Express.
AN illegal gypsy camp set up on green belt land was finally cleared out yesterday after a three-year campaign by villagers ended in victory.You'd think that anyone illegally occupying someone else's land would face the full effect of the law. Well you might if you didn't know exactly how the law and the abuses by squatters worked in the UK.
A group of 200 residents had maintained a round-the-clock vigil at the site since the travellers arrived in May 2010 and began turning fields into a caravan site.
The gypsies finally lost an epic legal battle to stay at the site after exhausting their last hope when a High Court judge threw out an application for them to remain on the land last month.
Yesterday the final two caravans on the site at Eaves Green Lane in Meriden, Warwickshire, were removed.
David McGrath chairman of Residents Against Inappropriate Development, said: “I think there is a great sense of relief that they are leaving.”
Not that the travellers had much to fear from the police...
GYPSIES and travelling people should get new campsites at taxpayers’ expense because police officers refuse to evict them from private land, force chiefs saidYes, that's right, travellers have far more rights than you and I do because the police refuse to carry out the law with them because they are to foster relationships with them. Clearly a case of a two tier justice system, though we already knew that with the way the police and CPS deal with the
Senior officers say demands on them to move illegal traveller encampments off private land “is in conflict” with police guidelines over “fostering relationships” with gypsies and travellers.
Wouldn't it just be nice to go back to the days when the law was applied without fear or favour?
Or was there ever such a day...
8 annotations:
The gypsies at Meriden didn't illegaly occupy the land. They bought agricultural land and then tried to develop it for housing without planning permission.
Illegal is illegal, if it was agricultural land and they were living on it, then...
I'm sure you can figure out my position.
I'm ambivalent. I don't like gypsies but then again if someone owns land why should he ask permission from someone else to build on it? If I buy it fair and square then it's my land. What I then do with it is my business unless it harms someone else. Gypsies are often bad; planning permission is tyranny.
Q-M: There is a distinction between moving onto land that doesn't belong to you and land that does.
The crime was in the attempt to develop the land not in the occupation.
I'm sure all of us would like to be able to buy land that is cheap because it designated 'agricultural', then develop it because 'it is ours'.
In an ideal world yes, however if I have to go through 'planning permission' I'm damned if someone else is just going to ignore it.
I see that a "traveling community" has just rocked up on a private site in Suffolk, hitched themselves up to the electric and water and refused to move.
Being a commercial site the owners called the bailiffs as they refused to pay the site fees etc, the Police intervened saying that they 'hoped' all could be resolved in a few days, so no change there.
A 'spokesman for the travellers claims they are being discriminated against WTF.
Wouldn't it just be nice to go back to the days when the law was applied without fear or favour?
Or was there ever such a day...
A noble sentiment indeed... but I doubt there ever was a day.... for sure we want to believe justice will always prevail, but in our heart of hearts we know it won't really.
So instead, we can still use the power of the written word to express our dismay....and for sure whilst the police fails to use their power for which it was intended and instead abuse those they know they can get away with abusing... they it seems the gypos.....ach erm I mean ...ethnic travellers are here to stay.... I wonder if they have a campsite shop and bingo tuesday nights....
might have solved me holiday crisis if they do...
If these people are gypsies', then why do they need land to 'build' on. It clearly was not to live, as it would be cheaper to buy a ready built home.
Perhaps they wanted to make a profit from the sale of the newly built homes. Or perhaps they just wanted to live there without ever intending to build the homes.
Who knows?
Post a Comment