowing anything about me, using the jackboot stereotype and displaying some irrational need to challenge ME on this subject, while accepting every other poster's similar views.

YOU are quite obviously prejudiced...

---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

Mr Angry doesn't care whether what they did was illegal - since the court documents don't mention illegal occupation of land, then that obviously wasn't the issue.

Thing is, if it wasn't for their illegal occupation of the land, there would never have been any case in court, and we wouldn't be discussing this now.

---------- Post added at 09:16 ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

Incorrect. First of all, netiquette doesn't come into it, as the comments are not directed at anyone in this thread. Furthermore, so far nothing has been said that even remotely comes close to being open to litigation - except, possibly, some of the comments YOU have directed at ME.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Let me be straight about a few things;

1: I am not an apologist for illegal behaviour.

Then you have been doing a very good impression of being one.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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".

No wonder there's no pikeys in NI. Those wonderful paramilitaries certainly wouldn't have put up with that, would they?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

3: I am of the opinion that tarring people with the same brush, whether that is because of religion, colour or race is wrong.

Good. Even better that we've had none of that in this thread.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

Are we supposed to accept that your opinion is better because you have been a mercenary?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

What do you want, a medal?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

Sure - you are so decent and fair minded that you don't mind a bit of name calling.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

The White Knight rides against the dark forces!

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

Good getout clause.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

Indeed you have offended people, and there is no excuse for doing so in order to "provoke meaningful discourse". And your idea of "based on fact" seems to be centred on obscuring the facts by using picking over them in order to talk about the facts, rather than the issue.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

Then you do so with double standards, because you seem to think that in the process you may abandon that "mutual respect and understanding" which you value so highly.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

Everyone here is open to discuss anything they feel like. Having an 'open mind' does not mean that we'll change our mind just because someone says so. Nor does it mean that we have to present a less robust point of view.

---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ D

Welcome back Graham/Andyl



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

There was me thinking he was BOTH!

---------- Post added at 09:24 ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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

So suggesting that there should be allocated sites for travellers wasn't a constructive suggestion?

The 'usual rhetoric ranting' remains reserved for the excuses for humanity that travel the country like pirates sailing the high seas.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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?

Why not simply come out with it and name names? Who are these unpleasant people that need dealing with? Considering that he's only 'specifically referred' to one...

---------- Post added at 09:27 ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

Whoopee! Now the thread has been completely diverted from the actual topic!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

There are times, and this is one of them, where the obstinacy of individuals trying to disprove the law are beyond belief.

I know, but you do keep trying it.

Originally Posted by pop80_uk

Some light relief in a serious thread.....

Its ALL WRONG!!!

WHERE is the really expensive 4X4?

WHERE is all the CHROME?

WHERE are all the CHAVS?