Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Travellers Invade Chestnuts
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Ok. Let's put aside, for the moment, the legality and the shortage of sites, upon which we are unlikely to agree.
They arrive and drive right into the middle of the park and take up position on top of the cricket pitch, and on top of the laid-out running tracks so that they can't be used.
Why don't they park on the periphery of the park so that other users can continue to enjoy their preferred activities in the middle ?
If that's not a selfish, antisocial, attitude I don't know what is ?
Why don't they set up on the huge car park behind the Civic Centre or behind Hornsey Town Hall ? That might goad the Council into swift action.
-
-
-
So you agree that ( this particular group, just to keep on the right side of the Admins
) they don't care about other people and their rights ?At last we agree on something.
-
-
-
Your words -
you might not care much about whether you intrude on someone's school sports day or kickabout.
-
-
Permalink Reply by maggie on
-
John D,
you ask 'why can't the travelers go to other council sites and not stay in Haringey'.
I could ask you the same, why don't you go and live somewhere else?
You may say ' because i have ties here, my friends and family live here, my children go to the local schools, I am registered with a local GP, etc etc etc' the same goes for the travelers.
Travelers ties to the area go back generations, some of the sites were historic, many of these sites have now been closed.
-
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I'm sure if you pay them for their time they will.
-
-
Permalink Reply by HoL Site Admin on
-
That's a great idea, J.
In the meantime, a freebie to be getting on with.
On HoL, subject to HoL's other house rules, members may make specific complaints about specific behaviour by specific people as long as it is not implied that this behaviour is characteristic of a group generally regarded as a minority.
Members may not make sweeping generalisations about the behaviour or other characteristics of a group generally regarded as a minority.
-
-
-
Hagbard, given that your reposted comment was pretty much what was previously posted as a generalisation about travellers, except you've substituted "a subset of travellers" for "travellers".
To reassure other members that you're not just disguising the same generalised statement, and as per our house rules, you'll need to to be specific about the subset you're referring to - "a subset" is not specific.
Also "This is antisocial behaviour appears to be tolerated by police who tend to shift the problem from venue to venue rather than intervening in the way they would if similar behaviour was exhibited by others".
Does "others" here refer to everyone except the subset? (I think previously it was used to distinguish travellers from everyone else. It doesn't work now, does it?)
Much the same applies to "Surely any group of people regardless of their race, religion or any other affiliation should be treated equally under the law if their behaviour is actually breaks the law? From what I have observed this is not always the case."
Since on balance your comment seems to imply much the same message as previously, it is being deleted.
Given the sensitivities involved, please carefully observe the guidelines previously given.
-
-
-
Don't envy you - There must be some pretty fine distinctions to draw there! Maybe there's an argument for letting people hoist themselves by their own petard. Most of the bigoted comments speak for themselves really.
-
-
-
As tempting as that might be, experience is that it's best to set up house rules and apply them whenever we notice something or it's brought to our attention.
-
-
-
If by that you mean that you should never use HoL make sweeping general criticisms about a minority, you're quite right. If you have specific complaints about specific behaviour by specific people, that should be okay, as long as it is not implied that the behaviour complained about is characteristic of a group generally regarded as a minority, and you're in line with our other house rules.
Do try and remember that as a website, your personal set of values isn't the only one we have to accommodate.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Hagbard Celine on
-
Sorry Admin, I’m afraid I failed to get everybody’s names so am unable to be much more specific than describing the group as a subset of the traveller community who were well known to the local police (as confirmed by the police in attendance). I’ll be sure to take a notebook and pencil with me next time I go out in case it happens again and will aim to conduct a full census of all of the individuals involved so I can be more specific.
My point is very simple. Everyone should be treated equally under the law if they behave in an antisocial manner. Surely this is not that controversial.
I have no wish to cause anyone any offence. I simply wanted to report my own experiences with travellers who are obviously no more representative of their community as a whole than football hooligans are of football fans in general. I do believe my point stands that sometimes some people are given greater latitude for their behaviours based upon sensitivities or fears of knock on effects. It is this an this only that seems reasonable to me.
best wishes.
-
-
-
If you gave names, they'd be deleted.
I'd have hoped that you understood what the moderations you've been subject to are aimed at. Other members have commented on this thread and found it perfectly possible to target their comments at the particular group of people currently occupying Chestnuts Park. Your first comment was very generically criticial of all travellers. Your second minimally reworded apparently to accommodate our house rules.
Your frustrations about the actions of a specific group are understandable, but your comments need to be clearly confined to them, as others have found it possible to do, and their comments have been left unmoderated.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
