Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Not to mention the fact that Basildon council has spent £18m of public funds on moving people from land they own onto the road side somewhere. I can't see that it makes any rational sense at all, especially given that part of the site is perfectly legitimate.

In law the setting of a precedent is tremendously important. There should be one law for all (not one for everyone else and free reign for the pikeys), and that law should be enforced.

I cannot argue about the efficiency of Basildon Council in this matter, however it should be congratulated for enforcing the law.:)
 
I think you'll find that the itinerants owned the land, they just weren't allowed to 'settle' there.


They were not allowed to develop the land as they did (i.e. into pitches for their "vans").

They were allowed to do certain things to the land (such as fence it), hence some of the restrictions placed on the bailiffs by the courts.

We should all be glad the precedents have been set:). It should make it easier in future for councils to prevent or remove unlawful development.
 
They were not allowed to develop the land as they did (i.e. into pitches for their "vans").

They were allowed to do certain things to the land (such as fence it), hence some of the restrictions placed on the bailiffs by the courts.

We should all be glad the precedents have been set:). It should make it easier in future for councils to prevent or remove unlawful development.

Whilst I'm not greatly bothered about what happens to those evicted, in all seriousness (and not too much rhetoric) where does everyone expect them to go?

They're not going to be 'sent back to Ireland' are they? That's a bit too 1930's for most.So what should happen to them, now that their liberal quorn loving defendants are back in Surrey?
 
Whilst I'm not greatly bothered about what happens to those evicted, in all seriousness (and not too much rhetoric) where does everyone expect them to go?

They're not going to be 'sent back to Ireland' are they? That's a bit too 1930's for most.So what should happen to them, now that their liberal quorn loving defendants are back in Surrey?

Would it be too much to ask that they use their reportedly considerable means to purchase legimate accommodation. You know, a house, perhaps with a bit of land for their trailers and stuff. Or at least somewhere that comes with planning permission for settlement.
 
Would it be too much to ask that they use their reportedly considerable means to purchase legimate accommodation. You know, a house, perhaps with a bit of land for their trailers and stuff. Or at least somewhere that comes with planning permission for settlement.


You mean purchase land and settle there? You'll offend them all, don't you know (they keep telling us by the way) - they're travellers:D

I say - "Go travel"
 
Would it be too much to ask that they use their reportedly considerable means to purchase legimate accommodation.

You seem be falling into a trap that you are normally so keen to argue against 'reportedly considerable means'. Who's reporting?

Because there are a few that are flaunt their wealth, doesn't mean they are all well-off, far from it.
 
You seem be falling into a trap that you are normally so keen to argue against 'reportedly considerable means'. Who's reporting?

Because there are a few that are flaunt their wealth, doesn't mean they are all well-off, far from it.

The ones evicted drove away in new Transit vans towing very large and apparantly new caravans.

So clearly a sign of their wealth/ill gotten gains?

It would be nice to think that the authorities treated them like the rest of us and demanded to know why people claiming benefits had so much disposable income and so many new expensive assets, but then if the camps were properly investigated, they'd doubtless call us racists...
 
You seem be falling into a trap that you are normally so keen to argue against 'reportedly considerable means'. Who's reporting?

Because there are a few that are flaunt their wealth, doesn't mean they are all well-off, far from it.

I used the word "reportedly" advisedly, because that's what's been reported in the media. I don't know them personally, any more than you do, so I'm relying on what I've read.

Agreed that they probably do not all have means, but those that do can surely provide for those that do not. That's the essence of being a community. As I understand it, some of the residents on the site at Dale Farm were renting their pitches from the owners of the land, so that arrangement could be repeated at a legitimate location.
 
Last edited:
The ones evicted drove away in new Transit vans towing very large and apparantly new caravans.

So clearly a sign of their wealth/ill gotten gains?

£10k caravans and £15k Transits will be all they 'own', which when you don't pay taxes or council tax as they generally don't, it is quite easy to achieve.

Not that great a sign of wealth, although I do understand your point.
 
I used the word "reportedly" advisedly, because that's what's been reported in the media. I don't know them personally, any more than you do, so I'm relying on what I've read.

When you read of pikey weddings that have cost £100k, you have to wonder how people on benefits living entirely at the cost of local council tax payers can afford such massive sums, and why despite demanding so many benefits and handouts the authorities seem so unwilling to investigate these people's source of income...
 
Because there are a few that are flaunt their wealth, doesn't mean they are all well-off, far from it.

I've never seen a poor pikey .... always dripping in gold ( usually clown pendants that move and large rings with 'DAD' or 'MUM' on them )

Always with rolls of cash in the pub or when they come to buy anything.

Their caravans are worth a heap more than £10k.
 
£10k caravans and £15k Transits will be all they 'own', which when you don't pay taxes or council tax as they generally don't, it is quite easy to achieve.

I would imagine that a large proportion of the vans and caravans are in fact stolen, but the few that have been paid for are the results of cable theft, extracting the life savings off old people, poor quality paving/driveway/roofing jobs and benefit fraud.

Can anyone explain why we tollorate (and sponsor though out local taxes) these blatent criminals?
 
Not to mention the fact that Basildon council has spent £18m of public funds on moving people from land they own onto the road side somewhere. I can't see that it makes any rational sense at all, especially given that part of the site is perfectly legitimate.

I wonder if you'd be of the same attitude if one of your neighbours decided to flout the planning laws & open up a scrapyard or an industrial incinerator or a halfway home for heroin addicted pedarasts or a 'Gentleman's Club' down your road?
 
I wonder if you'd be of the same attitude if one of your neighbours decided to flout the planning laws & open up a scrapyard or an industrial incinerator or a halfway home for heroin addicted pedarasts or a 'Gentleman's Club' down your road?

He's from MK, none of the above could be worse.
 
Whilst I'm not greatly bothered about what happens to those evicted, in all seriousness (and not too much rhetoric) where does everyone expect them to go?

They're not going to be 'sent back to Ireland' are they? That's a bit too 1930's for most.So what should happen to them, now that their liberal quorn loving defendants are back in Surrey?

There are loads of places they can pitch up in Essex, anywhere along the A13 should be ok.
 
I wonder if you'd be of the same attitude if one of your neighbours decided to flout the planning laws & open up a scrapyard or an industrial incinerator or a halfway home for heroin addicted pedarasts or a 'Gentleman's Club' down your road?

There are posts in this thread alleging that these travellers are misappropriating benefits and making a living by illegal means. There are laws against that sort of thing, but the penalties don't include moving a whole load of people off their land. If that is indeed the case then individuals should be prosecuted.

If you replaced "pikeys" with Jews or Jamaicans or whatever some of the sentiments being expressed in this thread would be considered wholly unacceptable.

As far as I can see Basildon council didn't attempt to solve the issue, all they did was spend £18m on moving it a few miles down the road. I question whether that is a good way of spending public funds.
 
PM's

If you lot continue with all this bickering, there will be PM's flying all over the place,in no time at all.
 
Ever met an honest pikey?

As it happens I have. Years ago I serviced some Vito vans belonging to travellers. No bother at all with them, paid without issue, wanted the work done right and the guy I used to deal with would happily tell me who to accept work from and who to steer clear of.

The question of whether or not they're honest is an irrelevance. Whatever this case was about it certainly wasn't about benefits or stolen goods.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom