On 22/08/2017 09:52, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-22, Tim Lamb wrote:
snip

As a landowner, I have rather fixed ideas about trespass but also think
it is beyond time for the law to move on. Ancient laws allowing
travellers to put up on roadside land on the basis that it might be
common land are surely superseded by compulsory land registration and
internet access to that information.

Hear, hear.


The problem is insufficient decent sites.

The long term downside is field gates blocked physically with old
machinery/tree trunks etc. which have to be removed and replaced for
each field operation.

Some years ago they moved onto an old factory site near our house in St.
Albans. Someone (*not* me) found a swift and effective means of moving
them on; the first night one of the caravans was struck by half a gallon
of paraffin. They left the following day.


Not surprised. Horrible thing to happen.

And I repeat and emphasise that it was *not* me. Although I'd like to have
shaken them by the hand.


You meant to congratulate them for trying to murder people? Blimey.



--
Cheers, Rob

On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 09:00:46 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
The problem is insufficient decent sites.

There are plenty of decent sites, but "travellers" aren't welcome there and wouldn't pay the pitch fees anyway.

Owain

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 01:50:22 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 09:00:46 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
The problem is insufficient decent sites.

There are plenty of decent sites, but "travellers" aren't welcome there and wouldn't pay the pitch fees anyway.

We turned up at a campsite when on our family motorcycle / camping
holiday, only to see a sign at the gate saying 'No motorcycles'. It
was getting late, it was drizzling and we just needed to find someone
to camp to rode around the corner to another site.

I went into the reception and asked if they had any vacant pitches
(they did) and asked if they had any issues with 'motorcycles' (citing
the sign at the camp round the corner) and they responded, 'we don't
have any issues with how anyone get's here as long as you pay the fees
and act responsibly ... if you don't, you will be thrown off'. ;-)

Apparently (we later found out) the camp round the corner had recently
suffered a fairly large group of loud / antisocial 'bikers' and so
they had spoiled it for me, my wife and our daughter (and others of
course), who would have acted the same had we turned up there by
motorcycles, cycles, boat or car.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. The biggest issue for us when camping were people coming back to
the site late (and probably from the pub) in vehicles that seemed to
have 200 doors that could only be closed by being slammed 10 times
each! I guess they didn't know that most car doors could be closed
fully by a firm and silent push?

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 09:00:40 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 22/08/2017 09:52, Huge wrote:
snip

And I repeat and emphasise that it was *not* me. Although I'd like to have
shaken them by the hand.


You meant to congratulate them for trying to murder people? Blimey.

Whilst most wouldn't condone murder for most reasons, you can
understand the animosity they get because of their *antisocial*
behaviour.

The same would apply towards anyone one who seems take and not give
.... and cost landowners and / or the local councils (and therefore
ratepayers) fortunes in the process whilst clearing up their mess (and
that seems to be the biggest issue by far when the general public are
polled).

So, driving potentially stolen, untaxed and uninsured vehicles
(knowing it's fairly unlikely the authorities will be able to do
anything about it).

Cash-in-hand low-quality work (drives and landscaping) with the waste
fly tipped.

Ripping off the gullible (old people with unnecessary work, like
replacing broken roof tiles, re pointing ridges, or removing moss
etc).

Theft of property (crime rate goes up when they are in town, sheds and
out buildings broken into etc).

'Trouble' ... sometimes as a consequence of any of the above and
direct conflict / confrontation in local pubs etc.

Preventing people exercising their right to use local facilities, like
kids using the park etc.

Damage to the environment (fly tipping toxic waste).

So, when it seems that the authorities can do little to not only
prevent them or then punishing them for trespassing (like the
confiscation and disposal of *all* their vehicles) or carrying out
illegal activities (uninsured driving / property theft) it's
understandable why some / many (especially those directly impacted)
would rather see them (and anyone acting similarly) off the planet.
;-(

It's a big step from that to actually doing something about it
yourself of course.

Personally, as long as people are being socially responsible (and the
majority are) I'm all for 'live and let live', but for that to happen
you often also have to follow the 'when in Rome ...' to some degree.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I'm led to believe that when a static 'camp' (?) was provided for
travelers locally, one of the first things they did was smash up the
communal toilets they also built on site for them, that way they
wouldn't have to pay water rates or summat?

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 09:00:40 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 22/08/2017 09:52, Huge wrote:
snip

And I repeat and emphasise that it was *not* me. Although I'd like to
have
shaken them by the hand.


You meant to congratulate them for trying to murder people? Blimey.

Whilst most wouldn't condone murder for most reasons, you can
understand the animosity they get because of their *antisocial*
behaviour.

The same would apply towards anyone one who seems take and not give
... and cost landowners and / or the local councils (and therefore
ratepayers) fortunes in the process whilst clearing up their mess (and
that seems to be the biggest issue by far when the general public are
polled).

So, driving potentially stolen, untaxed and uninsured vehicles
(knowing it's fairly unlikely the authorities will be able to do
anything about it).

Cash-in-hand low-quality work (drives and landscaping) with the waste
fly tipped.

Ripping off the gullible (old people with unnecessary work, like
replacing broken roof tiles, re pointing ridges, or removing moss
etc).

Theft of property (crime rate goes up when they are in town, sheds and
out buildings broken into etc).

'Trouble' ... sometimes as a consequence of any of the above and
direct conflict / confrontation in local pubs etc.

Preventing people exercising their right to use local facilities, like
kids using the park etc.

Damage to the environment (fly tipping toxic waste).

So, when it seems that the authorities can do little to not only
prevent them or then punishing them for trespassing (like the
confiscation and disposal of *all* their vehicles) or carrying out
illegal activities (uninsured driving / property theft) it's
understandable why some / many (especially those directly impacted)
would rather see them (and anyone acting similarly) off the planet.
;-(

It's a big step from that to actually doing something about it
yourself of course.

Personally, as long as people are being socially responsible (and the
majority are) I'm all for 'live and let live', but for that to happen
you often also have to follow the 'when in Rome ...' to some degree.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I'm led to believe that when a static 'camp' (?) was provided for
travelers locally, one of the first things they did was smash up the
communal toilets they also built on site for them, that way they
wouldn't have to pay water rates or summat?

Bet that's a lie.

On 23/08/2017 10:15, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 09:00:40 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 22/08/2017 09:52, Huge wrote:
snip

And I repeat and emphasise that it was *not* me. Although I'd like to have
shaken them by the hand.


You meant to congratulate them for trying to murder people? Blimey.

Whilst most wouldn't condone murder for most reasons, you can
understand the animosity they get because of their *antisocial*
behaviour.


No, I don't accept your implication, except that maybe racists and
psychopaths might behave in such a way. And who are 'they' supposed to be?


The same would apply towards anyone one who seems take and not give
... and cost landowners and / or the local councils (and therefore
ratepayers) fortunes in the process whilst clearing up their mess (and
that seems to be the biggest issue by far when the general public are
polled).

So, driving potentially stolen, untaxed and uninsured vehicles
(knowing it's fairly unlikely the authorities will be able to do
anything about it).

Cash-in-hand low-quality work (drives and landscaping) with the waste
fly tipped.

Ripping off the gullible (old people with unnecessary work, like
replacing broken roof tiles, re pointing ridges, or removing moss
etc).

Theft of property (crime rate goes up when they are in town, sheds and
out buildings broken into etc).

'Trouble' ... sometimes as a consequence of any of the above and
direct conflict / confrontation in local pubs etc.

Preventing people exercising their right to use local facilities, like
kids using the park etc.

Damage to the environment (fly tipping toxic waste).

So, when it seems that the authorities can do little to not only
prevent them or then punishing them for trespassing (like the
confiscation and disposal of *all* their vehicles) or carrying out
illegal activities (uninsured driving / property theft) it's
understandable why some / many (especially those directly impacted)
would rather see them (and anyone acting similarly) off the planet.
;-(

It's a big step from that to actually doing something about it
yourself of course.

Personally, as long as people are being socially responsible (and the
majority are) I'm all for 'live and let live', but for that to happen
you often also have to follow the 'when in Rome ...' to some degree.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I'm led to believe that when a static 'camp' (?) was provided for
travelers locally, one of the first things they did was smash up the
communal toilets they also built on site for them, that way they
wouldn't have to pay water rates or summat?



Well, I won't snip any of that just to clarify - are you saying all
travellers, and especially those in question, exhibit any (let alone
all) of that little lot?

And even if they did, which I doubt, I don't think that they and their
families deserved to die.

--
Cheers, Rob

RJH wrote:
On 23/08/2017 10:15, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 09:00:40 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 22/08/2017 09:52, Huge wrote:
snip

And I repeat and emphasise that it was *not* me. Although I'd like to have
shaken them by the hand.


You meant to congratulate them for trying to murder people? Blimey.

Whilst most wouldn't condone murder for most reasons, you can
understand the animosity they get because of their *antisocial*
behaviour.


No, I don't accept your implication, except that maybe racists and
psychopaths might behave in such a way. And who are 'they' supposed to be?


The same would apply towards anyone one who seems take and not give
... and cost landowners and / or the local councils (and therefore
ratepayers) fortunes in the process whilst clearing up their mess (and
that seems to be the biggest issue by far when the general public are
polled).

So, driving potentially stolen, untaxed and uninsured vehicles
(knowing it's fairly unlikely the authorities will be able to do
anything about it).

Cash-in-hand low-quality work (drives and landscaping) with the waste
fly tipped.

Ripping off the gullible (old people with unnecessary work, like
replacing broken roof tiles, re pointing ridges, or removing moss
etc).

Theft of property (crime rate goes up when they are in town, sheds and
out buildings broken into etc).

'Trouble' ... sometimes as a consequence of any of the above and
direct conflict / confrontation in local pubs etc.

Preventing people exercising their right to use local facilities, like
kids using the park etc.

Damage to the environment (fly tipping toxic waste).

So, when it seems that the authorities can do little to not only
prevent them or then punishing them for trespassing (like the
confiscation and disposal of *all* their vehicles) or carrying out
illegal activities (uninsured driving / property theft) it's
understandable why some / many (especially those directly impacted)
would rather see them (and anyone acting similarly) off the planet.
;-(

It's a big step from that to actually doing something about it
yourself of course.

Personally, as long as people are being socially responsible (and the
majority are) I'm all for 'live and let live', but for that to happen
you often also have to follow the 'when in Rome ...' to some degree.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I'm led to believe that when a static 'camp' (?) was provided for
travelers locally, one of the first things they did was smash up the
communal toilets they also built on site for them, that way they
wouldn't have to pay water rates or summat?



Well, I won't snip any of that just to clarify - are you saying all
travellers, and especially those in question, exhibit any (let alone
all) of that little lot?

Well it's hard to say whether *all* travellers exhibit that lot, but from
my own experience I can say that *every* traveller that's illegally camped
in my home town has exhibited all those traits.


And even if they did, which I doubt, I don't think that they and their
families deserved to die.

I don't think they deserve to die either but I think it's easy to see why
they generate so much animosity. It's their abysmal behaviour that drives
people to such extremes.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:27:16 -0000 (UTC), Tim+
wrote:

snip

Well, I won't snip any of that just to clarify - are you saying all
travellers, and especially those in question, exhibit any (let alone
all) of that little lot?

Well it's hard to say whether *all* travellers exhibit that lot,

Quite ... I bet some of the women don't but I suspect they have their
own bad traits. ;-)

but from
my own experience I can say that *every* traveller that's illegally camped
in my home town has exhibited all those traits.

I'd modify that from my own personal observations to say that 'from
nearly every traveler camp that I've been aware of has come some of
the behaviour from at least some of the camps members'.


And even if they did, which I doubt, I don't think that they and their
families deserved to die.

I don't think they deserve to die either

I didn't suggest they should either?

but I think it's easy to see why
they generate so much animosity. It's their abysmal behaviour that drives
people to such extremes.

Quite. Never said it was right legally but if someone has their life
ruined by their action (by anyone's knowingly malicious action) then
some might think that an appropriate outcome for them.

And there are some people where there really aren't any other forms of
punishment that would have any impact.

Eye for an eye? Do unto others ... ?

Cheers, T i m

On 23/08/2017 18:38, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:27:16 -0000 (UTC), Tim+
wrote:

snip

Well, I won't snip any of that just to clarify - are you saying all
travellers, and especially those in question, exhibit any (let alone
all) of that little lot?

Well it's hard to say whether *all* travellers exhibit that lot,

Quite ... I bet some of the women don't but I suspect they have their
own bad traits. ;-)

but from
my own experience I can say that *every* traveller that's illegally camped
in my home town has exhibited all those traits.

I'd modify that from my own personal observations to say that 'from
nearly every traveler camp that I've been aware of has come some of
the behaviour from at least some of the camps members'.


And even if they did, which I doubt, I don't think that they and their
families deserved to die.

I don't think they deserve to die either

I didn't suggest they should either?

but I think it's easy to see why
they generate so much animosity. It's their abysmal behaviour that drives
people to such extremes.

Quite. Never said it was right legally but if someone has their life
ruined by their action (by anyone's knowingly malicious action) then
some might think that an appropriate outcome for them.

And there are some people where there really aren't any other forms of
punishment that would have any impact.

Eye for an eye? Do unto others ... ?


Well, call me naive(!) but I didn't think those sorts of attitudes were
still about in mainstream British society. Of course, some travellers
are possibly as you describe. Much the same as 'some greengrocers'.

But to extrapolate up, and suggest for all practical purposes that
travellers as a group behave as you suggest, is. Um.

Frustrating. You both seem pretty well read and life experienced. 'Bury
me Standing' was quite formative for me, and put a lot of my own
observations made by my mid-20s into some sort of context. And I shared
an office with somebody close to traveller families for 10 years at
work, and became familiar with her research. When I worked for the
council as a housing officer I had a lot more contact with travellers;
also as a teacher in Hackney for 10 years.

Dunno. I find these attitudes all a terrible shame and a mess. tragic.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 23/08/2017 09:00, RJH wrote:

The problem is insufficient decent sites.

The problem is that they don't behave properly.

Bill

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 02:03:40 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

On 23/08/2017 09:00, RJH wrote:

The problem is insufficient decent sites.

The problem is that they don't behave properly.

The travelers aren't shy of killing each other anyway as a quick
perusal as of the Irish press shows when whole areas are locked down
by large numbers of Garda for a traveller funeral or wedding where old
scores between different families are settled.
The petty crime we see from the ones that clog up laybys here are the
lower order ones. The higher up ones have moved into art theft ,ivory
selling , money laundering on an International scale in recent years.

G.Harman

On 23/08/2017 10:40, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-23, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2017 09:52, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-22, Tim Lamb wrote:
snip

As a landowner, I have rather fixed ideas about trespass but also think
it is beyond time for the law to move on. Ancient laws allowing
travellers to put up on roadside land on the basis that it might be
common land are surely superseded by compulsory land registration and
internet access to that information.

Hear, hear.


The problem is insufficient decent sites.

Which should be paid for, how, exactly? Given that travellers pay
no taxes.


We've been through the issue of tax several times on this NG. Just about
everybody - even children - pay tax through the simple act of buying
goods and servcies (for example).

And that leaves aside the stereotype that no traveller works. And LAs
have a wide set of responsibilities - not all linked to payment.

The long term downside is field gates blocked physically with old
machinery/tree trunks etc. which have to be removed and replaced for
each field operation.

Some years ago they moved onto an old factory site near our house in St.
Albans. Someone (*not* me) found a swift and effective means of moving
them on; the first night one of the caravans was struck by half a gallon
of paraffin. They left the following day.


Not surprised. Horrible thing to happen.

Not for the locals who would have had to put up with the crime, pollution,
harassment and vandalism caused by the travellers.

And I repeat and emphasise that it was *not* me. Although I'd like to have
shaken them by the hand.


You meant to congratulate them for trying to murder people? Blimey.

I wondered who would be the first to pop up with this canard.


Well, your 'canard' words, not mine - unless I'm misinterpreting
something. -
Cheers, Rob

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-08-23, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2017 09:52, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-22, Tim Lamb wrote:
snip

As a landowner, I have rather fixed ideas about trespass but also think
it is beyond time for the law to move on. Ancient laws allowing
travellers to put up on roadside land on the basis that it might be
common land are surely superseded by compulsory land registration and
internet access to that information.

Hear, hear.


The problem is insufficient decent sites.

Which should be paid for, how, exactly? Given that travellers pay
no taxes.

They must pay VAT and the fuel tax and likely the cigarette tax too.

The long term downside is field gates blocked physically with old
machinery/tree trunks etc. which have to be removed and replaced for
each field operation.

Some years ago they moved onto an old factory site near our house in St.
Albans. Someone (*not* me) found a swift and effective means of moving
them on; the first night one of the caravans was struck by half a gallon
of paraffin. They left the following day.


Not surprised. Horrible thing to happen.

Not for the locals who would have had to put up with the crime,
pollution, harassment and vandalism caused by the travellers.

And I repeat and emphasise that it was *not* me. Although I'd like to
have
shaken them by the hand.


You meant to congratulate them for trying to murder people? Blimey.

I wondered who would be the first to pop up with this canard.

On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 19:35:29 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
They must pay VAT and the fuel tax and likely the cigarette tax too.

cash-in-hand work, red diesel and smuggled fags.

Owain

wrote
Rod Speed wrote

They must pay VAT and the fuel tax and likely the cigarette tax too.

cash-in-hand work,

They still pay the VAT on the stuff they buy in
the supermarket etc, just like everyone else.

red diesel

Doesnt work too well in petrol cars.

and smuggled fags.

On 23/08/2017 19:35, Rod Speed wrote:

Which should be paid for, how, exactly? Given that travellers pay
no taxes.

They must pay VAT and the fuel tax and likely the cigarette tax too.

Given the number of fuel thefts that follow them about I doubt if they
pay VAT on fuel.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:48:50 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 23/08/2017 19:35, Rod Speed wrote:

Which should be paid for, how, exactly? Given that travellers pay no
taxes.

They must pay VAT and the fuel tax and likely the cigarette tax too.

Given the number of fuel thefts that follow them about I doubt if they
pay VAT on fuel.

Red diesel anyone?

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:48:50 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 23/08/2017 19:35, Rod Speed wrote:

Which should be paid for, how, exactly? Given that travellers pay no
taxes.

They must pay VAT and the fuel tax and likely the cigarette tax too.

Given the number of fuel thefts that follow them about I doubt if they
pay VAT on fuel.

Red diesel anyone?

Doesnt work in petrol cars.

On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 21:43:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Red diesel anyone?
Doesnt work in petrol cars.

Perhaps they buy diesel cars then.

Owain

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Which should be paid for, how, exactly?
Given that travellers pay no taxes.

They must pay VAT and the fuel tax and likely the cigarette tax too.

Given the number of fuel thefts that follow
them about I doubt if they pay VAT on fuel.

Not even possible to use nothing but stolen fuel.