IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

15 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Newbury Town Council and Travellers, Discrimination?
Richard Garvie
post Jun 29 2011, 02:38 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



The following paragraph appeared in the agenda for the council meeting on Monday 4th July, but has since been removed:

"We do not believe that travellers should be treated as a separate ethnic group or that policy towards them should be governed by such considerations. Because of the undesirable effects of the travelling way of life on receipt of social services, especially education (2.5) we do not consider that travelling in the sense used in this paper can be sustained in the long run. It is gradually disappearing (2.3/4) and that trend should not be discouraged. We obviously agree on the measures to prevent abuse of the planning system by travellers (2.16/17)"

I know that not everybody agrees with the traveller lifestyle and the questionable behaviour of some of the community, but does this give the council a right to discriminate against travellers as a community and refuse to recognise them as an ethnic group?

Which elected member / officer proposed this measure be included in the agenda? Do they really feel it is acceptable to have a policy that discriminates against travellers? Is this officially a council policy, or is it just the personal opinion of one or a small number of members? I really think we should be told.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jun 29 2011, 05:29 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



Are 'travellers' an ethnic group? Gypsies may be an ethnic group - but not all travellers are gypsies and not all gypsies are travellers.

Is there a policy that discriminates against travellers - or just the lack of a policy that discriminates in favour of travellers?

My view, for what its worth, is that councils should provide sites for travellers to pause for a while in their travels. However, if they want to settle then they should join the rest of us in finding housing within the constraints of the planning system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jun 29 2011, 05:55 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 29 2011, 05:29 PM) *
Are 'travellers' an ethnic group? Gypsies may be an ethnic group - but not all travellers are gypsies and not all gypsies are travellers.

Is there a policy that discriminates against travellers - or just the lack of a policy that discriminates in favour of travellers?

My view, for what its worth, is that councils should provide sites for travellers to pause for a while in their travels. However, if they want to settle then they should join the rest of us in finding housing within the constraints of the planning system.


I agree somewhat with what you say, certainly permanent sites are better than travellers pitching up on grass verges. I find this sentance the most disturbing:

"Because of the undesirable effects of the travelling way of life on receipt of social services, especially education (2.5)"

Are they saying that children from travelling families should not attend school? It's interesting that it has now been removed from the agenda, but still no details of who wrote these words.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jun 29 2011, 06:14 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jun 29 2011, 06:55 PM) *
I agree somewhat with what you say, certainly permanent sites are better than travellers pitching up on grass verges. I find this sentance the most disturbing:

"Because of the undesirable effects of the travelling way of life on receipt of social services, especially education (2.5)"

Are they saying that children from travelling families should not attend school? It's interesting that it has now been removed from the agenda, but still no details of who wrote these words.

Whos words are these Richard? What is the paper that's referenced? What are the circumstances of this text being suppressed from the agenda?


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jun 29 2011, 06:20 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I think the sentence is ambiguous enough for anyone to wriggle out of any accusations of discrimination or racism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Jun 29 2011, 08:13 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



I do wish that a small convoy of these happy tinkers would just for once set up camp on the verges outside the houses of these do-gooders who wouldn't hear a bad word said against them..... It could be one these 'reality TV programmes'......... Now THAT I would pay to watch...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jun 29 2011, 08:30 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jun 29 2011, 06:55 PM) *
I agree somewhat with what you say, certainly permanent sites are better than travellers pitching up on grass verges. I find this sentance the most disturbing:

"Because of the undesirable effects of the travelling way of life on receipt of social services, especially education (2.5)"

Are they saying that children from travelling families should not attend school? It's interesting that it has now been removed from the agenda, but still no details of who wrote these words.

Or are the words just a politically 'incorrect' term that actually tell the truth? Maybe, because of the travelling lifestyle, children never settle into education and the society of a school, and therefore tend to suck in extra teaching resources until they move on? Those (human) resources tend to be expensive as they are only employable short term....

If servicing the particular needs of the travelling fraternity (and very few travellers I have come across are other than people who have selected a lifestyle, not ethnic Romany) are disproportionate is it not right that should be said and dealt with?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jun 29 2011, 09:50 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



So we should not provide services for them or suitable areas for them to pitch up? The reason they don't pitch up outside peoples doors is because there are now designated sites. Stop being small minded, and understand that somebody has to provide services to them.

It's better to be prepared and have a proper plan to deal with the travelling community rather than make it up as we go along, a bit like the district council does on most policies. People need to realise that burying your head in the sand gets you nowhere, neither does hoping percieved problems will simply go away if you withdraw support altogether.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jun 29 2011, 10:13 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jun 29 2011, 10:50 PM) *
So we should not provide services for them or suitable areas for them to pitch up?Should 'we' provide services to accommodate all and any elements of the population who choose to live their life in a way that disadvantages others?
The reason they don't pitch up outside peoples doors is because there are now designated sites. Stop being small minded, and understand that somebody has to provide services to them. Somebody? Has to?

It's better to be prepared and have a proper plan to deal with the travelling community rather than make it up as we go along, a bit like the district council does on most policies. People need to realise that burying your head in the sand gets you nowhere, neither does hoping percieved problems will simply go away if you withdraw support altogether.Costings and sources of the funding? prioritise lifestyle choice provision against needs of the infirm, disabled, hard-working families......

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jun 29 2011, 10:21 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (NWNREADER)
Should 'we' provide services to accommodate all and any elements of the population who choose to live their life in a way that disadvantages others?

Well we do with failed bankers and politicians. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jun 29 2011, 10:51 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



Do the government not insist on traveller management plans and such like? Or is that another thing the coalition have scrapped?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jun 30 2011, 09:17 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jun 29 2011, 11:51 PM) *
Do the government not insist on traveller management plans and such like? Or is that another thing the coalition have scrapped?


Do those plans have to be made and delivered by Town (Parish) Councils? Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought they were (here) a WBC responsibility. All NTC seem to say is that they will not contribute resources. Seems like honesty and transparency to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jun 30 2011, 10:36 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jun 29 2011, 10:50 PM) *
So we should not provide services for them or suitable areas for them to pitch up? The reason they don't pitch up outside peoples doors is because there are now designated sites.


http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=13306

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...?articleID=6665


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Jun 30 2011, 10:50 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



I think people might be more tolerant of travellers if they didn't leave such a mess behind them when they move on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brewmaster
post Jun 30 2011, 10:54 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 17-July 09
Member No.: 201



QUOTE (JeffG @ Jun 30 2011, 11:50 AM) *
I think people might be more tolerant of travellers if they didn't leave such a mess behind them when they move on.

Why are Blackdog, JeffG and me the only sensible people on this forum?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
massifheed
post Jun 30 2011, 11:23 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 1-November 10
Member No.: 1,215



QUOTE (Brewmaster @ Jun 30 2011, 11:54 AM) *
Why are Blackdog, JeffG and me the only sensible people on this forum?


I'm with you guys on this one. The very reason politicians and those in positions of public authority don't speak plainly is exactly because there are those snapping at the heels waiting to pounce on anything that is said (even if it is common sense and the feeling shared by a majority of people), and label it as some form of descrimination.

I read the comment about education and came to the same conclusion as NWNREADER, that providing education for children whose current level of education may be very poor, and whose parents frequently move them on after a short time is a difficult and, I'm sure, expensive thing to do, and is to the detrement of other children.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jun 30 2011, 11:25 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (massifheed @ Jun 30 2011, 12:23 PM) *
I read the comment about education and came to the same conclusion as NWNREADER, that providing education for children whose current level of education may be very poor, and whose parents frequently move them on after a short time is a difficult and, I'm sure, expensive thing to do, and is to the detrement of other children.

That's how I read it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Jun 30 2011, 04:43 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



I think we have to consider that sites for trabvellers are laid on all over the country and they are not used. The traveller mindset seems to be that they will just do what they want and not conform to any sort of mainstream ways, legal or implied through common decency. They are all people who have chosen to turn away from society so society should turn away from them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ruwan Uduwerage-...
post Jul 4 2011, 07:24 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 390
Joined: 26-August 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 303



The Last 'Respectable' form of Racism

Britain's Gypsy/Roma/Traveller community has existed as a separate ethnic and cultural group for about 500 years. They have throughout this time suffered from both covert and overt discrimination. The intolerance shown towards these communities is still very obvious, and is even enshrined within some of the policies and procedures of our public authorities.

Protected under the Race Relations Act

Roma, Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are now all recognised to have protection under the Race Relations Act as they have been finally recognised as minority ethnic communities in law.

Roma
Romany Gypsies who have arrived in the U.K. this century. Most have come as refugees or asylum seekers from Eastern Europe where they have often been subject to racist attacks.

Romany Gypsies
The largest group of Travellers in the U.K. They first arrived in England in the 1500’s and were thought to have come from Egypt and so were called Egyptians. This was shortened to ‘Gypsy.’ They had originally travelled from Northern India from about 1000 A.D. They generally speak Romani, which originated from Sanskrit spoken in India. Most Gypsies use English as a first language and retain Romani for family and community use. English Romani having English syntax and Romani words.

Travellers
Irish Travellers were first seen in the 1100’s and spoke Shelta, an Irish Travellers’ language.

Whether such communities have a nomadic or 'settled' lifestyle, they should be afforded equitable rights, and they should not suffer from poorer public services, that ultimately leads to reduced longevity and education standards.

Sites should be equipped with all of the services necessary, and sited in areas that allows for easy access to those things that the rest of us take for granted such as shops and schools, etc.

As the General Secretary to the West Berkshire Minority Ethnic Forum, I commend Richard Garvie for highlighting this specific issue. Surely the Districts mantra of 'A Great Place to Live' should be inclusive of ALL communities, and not just those who conform to societies very limiting 'norms'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Jul 4 2011, 10:01 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



I think most people would agree with your sentiments, Mr. R U-P, but I suggest you read my post number 14 again. Is it not to much to expect them to clear up behind them when they move on? Or is that one of society's very limiting norms?

Most right-minded people are not racially motivated in their dislike of these people - they just object to having to pay to clear up the mess.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

15 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 10:19 AM