|
Aneirin -> RE: Should the council spend £8m to rehome travellers from a gipsy side? (3/22/2011 7:06:50 AM)
|
Nimbyism is a big problem in the overpopulated UK, most people agree people should have somewhere to stay, but it is very much a case of not in my back yard.
But the question of travellers, be whatever they are, their chosen lifestyle is to travel, should they be prevented from this, for surely the nimby mentality in this country ensures they have nowhere to stay, the country seems to think, travellers travel, so get travelling, you have no rights. But what is this mentality, what is it, is it because we are forced to stay put in houses without wheels, have an address where authority can find us, and the taxes we must pay, travellers seem to escape, so what is it, jealousy ? Or is it the majority feel they have to comply, therefore the minorities must be forced to.
At one time travellers had a use, they were welcomed in the various destinations, the seasonal agricultural need for vast cheaply paid manpower that didn't need housing, the circuses, fairgrounds, the itinerant tradesmen, the horse tradesman, they were welcomed then, ( but always suspected as one suspects a stranger, that plus the mythology the travellers encourage). If it were not farmers lands to pitch camp on, it was the common land, another thing we seem to have lost to government, be it local, but beyond commoner use, local governments more now a seedling of central government that a council of the local people.
I am also aware we are to some extents bordering on racism when we seek to define what a traveller is, sure the Romanies are accepted, that due mostly to romanticism, the notion of horse drawn wagons and swarthy looks, if there are truly any left ? ( Hitler did for a lot of them in Europe), but just what is wrong with the Irish traveller, are they sub human or something, for they seem to pick up a lot of derision when people talk about travellers. Sure, some, not all are light fingered, but the minority in anything always spoil it for the majority, but one thing has to be looked at as a positive in this world where we need to conserve our resources, they can make money from muck, they will clear an area of useful saleable resources we would not notice, in fact stuff if we did notice it, we would lobby the council to shift at tax payers expense and that, only because it is spoiling someone's view.
It is not just the Irish traveller that comes in for unfair treatment, but what about those others that perhaps don't have a travelling ancestry, are they to be denied freedom too ? Yes, the neo hippies, the crusties and the being one with the land peace convoys, what is wrong with them, they are just people, but people it seems must be forced to comply, or risk the authorities wrath for daring to seek freedom, freedom in a land a lot less free.
Anyone remember this ?
Just people seeking an alternative form of existence to music, but the documentaries are all there to see, and worth watching if you have any interest in the rights of people to choose their own lifestyle.
( A personal observation, in that the above example bears a striking resemblance to a much earlier act against people seeking their own existence in 1649 )
Oh yes, what we see on the news, the mess left by the travelling community, well, is that all, is that why they are not wanted, especially so when our coutryside is plagued with fly tippers, there's mess, they do try to burn, but many 'traveller' sites prohibit burning and rightly so to an extent bearing in mind the dangerous chemicals in our modern waste, so what should one do, and of the waste left, the waste is endemic to our throw away society, packaging and the horrors of it, we in our houses without wheels know too well.
Are the British people that content in their servitude to a system that denies them anything other than accepted freedom, they are prepared to do the authorities that keep them's work for them ?
Ever noticed how an expensive motorhome housing an old retired couple travelling around in their retirement is accepted vagrancy and those that travel in what they can cobble together with the funds available to them come in for the public wrath?
As to the OP, councils and what they spend where, well, I certainly do not believe all the council cuts are necessary, there being some evidence that some cuts are designed to bring dislike to the government, and of the funds that are spent, well, one has just got to find who, or what is the political motivator, for it is known, influence commands the most action.
As to the cost, eight million, well the same again who is benefitting from the money spent, and who stands to suffer the most loss.
Where there is power, there is corruption.
|
|
|
|
