Skip navigation

Indymedia UK is a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues

Stop Burning and Looting Traveller Homes

ustiben (repost by dmish) | 07.01.2006 14:24 | Anti-racism | Repression | Cambridge

A gap in new Government policy
allows UK local councils to continue
with impunity their hounding of Britain's
60,000 Travellers, according to a
report submitted this week to Deputy
Prime Minister John Prescott.

Chair of Britain's recently established
Gypsy Forum Cliff Codona, himself a victim
of a racially-motivated eviction, says the
long-awaited change in UK policy just
announced falls far short of meeting
Travellers' needs.

While pressing councils to designate
land for future caravan parks, the latest
advisory does nothing to end the vicious
cycle of move-on operations and direct
action evictions that are destroying the
lives of thousands of families, says
Codona.

With delegates from forty other
countries, Codona and fellow UK Gypsy
representative Kay Beard, last month
thrashed out a set of proposals at the
European Roma and Travellers Forum
which would outlaw direct action evictions
and compel local authorities to pass
planning applications or provide
acceptable alternative sites.

"We agreed in Strasbourg to stop
such evictions," Codona told Ustipen.
"The Council of Europe endorsed our
blue-print for reform and now we want
the UK Government to accept these
recommendations."

He has written to Prescott seeking
an urgent meeting to discuss how new
government policy can best be
reconciled with the Forum's view that
local councils must not be allowed to
go on using planning regulations as a
smokescreen for ethnic-cleansing.

Codona quotes his own case where
Mid-Beds council turned down his plan
for a model Romani heritage centre. Despite
having earlier licensed the site for holiday
caravans, the Tory-led council hired
self-styled Gypsy eviction specialists Constant
& Co to bulldoze the l4-acre property.

More recently, Basildon council has
voted to spend up to 5 million euro
employing Constant to destroy 86 homes
at Dale Farm, Essex, the largest Travellers'
community in the UK. Forum member Richard
Sheridan has welcomed John Prescott's proposal
for alternative land to be set aside at Pitsea.
But he points out that between l5 and 25
million euro in public money could be saved
simply by leaving Dale Farm families where
they are.

"I think the government needs to take
a reality check," comments Sheridan. "If
Basildon evicts us they'll have the police
drive the lot us into the next county
before the proposed Pitsea site is even
agreed on."

Meanwhile, the Commission for
Racial Equality has as good as said Tory
leader Malcolm Buckley's eviction plan
is racially tainted. It has decided to back
a judicial review of the Buckley plan sought
earlier by Sheridan and other Dale Farm
residents.

Next month 40 yard-owners will
mount an appeal against Basildon's
repeated refusal of retrospective
planning approval. The final decision
rests with Prescott, who has so far
limited consent to a two-year and
one-year temporary extension.

Forum members say they will continue
their front-line campaign to plug the
gap between long-term government aims
and their immediate needs. As a first step
they are seeking a moratorium on
evictions and a ban on the employment
of bully-boy outfits like Constant & Co.,
whom they accuse of burning and
looting Gypsy property all over Britain.

ustiben (repost by dmish)


Comments

Hide the following 2 comments

Query

08.01.2006 15:54

Two things:

1. Where does the article contain the "looting" reference in the headline?

2. Why should Travellers be exempt from the need to obtain planning consent for a "heritage centre"? Are you saying there should be special rules for them?

Amused


Answers

08.01.2006 21:27

1. Where does the article contain the "looting" reference in the headline?

@" More recently, Basildon council has voted to spend up to 5 million euro employing Constant to destroy 86 homes ....between l5 and 25 million euro in public money could be saved
simply by leaving Dale Farm families where they are. "@

- THAT'S LEGALISED LOOTING - IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM


2. Why should Travellers be exempt from the need to obtain planning consent for a "heritage centre"? Are you saying there should be special rules for them?

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT AT ALL - IT IS THE DOUBLE STANDARDS THAT ARE BEING POINTED OUT - AND EVEN WHEN PLANNING PERMISSION HAS BEEN GRANTED, THE SITE HAS BEEN BULLDOZERED - AND SO THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO ETHNIC CLEANSING. ALSO, IT IS THE COUNCIL THAT IS ACTING ILLEGALLY - UNDER THE HOUSING ACT THEY HAVE A DUTY OF CARE TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR ALL THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

see  http://ptv.j25.org.uk
 http://www.ptv.j25.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=25

 http://geocities.com/freedommarch2005

Planning as a technology of governance working through spatial regulation
is deeply implicated in the fabricated appearance of order. Planning
documents make much mention of First Protocol Article (or Article 1) of
the UK Human Rights Act 1998 (for the “peaceful enjoyment of property”)
and Article 8 (“the right to respect for private and family life and for
the home”).

The Planning Inspectorate* states “A claim made under these articles can
succeed only if the interference in the right of the individual concerned
is not outweighed by the public interest.” However, planning commentators
suggest that the First protocol article should apply to land,
cartilage property, fixtures and fittings**, and one, Alexandra Fairclough,
concludes: “However, the [European Convention of Human Rights] puts the
rights of the individual first on the basis that the rights of the
individual are paramount unless there is justification in the public
interest. Planning policy always puts the public interest before the
rights of the individual. This may lead to changes in planning policy and
in the determination of planning applications.”

Eviction of travellers resident on land they own strikes me as a clear
violation of this clause,and one would imagine a valid basis for a legal
challenge.

not amused


Links