Council wins injunction to stop travellers returning to Dale Farm (From Basildon Recorder)

Well I think this just about wraps it up, we have had the scrap yard the travellers the newts the bats and the activists so maybe everyone can get on with their lives now, and apply for planning

Anyone know where they went?

I feel an appeal coming on.........

I comment from a neutrality that reveals i really have no issue one way or the other. please dont feel threatened by that. many on the country probably have an interest in the issue without falling on one side or the other. Im interested in any precedents made by all involved especially the usage of tazers in a public order issue...this might have great ramifications in the future in regards to prostests.

Regarding the use of the taser device (mentioned in one of the above posts by someone implying that it may be a problem for future "protests", surely then you cannot have seen the video footage of the use of the device at Dale Farm? The officers were threatened by a man holding what looked like a large fence post (possibly 4x4), threatening the officers with it. They shouted warning after warning, and eventually they "let him have it". A very British-bobby moment - very very restrained and quite different the the thorough beating or even shooting he would have received in many other countries!

NightnDay wrote:
I comment from a neutrality that reveals i really have no issue one way or the other. please dont feel threatened by that. many on the country probably have an interest in the issue without falling on one side or the other. Im interested in any precedents made by all involved especially the usage of tazers in a public order issue...this might have great ramifications in the future in regards to prostests.

Threatened ? To quote Denis Healey,it's like being savaged by a dead sheep.

reptile wrote:
Anyone know where they went?

Does anyone give a tom tit?

Hopefully they'll turn up squatting in the properties of Vanessa Redgrave, Gloria Hunniford, the Bishop of Brentwood and all the other do gooders.

Or even better, land adjacent to the homes of all the Basildon councillors who ever voted in favour of them.

NightnDay, perhaps you would like to be one of the do gooders who will give them a piece of land next to YOUR home.

I am an EXPERT in living in the same village as these people and as a former governor of the school, have seen first hand the effect on the local community.

I will not go into detail here what i saw and how it affected myself, my family and my neighbours, suffice it to say that YOUR opinions should be ignored.

People like you make me sick, tossing the racism card around as per usual because you cannot think of anything original to say.

When you have spent years living next to this nightmare, on the receiving end of the behaviour, the mess and the whole consequence , then you can feel free to opine. YOU have not lived through it, I have.

I will NOT be labelled a racist because I vehemently object to these people, their behaviour and the fact that millions were spent on them anyway BEFORE the eviction, millions of OUR money.

You are one of these airey fairy types that thinks they're hard done by.

If you knew the truth you would feel utterly stupid.

Perhaps one day you might like to listen to the experiences of the people this REALLY affected.

Until that day dawns I suggest you zip it. Your opinions are superfluous to requirements and utterly without substance as you have no EXPERIENCE of this situation first hand.

Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now.
The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

VANGE LES wrote:
Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three!

So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch.

Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Kim Gandy wrote:
NightnDay, perhaps you would like to be one of the do gooders who will give them a piece of land next to YOUR home. I am an EXPERT in living in the same village as these people and as a former governor of the school, have seen first hand the effect on the local community. I will not go into detail here what i saw and how it affected myself, my family and my neighbours, suffice it to say that YOUR opinions should be ignored. People like you make me sick, tossing the racism card around as per usual because you cannot think of anything original to say. When you have spent years living next to this nightmare, on the receiving end of the behaviour, the mess and the whole consequence , then you can feel free to opine. YOU have not lived through it, I have. I will NOT be labelled a racist because I vehemently object to these people, their behaviour and the fact that millions were spent on them anyway BEFORE the eviction, millions of OUR money. You are one of these airey fairy types that thinks they're hard done by. If you knew the truth you would feel utterly stupid. Perhaps one day you might like to listen to the experiences of the people this REALLY affected. Until that day dawns I suggest you zip it. Your opinions are superfluous to requirements and utterly without substance as you have no EXPERIENCE of this situation first hand.

Kim, has life improved for you since the evictions? Or do you still feel that you are holding your breath.

I was hoping that the Panorama programme the other week would give the locals a voice, but it wasn't to be.

Kim Gandy wrote:

reptile wrote:
Anyone know where they went?

Does anyone give a tom tit?

Hopefully they'll turn up squatting in the properties of Vanessa Redgrave, Gloria Hunniford, the Bishop of Brentwood and all the other do gooders.

Or even better, land adjacent to the homes of all the Basildon councillors who ever voted in favour of them.

Grow up...do you have children? i hope you teach them tolerance so they fit in with the main society.

Kim Gandy wrote:

reptile wrote:
Anyone know where they went?

Does anyone give a tom tit?

Hopefully they'll turn up squatting in the properties of Vanessa Redgrave, Gloria Hunniford, the Bishop of Brentwood and all the other do gooders.

Or even better, land adjacent to the homes of all the Basildon councillors who ever voted in favour of them.

Grow up...do you have children? i hope you teach them tolerance so they fit in with the main society.

smiffy22 wrote:
Regarding the use of the taser device (mentioned in one of the above posts by someone implying that it may be a problem for future "protests", surely then you cannot have seen the video footage of the use of the device at Dale Farm? The officers were threatened by a man holding what looked like a large fence post (possibly 4x4), threatening the officers with it. They shouted warning after warning, and eventually they "let him have it". A very British-bobby moment - very very restrained and quite different the the thorough beating or even shooting he would have received in many other countries!

The tazer was used in a public order issue, there are people who saw it as crowd control, iv watched more than one video which seems to show it being used in that way. If you are stating that the police should and can taser anyone who is deemed a threat to them then saturday night will be interesting. firing guns isnt a "very British-bobby moment" far from it. Using fire arms is in fact the end of such moments. As for other countries, do we now measure our behaviour against other countries?

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:
I comment from a neutrality that reveals i really have no issue one way or the other. please dont feel threatened by that. many on the country probably have an interest in the issue without falling on one side or the other. Im interested in any precedents made by all involved especially the usage of tazers in a public order issue...this might have great ramifications in the future in regards to prostests.

Threatened ? To quote Denis Healey,it's like being savaged by a dead sheep.

if not why act as?

Well said Kim your 100% right.
Don't bother with N&D when you've bested a fool what have you actually achieved?

Kim Gandy wrote:
NightnDay, perhaps you would like to be one of the do gooders who will give them a piece of land next to YOUR home.

I am an EXPERT in living in the same village as these people and as a former governor of the school, have seen first hand the effect on the local community.

I will not go into detail here what i saw and how it affected myself, my family and my neighbours, suffice it to say that YOUR opinions should be ignored.

People like you make me sick, tossing the racism card around as per usual because you cannot think of anything original to say.

When you have spent years living next to this nightmare, on the receiving end of the behaviour, the mess and the whole consequence , then you can feel free to opine. YOU have not lived through it, I have.

I will NOT be labelled a racist because I vehemently object to these people, their behaviour and the fact that millions were spent on them anyway BEFORE the eviction, millions of OUR money.

You are one of these airey fairy types that thinks they're hard done by.

If you knew the truth you would feel utterly stupid.

Perhaps one day you might like to listen to the experiences of the people this REALLY affected.

Until that day dawns I suggest you zip it. Your opinions are superfluous to requirements and utterly without substance as you have no EXPERIENCE of this situation first hand.

Do-gooders implies you are a do-badder, is that the case? is doing good wrong? you seemingly think this. Im surprised you were a school governor, schools are mad up of many ethnic minorities you intolerance to this one would suggest you should never have been past as such! Im only going off your own posting which is on record and might be looked at if you ever decide to go into a job vol or not. It has been stated that facebook is now gleaned by potential employers to see just what their prospective employee is really made of. My opinions should be ignored? Why? and by Whom? Iv tried to open the debate from its rut of barely hidden racism to one where all can contribute. is that wrong? You have given you account of your experience, yes you live in the area but that doesn't mean that your experiences are the last say in the issue, how many times can you use your experiences to stifle debate? Racism is rejected by this country and if it is perceived should it be ignored just to save the people who might be guilty of it from confronting the possibility they are indulging in it without thinking? Just saying its not racism doesn't make that a fact. Many throughout the country would think it is, because of that should they be ignored? Many people feel sick or threatened when questions to what their motives are, you are not alone. Im sorry but people who make comments that COULD be deemed racist dont really have the mandate to demand they are not accused of that. sorry...Wasnt this site there long before the illegal part? isnt the site still there now, was it only the illegal part that was causing the "nightmares" what were the nightmare actions of SOME of these people, there doesnt seem to be much of a disclosure to what this was! Please dont accuse me of being "airey fairy" (whatever that means) unless you mean my posts are. Im sure i wouldnt feel stupid in learning the truth, we are all in the dark until we learn and feeling stupid isnt part of it, you do seem to have a very limited outlook on life, unless people live in an area, unless they have experienced what you have experienced unless they agree with you they are stupid or they should be ignored. Madam you shouldn't work with the public that is for certain and if you do its because you have kept your real self hidden. You are intolerant and i dare say not just about travellers

VANGE LES wrote:
Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now.
The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

Such a moat would be illagal, you wouldn't want the council to break the law would you? The land is privately owned byt the travellers.

EthanEdwards wrote:
Well said Kim your 100% right.
Don't bother with N&D when you've bested a fool what have you actually achieved?

Im sorry, was there a contest on between me and this lady? if so i wasn't informed, are you the judge or one of the judges? if so are you neutral or biased, if the latter is that fair, if the former why have you posted what you posted. Do YOU know?

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote:
Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three!

So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch.

Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous.
" An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

i have had a email from someone who has warned me that people who debate this subject and who do not take the position that the travellers should be moved are removed, I hope that isn't the case as it would seem to suggest this paper allows pressure from certain people of a certain mind to dictate who debates/challenges/o
r has an opinion.

Well N&D you know what they say about opinions. Every A****** has one.
By now we're all more than familiar with yours, so it must be to log on with yet another of your user names isn't it? How many do you pro 'doasyoulikey' trolls have these days?
Just asking.

NightnDay wrote:
i have had a email from someone who has warned me that people who debate this subject and who do not take the position that the travellers should be moved are removed, I hope that isn't the case as it would seem to suggest this paper allows pressure from certain people of a certain mind to dictate who debates/challenges/o r has an opinion.

From itscalledspinIcallit
lyin ? or Mrs Ploppy ?
.
Hogwash.

NightnDay wrote:

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote: I comment from a neutrality that reveals i really have no issue one way or the other. please dont feel threatened by that. many on the country probably have an interest in the issue without falling on one side or the other. Im interested in any precedents made by all involved especially the usage of tazers in a public order issue...this might have great ramifications in the future in regards to prostests.

Threatened ? To quote Denis Healey,it's like being savaged by a dead sheep.

if not why act as?

Your perception is quite wrong but it's no surprise.

NightnDay wrote:

Kim Gandy wrote:

reptile wrote: Anyone know where they went?

Does anyone give a tom tit? Hopefully they'll turn up squatting in the properties of Vanessa Redgrave, Gloria Hunniford, the Bishop of Brentwood and all the other do gooders. Or even better, land adjacent to the homes of all the Basildon councillors who ever voted in favour of them.

Grow up...do you have children? i hope you teach them tolerance so they fit in with the main society.

I think that the locals of Crays Hill have been exceedingly tolerant for about 10 years, or is that not the type of tolerance you mean,.

OneManOneVoice wrote:

NightnDay wrote:
i have had a email from someone who has warned me that people who debate this subject and who do not take the position that the travellers should be moved are removed, I hope that isn't the case as it would seem to suggest this paper allows pressure from certain people of a certain mind to dictate who debates/challenges/o r has an opinion.

From itscalledspinIcallit

lyin ? or Mrs Ploppy ?
.
Hogwash.

I was indeed contacted on this.. Whether it is hogwash remains to be seen.

EthanEdwards wrote:
Well N&D you know what they say about opinions. Every A****** has one.
By now we're all more than familiar with yours, so it must be to log on with yet another of your user names isn't it? How many do you pro 'doasyoulikey' trolls have these days?
Just asking.

Im not to sure what your post is about, would you care to repost, in English?

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day:

The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home.

If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law.

o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day:

The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home.

If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law.

o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Is this a law or a condition? big difference. AND there is the fact mr Ball advised them there was the legal site next door for them to go on...Thats on video! Are your really suggesting that people who have been living in Basildon for 10 years and the 100 children born in the area should be forced to relocate out of the area? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING!

VANGE LES wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Kim Gandy wrote:

reptile wrote: Anyone know where they went?

Does anyone give a tom tit? Hopefully they'll turn up squatting in the properties of Vanessa Redgrave, Gloria Hunniford, the Bishop of Brentwood and all the other do gooders. Or even better, land adjacent to the homes of all the Basildon councillors who ever voted in favour of them.

Grow up...do you have children? i hope you teach them tolerance so they fit in with the main society.

I think that the locals of Crays Hill have been exceedingly tolerant for about 10 years, or is that not the type of tolerance you mean,.

What do you mean they have been tolerant? who gives them the power to decide they are going to tolerate or not, they are common garden run of the mill residents in essex and the country as are the people of Dale farm..In fact the people of DF own their properties lock stock and barrel where most dont own their properties, the banks do! It might be the case that the DF people have been tolerant with those around them who have made their life's a misery..

All the anti-whites care about is making life a misery for normal white people until they`ve been eliminated by mass immigration and "assimilation"(only for white countries).

That`s why they support all the anti-white,anti-nati
on,anti-family causes going.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

CarlNN wrote:
All the anti-whites care about is making life a misery for normal white people until they`ve been eliminated by mass immigration and "assimilation"(
only for white countries).

That`s why they support all the anti-white,anti-nati

on,anti-family causes going.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

LOL, you are well suited on here...Mad as a racist frog

All this talk of ethnicity and going back to the dark ages etc is all a moot point. If they had been Eskimos, Red Indians, what does it matter, it is a planning issue, they fought the law and the law won. And yes Basildon Council can enforce removal of the caravans on the legal site.

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day: The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home. If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law. o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Is this a law or a condition? big difference. AND there is the fact mr Ball advised them there was the legal site next door for them to go on...Thats on video! Are your really suggesting that people who have been living in Basildon for 10 years and the 100 children born in the area should be forced to relocate out of the area? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING!

Just pointing out something that was reported by the press. At the time the evictions were underway most of the legal site was empty so over crowding was not an issue.

Surley all the conditions put on the site must be stuck to by ALL and not just ignored. So what if Mr Ball is on video saying there is space on the leagal side he also said there are conditions on the site to prevent it being over populated.

You seem to have a very one sided attitude towards the issue, you have to admit that the travllers were breaking the law when living on dale Farm there is no disputing that fact.

I lived in the OZ for 10 years and moved back to the UK so changing counties is not that bigger thing, how many people have move from one county to another many many thousands have and do year in year out.

I beleve in the laws/regulations/pan
ning conditions being upheld and not ignored as people see fit.

Whats so wrong in being a law abiding citizen?

Wiserman wrote:
All this talk of ethnicity and going back to the dark ages etc is all a moot point. If they had been Eskimos, Red Indians, what does it matter, it is a planning issue, they fought the law and the law won. And yes Basildon Council can enforce removal of the caravans on the legal site.

They might not have lost just yet, the council are hiding documents that when they are eventually revealed, and they will be, will take the breath away (or so i have been informed) As for removing the caravans on the legal side, why would they want to do that? There is also MR Balls advise, a judge might take it Bally gave them permission to go on the legal side. He did seems to say it in the video.

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day: The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home. If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law. o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Is this a law or a condition? big difference. AND there is the fact mr Ball advised them there was the legal site next door for them to go on...Thats on video! Are your really suggesting that people who have been living in Basildon for 10 years and the 100 children born in the area should be forced to relocate out of the area? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING!

Just pointing out something that was reported by the press. At the time the evictions were underway most of the legal site was empty so over crowding was not an issue.

Surley all the conditions put on the site must be stuck to by ALL and not just ignored. So what if Mr Ball is on video saying there is space on the leagal side he also said there are conditions on the site to prevent it being over populated.

You seem to have a very one sided attitude towards the issue, you have to admit that the travllers were breaking the law when living on dale Farm there is no disputing that fact.

I lived in the OZ for 10 years and moved back to the UK so changing counties is not that bigger thing, how many people have move from one county to another many many thousands have and do year in year out.

I beleve in the laws/regulations/pan

ning conditions being upheld and not ignored as people see fit.

Whats so wrong in being a law abiding citizen?

I believe that when the last court told the travellers to leave they ignored it while trying to negotiate with the council, I think it was a matter of days they actually broke the law, as the rest of the time the site was either tolerated or involved with court cases. remember they were only ordered off finally by the LAST judge before that they still had an avenue to the law! stating that ALL should stick to the conditions on any particular occasion is ridiculous, as those conditions would only apply to those they are applied to..re: over population, Did he say that in the same video? Why would he suggest the other site as a place to go then say it would be over populated if they went onto it. You ALSO seem to have a one sided attitude to the issue, i was neutral but after being accused of not being i decided not to be and deal with this as i would if it concerned me personally. I do know lots about this culture of people and feel i can speak with that in mind. You moved by choice you seem to be suggesting these people be moved from the area by force or ethnically cleansed from the area! BTW do you speed? what never? No one said anything about not being a law abiding citizen so that is a moot rather stupid point.

No I do not speed a need a clean driving licence for my job, any criminal convictions no matter how small will effect what countrys I can get into, if I can't enter a country that has a shall we say a more draconian attitude towards life than it could result in loss of the job, it was in the contract I signed so I keep my nose clean, not even had a parking ticket! probably because I know how to park with breaking parking laws.

Max Impact wrote:
No I do not speed a need a clean driving licence for my job, any criminal convictions no matter how small will effect what countrys I can get into, if I can't enter a country that has a shall we say a more draconian attitude towards life than it could result in loss of the job, it was in the contract I signed so I keep my nose clean, not even had a parking ticket! probably because I know how to park with breaking parking laws.

NightnDay says...
4:59pm Tue 8 Nov 11

Wiserman wrote:
All this talk of ethnicity and going back to the dark ages etc is all a moot point. If they had been Eskimos, Red Indians, what does it matter, it is a planning issue, they fought the law and the law won. And yes Basildon Council can enforce removal of the caravans on the legal site.

They might not have lost just yet, the council are hiding documents that when they are eventually revealed, and they will be, will take the breath away (or so i have been informed) As for removing the caravans on the legal side, why would they want to do that? There is also MR Balls advise, a judge might take it Bally gave them permission to go on the legal side. He did seems to say it in the video.

I await these ’hidden documents’ that will take my breath away. The reason that the caravans will be removed is because they are currently contravening planning laws and because there is also a minimum space that has to be allowed between the caravans for health and safety, more to the point a fire hazard, I feel sure sure you would not want to see anybody die because of fire spreading between the caravans. Hope this clears this up for you

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day: The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home. If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law. o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Is this a law or a condition? big difference. AND there is the fact mr Ball advised them there was the legal site next door for them to go on...Thats on video! Are your really suggesting that people who have been living in Basildon for 10 years and the 100 children born in the area should be forced to relocate out of the area? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING!

Just pointing out something that was reported by the press. At the time the evictions were underway most of the legal site was empty so over crowding was not an issue. Surley all the conditions put on the site must be stuck to by ALL and not just ignored. So what if Mr Ball is on video saying there is space on the leagal side he also said there are conditions on the site to prevent it being over populated. You seem to have a very one sided attitude towards the issue, you have to admit that the travllers were breaking the law when living on dale Farm there is no disputing that fact. I lived in the OZ for 10 years and moved back to the UK so changing counties is not that bigger thing, how many people have move from one county to another many many thousands have and do year in year out. I beleve in the laws/regulations/pan ning conditions being upheld and not ignored as people see fit. Whats so wrong in being a law abiding citizen?

I believe that when the last court told the travellers to leave they ignored it while trying to negotiate with the council, I think it was a matter of days they actually broke the law, as the rest of the time the site was either tolerated or involved with court cases. remember they were only ordered off finally by the LAST judge before that they still had an avenue to the law! stating that ALL should stick to the conditions on any particular occasion is ridiculous, as those conditions would only apply to those they are applied to..re: over population, Did he say that in the same video? Why would he suggest the other site as a place to go then say it would be over populated if they went onto it. You ALSO seem to have a one sided attitude to the issue, i was neutral but after being accused of not being i decided not to be and deal with this as i would if it concerned me personally. I do know lots about this culture of people and feel i can speak with that in mind. You moved by choice you seem to be suggesting these people be moved from the area by force or ethnically cleansed from the area! BTW do you speed? what never? No one said anything about not being a law abiding citizen so that is a moot rather stupid point.

I think you are mistaken.
The recent court cases established that the law (criminal) was broken once the notices issued in 2004 and afterwards were not appealed within the prescribed time limit .

NightnDay says... 
4:59pm Tue 8 Nov 11
Wiserman wrote:
All this talk of ethnicity and going back to the dark ages etc is all a moot point. If they had been Eskimos, Red Indians, what does it matter, it is a planning issue, they fought the law and the law won. And yes Basildon Council can enforce removal of the caravans on the legal site.
They might not have lost just yet, the council are hiding documents that when they are eventually revealed, and they will be, will take the breath away (or so i have been informed) As for removing the caravans on the legal side, why would they want to do that? There is also MR Balls advise, a judge might take it Bally gave them permission to go on the legal side. He did seems to say it in the video.

I await these ’hidden documents’ that will take my breath away. The reason that the caravans will be removed is because they are currently contravening planning laws and because there is also a minimum space that has to be allowed between the caravans for health and safety, more to the point a fire hazard, I feel sure sure you would not want to see anybody die because of fire spreading between the caravans. Hope this clears this up for you

I honestly dont know why you lot are feeding this troll.. anybody in the area knows the problems these CON ARTISTS caused in a wide & varied capacity....... plus they were breaking the planning laws for their own gain....Basildon council had the balls to stand up to them & although costly is a job well done.......... if you dont want it happening again then sign the petition

http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/1309

& dont waste your time replying to that troll, weve all heard the Pavee, race card, etnic cleansing, they own the land dross time & again from his ilk & its boring......... they tried to screw the system & lost........ simple........

Agreed one spotty teenager in his mums caravan. Posting under a lot of different usernames. Adoasyoulikey Troll. They chanced played the various cards and Lost. LOST big. A poor loser but still a loser.

Max Impact wrote:
No I do not speed a need a clean driving licence for my job, any criminal convictions no matter how small will effect what countrys I can get into, if I can't enter a country that has a shall we say a more draconian attitude towards life than it could result in loss of the job, it was in the contract I signed so I keep my nose clean, not even had a parking ticket! probably because I know how to park with breaking parking laws.

then good on you, i too never speed, to the annoyance of some behind me.

Wiserman wrote:

Max Impact wrote:
No I do not speed a need a clean driving licence for my job, any criminal convictions no matter how small will effect what countrys I can get into, if I can't enter a country that has a shall we say a more draconian attitude towards life than it could result in loss of the job, it was in the contract I signed so I keep my nose clean, not even had a parking ticket! probably because I know how to park with breaking parking laws.

NightnDay says...
4:59pm Tue 8 Nov 11

Wiserman wrote:
All this talk of ethnicity and going back to the dark ages etc is all a moot point. If they had been Eskimos, Red Indians, what does it matter, it is a planning issue, they fought the law and the law won. And yes Basildon Council can enforce removal of the caravans on the legal site.

They might not have lost just yet, the council are hiding documents that when they are eventually revealed, and they will be, will take the breath away (or so i have been informed) As for removing the caravans on the legal side, why would they want to do that? There is also MR Balls advise, a judge might take it Bally gave them permission to go on the legal side. He did seems to say it in the video.

I await these ’hidden documents’ that will take my breath away. The reason that the caravans will be removed is because they are currently contravening planning laws and because there is also a minimum space that has to be allowed between the caravans for health and safety, more to the point a fire hazard, I feel sure sure you would not want to see anybody die because of fire spreading between the caravans. Hope this clears this up for you

Not really, are they breaking the LAW if they are not then it would mean there is more court cases to come and judge(s) will be looking at the video of Mr Ball advising the people there is a legal site right beside them to move onto...Will be interesting, and no doubt expensive. Will the people of basildon give their support (and money) to another round of court cases to move the people of the legal site to satisfy conditions? I know id be onto my council leader threatening legal action against him if i was in Basildon. It might be seen as a abuse of process by the council..who knows what the giddy judges will come up with.

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day: The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home. If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law. o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Is this a law or a condition? big difference. AND there is the fact mr Ball advised them there was the legal site next door for them to go on...Thats on video! Are your really suggesting that people who have been living in Basildon for 10 years and the 100 children born in the area should be forced to relocate out of the area? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING!

Just pointing out something that was reported by the press. At the time the evictions were underway most of the legal site was empty so over crowding was not an issue. Surley all the conditions put on the site must be stuck to by ALL and not just ignored. So what if Mr Ball is on video saying there is space on the leagal side he also said there are conditions on the site to prevent it being over populated. You seem to have a very one sided attitude towards the issue, you have to admit that the travllers were breaking the law when living on dale Farm there is no disputing that fact. I lived in the OZ for 10 years and moved back to the UK so changing counties is not that bigger thing, how many people have move from one county to another many many thousands have and do year in year out. I beleve in the laws/regulations/pan ning conditions being upheld and not ignored as people see fit. Whats so wrong in being a law abiding citizen?

I believe that when the last court told the travellers to leave they ignored it while trying to negotiate with the council, I think it was a matter of days they actually broke the law, as the rest of the time the site was either tolerated or involved with court cases. remember they were only ordered off finally by the LAST judge before that they still had an avenue to the law! stating that ALL should stick to the conditions on any particular occasion is ridiculous, as those conditions would only apply to those they are applied to..re: over population, Did he say that in the same video? Why would he suggest the other site as a place to go then say it would be over populated if they went onto it. You ALSO seem to have a one sided attitude to the issue, i was neutral but after being accused of not being i decided not to be and deal with this as i would if it concerned me personally. I do know lots about this culture of people and feel i can speak with that in mind. You moved by choice you seem to be suggesting these people be moved from the area by force or ethnically cleansed from the area! BTW do you speed? what never? No one said anything about not being a law abiding citizen so that is a moot rather stupid point.

I think you are mistaken.
The recent court cases established that the law (criminal) was broken once the notices issued in 2004 and afterwards were not appealed within the prescribed time limit .

The fact they wasn't moved off then means they were tolerated or they would of been enforced against.

Blimey we actually agree on something!

Wonder how much this dial up connection is costing me, bradband is still down where I am working this month at least dial up is working if costing, never mind I will put it on expenses!

Bobz01 wrote:
I honestly dont know why you lot are feeding this troll.. anybody in the area knows the problems these CON ARTISTS caused in a wide & varied capacity....... plus they were breaking the planning laws for their own gain....Basildon council had the balls to stand up to them & although costly is a job well done.......... if you dont want it happening again then sign the petition

http://epetitions.di

rect.gov.uk/petition

s/1309

& dont waste your time replying to that troll, weve all heard the Pavee, race card, etnic cleansing, they own the land dross time & again from his ilk & its boring......... they tried to screw the system & lost........ simple........

I see, so if someone doesn't agree with you then he/she is a troll. The fact i have a real interest not withstanding im a troll, because you say so. Con artists, did they con you? do you know anyone they all conned, you even one person one of them conned? do you? Are you so weird that the breaking of planning law freaks you out? who says they are breaking planning laws? Are they squatting? or have they been invited to stay by the people on the legal site? which isn't breaking anything. Are you suggesting the people dont own the land? Are you? please answer that question for you seem to imply that is what you are saying. Do you know anything about this that is fact? Do you?

Max Impact wrote:
Blimey we actually agree on something!

Wonder how much this dial up connection is costing me, bradband is still down where I am working this month at least dial up is working if costing, never mind I will put it on expenses!

if they were tolerated then why was that then changed? Around the same time the loclism bill was been looked at...Yes, your right, the crooked developers the council are in league with (if im libeling Mr Ball sue me, i dare you to try) thought the traveller would just move on as they have done time and time again but the times they are a changing and the traveller has supporters now and those who wont allow them to be victimised any longer..viva la liberation. The developer will have to look esle where, the council wont get their back handers and the basildon people! well they will pick up the tab of this land grab by the council/developers..
.surely some of you are asking yourself such questions. Dont let your hate/prejudice/bigot
ry get in the way of clear thinking.

EthanEdwards wrote:
Agreed one spotty teenager in his mums caravan. Posting under a lot of different usernames. Adoasyoulikey Troll. They chanced played the various cards and Lost. LOST big. A poor loser but still a loser.

i think anyone viewing your post know just whats the problem with you. now please leave the arguing and debating to others as its sorely pass you to do so...dont look a fool. you hidden barely disguised racism is there for all to see.

Max Impact wrote:
Blimey we actually agree on something!

Wonder how much this dial up connection is costing me, bradband is still down where I am working this month at least dial up is working if costing, never mind I will put it on expenses!

Is that ethical?

Max Impact wrote:
Blimey we actually agree on something!

Wonder how much this dial up connection is costing me, bradband is still down where I am working this month at least dial up is working if costing, never mind I will put it on expenses!

Is that ethical?

NightnDay wrote:

EthanEdwards wrote: Agreed one spotty teenager in his mums caravan. Posting under a lot of different usernames. Adoasyoulikey Troll. They chanced played the various cards and Lost. LOST big. A poor loser but still a loser.

i think anyone viewing your post know just whats the problem with you. now please leave the arguing and debating to others as its sorely pass you to do so...dont look a fool. you hidden barely disguised racism is there for all to see.

Was this supposed to be in English? Must try harder. Is that your mum calling?

NightnDay wrote:

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day: The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home. If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law. o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Is this a law or a condition? big difference. AND there is the fact mr Ball advised them there was the legal site next door for them to go on...Thats on video! Are your really suggesting that people who have been living in Basildon for 10 years and the 100 children born in the area should be forced to relocate out of the area? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING!

Just pointing out something that was reported by the press. At the time the evictions were underway most of the legal site was empty so over crowding was not an issue. Surley all the conditions put on the site must be stuck to by ALL and not just ignored. So what if Mr Ball is on video saying there is space on the leagal side he also said there are conditions on the site to prevent it being over populated. You seem to have a very one sided attitude towards the issue, you have to admit that the travllers were breaking the law when living on dale Farm there is no disputing that fact. I lived in the OZ for 10 years and moved back to the UK so changing counties is not that bigger thing, how many people have move from one county to another many many thousands have and do year in year out. I beleve in the laws/regulations/pan ning conditions being upheld and not ignored as people see fit. Whats so wrong in being a law abiding citizen?

I believe that when the last court told the travellers to leave they ignored it while trying to negotiate with the council, I think it was a matter of days they actually broke the law, as the rest of the time the site was either tolerated or involved with court cases. remember they were only ordered off finally by the LAST judge before that they still had an avenue to the law! stating that ALL should stick to the conditions on any particular occasion is ridiculous, as those conditions would only apply to those they are applied to..re: over population, Did he say that in the same video? Why would he suggest the other site as a place to go then say it would be over populated if they went onto it. You ALSO seem to have a one sided attitude to the issue, i was neutral but after being accused of not being i decided not to be and deal with this as i would if it concerned me personally. I do know lots about this culture of people and feel i can speak with that in mind. You moved by choice you seem to be suggesting these people be moved from the area by force or ethnically cleansed from the area! BTW do you speed? what never? No one said anything about not being a law abiding citizen so that is a moot rather stupid point.

I think you are mistaken. The recent court cases established that the law (criminal) was broken once the notices issued in 2004 and afterwards were not appealed within the prescribed time limit .

The fact they wasn't moved off then means they were tolerated or they would of been enforced against.

Wrong, again, I’m afraid .
The sequence of events was : the council took enforcement action and to try and defeat it, the travellers applied to the council for retrospective planning consent which was denied. In each case (3 in total) the secretary of state upheld the council's enforcement notice and refused permission. Extensions of time for compliance were granted and claims for judicial review issued in 2005,2006 and 2007.
A combination of those events caused delay, not toleration of breaches.

It seem possible there’s a misconception that the many recent court hearings have been about whether planning consent in the green belt should or should not be granted.The recent debates have actually just been about the mechanics of enforcement.
The planning issue itself ended some years ago and the travellers barrister conceded that in the court of appeal in 2009.
The concession was made even earlier but in that context,to remind anyone who has forgotten a) the travellers did not appeal any of the original enforcement notices and b) they failed to appeal any of the 3 secretary of state decisions.
Do you know why ?

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote: Blimey we actually agree on something! Wonder how much this dial up connection is costing me, bradband is still down where I am working this month at least dial up is working if costing, never mind I will put it on expenses!

Is that ethical?

Yep as at the same time I'm looking at the echo website I'm doing stuff for work as dive conditions are out of limits.

NightnDay = itscalledspinicallit
lyin = Mrs Ploppy.
.
Silly sod replies at the same time each night as his previous usernames and does a big batch of arguing in one go, would think he would alter his behaviour as well as his username...sigh..gue
ss he isnt a mastermind after all.
.
Silly sausage.

Mr Ball states today on radio that 39 housing applications from the travellers have been accepted by the council..surely he knows that lie will come back to haunt him as did the 'not a scrap yard, didn't put hard core there" did. he panics and lies not considering. He also states most of the DF people have left the area while ignoring the proof that most are in the legal part. He shuddered at the suggestion that taking court action against those on the legal side was persecution and moved swiftly on. Is there nothing this man wont stoop to? he will be costing the basildon tax payers money long after he is gone. BTW those who have been moved off DF no longer pay council tax. Isnt that what most were concerned about?

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day: The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home. If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law. o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Is this a law or a condition? big difference. AND there is the fact mr Ball advised them there was the legal site next door for them to go on...Thats on video! Are your really suggesting that people who have been living in Basildon for 10 years and the 100 children born in the area should be forced to relocate out of the area? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING!

Just pointing out something that was reported by the press. At the time the evictions were underway most of the legal site was empty so over crowding was not an issue. Surley all the conditions put on the site must be stuck to by ALL and not just ignored. So what if Mr Ball is on video saying there is space on the leagal side he also said there are conditions on the site to prevent it being over populated. You seem to have a very one sided attitude towards the issue, you have to admit that the travllers were breaking the law when living on dale Farm there is no disputing that fact. I lived in the OZ for 10 years and moved back to the UK so changing counties is not that bigger thing, how many people have move from one county to another many many thousands have and do year in year out. I beleve in the laws/regulations/pan ning conditions being upheld and not ignored as people see fit. Whats so wrong in being a law abiding citizen?

I believe that when the last court told the travellers to leave they ignored it while trying to negotiate with the council, I think it was a matter of days they actually broke the law, as the rest of the time the site was either tolerated or involved with court cases. remember they were only ordered off finally by the LAST judge before that they still had an avenue to the law! stating that ALL should stick to the conditions on any particular occasion is ridiculous, as those conditions would only apply to those they are applied to..re: over population, Did he say that in the same video? Why would he suggest the other site as a place to go then say it would be over populated if they went onto it. You ALSO seem to have a one sided attitude to the issue, i was neutral but after being accused of not being i decided not to be and deal with this as i would if it concerned me personally. I do know lots about this culture of people and feel i can speak with that in mind. You moved by choice you seem to be suggesting these people be moved from the area by force or ethnically cleansed from the area! BTW do you speed? what never? No one said anything about not being a law abiding citizen so that is a moot rather stupid point.

I think you are mistaken. The recent court cases established that the law (criminal) was broken once the notices issued in 2004 and afterwards were not appealed within the prescribed time limit .

The fact they wasn't moved off then means they were tolerated or they would of been enforced against.

Wrong, again, I’m afraid .
The sequence of events was : the council took enforcement action and to try and defeat it, the travellers applied to the council for retrospective planning consent which was denied. In each case (3 in total) the secretary of state upheld the council's enforcement notice and refused permission. Extensions of time for compliance were granted and claims for judicial review issued in 2005,2006 and 2007.
A combination of those events caused delay, not toleration of breaches.

It seem possible there’s a misconception that the many recent court hearings have been about whether planning consent in the green belt should or should not be granted.The recent debates have actually just been about the mechanics of enforcement.
The planning issue itself ended some years ago and the travellers barrister conceded that in the court of appeal in 2009.
The concession was made even earlier but in that context,to remind anyone who has forgotten a) the travellers did not appeal any of the original enforcement notices and b) they failed to appeal any of the 3 secretary of state decisions.
Do you know why ?

Re: your 1st paragraph, i stand corrected but it does show the travellers ere not breaking the law at the times you mention as it was still in the court's system to be dealt with. As for the rest, the council are at this time hiding much of the early paper work for it is clear there is and was problems with it and perhaps thats were the next round of court actions are going to come from.

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote: Blimey we actually agree on something! Wonder how much this dial up connection is costing me, bradband is still down where I am working this month at least dial up is working if costing, never mind I will put it on expenses!

Is that ethical?

Yep as at the same time I'm looking at the echo website I'm doing stuff for work as dive conditions are out of limits.

A diver?, oil rig i guess. A dangerous job. stay safe. I snorkeled just recently in Malta. I know its not the same as your occupation but a rewarding experience all the same.

OneManOneVoice wrote:
NightnDay = itscalledspinicallit

lyin = Mrs Ploppy.
.
Silly sod replies at the same time each night as his previous usernames and does a big batch of arguing in one go, would think he would alter his behaviour as well as his username...sigh..gue

ss he isnt a mastermind after all.
.
Silly sausage.

stop trying to stop people challenging your posts by pretending they are someone else who challenged your posts. for goodness sakes. If you want a forum/comment section that only agrees with you why not set up you own blog.

@NightnDay.
I have just read this comments section from top to bottom. My Oxford English Dictionary has been earning its keep. Many of the words you use are not even in it ! Perhaps I should get a new one. Which edition would you suggest ?
You appear to be one of those people who work on the principle that if something is repeated often enough then people will start to believe it regardless of its merit. You are also very quick to insult others when they make it clear that they do not share your opinions. It is high time you considered switching on brain before clicking the submit button. Your attitude does neither yourself nor those of your ilk any favours. I am now prepared to meet your wrath and have put on my thick skin ready for the expected torrent of abuse :-).

NightnDay wrote:

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day: The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home. If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law. o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Is this a law or a condition? big difference. AND there is the fact mr Ball advised them there was the legal site next door for them to go on...Thats on video! Are your really suggesting that people who have been living in Basildon for 10 years and the 100 children born in the area should be forced to relocate out of the area? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING!

Just pointing out something that was reported by the press. At the time the evictions were underway most of the legal site was empty so over crowding was not an issue. Surley all the conditions put on the site must be stuck to by ALL and not just ignored. So what if Mr Ball is on video saying there is space on the leagal side he also said there are conditions on the site to prevent it being over populated. You seem to have a very one sided attitude towards the issue, you have to admit that the travllers were breaking the law when living on dale Farm there is no disputing that fact. I lived in the OZ for 10 years and moved back to the UK so changing counties is not that bigger thing, how many people have move from one county to another many many thousands have and do year in year out. I beleve in the laws/regulations/pan ning conditions being upheld and not ignored as people see fit. Whats so wrong in being a law abiding citizen?

I believe that when the last court told the travellers to leave they ignored it while trying to negotiate with the council, I think it was a matter of days they actually broke the law, as the rest of the time the site was either tolerated or involved with court cases. remember they were only ordered off finally by the LAST judge before that they still had an avenue to the law! stating that ALL should stick to the conditions on any particular occasion is ridiculous, as those conditions would only apply to those they are applied to..re: over population, Did he say that in the same video? Why would he suggest the other site as a place to go then say it would be over populated if they went onto it. You ALSO seem to have a one sided attitude to the issue, i was neutral but after being accused of not being i decided not to be and deal with this as i would if it concerned me personally. I do know lots about this culture of people and feel i can speak with that in mind. You moved by choice you seem to be suggesting these people be moved from the area by force or ethnically cleansed from the area! BTW do you speed? what never? No one said anything about not being a law abiding citizen so that is a moot rather stupid point.

I think you are mistaken. The recent court cases established that the law (criminal) was broken once the notices issued in 2004 and afterwards were not appealed within the prescribed time limit .

The fact they wasn't moved off then means they were tolerated or they would of been enforced against.

Wrong, again, I’m afraid . The sequence of events was : the council took enforcement action and to try and defeat it, the travellers applied to the council for retrospective planning consent which was denied. In each case (3 in total) the secretary of state upheld the council's enforcement notice and refused permission. Extensions of time for compliance were granted and claims for judicial review issued in 2005,2006 and 2007. A combination of those events caused delay, not toleration of breaches. It seem possible there’s a misconception that the many recent court hearings have been about whether planning consent in the green belt should or should not be granted.The recent debates have actually just been about the mechanics of enforcement. The planning issue itself ended some years ago and the travellers barrister conceded that in the court of appeal in 2009. The concession was made even earlier but in that context,to remind anyone who has forgotten a) the travellers did not appeal any of the original enforcement notices and b) they failed to appeal any of the 3 secretary of state decisions. Do you know why ?

Re: your 1st paragraph, i stand corrected but it does show the travellers ere not breaking the law at the times you mention as it was still in the court's system to be dealt with. As for the rest, the council are at this time hiding much of the early paper work for it is clear there is and was problems with it and perhaps thats were the next round of court actions are going to come from.

It's academic now since the enforcement process has taken place but the travellers were in breach of the criminal law for the entire period - that's not my opinion but fact established in court.

If there is paperwork missing,why did the travellers legal team make no mention of it in court ?

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote: Blimey we actually agree on something! Wonder how much this dial up connection is costing me, bradband is still down where I am working this month at least dial up is working if costing, never mind I will put it on expenses!

Is that ethical?

Yep as at the same time I'm looking at the echo website I'm doing stuff for work as dive conditions are out of limits.

A diver?, oil rig i guess. A dangerous job. stay safe. I snorkeled just recently in Malta. I know its not the same as your occupation but a rewarding experience all the same.

Cheers

I'm a Hyperbaric welder (I weld under water) amazing job if some what dangerous!

You get to go to the four corners of the world and get paid to do so!

Currently in Stanley on a very temperamental internet conection, love to snork its so relaxing even more so in warm waters.

If a ship springs a leak its cheaper to get a team flown out instead of sry docking it, if a rig go a leak your not going to cap your well get a lifting ship and and take the rig ashore so it on the phone and off we go.

A couple of weeks ago two jobs came in at the same time so it was a case of Rock-Paper-scissors to see where my team and the "others" would be sent They went to the seychelles for two weeks whilst my time were stuck in Hull for a week...!

muffindamule wrote:
@NightnDay.
I have just read this comments section from top to bottom. My Oxford English Dictionary has been earning its keep. Many of the words you use are not even in it ! Perhaps I should get a new one. Which edition would you suggest ?
You appear to be one of those people who work on the principle that if something is repeated often enough then people will start to believe it regardless of its merit. You are also very quick to insult others when they make it clear that they do not share your opinions. It is high time you considered switching on brain before clicking the submit button. Your attitude does neither yourself nor those of your ilk any favours. I am now prepared to meet your wrath and have put on my thick skin ready for the expected torrent of abuse :-).

Well im of the mind that if a word sounds good say it even if it doesn't appear in the book of acceptance. But i would be interested in which word i used...so i can use it again to annoy you lol...i joke. You say most of my words...surely you exaggerate or perhaps even arumpaloo! I do find i repeat myself for some on these threads read what is said and proven then go back to their media stereotypical nonsense and preach it as if it was gospel while cookeetchring like crazy. of course its your opinion as to my attitude but of course we all have opinions and mine being the best suited to me a say baaatraaadee to yours..are foreign made up words allowed? If not disregard the last. Im all for opinions but people stating racism or clear lies as facts should be challenged by all...even those who disagree with the people of DF's choice to stay in place to the last second of their lawful case. Which ended only on the 16th October. There are more in the pipeline as many can see if they research a little like i have..Mr Ball lying again about the land bought by the Notts council and The number of applications for houses..He is going to be personally sued as well i believe and not by Mr Len,my wife was a traveller, Gridley.

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day: The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home. If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law. o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Is this a law or a condition? big difference. AND there is the fact mr Ball advised them there was the legal site next door for them to go on...Thats on video! Are your really suggesting that people who have been living in Basildon for 10 years and the 100 children born in the area should be forced to relocate out of the area? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING!

Just pointing out something that was reported by the press. At the time the evictions were underway most of the legal site was empty so over crowding was not an issue. Surley all the conditions put on the site must be stuck to by ALL and not just ignored. So what if Mr Ball is on video saying there is space on the leagal side he also said there are conditions on the site to prevent it being over populated. You seem to have a very one sided attitude towards the issue, you have to admit that the travllers were breaking the law when living on dale Farm there is no disputing that fact. I lived in the OZ for 10 years and moved back to the UK so changing counties is not that bigger thing, how many people have move from one county to another many many thousands have and do year in year out. I beleve in the laws/regulations/pan ning conditions being upheld and not ignored as people see fit. Whats so wrong in being a law abiding citizen?

I believe that when the last court told the travellers to leave they ignored it while trying to negotiate with the council, I think it was a matter of days they actually broke the law, as the rest of the time the site was either tolerated or involved with court cases. remember they were only ordered off finally by the LAST judge before that they still had an avenue to the law! stating that ALL should stick to the conditions on any particular occasion is ridiculous, as those conditions would only apply to those they are applied to..re: over population, Did he say that in the same video? Why would he suggest the other site as a place to go then say it would be over populated if they went onto it. You ALSO seem to have a one sided attitude to the issue, i was neutral but after being accused of not being i decided not to be and deal with this as i would if it concerned me personally. I do know lots about this culture of people and feel i can speak with that in mind. You moved by choice you seem to be suggesting these people be moved from the area by force or ethnically cleansed from the area! BTW do you speed? what never? No one said anything about not being a law abiding citizen so that is a moot rather stupid point.

I think you are mistaken. The recent court cases established that the law (criminal) was broken once the notices issued in 2004 and afterwards were not appealed within the prescribed time limit .

The fact they wasn't moved off then means they were tolerated or they would of been enforced against.

Wrong, again, I’m afraid . The sequence of events was : the council took enforcement action and to try and defeat it, the travellers applied to the council for retrospective planning consent which was denied. In each case (3 in total) the secretary of state upheld the council's enforcement notice and refused permission. Extensions of time for compliance were granted and claims for judicial review issued in 2005,2006 and 2007. A combination of those events caused delay, not toleration of breaches. It seem possible there’s a misconception that the many recent court hearings have been about whether planning consent in the green belt should or should not be granted.The recent debates have actually just been about the mechanics of enforcement. The planning issue itself ended some years ago and the travellers barrister conceded that in the court of appeal in 2009. The concession was made even earlier but in that context,to remind anyone who has forgotten a) the travellers did not appeal any of the original enforcement notices and b) they failed to appeal any of the 3 secretary of state decisions. Do you know why ?

Re: your 1st paragraph, i stand corrected but it does show the travellers ere not breaking the law at the times you mention as it was still in the court's system to be dealt with. As for the rest, the council are at this time hiding much of the early paper work for it is clear there is and was problems with it and perhaps thats were the next round of court actions are going to come from.

It's academic now since the enforcement process has taken place but the travellers were in breach of the criminal law for the entire period - that's not my opinion but fact established in court.

If there is paperwork missing,why did the travellers legal team make no mention of it in court ?

The issue is far from over. The legal team went along with the appeals not looking far enough back, its only now that they are doing so. There seems to be cause for concern that the initial eviction notices and others were in fact flawed and would mean all that went after was also based on the flaw..Opps, could be an illegal eviction, bit like Hovefield. The travellers now have top lawyers acting for them, pro bono, things are stirring. While people are stating the law should be upheld the bailiffs are ignoring the courts orders and carrying out work, at the request of the council, that goes beyond their remit..OPPS...compen
sation claims will be rife.

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote: Blimey we actually agree on something! Wonder how much this dial up connection is costing me, bradband is still down where I am working this month at least dial up is working if costing, never mind I will put it on expenses!

Is that ethical?

Yep as at the same time I'm looking at the echo website I'm doing stuff for work as dive conditions are out of limits.

A diver?, oil rig i guess. A dangerous job. stay safe. I snorkeled just recently in Malta. I know its not the same as your occupation but a rewarding experience all the same.

Cheers

I'm a Hyperbaric welder (I weld under water) amazing job if some what dangerous!

You get to go to the four corners of the world and get paid to do so!

Currently in Stanley on a very temperamental internet conection, love to snork its so relaxing even more so in warm waters.

If a ship springs a leak its cheaper to get a team flown out instead of sry docking it, if a rig go a leak your not going to cap your well get a lifting ship and and take the rig ashore so it on the phone and off we go.

A couple of weeks ago two jobs came in at the same time so it was a case of Rock-Paper-scissors to see where my team and the "others" would be sent They went to the seychelles for two weeks whilst my time were stuck in Hull for a week...!

You must be coining it lol...i wished i went further in the diving side of things but the silence stated to bother me.

NightnDay wrote:

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Deadjim wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

VANGE LES wrote: Is an injunction really going to keep these people away. They've never taken any notice of things lawful to date so what makes you think they'll start now. The only thing that might work is a 20 foot moat round the site.

If they move back on to the site now they will be in contempt of court, and will be taken to court with fines, prison or seizure of property or even all three! So it really would not be worth them moving back on, thing is its all going to start again as they are currently breaking the regulations set down when the legal site got the green light as I bleive its fixed at one mobile home and one caravan per pitch. Can't beleve how slow dial up internet is as broadband is down here in Stanley!

Mr Ball is on video stating that he has advised the travellers there is a legal pitch next door! Would that be looked upon him advising them to move next door? In regards to this, Do the people on here now demand the council evict the people of the legal site because of rules and conditions for that site. These R&C are not law so they are not breaking the law. If people are demanding that the council remove them again can they advise why, surely the reason why they were so vocal about the eviction, they said as much, was because the travellers were breaking the law, now they are not! this might beging to be looked upon as something sinister. Ethic cleansing does not have to be murderous. " An draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, ring any bells?

Night and Day: The planning permision for the legal side of Dale Farm states that each plot has permision for ONE caravan and ONE portable home. If that number is being exceded then they are breaking the agreed limits there for breaking planning law. o why should'nt they be moved on there are free plots in Liverpool and Cambridge and countless others dotted across the country.

Is this a law or a condition? big difference. AND there is the fact mr Ball advised them there was the legal site next door for them to go on...Thats on video! Are your really suggesting that people who have been living in Basildon for 10 years and the 100 children born in the area should be forced to relocate out of the area? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING!

Just pointing out something that was reported by the press. At the time the evictions were underway most of the legal site was empty so over crowding was not an issue. Surley all the conditions put on the site must be stuck to by ALL and not just ignored. So what if Mr Ball is on video saying there is space on the leagal side he also said there are conditions on the site to prevent it being over populated. You seem to have a very one sided attitude towards the issue, you have to admit that the travllers were breaking the law when living on dale Farm there is no disputing that fact. I lived in the OZ for 10 years and moved back to the UK so changing counties is not that bigger thing, how many people have move from one county to another many many thousands have and do year in year out. I beleve in the laws/regulations/pan ning conditions being upheld and not ignored as people see fit. Whats so wrong in being a law abiding citizen?

I believe that when the last court told the travellers to leave they ignored it while trying to negotiate with the council, I think it was a matter of days they actually broke the law, as the rest of the time the site was either tolerated or involved with court cases. remember they were only ordered off finally by the LAST judge before that they still had an avenue to the law! stating that ALL should stick to the conditions on any particular occasion is ridiculous, as those conditions would only apply to those they are applied to..re: over population, Did he say that in the same video? Why would he suggest the other site as a place to go then say it would be over populated if they went onto it. You ALSO seem to have a one sided attitude to the issue, i was neutral but after being accused of not being i decided not to be and deal with this as i would if it concerned me personally. I do know lots about this culture of people and feel i can speak with that in mind. You moved by choice you seem to be suggesting these people be moved from the area by force or ethnically cleansed from the area! BTW do you speed? what never? No one said anything about not being a law abiding citizen so that is a moot rather stupid point.

I think you are mistaken. The recent court cases established that the law (criminal) was broken once the notices issued in 2004 and afterwards were not appealed within the prescribed time limit .

The fact they wasn't moved off then means they were tolerated or they would of been enforced against.

Wrong, again, I’m afraid . The sequence of events was : the council took enforcement action and to try and defeat it, the travellers applied to the council for retrospective planning consent which was denied. In each case (3 in total) the secretary of state upheld the council's enforcement notice and refused permission. Extensions of time for compliance were granted and claims for judicial review issued in 2005,2006 and 2007. A combination of those events caused delay, not toleration of breaches. It seem possible there’s a misconception that the many recent court hearings have been about whether planning consent in the green belt should or should not be granted.The recent debates have actually just been about the mechanics of enforcement. The planning issue itself ended some years ago and the travellers barrister conceded that in the court of appeal in 2009. The concession was made even earlier but in that context,to remind anyone who has forgotten a) the travellers did not appeal any of the original enforcement notices and b) they failed to appeal any of the 3 secretary of state decisions. Do you know why ?

Re: your 1st paragraph, i stand corrected but it does show the travellers ere not breaking the law at the times you mention as it was still in the court's system to be dealt with. As for the rest, the council are at this time hiding much of the early paper work for it is clear there is and was problems with it and perhaps thats were the next round of court actions are going to come from.

It's academic now since the enforcement process has taken place but the travellers were in breach of the criminal law for the entire period - that's not my opinion but fact established in court. If there is paperwork missing,why did the travellers legal team make no mention of it in court ?

The issue is far from over. The legal team went along with the appeals not looking far enough back, its only now that they are doing so. There seems to be cause for concern that the initial eviction notices and others were in fact flawed and would mean all that went after was also based on the flaw..Opps, could be an illegal eviction, bit like Hovefield. The travellers now have top lawyers acting for them, pro bono, things are stirring. While people are stating the law should be upheld the bailiffs are ignoring the courts orders and carrying out work, at the request of the council, that goes beyond their remit..OPPS...compen sation claims will be rife.

The travellers failed to appeal any of the enforcement notices within the fixed period from 2004 onwards – there is no way back on that basis .
No lawyers have succeeded in securing anything material for the DF travellers in the past 10 years and
now you say they (or is it a new team ?) are trying to unscramble the egg without being paid .
Really ?

Thats it...seems some learned people were shocked by the actions of the cuddly basildon council and stepped into the issue. nice to know there is nice people about who dont break the Public order act 1986 while stating they are posting to uphold the very law they are breaking..Basildon twinned with criminals, racists and hypocrites...The gate way to hell..lol

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

NightnDay wrote:

Max Impact wrote: Blimey we actually agree on something! Wonder how much this dial up connection is costing me, bradband is still down where I am working this month at least dial up is working if costing, never mind I will put it on expenses!

Is that ethical?

Yep as at the same time I'm looking at the echo website I'm doing stuff for work as dive conditions are out of limits.

A diver?, oil rig i guess. A dangerous job. stay safe. I snorkeled just recently in Malta. I know its not the same as your occupation but a rewarding experience all the same.

Cheers I'm a Hyperbaric welder (I weld under water) amazing job if some what dangerous! You get to go to the four corners of the world and get paid to do so! Currently in Stanley on a very temperamental internet conection, love to snork its so relaxing even more so in warm waters. If a ship springs a leak its cheaper to get a team flown out instead of sry docking it, if a rig go a leak your not going to cap your well get a lifting ship and and take the rig ashore so it on the phone and off we go. A couple of weeks ago two jobs came in at the same time so it was a case of Rock-Paper-scissors to see where my team and the "others" would be sent They went to the seychelles for two weeks whilst my time were stuck in Hull for a week...!

You must be coining it lol...i wished i went further in the diving side of things but the silence stated to bother me.

I admit it is a well paid job but the risk is very high, so very much could and has gone wrong for peole I knew.

There is the risk of the dive as well as the gasses that build up during the welding.

That's very interesting, Max!
I know we're going off topic, but I was in a similar game ( but not quite as skilled as yours): I was a caisson miner years ago.

Never got the bends but had the "niggles" a few times, and had to go back to the lock.
Also, nearly got burned to death when the welder set fire (accidently) to some straw under the M3 in Hampshire.
Then did get burnt in Cairo, Egypt, but by the chemicals in the ground.
Finally, came to grief in the tunnelling game in Dagenham, which I thought was in Essex, but may not be nowadays.

Anyway, I'm knackered now, but there's two things that I shouldn't be able to do according to some folks on here:
writing and working.

Most days I see some bggr has written in to say that travellers can't read and write and never work. Something must have gone wrong somewhere with the old stereotype, I suppose.

Now I'm hoping to move in next to Len's place and run a few horses and donkeys.
Trouble is the council are making a right mess of the place. I'll have to have government aid to sort the place out. You know, like they give when there's a national disaster.
It will take a bit of straightening out, I can tell you. I wish I had £22 million of taxpayers' money to play with, but, sadly, I ain't.

A Dale Farm resident in Essex has accepted substantial undisclosed libel damages over a claim that she was to be investigated over allegations of slavery.

Grandmother Kathleen McCarthy, who has been a central figure in the campaign over the site, had complained about an article in the People which appeared last month.

Her advocate, Martin Soames, told Mr Justice Eady at London's High Court that MGN Ltd had acknowledged its error in publishing the story.

It claimed that the 48-year-old widow was to be investigated over slavery allegations within the Irish traveller community at Toddbury Farm, Bedfordshire, and would be interviewed by the police over allegations of forced labour.

"In fact the allegations are untrue. Our client has no previous convictions nor has she been contacted by Luton and Bedfordshire Police or any other police force in relation to forced labour, under the Slavery and Servitude Act 2010 or indeed any offence at all.

"Luton and Bedfordshire Constabulary have confirmed that our client is not under investigation, and that they do not have any intention of interviewing her in relation to any such investigation."

Mr Soames said the newspaper had agreed to pay Mrs McCarthy substantial compensation and reasonable legal costs. Its advocate, Harry Kinmonth, said it regretted publishing the article and apologised for the damage and distress caused.

Mrs McCarthy was not in court but said, in a statement, that she was "happy with this positive result during a very difficult time".

The start of things to come?

Human rights case against Basildon Council dropped 10 November 2011

A human rights case against Basildon Council’s clearance of the illegal traveller settlement at Dale Farm has been dropped.

Mary Flynn had argued that enforcement action to clear the site was a breach of her human rights, and was due to be heard at the High Court in late November.

The case was also the subject of an injunction application, before Mr. Justice Parker, that was rejected at the High Court on 31 August 2011.

Following the weight of comments made by both Mr.Justice Parker and Justice Ouseley during the Judicial Review proceedings, Mary Flynn’s legal team have dropped the case.

Cllr Tony Ball, Leader of the Council, says: “I welcome that this case has been dropped and that no more court time or public money is wasted.

“This is further evidence that the Council has acted lawfully and fairly throughout this process and only ever wanted to uphold the planning laws of the land.”

A taste of other things to come ?

Deadjim wrote:
Human rights case against Basildon Council dropped 10 November 2011

A human rights case against Basildon Council’s clearance of the illegal traveller settlement at Dale Farm has been dropped.

Mary Flynn had argued that enforcement action to clear the site was a breach of her human rights, and was due to be heard at the High Court in late November.

The case was also the subject of an injunction application, before Mr. Justice Parker, that was rejected at the High Court on 31 August 2011.

Following the weight of comments made by both Mr.Justice Parker and Justice Ouseley during the Judicial Review proceedings, Mary Flynn’s legal team have dropped the case.

Cllr Tony Ball, Leader of the Council, says: “I welcome that this case has been dropped and that no more court time or public money is wasted.

“This is further evidence that the Council has acted lawfully and fairly throughout this process and only ever wanted to uphold the planning laws of the land.”

A taste of other things to come ?

if it allows you to sleep well at night thinking that then good, but the court cases are mounting up and up. Ball is already facing 'issues' from his bosses. Im sure you'll find him a job for the good service he gave you allowing you to sleep..lol...BTW thats one case thats been dropped

NightnDay wrote:

smiffy22 wrote:
Regarding the use of the taser device (mentioned in one of the above posts by someone implying that it may be a problem for future "protests", surely then you cannot have seen the video footage of the use of the device at Dale Farm? The officers were threatened by a man holding what looked like a large fence post (possibly 4x4), threatening the officers with it. They shouted warning after warning, and eventually they "let him have it". A very British-bobby moment - very very restrained and quite different the the thorough beating or even shooting he would have received in many other countries!

The tazer was used in a public order issue, there are people who saw it as crowd control, iv watched more than one video which seems to show it being used in that way. If you are stating that the police should and can taser anyone who is deemed a threat to them then saturday night will be interesting. firing guns isnt a "very British-bobby moment" far from it. Using fire arms is in fact the end of such moments. As for other countries, do we now measure our behaviour against other countries?

Tut tut, you really haven't seen this particular video footage either. I would recommend that you do so, although it will be tricky as it is now old news. The taser was used to subdue one person, not the entire crowd. That person pose an extreme threat that could have been overcome with great force without the taser, but that would certainly have injured the man and possibly some of the police officers. Instead, they used the less brutal method and no-one had any lasting harm done to them. As I said, a very "British bobby moment"! No lethal firearms were used (since you seem to insist on implying that the taser is in the same class of weapon as a pistol or rifle - most comical indeed).
And do not be so absurd as to imply that I said we use other countries to judge how we should behave; you do yourself an injustice by such remarks. You know full well that I am merely using other countries to illustrate to others the folly of implying that excessive force was used by our police. Sometime it really is necessary to spell out the difference to those that are too blinded by their prejudice to see the truth or who are just not being honest with themselves or others.
Regards,
Smiffy.

OneManOneVoice wrote:
NightnDay = itscalledspinicallit

lyin = Mrs Ploppy.
.
Silly sod replies at the same time each night as his previous usernames and does a big batch of arguing in one go, would think he would alter his behaviour as well as his username...sigh..gue

ss he isnt a mastermind after all.
.
Silly sausage.

Your tiny mind struggling to accept more than one person disagrees with you?

Why would I wish to post the same stuff in the same style at the same time twice?

That doesn't make sense.

I have explained to you before (which makes it even more laughable) that I can't use my itscalledspin user name anymore because you felt your argument was so strong you needed to report me to get me silenced.

Just for you and the other simpletons who are confused by simple concepts:
1) User name itscalledspin in use.
2) User name itscalledspin no longer in use.
3) Mrs Ploppy in use as a replacement.
4) You claim I am using multiple accounts.
5) I explain I am only using one account because my first one was suspended.
6) I also explain that there was never any overlap between my two user names proving my story.
7) Your tiny narrow mind went into overload and just kept repeating your first statement as you are indeed still doing.
8) I don't like finishing on an odd number.

Signed
Mr Silly Sausage.

CarlNN wrote:
All the anti-whites care about is making life a misery for normal white people until they`ve been eliminated by mass immigration and "assimilation"(
only for white countries).

That`s why they support all the anti-white,anti-nati

on,anti-family causes going.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Even I'm offended by that and I'm a racist!

MrsPloppy wrote:

OneManOneVoice wrote: NightnDay = itscalledspinicallit lyin = Mrs Ploppy. . Silly sod replies at the same time each night as his previous usernames and does a big batch of arguing in one go, would think he would alter his behaviour as well as his username...sigh..gue ss he isnt a mastermind after all. . Silly sausage.

Your tiny mind struggling to accept more than one person disagrees with you? Why would I wish to post the same stuff in the same style at the same time twice? That doesn't make sense. I have explained to you before (which makes it even more laughable) that I can't use my itscalledspin user name anymore because you felt your argument was so strong you needed to report me to get me silenced. Just for you and the other simpletons who are confused by simple concepts: 1) User name itscalledspin in use. 2) User name itscalledspin no longer in use. 3) Mrs Ploppy in use as a replacement. 4) You claim I am using multiple accounts. 5) I explain I am only using one account because my first one was suspended. 6) I also explain that there was never any overlap between my two user names proving my story. 7) Your tiny narrow mind went into overload and just kept repeating your first statement as you are indeed still doing. 8) I don't like finishing on an odd number. Signed Mr Silly Sausage.

You are NightnDay as well....are you that bored in your 5 bedroom house that you need to create alter egos both at the same time and because you were banned ?
.
Back into the frying pan Silly Sausage.
.
Loved your comment on the anti Daily Mail forums as well. classic.

OneManOneVoice wrote:

MrsPloppy wrote:

OneManOneVoice wrote: NightnDay = itscalledspinicallit lyin = Mrs Ploppy. . Silly sod replies at the same time each night as his previous usernames and does a big batch of arguing in one go, would think he would alter his behaviour as well as his username...sigh..gue ss he isnt a mastermind after all. . Silly sausage.

Your tiny mind struggling to accept more than one person disagrees with you? Why would I wish to post the same stuff in the same style at the same time twice? That doesn't make sense. I have explained to you before (which makes it even more laughable) that I can't use my itscalledspin user name anymore because you felt your argument was so strong you needed to report me to get me silenced. Just for you and the other simpletons who are confused by simple concepts: 1) User name itscalledspin in use. 2) User name itscalledspin no longer in use. 3) Mrs Ploppy in use as a replacement. 4) You claim I am using multiple accounts. 5) I explain I am only using one account because my first one was suspended. 6) I also explain that there was never any overlap between my two user names proving my story. 7) Your tiny narrow mind went into overload and just kept repeating your first statement as you are indeed still doing. 8) I don't like finishing on an odd number. Signed Mr Silly Sausage.

You are NightnDay as well....are you that bored in your 5 bedroom house that you need to create alter egos both at the same time and because you were banned ?
.
Back into the frying pan Silly Sausage.
.
Loved your comment on the anti Daily Mail forums as well. classic.

Im not sure why you think what you think, perhaps a psychiatrist might :), and why how many bedrooms in a house comes into it, But Im not female and im not Mrs ploppy. Does it bother you that more than one person doesn't share you distain for a ethnic minority? Get tuff there are strange days ahead of us all.

Im not sure why you think what you think, perhaps a psychiatrist might :), and why how many bedrooms in a house comes into it, But Im not female and im not Mrs ploppy. Does it bother you that more than one person doesn't share you distain for a ethnic minority? Get tuff there are strange days ahead of us all.

Former residents of Dale Farm to ask judge for 'suitable' rehousing
Friday, November 11, 2011 - 03:30 PM

Travellers made homeless after being evicted from an illegal site in the UK are set to ask senior judges to rule that they have a right to be re-homed in caravans or offered pitches.

John Sheridan, Barbara O'Brien and Mary Flynn - who were living on the Dale Farm site near Basildon, Essex - are scheduled to seek a ruling from the British Court of Appeal in London next month.

Their lawyers aim to argue that Basildon Council acted unreasonably in offering only conventional flats or houses as alternative accommodation.

A county court judge ruled in favour of the local authority following a hearing in Southend, Essex, in October 2010.

Travellers were today given permission to appeal against the county court ruling, following a preliminary appeal court hearing in London.

Alex Offer, for the three Travellers, outlined arguments his clients wanted to make, at a hearing before Lord Justice Patten.

He said his clients had an "aversion" to living in "bricks and mortar" and would argue that local authorities had an "obligation" to provide "suitable" accommodation which would allow "members of the Gypsy community" to continue their traditional way of life.

Lord Justice Patten granted the three Travellers permission to appeal.

The court was told that appeal judges were scheduled to hear full arguments from both sides at a hearing in London starting on December 14.

Lawyers said afterwards that any appeal court ruling on the issue could affect other Travellers and Gypsies.


Read more: http://www.irishexam
iner.com/breakingnew
s/world/former-resid
ents-of-dale-farm-to
-ask-judge-for-suita
ble-rehousing-528024
.html#ixzz1dPzYbIPs

Surprise surprise Mr Ball....open up the tax payers purse again!

Has it suddenly gone deadly quiet on all the DF threads? lol...Nw why would that be. Perhaps people are working overtime to pay for Mr Balls mistakes/ambition...
Oh dear!

NightnDay wrote:
Has it suddenly gone deadly quiet on all the DF threads? lol...Nw why would that be. Perhaps people are working overtime to pay for Mr Balls mistakes/ambition...

Oh dear!

I think it is more likely to be that NightnDay has bored the arse off everyone with nearly forty comments on this page alone ! Either that or most of the other commentators are busy trying to decipher those comments and make some semblance of sense out of them. I, for one, having given up on that for the time being. ;-)

Do try to keep with the program...its quite easy.

Seems the council has admitted what they are really about in regards to DF here is a snippet of a report..." The Basildon Council solicitor (Brown) has said this morning in front of legal
observers that her job is to make all of Dale Farm "unlivable" " Even though this site is now legal and the people living there are entitled to be there! More court cases are in the making and more money out of the Taxpayers purse. When will this council decide the TP cant pay more to save the face of this out of control council and its leader looking for MP status?

Seems the DF owners are back on the land and Mr, Ill retire, Ball is worried about the safety aspects of the site after he and his marauders left 8ft holes around the land, which people without electricity fell into the dark...The game is a foot and Ball is an arse! lol
How does that strike people? £22,000,000 down the drain to dig up the land. It has been rumoured the Travellers were looking to go into the wholesale veg market but were loath to dig and prepare the land...seems they dont have to now. Who says the council isn't helpful...lol...