The meeting started by the chair declaring that accusations against the traveler community have to be backed by evidence. None was provided. Two marginal accusations, that slipped through the net, were about some people driving fast through the village (supposedly travelers, supposedly drunk), and a traveler family parking on a resident's land. This lack of systematic problems did not deter the audience from assuming that a large scale 'issue' existed -- and the whole traveler community had to assume collectively the blame, for what otherwise could be seen as disparate and infrequent incidents.

The mood was set -- and the discussion proceeded about what the best way of dealing with the 'traveler issue' was. The immediate objective being to restrict the expansion of the Smithy Fen community, the idea of 'land swap' was put forward. This appeared to some in the audience as too moderate: they would have preferred for travelers to be evicted there and then.

The reason for that is quite perverse: Some plots at Smithy Fen have been enhanced with permanent structures without planning permission, or with planning permission refused. On appeals permission is often granted, and in any case when the issue of eviction comes to be decided it is often decided that it would be disproportionate, since it would leave the people concerned homeless. Therefore the outcome of the legal process is often that people can remain on their land, despite planning regulations not having been followed, since making them homeless would be out of order and in no one's interest.

The good people of Cottenham have of course used half the law, namely planning law that is consistently biased against traveler communities acquiring rights to build permanent structures, to gain the moral high ground by claiming that some of the Smithy Fen plots are occupied illegally. This of course ignores the rest of the law, which in appeal allows traveler families to stay, has to judge the proportionality of evicting people and so on. In other words some Cottenham residents seem to think that planning regulations are more important than all other considerations (including the right to housing, family life, ...).

The CRA, which is mainly four people that monopolized the floor of the public meeting for most of two hours, realizing the impasse that an eviction strategy represents are pioneering a new scheme: they call it 'land swap'. It involves farmers contributing some agricultural land in a 'land bank', that is appropriate for traveler families to buy and build structures on. Given the context of the meeting this sounded reasonable, but is it? The legality of the scheme is still questionable, since the council serve purchase land (in a mandatory way) to sell it to third parties. Then there is the question of legitimacy of such a policy: how would the people in Cottenham feel if they were served with notices that required them to leave the Land they owned and be dispersed, in units of no more than 18 families, across the county? How would they feel is there was a public meeting at Smithy Fen, prompted by some Cottenham youth driving too fast, to discuss about the 'Cottenham Issues', and deciding that the best thing to do would be to disband Cottenham.

None of these thoughts were of course allowed to surface in the public meeting. Some travelers were present in the hall and were allowed a handful of short interventions merely to react to what was said. The platform was of course not shared in any way. A single person, from Cambridge, tried to raise the issue and pointed out that the 'land swap' proposal reminded him of south African apartheid policy. He was not allowed to speak for even one minute: the chair talked over him, and asked for a show of hands to stop him speaking (before he had even made a point). This was representative of the 'democratic process' with which the CRa gains its 'legitimacy'. Another show of hands, in the middle of a populist at best speech, was deemed to be a unanimous vote for asking south cambs council to resign. A final vote of hands has deemed a vote of confidence in the CRA. After two hours of monopolizing the floor, framing the issue, managing and silencing at times dissent and creating a false atmosphere of crisis the four people of the CRA had manufactured consent.

Their consent is fragile: someone pointed out in an informal group at the end of the meeting that a lot of similar problems, such as fast driving and anti social behavior in Cambridge (barely 10 minutes by Car away from Cottenham) are rooted in the youth of Arbury, the relatively deprived council estate of Cambridge. The obvious question arises: should we destroy the homes there and disperse the population around the county? This seems absurd! So what is the difference: an older distinguished gentleman responds: these people (the travelers) were not from here and do not want to integrate with the local community and accept its customs. Barely veiled, surely unintended, yet blatant racism -- that is the difference: when anti-social happens by poorer British people it is a policing matter, when it happens by a traveler it means that they should all go.

Two Roma people have traveled from a nearby community to witness the meeting, the subtlety and new-speak has not fooled them. Their last comment as they board their van to leave is 'these people would just like to put us in gas chambers. They think that would solve their problem'. Only 50 years ago 600.000 of them died in this manner -- this is something that the good people of Cottenham should consider seriously because it is through this fact that their actions are judged by the rest of the world.

Some more background information about the demographics and relative wealth of Cottenham:
 http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/areaprofileframes.asp?T=A&AID=179563&TID=1&PC=CB4%208TA