COLUMN: Enough is enough, show some respect

Green Lanes, Whitebirk Industrial estate, Mosley Street, St Wilfrid’s playing fields, Feniscliffe, Lower Eccleshill Road.

Just some of the areas where so-called “travellers” have set up unauthorised camps in recent weeks – leading local residents (and employers) to complain to the Press, the council, and to me – about their anti-social behaviour.

We live in a country which is very tolerant of others’ life styles – including those of travellers.

Over the years I have received no more complaints about the permanent camp at Ewood than I have about any other area of town.

These travellers have their own life style; and that’s fine so long as it does not lead to interference with others.

The same goes for a single Romany family, complete with a classic wooden caravan, and donkey, whom I saw camping on a large area of spare land in the middle of nowhere in the West Country.

But these “travellers” – the ones who’ve been causing trouble all over the borough – are something else. They, like the notorious ones at Dale Farm in Essex, are all too ready to go to law in defence of their “rights”; but deny the right to a quiet life to the law-abiding living nearby, and cry “foul” whenever the legal processes go against them.

Handling this problem is something of a nightmare for government, central and local, irrespective of party. Since the 1980s the law has progressively been tightened.

That has led to some improvement in the speed, and effectiveness of enforcement proceedings, but there’s still a long way to go.

Earlier this year, the Government announced two linked measures. First, £60 million for funding councils to provide more authorised sites – like the one at Ewood.

Second, stronger powers for Councils to tackle the abuse of planning permissions (or the lack of it) that led to the horrendous problems at Dale Farm.

I welcome both.

Once there are enough authorised sites, then I think we are all entitled to say “Enough is enough; and the rest of us have had enough. You want respect; show some more to others.”

Comments (3)

12:55pm Thu 19 Apr 12

Mill62 says...

For gods sake you ****.
Travellers don't need camps.
That's why they are called travellers!
For gods sake you ****. Travellers don't need camps. That's why they are called travellers! Mill62

5:47pm Thu 19 Apr 12

he6rt6gr6m says...

Mill62 wrote:
For gods sake you ****.
Travellers don't need camps.
That's why they are called travellers!
They don't travel enough to be called "travellers". The ones from Mosley Street have been there for weeks now, only "travelling" to temporarily vacate their new illegal "camp", only to come back days later.
[quote][p][bold]Mill62[/bold] wrote: For gods sake you ****. Travellers don't need camps. That's why they are called travellers![/p][/quote]They don't travel enough to be called "travellers". The ones from Mosley Street have been there for weeks now, only "travelling" to temporarily vacate their new illegal "camp", only to come back days later. he6rt6gr6m

11:04pm Thu 19 Apr 12

commonsenseplease says...

Mill62 wrote:
For gods sake you ****.
Travellers don't need camps.
That's why they are called travellers!
You people are hilarious! These people get called if hey live on the side of the road but as soon as a site to keep them off the road in mentioned you say what do they need a site for they are travellers! So which is it you would rather that they do? I would like to know where this money has gone cuz it sure hasn't gone on sites as ewood is the only one and when travellers buy their own land 90% of planning applications are refused which doesn't make sense to me if they live on sites they pay council tax and so on... Surely this is a better option to keep them in contained areas instead of having them on illegal encampments leaving rubbish everywhere?!
[quote][p][bold]Mill62[/bold] wrote: For gods sake you ****. Travellers don't need camps. That's why they are called travellers![/p][/quote]You people are hilarious! These people get called if hey live on the side of the road but as soon as a site to keep them off the road in mentioned you say what do they need a site for they are travellers! So which is it you would rather that they do? I would like to know where this money has gone cuz it sure hasn't gone on sites as ewood is the only one and when travellers buy their own land 90% of planning applications are refused which doesn't make sense to me if they live on sites they pay council tax and so on... Surely this is a better option to keep them in contained areas instead of having them on illegal encampments leaving rubbish everywhere?! commonsenseplease

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree