just heard on the news that every city council might be forced to make camps for travellers....no doubt all the do-gooders will agree but will it be them who have them on their door steps,theivin,robbin and making the place into a **** tip...i think not:mad: :mad: :mad:

I thought they already have legal sites
is the one in the Darnall area not legal?
(the one at Huntsman Gardens)

Originally posted by jan2002
I thought they already have legal sites
is the one in the Darnall area not legal?
(the one at Huntsman Gardens)

I know the Attercliffe and Darnall areas were rife with Gypsies (err, Travellers) back in the 1980s, but I thought they were all moved to council houses in Shiregreen as part of the development of the Don Valley area. Do some still live down there?

Kirky, where would you sooner have them living? On a field in the middle of nowhere, or next door to you on a council estate...

Originally posted by Abdul
I know the Attercliffe and Darnall areas were rife with Gypsies (err, Travellers) back in the 1980s, but I thought they were all moved to council houses in Shiregreen as part of the development of the Don Valley area. Do some still live down there?

Kirky, where would you sooner have them living? On a field in the middle of nowhere, or next door to you on a council estate...
You're assuming he'd sooner have them living :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

Kirky, I think I probably fit into your "do-gooder" bracket.

Making it illegal for travellers to actually be anywhere will not make the problem go away. Noone denies travellers can bring trouble, but turning into a us v them situation is what causes the trouble.

They should have sites that they can go to legally. Then if they cause trouble by all means deal with them strictly as and when that happens. Categorising a whole group in society as criminals is very simplistic and potentially damaging.

Originally posted by Abdul


Kirky, where would you sooner have them living? On a field in the middle of nowhere, or next door to you on a council estate...

ireland

Originally posted by Abdul
I know the Attercliffe and Darnall areas were rife with Gypsies (err, Travellers)

rascism eh..tut tut:shakes:

Amazing... Someone on the Manor going on about Gyppos.

I'm getting golfball cheeks from laughing.

Great wind up. Top class.

i think im a do gooder aswell, yes everyone shold have the right to live where they one and have decent facilities (toilets etc). and the right to an education etc dont you watch SNOBS? gypsies are cool, im jealous, ive got a big fat mortgage

Sell-up and live in a two-birth then, love... See how happy you are when you're looking loppy and people are treating you like an alien.

dont tar em all with same brush, some dress real nice and smell better than half the students i know! (love students xx)

But you can't honestly say you're jealous though. Not without coming across ever-so-slightly condescending, because you don't really mean it, do you?

you aint seen my mortgage mate it sucks, get paid and by time i have finished paying off mort, bills insurance etc.. theres not much left! i do get pooh barnsley wages though. yes am jealous of the free lifestyle, the history is ace (of bits i know), the magic the social aspects etc..
but i see where ur going, theres good and bad bits in every community, i just want the best bits from everywhere.

Anyone who has had to endure two weeks on a campsite in Ingoldmells will tell you that caravan life isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I'd be walking round putting curses on everybody if I had to live like that.

theres a family in barnsley who have got massive american style caravan and a jag!!

Will the inhabitants of the sites pay any form of rates?

Will there be electricity / water / sewerage services provided?

Joe

i'm pretty sure that legal sites are already provided for them, in fact the council are obliged to provide them.

And i expect that most travellers would be horrified at the idea of being moved into council housing, it's a little difficult to travel with that huge pile of bricks on a trailer.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i'm pretty sure that legal sites are already provided for them, in fact the council are obliged to provide them.

And i expect that most travellers would be horrified at the idea of being moved into council housing, it's a little difficult to travel with that huge pile of bricks on a trailer.


Forgive my ignorance but will they be paying anything for the facilities on these legal sites? Do they want to pay taxes, NHS contributions etc. I thought the idea of being a traveller was to avoid the trappings and burdens that us non-travellers have. If they're not willing to put anything into society, why should society give anything to them. I don't want a penny of my taxes to go to houses for illegal immigrants, hotel accommodation for asylum seekers, or to people who don't want to work just to take, whether they're travellers or house dwellers. But then when has my opinion ever counted.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i'm pretty sure that legal sites are already provided for them, in fact the council are obliged to provide them.


No, the tories took that obligation away in 1994.

No they don't deserve it ..they pay nothing towards the sites..
and when one site was was built for them by our local Council near where I now live, it was nice, Landscaped, with shower facilities and toilets and six months later it was a bomb site with rubbish everywhere and all the plumbing ripped out and sold for scrap.

and SOME people, only some dont deserve the council properties they get

i remember they moved a few gypo family's on the viking lea estate when it was first built.....within weeeks the cental heating systems had been ripped out and weighed in at the scrap yard.... btw smedley whats wrong with the manor park? i own my house as do most of my neighbours and our road is spot on, like someone said earlier don't tar everyone with the same brush (except gypsies:D )

cross their palm with silver - friend for life!

any 1 want to buy a luky charm or have some tarmacin done lol!!

Originally posted by Cyclone
i'm pretty sure that legal sites are already provided for them, in fact the council are obliged to provide them.



there is a duty for Council's to take gypsies into account when drawing up their strategiuc planning framework (UDP- the document upon which planning applications are ultimately determined) but they don't have to necessarily provide areas or zones as such at present

there is a case at the moment though where gypsies are taking the Council to court as their UDP doesn't take gypsies needs into account - i.e no (or not enough) provision has been made for them

i'm not sure what the answer is really - as soon as they provide areas for gypsies it will no doubt have a perceptive detrimental knock on effect to the locallity

Originally posted by NATALIESHEFF
cross their palm with silver - friend for life!
yeah they are scroungers too

what some council dwellers??

Originally posted by Timbuck
No they don't deserve it ..they pay nothing towards the sites..
and when one site was was built for them by our local Council near where I now live, it was nice, Landscaped, with shower facilities and toilets and six months later it was a bomb site with rubbish everywhere and all the plumbing ripped out and sold for scrap.

i'd rather not pay for facilities for someone else either.
But given that they have a right to live as they wish, and that providing some facilities is probably the cheaper option than continually chasing them of inappropriate places and repairing the damage, i'd rather see the lesser of the two evils being implemented.

Didn't realise that the tories had removed that obligation, idiots.

Originally posted by Timbuck
No they don't deserve it ..they pay nothing towards the sites..
and when one site was was built for them by our local Council near where I now live, it was nice, Landscaped, with shower facilities and toilets and six months later it was a bomb site with rubbish everywhere and all the plumbing ripped out and sold for scrap.

but what's the difference with Council house tenants? they pay nothing or a very low rent anyhow for their house - do gypsies not pay some form of service charge or rent on their 'plot'?

and on certain council est, some houses are blooming awful, beds outside, fridges more junk than steptoe and son. always nice when they leave the potty outside in the summer for the kids NICE

If "travellers" want legal sites on which to live, they could always become employed, get a mortgage/ rent a house, and pay for all of their own utility bills. Other than that, why should they be given legal sites, paid for by those who CAN actually be bothered to earn their own money?

that should include scalli's on dole

Originally posted by t020
If "travellers" want legal sites on which to live, they could always become employed, get a mortgage/ rent a house, and pay for all of their own utility bills. Other than that, why should they be given legal sites, paid for by those who CAN actually be bothered to earn their own money?

they could always use the argument that they are the dispossed native occupants of the land and that they choose not to recognise our legal system nor our right of ownership which we have imposed through force of arms.

they don't want a house, they wouldn't be travellers would they. Maybe it's a bit complicated, but it's very difficult to fit a council house in a trailer.

Originally posted by Cyclone
they could always use the argument that they are the dispossed native occupants of the land and that they choose not to recognise our legal system nor our right of ownership which we have imposed through force of arms.

they don't want a house, they wouldn't be travellers would they. Maybe it's a bit complicated, but it's very difficult to fit a council house in a trailer.

Well they can use their income to rent patches on designated caravan parks so they can legally stay on land and pay for the facilities. We can't have a gipsy free for all - the foundation of society is on the ownership of land. Why should some avoid the costs of using it while the majority of the rest pay their taxes and their own way in society?

Originally posted by t020
Well they can use their income to rent patches on designated caravan parks so they can legally stay on land and pay for the facilities. We can't have a gipsy free for all - the foundation of society is on the ownership of land. Why should some avoid the costs of using it while the majority of the rest pay their taxes and their own way in society?

it's not a new phenomenon, we've managed with gypsies or romanies or whatever you choose to call them living in europe for at least the last several hundred years, i don't see why it will cause the collapse of our society today if they continue to live the same way of life.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it's not a new phenomenon, we've managed with gypsies or romanies or whatever you choose to call them living in europe for at least the last several hundred years, i don't see why it will cause the collapse of our society today if they continue to live the same way of life.

Because if they can be granted land to legally live on, we will be encouraging more people to become gypsies. More people becoming gypsies = less revenue from taxation and more burden on the remaining taxpayers. Collapse is an exaggeration, but I can see real problems with encouraging people to live in such a way and I can also see that resentment towards such communities will only grow.

Originally posted by t020
Because if they can be granted land to legally live on, we will be encouraging more people to become gypsies. More people becoming gypsies = less revenue from taxation and more burden on the remaining taxpayers. Collapse is an exaggeration, but I can see real problems with encouraging people to live in such a way and I can also see that resentment towards such communities will only grow.

i don't think we'll see much in the way of people giving up our 'traditional' lifestyle and becoming gypies, although i suppose there's probably always been some movement between the populations.
We aren't though talking about giving them land, merely designating areas where they can legally stay, rather than chasing them from places we'd rather not see them stay at.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i don't think we'll see much in the way of people giving up our 'traditional' lifestyle and becoming gypies, although i suppose there's probably always been some movement between the populations.
We aren't though talking about giving them land, merely designating areas where they can legally stay, rather than chasing them from places we'd rather not see them stay at.

Most of them tinkers not traditional gypsies, nor are any of them like the gypsies of, say, Turkey, who do not turn the land allocated to them into a junkyard. Perhaps people would be more tolerant toward them if they didn't travel around leaving everywhere they've been in such a diabolical mess - which us taxpayers have to clean up.

To20 makes the point that our society is founded on the principle of home ownership. As a paleo-conservative I agree with his sentiments. However, we must acknowledge that at the time of Enclosure, a great deal of common land was taken away [some would say stolen] from the general public. I have been guilty of telling "New Age Travellers" that if they want a piece of the countryside they should save up and buy one. The fact is, there is a lot of common land wrongly labelled "private" by farmers [and I have farming relatives and ancestors on my maternal side], which we all should have access to. Like TO20, I do not agree to the state providing sites for non-tax payers. However, I am not against the gypsy lifestyle per se. If such people pay their way in terms of bills, then they should be able to use common land. Of course, in reality, most do not pay bills, and the common land will not be given back.

Couple of points that seemed to have been missed:

Traveller sites are not provided free of charge, there is ground rent to pay, service charges such as water, electricity, etc., plus there is a porportion of the rent which is designated council tax.

As I mentioned on yet another thread about travellers if members of the static society refrained from hiring travellers for odd jobs, drive laying, roofing, etc., thus avoiding normal taxation then there would be no incentive for the travellers moving from one area to another looking for work.

FURIOUS villagers have been left stumped after travellers set up camp on their manicured cricket pitch.

A convoy of around 20 vehicles has moved on to the pitch at the village cricket club and is refusing to budge.
And with just one day to go before the first match of the season, the village team has had to postpone tomorrow's game.
Langwith Cricket Club, near Worksop, has spent £2,000 preparing the square and surrounding area which had been cordoned to keep local youngsters from playing on the grass.
Now the caravans and vehicles have churned up the turf, causing severe damage and leaving exasperated club officials try to find an alterative pitch to play their matches.
Club secretary Ian Sharpe, aged 55, of Chapel Street, Langwith, said: "These travellers moved in some time ago and took over the village railway station car park.
"The council dug trenches and eventually police escorted the caravans and vehicles off the car park about two weeks ago and barriers were installed.
"We thought they had gone away for good but they appeared again and they have been on the cricket pitch ever since.
"They have even parked the caravans on the cricket square, which will probably be ruined now and impossible to play on.
"We have approached these people in a polite manner and explained the situation. We have asked them to move but they have refused.
"We even asked them just to move the caravans off the cricket square and park on the outfield to save the pitch being damaged but nothing has happened.
"They have obviously parked there because the grass is so lush, it's better than a manicured lawn.
"Our hands are tied. I live 60 yards from the cricket pitch and I don't want any intimidation.
"The council are aware of the situation and it is in their hands now."
Ian, who runs the local garage, added: "We have had to cancel tomorrow's game against our local rivals Shirebrook. Our next match is away so we don't have a game here for two weeks.
"I have no idea how long it will take to get this matter resolved but I suspect it will be some time before we can play on the pitch again."
"We are trying to find an alternative ground but we have had no luck so far."
Residents are also nervous about having the camp close to homes in the village.
A Bolsover District Council spokesman said: "A council official has asked the travellers to move but they haven't so we are considering legal options."

From:
http://www.rotherhamtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=85&ArticleID=1001311