Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Travellers Invade Chestnuts
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Betty Careless on
-
We had a Traveller site - the Council sold it so that Sainsburys could expand their car-park. If we want a solution to this continued problem that moves beyond the appalling knee-jerk racism in this thread then maybe we could support London Gypsies and Travellers to campaign for new sites. Short film here for people who might want to find out more about Travellers as people rather than racist stereotypes
-
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on
-
Years ago, I met a really nice Irish chap who did time for being a member of the provisional IRA. After a few drinks, and after discussing colonialism & Irish history, then discussion went onto travellers. He told me that during the height of the troubles, the IRA leadership asked the travelling community leaders to help get involved in the cause against the British. Apparently the travellers point blank refused so the IRA warned a lot of them to leave Ireland immediately and go and cause their chaos in Britain.
Its quite a plausible story, and from what I remember this chap was extremely knowledgeable and educated.
-
-
Permalink Reply by 28ogtudbe7sc1 on
-
Jane stick to your guns and don't let the poorly reasoned virtue signallers daunt you. To the extent someone is not responding to your very correct points, it is merely because they are incapable of doing so.
Invariably when someone states something is "racist", someone is a "fascist" or a "Nazi", 99 times out of 100 it means that person can't present a reasoned, rational view for his or her stated position and so instead has to dismiss the view of the opponent by the usual one of the above charges.
The ludicrous idea that a "traveller" is somehow even a race that is a legally protected class aside, you will see the same sorts of virtue signalling and dismissal of any opponents of illegal immigration--breaking the law is OK because somehow by enforcing the law minorities are being picked on.
If positions like those of "Spiderman" were logical, then anytime there is a crime or misdemeanor by a demonstrable "race" or even an "ethnic group" it would be wrong to enforce any violation of law or regulation because to do so would be "racist", "fascist", etc. This may sound like an outrageous proposition but it's exactly what is happening here.
If there is legal authority for the proposition that "travellers" have a right to pitch up in public parks, I am making a general call for that authority. Otherwise, there is no basis for law enforcement not to be throwing those caravans out of the park. The fact that it isn't happening is a different discussion topic that would focus on the competence and volition of the Haringey Council.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Hagbard Celine on
-
From what I saw earlier the eviction process seems to be underway but the council reps I spoke to suggested that it was always touch and go as the travellers will often summon many more vehicles allowing them to dig in and require a complex and costly operation to clear the site. Fingers crossed that this can be avoided and they will move on but since they had agreed to clear out by 4pm but hadn’t, this is far from certain. The consensus seems to be that the decision to park vehicles on the track that is marked out for sports day will have been entirely deliberate.
-
-
-
"To the extent someone is not responding to your very correct points, it is merely because they are incapable of doing so."
Ha ha!
Really there are often much more rewarding and productive things to do on a lovely day, like water the courgettes.
-
-
-
Just because discussion may not be important to someone does not mean it is not important to others. The point made was obviously an implied reference to those who take this topic seriously for whatever the reason.
It takes just as much time away from watering courgettes on a lovely day to sit at a computer and post non sequiturs as it does to contribute substantively to a topic under discussion.
-
-
-
Again you miss the point entirely.
"To the extent someone is not responding to your very correct points, it is merely because they are incapable of doing so"
is laughable because the conceit does not work. Most people do not live on-line ready to respond to every ill informed point they are quite capable of responding to but have heard many times before; many 'capable' people have lives to get on with and things to do such as make the dinner, get the children to bed and water the courgettes.
"Just because discussion may not be important to someone does not mean it is not important to others."
see you're doing it again...when someone does not respond or does not respond in the way you want it does not mean that they don't care about the subject that is being discussed at all, many people read these discussions but only a few feel the need to reply, that does not mean that the people who choose not to respond do not care or take very seriously the subject being discussed any less than those who feel the need to respond.
-
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I think the "squatting" as you put it and litter are two separate issues. Step back in time in Britain as far as the Norman invasion, about ten years a step, and ask yourself when what they're doing became illegal and why. Your lack of historical context is why you think this is wrong.
-
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
What they are doing is illegal, John, because the Council have passed byelaws to ban it. It used to be perfectly legal to send children up chimneys but no more. Do you think historical precedent justifies the reintroduction of child labour in factories ?
-
-
-
...and local councils have a legal obligation to provide sites for travelers but I don't hear you getting upset at the council for not fulfilling this legal requirement.
Other councils manage to provide sites, these sites are well managed with no litter etc and with tenants paying rent and community charge.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
