|
Assume they don't have insurance and can't be prosecuted.
You must be too naive to believe they follow the law :-)
Edited by movilogo on 22/08/2021 at 20:15
|
|
i used to manage a caravan park. Every year travellers would converge on the site under cover of darkness and without paying, several families in luxury vehicles and top of the range caravans in tow. On one occasion, they arrived in 6 brand new Range Rover Overfinches with their caravans towing 6 new Smart cars. Their teenage offsprings doing doughnuts in the Smart cars until the early hours. Couldn't evict them as they had barristers on the other end of the phone threatening to sue me for discriminarion. How they manage to get insurance for their vehicles defeats me.
|
|
Easy enough to check tax and insurance on t'interweb, unless they're on cloned plates. I doubt they're old enough vehicles for MOT.
|
|
Easy enough to get an address - brother, sister, old school friend, accomodation address service etc. If they have the wit - legally or otherwise -, to accumulate enough to have £200k+ of car and van, I'm sure they can overcome minor impediments.
No one actually checks whether they live where they say - probably bar insurance companies if involved in a major claim, or police if have cause - eg: vehicle involved in crime.
Both the eventualities assume that (a) they have insurance anyway, and (b) they are daft enough to use a vehicle with real number plate to commit a serious crime.
|
|
|
|
Couldn't evict them as they had barristers on the other end of the phone threatening to sue me for discrimination.
Empty threat. So-called ethnic minorities (and anyone with a basic knowledge of genetics and anthropology would find it hard to understand how itinerants of gaelic/celtic ancestry are considered as such) are just as subject to national laws as anyone else. Apart from the Han Chinese, every human on the planet is a member of an 'ethnic minority', an increasingly absurd concept, but which provides a gravy train for some of our legal brethren.
|
|
I think you will find that the actual law that the travellers rely on to fend off removal from unauthorised sites that they occupy is the Human Rights act.
That is the part about the right to a home etc, (even if that home is on someone else's private ground) as ruled by a judge in the UK :-)
|
I think you will find that the actual law that the travellers rely on to fend off removal from unauthorised sites that they occupy is the Human Rights act.
That is the part about the right to a home etc, (even if that home is on someone else's private ground) as ruled by a judge in the UK :-)
It seems to take 28 days to remove travellers from unauthorised sites - although some councils have taken out High Court injunctions covering the whole of their borough as that can be enacted straight away.
|
|
|
|
Travellers (and Romany) are legally recognised as an ethnic group in the UK.
|
Travellers (and Romany) are legally recognised as an ethnic group in the UK.
White British is an ethnic group - everyone fits into one ethnic group or another.
|
Travellers (and Romany) are legally recognised as an ethnic group in the UK.
White British is an ethnic group - everyone fits into one ethnic group or another.
No they don't. Transcontinental miscegenation has been going on for centuries, rendering the concept of 'distinct ethnic groups' an absurdity. As a well known example, in which group would you place Tiger Woods.....and his children? ......... " ...he is one-quarter Thai, one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Caucasian, one-eighth African-American and one-eighth Native American."
|
|
An interesting discussion but perhaps drifted somewhat from motoring so I will boot it across to the General forum in a bit.
|
|
|
No they don't. Transcontinental miscegenation has been going on for centuries, rendering the concept of 'distinct ethnic groups' an absurdity. As a well known example, in which group would you place Tiger Woods.....and his children? ......... " ...he is one-quarter Thai, one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Caucasian, one-eighth African-American and one-eighth Native American."
Tiger Woods is a bit of an outlier as while a lot of folks see him as black (like Obama) he doesn't describe himself as any particular race referring to his mixed heritage. As a multi-millionaire sports personality I don't suppose discrimination on basis of race etc bothers him much these days.
From a UK rights and equality perspective Ethnicity is more than race, there are cultural elements too. That's why Traveller, Romany and for that matter Irish or Scots can count as ethnicity. And yes, Travellers and Romany are both discriminated against.
I'm required to gather information on ethnicity for clients in my work. We've all had the odd one who'd prefer not to say or questions the relevance but never one who questions the concept or mentions miscegenation.
|
|
All very interesting but where are the Human Rights of the rest of society? Why do these people have a free ride through this country? The government past and present seem afraid to take these people on. They turn up all over the country park up for days until the ultimate injunction moves them on. In the meantime they have been involved in numerous crimes, leave vast amounts of litter and human filth which the local tax payers have to pay to clean up after them. This is allowed to go on year after year at great hardship to those who are caught up in the scenario. At the very least the police should mount checks on their vehicles and mobile homes for tax and insurance which we all pay and confiscate the vehicle has happens to the rest of us I dare to think what happens if an innocent motorist has an accident with these people. There is another aspect whereby they buy up land and proceed to flout all planning rules and again little is done. And yes I appreciate some parts of their society are reasonable and send their kids to school.
|
All very interesting but where are the Human Rights of the rest of society?
Everybody has rights under the Convention as imported into domestic law by the Human Rights Act. If they're engaged they can be enforced. There is though no human right not to be affected by criminal activity.
In reality 'these people' do not have a free pass. A lot of the issues with occupation of land are down to the failure of governments of both stripes over many many years to ensure adequate provision of sites. Legislation gong through parliament will put further restrictions on their lifestyle.
|
|
Nice theory. Practice is way different. Essex Police studiously avoid seeing and interacting with them. Read recently they broke a padlock and camped on some private land. In front of EP. No action. So yes in practice they are above the law.
|
Nice theory. Practice is way different. Essex Police studiously avoid seeing and interacting with them. Read recently they broke a padlock and camped on some private land. In front of EP. No action. So yes in practice they are above the law.
Other than possible damage to the lock what criminal offence was committed?
|
|
"Other than possible damage to the lock what criminal offence was committed?"
Power to remove trespassers on land.
(1)If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and—
(a)that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his, or
(b)that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land,
he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land and to remove any vehicles or other property they have with them on the land.
(4)If a person knowing that a direction under subsection (1) above has been given which applies to him—
(a)fails to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable, or
(b)having left again enters the land as a trespasser within the period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given,
he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
Extracted from-
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/61
Edited by focussed on 25/08/2021 at 12:36
|
"Other than possible damage to the lock what criminal offence was committed?"
Power to remove trespassers on land.
(1)If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and—
If ground (1) above was not made out, eg occupier had not yet had opportunity to take reasonable steps, then Police have no power.
Somebody upthread mentioned the Councils had used Borough wide injunctions. The High Court, following cases in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, have stopped most such cases. Many of them were granted without the Court having the benefit of submissions/evidence on behalf of the Romany/Traveller community.
It's not reasonable to use an injunction with significant coercive powers, perhaps including arrest, against 'Persons Unknown' to bind everybody. Several authorities were seriously criticised for abusing court process by obtaining temporary injunctions and not then following them up.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 25/08/2021 at 13:54
|
|
Bromp, your knowledge and experience will be very valuable should someone decide to set up camp on your drive or garden.
I am confident you will provide them with cups of tea and use of toilet facilities while the proper procedures grind through the courts.
Edited by galileo on 25/08/2021 at 15:14
|
Bromp, your knowledge and experience will be very valuable should someone decide to set up camp on your drive or garden.
I'm just trying to make the point that the authorities can only do what the law and due process allow. Government cannot ban their lifestyle; what happens is a consequence of decades of failing to provide proper facilities.
|
Bromp, your knowledge and experience will be very valuable should someone decide to set up camp on your drive or garden.
I'm just trying to make the point that the authorities can only do what the law and due process allow. Government cannot ban their lifestyle; what happens is a consequence of decades of failing to provide proper facilities.
It is their choice not to have a proper PAYE job and sort out permanent accommodation, which is the normal lifestyle.
If you or I park for a week in a pay and display car park we either pay several pounds or are pursued by the carpark owners until we do, enforced by court orders and bailiffs.
On a number of occasions a council carpark has been occupied by 'travellers' who paid nothing, left litter, and caused loss of revenue to the council which affects resources for council residents who have dutifully paid their taxes. To the best of my knowledge, they were not pursued for the chargeable fees or the cost of clean up. This is why 'travellers' in general are not popular.
|
|
"""Government cannot ban their lifestyle; what happens is a consequence of decades of failing to provide proper facilities. """
If I go on holiday I expect to pay the going rate whether it be Hotel B&B or camping. What is so special that a group of people should have the free resources that GOV or local councils through at them. As others have said a lot of this community have cars SUVs Motorhomes and caravans that most of us can only dream off.. It is now the 21st century and it is time for a radical re-think on what is fair to the tax payers of this country
|
"""Government cannot ban their lifestyle; what happens is a consequence of decades of failing to provide proper facilities. """
If I go on holiday I expect to pay the going rate whether it be Hotel B&B or camping. What is so special that a group of people should have the free resources that GOV or local councils through at them. As others have said a lot of this community have cars SUVs Motorhomes and caravans that most of us can only dream off.. It is now the 21st century and it is time for a radical re-think on what is fair to the tax payers of this country
Refer back to Galad's post above, the average citizen can not afford the cars and caravans which most travellers seem to use: it is also widely believed (no doubt Bromptonaut can confirm or deny) that these people manage to claim benefits from the state, which would hardly support their lifestyle.
Clearly they must have some other income, often laying tarmac drives and similar jobs (for cash), I have no idea about their NI or income tax/corporation tax contribution practices.
|
|
"..adequate provision of sites.."
What does that actually mean?
Is it just closing a car park and saying they can park there free of charge
Is it allocating a cleared space (maybe from a demolished buidling)
My city gets regular Traveller visits. When the media have approached them they always say we have nowhere else to go but when asked where they want to go , they often say we just pull up somewhere that looks nice.
So the Councils (not that I'm any fan of Councils) seem to be between a rock and hard place as if they provide a space it's seemingly always in the wrong place and if they don't provide a space, they are accused of not supplying spaces.
So as a genuine question, what does "adequate" mean in this context.
|
|
Funnily enough, I had been wondering the same thing (how do they tax and insure their vehicles) as I rode past the rugby club’s practice ground last week which had been occupied by a travellers camp. Right mess – washing hung out everywhere, a couple of horses tethered in the middle of the field, litters of puppies in cages (puppy farming I would imagine), a large log had been set on fire and was smouldering away. A few of the menfolk were sat around in their expensive motors – I saw a brand new Volvo with its driver and passenger doors caved in so the insurance question popped into my head.
The local farmer had to resort to partially blocking access to the bridlepath with a large tree trunk to prevent them getting on to his land and had got hold of some rather pungent pig manure (it is a sheep and arable farm) and had sprayed it around as a further deterrent. Rather glad they have been moved on – our horses were certainly being eyed up as we passed. The area was cordoned off for a while to be cleaned up – apparently the traveller community regards it as unclean to have a toilet in their dwellings so go elsewhere to answer a call of nature.
However, they haven’t moved very far and have now popped up in my town – on sports grounds belonging to a private school. According to the local paper, they are trying to hold the school to ransom saying they’ll move on without causing any damage for a payment of £5,000. Here’s a link to the article:
https://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/people/harrogate-schools-frustration-over-travellers-illegal-camp-on-its-sports-fields-3360239
TinaS.
|
|
The latest news is that the travellers have gone from the school's rugby field.
Maybe the school's solicitor or the police reminded them that the criminal offence of blackmail under the section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 is the act of making an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to making a gain or causing a loss.
And that the maximum sentence is 14 years.
I'll bet they don't try that one again!
Edited by focussed on 28/08/2021 at 00:19
|
|
They tried that at a transport company in Barking, East London the management parked a trailer across the car park and said ," stay if you want", they said let us out we're leaving. Went along the road and were more successful.
|
|
The travellers have now returned to the school rugby pitch. I thought they hadn't gone far, I spotted several groups of them shopping in Morrisons two days ago - they were conspicuous not just by the style of clothing and hairdo sported by the younger women but by the fact that not one of them was wearing a mask.
The school has now begun court proceedings to have them removed. Oh well, adds a bit of colour to life, I suppose.
https://thestrayferret.co.uk/harrogate-school-takes-legal-action-after-travellers-return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
