Selfsufficientish.com

I feel my nose twitching again.

After decades of fighting for human rights, and after finally getting a series of governments which, by necessity, must pay attention to human rights, I thought the battle was over.

But no. Now we have human rights abuse to deal with - not the abuse of human rights, but the abuse of the right to human rights.

Today in the news, we have a prisoner who has decided that the requirement to slop out is an infringement of his human rights (ie someone else should do it for him). We have, of course, the Dale Farm set, who apparently insist that they should not have to do what every other bugger in this country has to do. We have another instance too, but I'm so peed off that I've actually forgotten his details.

Is it time we came to our senses and decided that this type of legislation needs to be applied with common sense? Or are we going to sit back and accept the stupidity of jobsworth morons who go by the letter of the law even if that letter wasn't actually written in that particular place?

Aaaaaaah! I'm fuming.

Mike

The criminal had a choice, if he hadn't done wrong he would not have been sent to prison, sorry no sympathy from me.

As for the Dale Farm lot, I cannot for the life of me understand why they are saying they will be homeless if evicted from the site they are on They have caravans, pay for a camp site like the rest of us.

Sue

Common sense? That's an outdated concept Im afraid! It is a specific requirement NOT to have any before embarking on certain lines of employment, particularly if you want to be employed running the country.

Here we go again!

I'm not totally sure I understand your problem but IMHO loss of liberty is the punishment, not having to pee in a bucket. So, while I wouldn't subscribe to unearned luxuries I think having a flushing loo isn't too much to hope for.

If we want people to act like civilised human beings then treating them accordingly is a good start, isn't it?

(I'll meet you in the pm area in about a fortnight, OK Mike? )

Sorry MKG, but since the days of Crapper most don't have to slop out each day or get someone else to do it, we simply flush the loo. I believe in criminals repaying their victims and being rehabilitated, not having their noses rubbed in it.
The problem with the planning system, it basically ensures that the travellers get nowhere to park their caravans, and every nimby minded council says no, despite the fact that these same councils are breaking the law by not supplying a statutory number of sites. Now the Tory government wants to do a way with this statutory duty and leave it to councils, so the travellers will need a miracle to get a site under the planning system.
What is this great principle that the planning system defends anyway, basically all it keeps is the masses out of country, keeping property prices high, so keeping a green and pleasant land for the well off to enjoy.
80% of our food is produced on 20% of the agricultural land, thus 80% of the so called countryside is under utilised, whilst the mass of the population is squeezed on to, I think it's, 3% of the land. Now this same government wants to open up some of this land, not for productive and self-sufficient small holdings, but yet more T***o's.

Human rights act does seem to be misused
I used to work addictions and had 2 clients who got compensation for suffering withdrawals (from opiates) in prison. I am not unsympathetic to the issues and problems surrounding drug use but their withdrawals where a consequence of their criminal behavior. Grrrrr

Dale valley group -aren't they travellers and by definition should move on?

I don't tend to read the news - it usually is annoying or upsetting or both. Lets ignore it and pretend the world is fluffy

JuzaMum

Rehabilitation? Oh dear - I think you must be seeing the world through rose coloured spectacles!

The lad who shot holes in all my windows one fine day because he had nothing better to do would find rehab a doddle - and he wouldnt have learned anything by the end of it either! It's too late to teach him manners and that it isnt nice to shoot the windows of the house that doesnt belong to you! I wanted him punished properly - they gave him 16 hours community service! I have seen the community service bods out and about - they do absolutely nothing, but dawdle about chatting with their (new) criminal mates!

And dont tell me that the key is in the 'nothing better to do'. When I was his age, I was at college; before that, I made my own entertainment and it didnt involve kicking old ladies and dogs, or smashing telepohone boxes, or 101 other things that they deem 'entertainment' these days, expecting someone else to provide better things for them to do. And no, I didnt live in a thriving city where there were loads of things to do (legit and not legit); I lived in a tiny country village in the middle of nowhere.

I don't think people should have to slop out and also I think the travellers are being discriminated against. Also I think there's endemic discrimination against travellers. However I do see where you're coming from, MKG, because ironically I am involved in something (not by my own volition!) that actually is so exactly what you're describing that it would make your nose twitch right off your face, fall on the floor and wriggle out of the door.

I'm completely up for pretending the world is fluffy ;-).

Susie wrote:I think the travellers are being discriminated against. Also I think there's endemic discrimination against travellers.

Tosh - and the world isn't fluffy! Sorry to burst your bubble.

Oh it's not burst, don't worry about me .

So you kick the travellers off their site and, because they are travellers, they should travel. But where to? Perhaps on to someone's else's land. This will involve more court orders and bailiffs at more public expense. So then they move on again to someone's land etc.

And so the circle continues round and round. BUT the land that those travellers are on is owned by those travellers and therefore the circle has stopped.

The only problem is that the travellers the council are trying to move own the land they are on. Planning permission was refused whereas the other half of the site is owned by travellers and they do have planning permission.

For the love of common sense and to avoid more unnecessary public expense (several £millions) why not let them stay where they are. Squatters can claim property after 12 years, they are not claiming property they simply want to enjoy their property as they have for the last 10 years.

That's the problem - they only own half the site and there are too many of them to put them all on the one half.

As I understand it they own the whole site but only half has planning permission. If I'm wrong then I stand corrected.

You might be right actually and it's my misunderstanding. Whatever the circs though, there are far more people there than ought to be (H&S rules on overcrowding etc). There are over 1000 people on it! Permission was originally given to only 40 families and now there are over 100 families.

RuthG wrote:You might be right actually and it's my misunderstanding. Whatever the circs though, there are far more people there than ought to be (H&S rules on overcrowding etc). There are over 1000 people on it! Permission was originally given to only 40 families and now there are over 100 families.

1000 people on 7 acres is not exactly overcrowing - plenty of cities have far higher population density. I'm with Dr Syn: save the money, save the hassle and try to start enforcing responsibilities (Council Tax, for example) instead.