The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

Anyway, Palestine business is interesting, if pointless. Someone needs to bang their heads together, point out that the only solution involves a Palestinian state, so can they please stop cocking about whilst people die/live in tents and sort the cocking thing out.

Right, job done - next!

Joking aside, it is a fundamental step that absolutely must be taken for there to be any solution, and America for reasons absolutely, honestly, unknown resists it. I'd tell the yanks to feck off, I'd put the Palestinians and the Israelis in a room, I'd give Hoboh a nuclear weapon, and I'd give them a week to sort it out, and if not, Hoboh gets the green light.

[Prufrock]

I think thats as close as you'll get to me and mummy agreeing. Ish.

There'll be consensus next on how we can sort the economy.

The IMF, World Bank and UN can go f*ck themselves and should hand over to The Wanderer as far as I'm concerned.

Can I do research?

[Prufrock]

On the gypsy thing. I thought all councils had an obligation to give them a site, they did, but they don't. I think they should. I think nearly all retrospective planning application (ie other than genuine mistakes) is bullshit. And judgements should be prejudiced against. I think many lifestyles are ridiculous, but I don't think that should mean they are disregarded. The Catholic church is a country ffs.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Well I'm not that exercised by the terminology - I just don't understand why it's valued as a way of life that should be not just protected but actively facilitated.

Sorry - late to this... We have travelling communities - your proposals are?

Charge them for use of sites so local communities don't face a bill when they move in and out, otherwise ask them to get an address so that they can live within society like the rest of us?

[superjohnmcginlay]

Call 'em gypos if you like.

I'm not sure what that will change though?

Prefer Pikeys myself. S'alright anyway they're all going to move into Vanessa Redgrave's back garden.

[Worthy4England]

Well I'm not that exercised by the terminology - I just don't understand why it's valued as a way of life that should be not just protected but actively facilitated.

Sorry - late to this... We have travelling communities - your proposals are?

Just as an "also late to this".

At what point do travelling communities (a set of words designed to conjour up images of Gypsy Rose Lee selling quaint little bunches of lucky heather), become non-travelling? Wouldn't being at a static site for 10 years maybe qualify?

[thebish]

Well I'm not that exercised by the terminology - I just don't understand why it's valued as a way of life that should be not just protected but actively facilitated.

Sorry - late to this... We have travelling communities - your proposals are?

Just as an "also late to this".

At what point do travelling communities (a set of words designed to conjour up images of Gypsy Rose Lee selling quaint little bunches of lucky heather), become non-travelling? Wouldn't being at a static site for 10 years maybe qualify?

that's an often-asked question - and not as immediately obvious as it seems..

firstly - just a quick point - just because a site has been there for 10 years doesn't mean all of the occupants have...

secondly - most "travelers" when asked this will answer that the current climate makes it prohibitively difficult to actually "travel" - there is quite often simply nowhere they can park up overnight without attracting instant local hysteria - they are not allowed to park up on roadside verges or on common land - and councils have not fulfilled their commitment to provide enough sites between which they might travel.

so - it all seems to be a bit of a stalemate...

that's not to say that some of them have effectively given up the idea of traveling and have become "settled" - in which case, your question is pertinent. They would most likely respond that they wish to live within the traveling community where their culture is preserved, celebrated and nurtured - much like the Brits do when they emigrate to Spain...

[Worthy4England]

Well I'm not that exercised by the terminology - I just don't understand why it's valued as a way of life that should be not just protected but actively facilitated.

Sorry - late to this... We have travelling communities - your proposals are?

Just as an "also late to this".

At what point do travelling communities (a set of words designed to conjour up images of Gypsy Rose Lee selling quaint little bunches of lucky heather), become non-travelling? Wouldn't being at a static site for 10 years maybe qualify?

that's an often-asked question - and not as immediately obvious as it seems..

firstly - just a quick point - just because a site has been there for 10 years doesn't mean all of the occupants have...

secondly - most "travelers" when asked this will answer that the current climate makes it prohibitively difficult to actually "travel" - there is quite often simply nowhere they can park up overnight without attracting instant local hysteria - they are not allowed to park up on roadside verges or on common land - and councils have not fulfilled their commitment to provide enough sites between which they might travel.

so - it all seems to be a bit of a stalemate...

that's not to say that some of them have effectively given up the idea of traveling and have become "settled" - in which case, your question is pertinent. They would most likely respond that they wish to live within the traveling community where their culture is preserved, celebrated and nurtured - much like the Brits do when they emigrate to Spain...

My question probably stemmed from watching the documentaries about Dale Farm. Where many of the residents interviewed seemed fairly settled where they were and didn't appear to be looking to move on. There's also I think a difference between those folks with mobile homes you can hook up to the back of a Chelski tractor and those that have semi-fixed mobile homes that would take some serious work to shift anywhere.

The park overnight malarky is somewhat of a misnomer. We get some on land near us, they don't just stay overnight - they stay until they're moved on, which seems to take between about 5 and 10 days after which there's a shit-tip clear-up operation swings into action. There has been a recent influx of huge boulders, to prevent it occurring again.

[thebish]

Well I'm not that exercised by the terminology - I just don't understand why it's valued as a way of life that should be not just protected but actively facilitated.

Sorry - late to this... We have travelling communities - your proposals are?

Just as an "also late to this".

At what point do travelling communities (a set of words designed to conjour up images of Gypsy Rose Lee selling quaint little bunches of lucky heather), become non-travelling? Wouldn't being at a static site for 10 years maybe qualify?

that's an often-asked question - and not as immediately obvious as it seems..

firstly - just a quick point - just because a site has been there for 10 years doesn't mean all of the occupants have...

secondly - most "travelers" when asked this will answer that the current climate makes it prohibitively difficult to actually "travel" - there is quite often simply nowhere they can park up overnight without attracting instant local hysteria - they are not allowed to park up on roadside verges or on common land - and councils have not fulfilled their commitment to provide enough sites between which they might travel.

so - it all seems to be a bit of a stalemate...

that's not to say that some of them have effectively given up the idea of traveling and have become "settled" - in which case, your question is pertinent. They would most likely respond that they wish to live within the traveling community where their culture is preserved, celebrated and nurtured - much like the Brits do when they emigrate to Spain...

My question probably stemmed from watching the documentaries about Dale Farm. Where many of the residents interviewed seemed fairly settled where they were and didn't appear to be looking to move on. There's also I think a difference between those folks with mobile homes you can hook up to the back of a Chelski tractor and those that have semi-fixed mobile homes that would take some serious work to shift anywhere.

The park overnight malarky is somewhat of a misnomer. We get some on land near us, they don't just stay overnight - they stay until they're moved on, which seems to take between about 5 and 10 days after which there's a shit-tip clear-up operation swings into action. There has been a recent influx of huge boulders, to prevent it occurring again.

parking overnight merely allows travel from one place to another that takes more than a day! I wasn't suggesting that travelers all want to park overnight and literally be traveling every day - I don't think that has ever been the idea or the tradition... I don't know of any nomadic culture that literally kept on the move every day...

if you can't park up overnight - then you can't actually get to the next place you could stay for a while - that's all...

I'm not saying it is easy - and certainly not saying all those who call themselves "travelers" are genuine keepers of a nomadic tradition - that is obviously not true - but among them there genuinely ARE those who wish to live a semi-nomadic lifestyle and are respecting and upholding a nomadic tradition that has spanned many different cultures for thousands (if not tens of thousands) of years...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

This 'nomadic tradition' stuff... there's also a certain romantic tradition in roaming around the forests like Robin Hood's lot, hunting and living off the land, but what would say if people actually tried to carry on like that?

[thebish]

This 'nomadic tradition' stuff... there's also a certain romantic tradition in roaming around the forests like Robin Hood's lot, hunting and living off the land, but what would say if people actually tried to carry on like that?

nahh - I think you're mixing up "nomadic tradition" and "poverty"!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't follow.

I'm saying that while we might have this romantic view that it should be possible just to move around wherever you fancy, just like we have a romantic view of lots of elements of medieval life that aren't possible today, it just isn't on in modern society.

Land and housing are too scarce to keep areas free, just in case that's where 'travellers' try to pitch up that week. And taking part in modern life involves paying income tax and council and sending your kids to a local school, and all the rest of it. Now, all of us are likely to find opting out of this life appealing from time to time, but we accept it's not possible.

[thebish]

I don't follow.

I'm saying that while we might have this romantic view that it should be possible just to move around wherever you fancy, just like we have a romantic view of lots of elements of medieval life that aren't possible today, it just isn't on in modern society.

Land and housing is too scarce too keep areas free, just in case that's where 'travellers' try to pitch up that week. And taking part in modern life involves paying income tax and council and sending your kids to a local school, and all the rest of it. Now, all of us are likely to find opting out of this life appealing from time to time, but we accept it's not possible.

you might accept that alternative lifestyles to your on are not possible - I don't. being a traditional traveler is not about "opting out" of your lifestyle.

[Hoboh]

This 'nomadic tradition' stuff... there's also a certain romantic tradition in roaming around the forests like Robin Hood's lot, hunting and living off the land, but what would say if people actually tried to carry on like that?

Doggers?

[William the White]

I don't follow.

I'm saying that while we might have this romantic view that it should be possible just to move around wherever you fancy, just like we have a romantic view of lots of elements of medieval life that aren't possible today, it just isn't on in modern society.

Land and housing is too scarce too keep areas free, just in case that's where 'travellers' try to pitch up that week. And taking part in modern life involves paying income tax and council and sending your kids to a local school, and all the rest of it. Now, all of us are likely to find opting out of this life appealing from time to time, but we accept it's not possible.

So, how do you propose to put a stop to it?

Put them all in prison?

Place the children into care?

[Worthy4England]

I don't follow.

I'm saying that while we might have this romantic view that it should be possible just to move around wherever you fancy, just like we have a romantic view of lots of elements of medieval life that aren't possible today, it just isn't on in modern society.

Land and housing is too scarce too keep areas free, just in case that's where 'travellers' try to pitch up that week. And taking part in modern life involves paying income tax and council and sending your kids to a local school, and all the rest of it. Now, all of us are likely to find opting out of this life appealing from time to time, but we accept it's not possible.

So, how do you propose to put a stop to it?

Put them all in prison?

Place the children into care?

Can I revert back to the quaint historical notion of serfdom?

I would put the children into care, unless they can show evidence of constant and decent schooling - and by that, I don't mean achieving high marks, just that they attend regularly. Which given they're travelling a lot, I would expect is a bit difficult...

[William the White]

I don't follow.

I'm saying that while we might have this romantic view that it should be possible just to move around wherever you fancy, just like we have a romantic view of lots of elements of medieval life that aren't possible today, it just isn't on in modern society.

Land and housing is too scarce too keep areas free, just in case that's where 'travellers' try to pitch up that week. And taking part in modern life involves paying income tax and council and sending your kids to a local school, and all the rest of it. Now, all of us are likely to find opting out of this life appealing from time to time, but we accept it's not possible.

So, how do you propose to put a stop to it?

Put them all in prison?

Place the children into care?

Can I revert back to the quaint historical notion of serfdom?

I would put the children into care, unless they can show evidence of constant and decent schooling - and by that, I don't mean achieving high marks, just that they attend regularly. Which given they're travelling a lot, I would expect is a bit difficult...

You think they would thrive better? Evidence?

I know you'll have some numbers...

[Worthy4England]

I don't follow.

I'm saying that while we might have this romantic view that it should be possible just to move around wherever you fancy, just like we have a romantic view of lots of elements of medieval life that aren't possible today, it just isn't on in modern society.

Land and housing is too scarce too keep areas free, just in case that's where 'travellers' try to pitch up that week. And taking part in modern life involves paying income tax and council and sending your kids to a local school, and all the rest of it. Now, all of us are likely to find opting out of this life appealing from time to time, but we accept it's not possible.

So, how do you propose to put a stop to it?

Put them all in prison?

Place the children into care?

Can I revert back to the quaint historical notion of serfdom?

I would put the children into care, unless they can show evidence of constant and decent schooling - and by that, I don't mean achieving high marks, just that they attend regularly. Which given they're travelling a lot, I would expect is a bit difficult...

You think they would thrive better? Evidence?

I know you'll have some numbers...

I know you'll come out with some words...

What would you like evidence of?

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/educ ... g-children" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shows the education of travelling children report, mainly on attendance...I guess they gave up before "results"....

Explain the thriving thing? Should we pull kids out of your class, because it doesn't achieve much?

[thebish]

I would put the children into care, unless they can show evidence of constant and decent schooling - and by that, I don't mean achieving high marks, just that they attend regularly. Which given they're travelling a lot, I would expect is a bit difficult...

within which category I'm sure you include home-schooling....

[Worthy4England]

I would put the children into care, unless they can show evidence of constant and decent schooling - and by that, I don't mean achieving high marks, just that they attend regularly. Which given they're travelling a lot, I would expect is a bit difficult...

within which category I'm sure you include home-schooling....

Indeed I am.