Jump to content

Recommended Posts

According to the BBC the cost of evicting the gypsies/gypos, travellers/pikies from their squat could amount to ?18m so far over the 10 year battle.


That's a lot of hip replacements, children's nursery places, free dental check ups etc etc ...


I've listened to half-wits quoting some EU nonsense about how this is a cultural issue - so the offer of permanent bricks and mortar housing is unacceptable to travellers blah blah blah ... another site in Liverpool is too far away...


If they are travellers help them to move on. What's wrong with that?

From what I understand the land was used as a scrapyard. The travellers bought the land. Only part of it is 'green belt' and is being cleared. I would like to know how it has cost ?18M for it to reach this conclusion. It seems like such a waste of money with a large element of a witch hunt involved.

I think the real issue is the time it has taken to evict/demolish (ten years I think) and the cost of course.


Surely, if someone breaks planning laws (the core of this dispute), it shouldn't take any council ten years to deal with it. The lesson of Dale Farm is that the longer a local authority takes, the worse the problem becomes, until it gets to a point where people start sympathising with those breaking the planning laws, and the more expensive it becomes to act. I think the Local Authority have been extremely inept throughout.

Yes, DJKillaQueen, I agree too. I think the council have been more than inept though... I was on a train recently and happened to overhear a conversation where a woman who works in legal aid recounted a case she had a few years ago. Basildon Council - in an attempt to get the travellers to leave - had published all the details of the travellers including their children's special educational needs statements (without being 'redacted' so all names etc were still on there). Not surprisingly, they were taken to court and ordered to pay damages to the (I think) three children involved. But it gets worse - Basildon council actually appealed against this and spent another ?18k on the appeal, to get out of paying... ?300 to each child.

Shameful if true (I have no way of authenticating it, but have no reason to doubt what she was saying).

  • 2 weeks later...

zelda100 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, DJKillaQueen, I agree too. I think the council have been more than inept though...

> I was on a train recently and happened to overhear a conversation where a woman who works in

> legal aid recounted a case she had a few years ago. Basildon Council - in an attempt to get the

> travellers to leave - had published all the details of the travellers including their children's

> special educational needs statements (without being 'redacted' so all names etc were still on there).

> Not surprisingly, they were taken to court and ordered to pay damages to the (I think) three children

> involved. But it gets worse - Basildon council actually appealed against this and spent another ?18k

> on the appeal, to get out of paying... ?300 to each child. Shameful if true (I have no way of

> authenticating it, but have no reason to doubt what she was saying).


This is probably the judgment, dated 9 November 2010, in the case you're thinking of. It was the two children who brought the action, seeking judicial review of Basildon's refusal to follow the Local Government Ombudsman's recommendation that each be paid ?300 compensation. It was held that Basildon were correct in not taking the LGO's recommendation to be binding, but unreasonably and unlawfully at fault in the reasoning that led to their decision.


The LGO, who acted as an interested party in the judicial review, reported earlier this year that the council subsequently made the recommended payments.


[Edited to reformat only]

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...