Car park travellers told to move on or face eviction (From Dorset Echo)

I hope they are not moved on before they do my drive.

I gave one £800 cash deposit he said he would start work on Monday

They have gone

Get a grip wrote:
I hope they are not moved on before they do my drive. I gave one £800 cash deposit he said he would start work on Monday

hahahaha

One of them phoned me and said that I had a problem with my phone line (according to him, it was not working).

I told him where I lived and he turned up and promised to fix it. I gave him £1000 for materials and he said that he would be back within the hour.

That was 4 days ago.

I don't understand why these illegally parked vehicles are not clamped immediately and only released when they have paid up in cash. No local would be allowed to get away with it.

I find a JCB fork lift works well to either drag them off the land or turn them over. They don't come back, for some reason.

If I were to park for an hour with my transit people carrier, I would get a ticket. Why are we putting up with this soft attitude?

If I parked without buying a ticket or went over my time, WDDC would very quickly issue me with a penalty notice.
They would certainly pursue me through the courts to pay the fine.
So why are these so-called travellers, in luxury caravans, treated any different? Why is WDDC frightened of them?

Do they pay for parking whilst they are there?

Clamp? just what they want - security of tenure.
This is a national issue - NOT being addressed because of the liberal minority outcry.So called 'travellers' are excused just about all the statutory requirements of being 'ordinary' citizens and yet do not contribute to the social cost of the support given them.

Anyway that aside, I got a real good deal from Seamus who called at the door on Thursday - he is going to build me my long awaited conservatory - only 2k deposit (final cost dependent on the depth of snow at the time of construction) - however he could not accept the 40 £50 notes I offered him 'cos "they might be forgeries" but he did offer to take them into the bank and exchange them for twenties. I was so pleased to be saved a trip to the bank.
I can't wait for work to start on my new conservatory.

I had a similar experience with a chap who offered to build me a conservatory- everyone else was quoting 5 times what he quoted me- too good to miss!!

I gave him the £3000 for the materials and he said that he was just going to the conservatory shop to buy me a conservatory and would be back within the hour.

That was in 1992.

Did West Dorset District Council and Dorset Police insist that the "Travellers"
pay the parking fees owed.

And if not - why not??

banknote wrote:
Did West Dorset District Council and Dorset Police insist that the "Travellers"
pay the parking fees owed.

And if not - why not??

I am not so worried about a small parking charge, but wonder if the pay Income Tax?

They were driving expensive 4 x 4 cars.

banknote wrote:
Did West Dorset District Council and Dorset Police insist that the "Travellers"
pay the parking fees owed.

And if not - why not??

The Police wouldn't normally deal with car park charges so why would they with travellers?? Car Park enforcement is down to WDDC.

Isosceles wrote:
I don't understand why these illegally parked vehicles are not clamped immediately and only released when they have paid up in cash. No local would be allowed to get away with it.

As a so called minority group they'll no doubt get the silk glove treatment from the authority's with a waste space travellers liaison officer thrown by the council for free. When the flood gates open in 11months for Bulgarians and Romanians to enter the UK to claim their benefits this sort off free-loader takes all behaviour will be the norm. But that's who you lot have voted for so reap what you sow and think before you vote.

what I don't get is why they don't tax their vehicles and yet they never get towed away and crushed, since watching Big Fat Gypsy wedding, I think I have gt it all wrong, I could have a luxury home, my daughter could have a big fat wedding and even better I could become big and fat and not have to worry about the New Year Diet - whilst never lifting a finger to pay for it all, ...how do I get "grabbed" or do I need to have the gypsy blood, I do have a pony which along with the oil I keep under lock n key ,,, just in case,,,

The traditional Dorset welcome.

When the Bulgarian and Romanian gypsies turn up in December like a plague of locusts picking at the bones of the UK benefits system the travellers will be asking the council to move that lot along so they can illegally park themselves!

They're not frightened by the 'authorities', and they must have a laugh at us paying for our parking tickets! Still I did have to laugh at the last time one knocked on our door asking if we wanted our tree trimmed, and my GSD barking got rid of him pretty quick! I don't think it pays to be honest and pay taxes etc it seems the harder you work in this country the more you get hammered.

Jackc, I agree with you. Little point in sticking to the rules is there? The harder you honestly the more you get penalised.

I find it so amusing at all the negative comments! Why are you all so scared? lol

To all the ''I'm an honest tax payer'' comments, why are you so conditioned to pick on the poor? Bet you won't bat an eyelid to tax dodging multi national companies....nah just keep picking on he wrong people...carry on...lol

Get a grip wrote:

banknote wrote: Did West Dorset District Council and Dorset Police insist that the "Travellers" pay the parking fees owed. And if not - why not??

I am not so worried about a small parking charge, but wonder if the pay Income Tax? They were driving expensive 4 x 4 cars.

And were the 4x4 cars taxed, I wonder?

marabout wrote:
The traditional Dorset welcome.

Sorry old chap. Are you saying that we should be more welcoming or less welcoming.

pitbull74 wrote:

banknote wrote:
Did West Dorset District Council and Dorset Police insist that the "Travellers"
pay the parking fees owed.

And if not - why not??

The Police wouldn't normally deal with car park charges so why would they with travellers?? Car Park enforcement is down to WDDC.

Because they are above the law. They are overrepresented in the prison population (1). Their women are subject to higher rates of domestic violence (2). They don't school their children properly (3). And then there are the many, many stories of witness intimidation, caravan theft, and, as has come to light in the last couple of years, exploitation of the vulnerable and human trafficking. Of course, now that they are an ethnic group (Irishman - caravan = Irishman, Irishman + caravan = ethnic group), we must make efforts to attend the annual Awareness Day arranged by the Council.
1. http://www.dohc.ie/p
ublications/aiths201
0/TR2/AITHS2010_Tech
nicalReport2_HR_Part
C.pdf?direct=1
2. http://www.equalityh
umanrights.com/uploa
ded_files/Wales/dome
stic_abuse_and_gypsy
_travellers.pdf
3. https://www.econstor
.eu/dspace/bitstream
/10419/67998/1/54840
0237.pdf

Given the quantity of illegal 'do as I please' examples of breaking the law without punishment, I'm at a conjuncture where I really couldn't care less anymore. I'm gunna chuck in the towel, buy a caravan, sign on and milk the rotten broken system for every single penny.
Clearly I've been living all wrong, handing me notice in tomorrow so some other gullible tax payers can pay for my every need and lack of responsibility. Broken Britain where the race to the bottom and playing the game is all that counts.

cj07589 wrote:
Given the quantity of illegal 'do as I please' examples of breaking the law without punishment, I'm at a conjuncture where I really couldn't care less anymore. I'm gunna chuck in the towel, buy a caravan, sign on and milk the rotten broken system for every single penny.
Clearly I've been living all wrong, handing me notice in tomorrow so some other gullible tax payers can pay for my every need and lack of responsibility. Broken Britain where the race to the bottom and playing the game is all that counts.

Splendid idea. Say, I don't suppose you have any kids back in ethnicbacklashistan do you, old bean? This time next year, CJ, we'd me miwwionaires.

The travellers simply don't register on the scale of tax dodgers or benefit frauds. If we spent a fraction of the hatred for travellers on the MPs that embezzled millions from the tax payers we might actually start to sort the country out.

JamesYoung wrote:

cj07589 wrote:
Given the quantity of illegal 'do as I please' examples of breaking the law without punishment, I'm at a conjuncture where I really couldn't care less anymore. I'm gunna chuck in the towel, buy a caravan, sign on and milk the rotten broken system for every single penny.
Clearly I've been living all wrong, handing me notice in tomorrow so some other gullible tax payers can pay for my every need and lack of responsibility. Broken Britain where the race to the bottom and playing the game is all that counts.

Splendid idea. Say, I don't suppose you have any kids back in ethnicbacklashistan do you, old bean? This time next year, CJ, we'd me miwwionaires.

Haha yeah James! clearly can't beat...em. might as well join em! I'm gunna focus on breeding like a rabbit for 5 o 6 yrs taking no zero responsibility or accountability finding a Range Rover or suitably newer 4x4, deluxe caravan and some cash in hand jobs and jobs a unn! (he's says in jest)

louiscox wrote:
The travellers simply don't register on the scale of tax dodgers or benefit frauds. If we spent a fraction of the hatred for travellers on the MPs that embezzled millions from the tax payers we might actually start to sort the country out.

We get this argument every time this subject crops up, Louise.
They are not mutually exclusive problems.
We all hate the rich, but why should they pay more of their incomes, in percentage and real terms, than you or I, simply because they've worked harder, made more sacrifices and, in many cases, created jobs for others?
As for benefit fraudsters, I entirely agree with you.
So lets start with establishing three rule : everybody pays their fair share and no more or less, the law applies to everybody equally, and the government exists to only help those who cannot contribute, not these who will not.
You can tax the 1% at 80%, and it won't make a hole in the money this country owes. We need to plug the holes where the money is leaking out.

JamesYoung wrote:

louiscox wrote:
The travellers simply don't register on the scale of tax dodgers or benefit frauds. If we spent a fraction of the hatred for travellers on the MPs that embezzled millions from the tax payers we might actually start to sort the country out.

We get this argument every time this subject crops up, Louise.
They are not mutually exclusive problems.
We all hate the rich, but why should they pay more of their incomes, in percentage and real terms, than you or I, simply because they've worked harder, made more sacrifices and, in many cases, created jobs for others?
As for benefit fraudsters, I entirely agree with you.
So lets start with establishing three rule : everybody pays their fair share and no more or less, the law applies to everybody equally, and the government exists to only help those who cannot contribute, not these who will not.
You can tax the 1% at 80%, and it won't make a hole in the money this country owes. We need to plug the holes where the money is leaking out.

As much as I commend your view on how the society and justice should work I fear that we have been on this slippery slope for decades. It's rife from the top down and frankly I not far off giving up all together and no doubt will be called a bigot or racist by the limp lefties who have ruined this country systemically. Sadly the only way left to fight back is to leave the country.

The travellers dodging a bit of car tax and laying the odd badly made drive - it's not major stuff is it.
The few hundred individuals that control the countries fortunes and the destiny of millions, dipping their hands in the till, that's irreparable damage. The only glint of light is that eventually all those involved will be run out of office, Con and Lab alike. We live in hope.
I understand the sentiment that all should contribute and nobody's exempt, but in the real world, if we don't set the precedence from the top, why would anyone else fall in line?
I agree with the sentiment above, but the answer is not in a move to the Algarve, it's change from within I'm afraid. If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.
If a democracy decides that a group of people is wrong for moving from place to place and by their lifestyle avoiding conventional taxation and civic duty then that's one thing, but it seems to me that's not the case? Some part of the democracy that my grandparents, ancestors even fought wars for, accepts that people may have vastly different lifestyles and still call themselves English.
Go against the will of the people and you may as well grow a silly tash just under your nose and invade Poland.

louiscox wrote:
The travellers dodging a bit of car tax and laying the odd badly made drive - it's not major stuff is it.
The few hundred individuals that control the countries fortunes and the destiny of millions, dipping their hands in the till, that's irreparable damage. The only glint of light is that eventually all those involved will be run out of office, Con and Lab alike. We live in hope.
I understand the sentiment that all should contribute and nobody's exempt, but in the real world, if we don't set the precedence from the top, why would anyone else fall in line?
I agree with the sentiment above, but the answer is not in a move to the Algarve, it's change from within I'm afraid. If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.
If a democracy decides that a group of people is wrong for moving from place to place and by their lifestyle avoiding conventional taxation and civic duty then that's one thing, but it seems to me that's not the case? Some part of the democracy that my grandparents, ancestors even fought wars for, accepts that people may have vastly different lifestyles and still call themselves English.
Go against the will of the people and you may as well grow a silly tash just under your nose and invade Poland.

Louiscox I agree completely with your sentiments but you have to realise the caliber of the slightly right of centre fellow posters. Examples are suggestions of gun ships over Littlemoor, taking the vote away from fellow citizens who they consider ignorant, that domestic violence on men is a bigger problem than on women and sack all council workers. I am just glad that I am not the only one who remembers that society isn't perfect but is worth protecting from those that would rather have a dictatorship than true democracy

Directed at me I assume:

1. Clearly the suggestion of a gunship over Littlemoor was humour, made to underline the fact that cities like New York have been successful in dealing with crime through Draconian measures (three crimes = life imprisonment).
2. You keep churning out this claim that I said domestic violence against women is a lesser problem than violence against men. I never said that. I said that it was not a male only problem. I suggest google "Phillip Davies Hansard women prisons" and reading his speech to parliament where he refers to males being more likely to be victim between the ages of 20 and 30. Domestic violence is a problem across both genders but women perpetrators get off more lightly.
3. I said that council workers should be grateful for their above average terms and conditions. I said that the council needed to downsize. Funnily enough that is what is now happening.
4. A democracy is hardly a democracy if the citizens in it are swayed by clever politicians. I don't really understand why you are opposed to my suggestion that unbiased education, perhaps delivered through the school system, should be a mandatory requirement before voting.
More as hominems and few useful contributions, Woodsedge.

louiscox wrote:
The travellers dodging a bit of car tax and laying the odd badly made drive - it's not major stuff is it.
The few hundred individuals that control the countries fortunes and the destiny of millions, dipping their hands in the till, that's irreparable damage. The only glint of light is that eventually all those involved will be run out of office, Con and Lab alike. We live in hope.
I understand the sentiment that all should contribute and nobody's exempt, but in the real world, if we don't set the precedence from the top, why would anyone else fall in line?
I agree with the sentiment above, but the answer is not in a move to the Algarve, it's change from within I'm afraid. If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.
If a democracy decides that a group of people is wrong for moving from place to place and by their lifestyle avoiding conventional taxation and civic duty then that's one thing, but it seems to me that's not the case? Some part of the democracy that my grandparents, ancestors even fought wars for, accepts that people may have vastly different lifestyles and still call themselves English.
Go against the will of the people and you may as well grow a silly tash just under your nose and invade Poland.

Louis, I'm not going to defend the 1% but not all of them are dipping their hands in the till. The profit motive that they operate to is no different to the profit motive that your local shopkeeper has - both profit at the expense of others.
This is never likely to change. However, while I agree that individual lifestyles are very English, what is not very English is asking for people to pay for them. People are frustrated by other people who flagrantly ignore the rules. Is it English to deprive a parking space from a busy commuter?
None of the change that you hope for will come about until the electorate understand what they are voting for. Unfortunately most have no idea and are swayed by clever public speakers.

Methinks the social workers are about feeling sorry for the hard done by drive layers/tree trimmers! What p....s most of the locals off is, that WE would not get away with parking illegally etc etc and yet nothing is done to enforce the law. This has NOTHING to with 'lifestyles'. It's ILLEGAL. Frustration doesn't even come close. The amount we get clobbered for in taxes etc gives us every right to complain when others avoid it, regardless of who they are!

JamesYoung wrote:
Directed at me I assume:

1. Clearly the suggestion of a gunship over Littlemoor was humour, made to underline the fact that cities like New York have been successful in dealing with crime through Draconian measures (three crimes = life imprisonment).
2. You keep churning out this claim that I said domestic violence against women is a lesser problem than violence against men. I never said that. I said that it was not a male only problem. I suggest google "Phillip Davies Hansard women prisons" and reading his speech to parliament where he refers to males being more likely to be victim between the ages of 20 and 30. Domestic violence is a problem across both genders but women perpetrators get off more lightly.
3. I said that council workers should be grateful for their above average terms and conditions. I said that the council needed to downsize. Funnily enough that is what is now happening.
4. A democracy is hardly a democracy if the citizens in it are swayed by clever politicians. I don't really understand why you are opposed to my suggestion that unbiased education, perhaps delivered through the school system, should be a mandatory requirement before voting.
More as hominems and few useful contributions, Woodsedge.

James, Believe it or believe it not, my post wasn't aimed directly at you! Unfortunately your views are shared by others who have some extremist views on numerous issues. As for arguments made on a personal basis, I find some of the "catch all" comments made against my fellow citizens very personal and extreme. To many people have cacoethes scribendi without actually saying anything of value!!

JACKC wrote:
Methinks the social workers are about feeling sorry for the hard done by drive layers/tree trimmers! What p....s most of the locals off is, that WE would not get away with parking illegally etc etc and yet nothing is done to enforce the law. This has NOTHING to with 'lifestyles'. It's ILLEGAL. Frustration doesn't even come close. The amount we get clobbered for in taxes etc gives us every right to complain when others avoid it, regardless of who they are!

The term 'Illegal' is reserved for acts against the common good of society. Owning a gun is illegal for obvious reasons, driving whilst under the influence is illegal. Stealing from a shop is illegal.
Parking on a public space with a set of caravans for five minutes is not really going to cause any great ill to society.
The term 'illegal' is often misappropriated for a civil offence. It imparts an undue seriousness to a matter, when in reality it's not actually very important. I find that it's a trick used by people that themselves would like to be far more important than they actually are.
What is important is that all the money that we collectively make or tax, is used appropriately and not wasted on tying up local civic services, the police, and other employees to satisfy the perceived injustice of a few disgruntled individuals because they think that they are somehow receiving a lesser portion of the pie.

Louis, if you want to talk about appropriate spending of tax money, I am assuming that you understand that if money is spent in one area it cannot be spent in another. In creating your liberal utopia, government is forced to spend hundreds of millions of pounds. For travellers, this includes free traveller sites up and down the country. It includes councils employing liaison officers, social workers and schools staff. The influx of immigrants has put a tremendous strain on the school system and the NHS. Some hospitals in London are now having to source interpreters to speak in excess of 50 languages. While the idea that everybody should live alongside each other is admirable (even if it does neglect to take into account human nature) it is also horrifically expensive.
Incidentally were I to get a fine for overstaying in a car park I'm sure you would have little sympathy. One country. One law.

woodsedge wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:
Directed at me I assume:

1. Clearly the suggestion of a gunship over Littlemoor was humour, made to underline the fact that cities like New York have been successful in dealing with crime through Draconian measures (three crimes = life imprisonment).
2. You keep churning out this claim that I said domestic violence against women is a lesser problem than violence against men. I never said that. I said that it was not a male only problem. I suggest google "Phillip Davies Hansard women prisons" and reading his speech to parliament where he refers to males being more likely to be victim between the ages of 20 and 30. Domestic violence is a problem across both genders but women perpetrators get off more lightly.
3. I said that council workers should be grateful for their above average terms and conditions. I said that the council needed to downsize. Funnily enough that is what is now happening.
4. A democracy is hardly a democracy if the citizens in it are swayed by clever politicians. I don't really understand why you are opposed to my suggestion that unbiased education, perhaps delivered through the school system, should be a mandatory requirement before voting.
More as hominems and few useful contributions, Woodsedge.

James, Believe it or believe it not, my post wasn't aimed directly at you! Unfortunately your views are shared by others who have some extremist views on numerous issues. As for arguments made on a personal basis, I find some of the "catch all" comments made against my fellow citizens very personal and extreme. To many people have cacoethes scribendi without actually saying anything of value!!

Woodsedge! Although extremist is a much loved way of demolishing any argument against the liberal view, it actually to both ends of the political spectrum. Criminals shouldn't be in prison, travellers should be free to do as they please, the rich should be punished for working hard, the idle should not be penalised for stealing taxes through the benefit system. And yet nobody can explain how this is to be paid for.

Sorry for typos - iPhone!

woodsedge wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:
Directed at me I assume:

1. Clearly the suggestion of a gunship over Littlemoor was humour, made to underline the fact that cities like New York have been successful in dealing with crime through Draconian measures (three crimes = life imprisonment).
2. You keep churning out this claim that I said domestic violence against women is a lesser problem than violence against men. I never said that. I said that it was not a male only problem. I suggest google "Phillip Davies Hansard women prisons" and reading his speech to parliament where he refers to males being more likely to be victim between the ages of 20 and 30. Domestic violence is a problem across both genders but women perpetrators get off more lightly.
3. I said that council workers should be grateful for their above average terms and conditions. I said that the council needed to downsize. Funnily enough that is what is now happening.
4. A democracy is hardly a democracy if the citizens in it are swayed by clever politicians. I don't really understand why you are opposed to my suggestion that unbiased education, perhaps delivered through the school system, should be a mandatory requirement before voting.
More as hominems and few useful contributions, Woodsedge.

James, Believe it or believe it not, my post wasn't aimed directly at you! Unfortunately your views are shared by others who have some extremist views on numerous issues. As for arguments made on a personal basis, I find some of the "catch all" comments made against my fellow citizens very personal and extreme. To many people have cacoethes scribendi without actually saying anything of value!!

Kettle black.....perhaps if these citizens bothered to obey the law of land the whole place would be better of for it. Excuses are pathetic end off.

JamesYoung wrote:
Louis, if you want to talk about appropriate spending of tax money, I am assuming that you understand that if money is spent in one area it cannot be spent in another. In creating your liberal utopia, government is forced to spend hundreds of millions of pounds. For travellers, this includes free traveller sites up and down the country. It includes councils employing liaison officers, social workers and schools staff. The influx of immigrants has put a tremendous strain on the school system and the NHS. Some hospitals in London are now having to source interpreters to speak in excess of 50 languages. While the idea that everybody should live alongside each other is admirable (even if it does neglect to take into account human nature) it is also horrifically expensive.
Incidentally were I to get a fine for overstaying in a car park I'm sure you would have little sympathy. One country. One law.

Who said I was a liberal?
Lets confine the discussion to the travellers, as immigration is a huge can of worms.
If we are to choose to analyse society and say who should be doing what, where do you start? as I maintain there are much bigger fish to fry than the travellers.
As I said, people died in the fight for the right to be free in this country. That means everyone, not just people that work in the city or for local government in some capacity that make above a certain threshold. For me that means people like the travellers. If one section of society chooses to move around rather than remaining fixed at one location, thats a basic human right, and denying it is to say we have become a totalitarian state. Why does the queen equally not have all her properties sold and remain at one? Surely BHP is large enough?
I dont think anyone can deny the fact that money has been leaking out of the system to people that are not putting any work in. Thats a big hole that must be breeched. Living on an estate in Middlesborough and having four children with no means to pay for their day to day needs is quite clearly counter productive to society.
That said, equally there is a huge chunk of money paid out into the civil service. Let alone the MP's, there is an unacceptable level of padding that goes on for every section of the civil service. Getting an index linked pension whilst everyone else suffers is quite clearly wrong. The list of civil servants that are protected by very powerful unions that strong-arm negotiations is an endless, local government, the police, the teachers, doctors and nurses in the NHS. I know we need these jobs doing, but not at a cost that the rest of us are living an impoverished life.
The basic issue comes down to greed. Its a survival thing. You want to come down on the travellers for evading a few bills. Take a look at the bigger picture. The travellers are just an easy target, attacking them wont solve any of the issues you are talking about.

louiscox, what a load of cobblers. Travellers like everybody else should park at caravan sites and pay their way just like everybody else.....end off!

It's not that differcult to understand is it, I don't like paying taxes by your logic does this mean I should stop paying them despite it not being legal...

cj07589 wrote:
louiscox, what a load of cobblers. Travellers like everybody else should park at caravan sites and pay their way just like everybody else.....end off!

It's not that differcult to understand is it, I don't like paying taxes by your logic does this mean I should stop paying them despite it not being legal...

You appear to be struggling with the conversation. Perhaps your day care can help you out.

The cost of collecting the fines makes them a waste of everybody's time and money. I dont think I can make it any more simple.

Be a grown up and accept that some people dont fit the norm...

louiscox wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:
Louis, if you want to talk about appropriate spending of tax money, I am assuming that you understand that if money is spent in one area it cannot be spent in another. In creating your liberal utopia, government is forced to spend hundreds of millions of pounds. For travellers, this includes free traveller sites up and down the country. It includes councils employing liaison officers, social workers and schools staff. The influx of immigrants has put a tremendous strain on the school system and the NHS. Some hospitals in London are now having to source interpreters to speak in excess of 50 languages. While the idea that everybody should live alongside each other is admirable (even if it does neglect to take into account human nature) it is also horrifically expensive.
Incidentally were I to get a fine for overstaying in a car park I'm sure you would have little sympathy. One country. One law.

Who said I was a liberal?
Lets confine the discussion to the travellers, as immigration is a huge can of worms.
If we are to choose to analyse society and say who should be doing what, where do you start? as I maintain there are much bigger fish to fry than the travellers.
As I said, people died in the fight for the right to be free in this country. That means everyone, not just people that work in the city or for local government in some capacity that make above a certain threshold. For me that means people like the travellers. If one section of society chooses to move around rather than remaining fixed at one location, thats a basic human right, and denying it is to say we have become a totalitarian state. Why does the queen equally not have all her properties sold and remain at one? Surely BHP is large enough?
I dont think anyone can deny the fact that money has been leaking out of the system to people that are not putting any work in. Thats a big hole that must be breeched. Living on an estate in Middlesborough and having four children with no means to pay for their day to day needs is quite clearly counter productive to society.
That said, equally there is a huge chunk of money paid out into the civil service. Let alone the MP's, there is an unacceptable level of padding that goes on for every section of the civil service. Getting an index linked pension whilst everyone else suffers is quite clearly wrong. The list of civil servants that are protected by very powerful unions that strong-arm negotiations is an endless, local government, the police, the teachers, doctors and nurses in the NHS. I know we need these jobs doing, but not at a cost that the rest of us are living an impoverished life.
The basic issue comes down to greed. Its a survival thing. You want to come down on the travellers for evading a few bills. Take a look at the bigger picture. The travellers are just an easy target, attacking them wont solve any of the issues you are talking about.

I struggle to understand your logic. If travellers who contribute nothing to society other than debt and a mess are an "easy target" and should be left to their own devices, why do you go on to attack nurses, doctors, police officers? Their only crime is to accept a contract of employment part of which is a pension sheme! Once again we have someone leading a supposedly "impoverished" life that wants to drag the terms and conditions of employment of the very foundations of society down to the lowest common denominator. You have a very twisted grasp of fairness and what is right and what is wrong.

JamesYoung - why dont you ask some of the self employed people you know how fair it is that a teacher gets a salary twice the local wage - with a pension linked to inflation, with several months of a year paid holiday, with union rights, and so on...
What do I mean by impoverished?
I mean when I go to the hospital, the surgeon I see with a £60k pa salary performs the wrong procedure, I mean a street where a resident who already pays a huge council tax has to pay extra 'parking' cost because the corrupt local government investment department has lost eveybody's money on a clearly shonky investment because they want a fast buck.
Do I need to go on? I have plenty more examples.
Their only crime? please...I recognise the need for a good civil service but dont try and tell me they are without sin.

louiscox wrote:
JamesYoung - why dont you ask some of the self employed people you know how fair it is that a teacher gets a salary twice the local wage - with a pension linked to inflation, with several months of a year paid holiday, with union rights, and so on...
What do I mean by impoverished?
I mean when I go to the hospital, the surgeon I see with a £60k pa salary performs the wrong procedure, I mean a street where a resident who already pays a huge council tax has to pay extra 'parking' cost because the corrupt local government investment department has lost eveybody's money on a clearly shonky investment because they want a fast buck.
Do I need to go on? I have plenty more examples.
Their only crime? please...I recognise the need for a good civil service but dont try and tell me they are without sin.

James will absolutely love the fact that you got us both confused!! definition of impoverished Reduced to poverty; poverty-stricken. your definition of someones contract of employment or medical negligence or corrupt local government do not fit the definition you use! If you are self employed and you do not have the ability to negotiate a good contract for yourself, then I would look inwards and consider a career change to a nurse, doctor of police officer?

louiscox wrote:

cj07589 wrote:
louiscox, what a load of cobblers. Travellers like everybody else should park at caravan sites and pay their way just like everybody else.....end off!

It's not that differcult to understand is it, I don't like paying taxes by your logic does this mean I should stop paying them despite it not being legal...

You appear to be struggling with the conversation. Perhaps your day care can help you out.

The cost of collecting the fines makes them a waste of everybody's time and money. I dont think I can make it any more simple.

Be a grown up and accept that some people dont fit the norm...

Louis, you can't have a society where everybody is free to do as they please. You referred earlier to the Queen, who owns her land. And this is the point: people own land and travellers do not respect their right to do so. One people one law. Nothing else can work.

louiscox wrote:
JamesYoung - why dont you ask some of the self employed people you know how fair it is that a teacher gets a salary twice the local wage - with a pension linked to inflation, with several months of a year paid holiday, with union rights, and so on...
What do I mean by impoverished?
I mean when I go to the hospital, the surgeon I see with a £60k pa salary performs the wrong procedure, I mean a street where a resident who already pays a huge council tax has to pay extra 'parking' cost because the corrupt local government investment department has lost eveybody's money on a clearly shonky investment because they want a fast buck.
Do I need to go on? I have plenty more examples.
Their only crime? please...I recognise the need for a good civil service but dont try and tell me they are without sin.

Louis, if you search the echo website for my name you'll find I am one of the harshest critics of the cost of the public sector. After all, when we talk about government debt, a sizeable proportion of that has been spent thereon.
Until recently I was self employed. I worked in London 5 days a week. For two years I could claim travel expenses against tax. MPs can do that indefinitely. I can't. You don't need to lecture me about unfairness.

Yes, apologies JamesYoung, the quote posts get very long. I meant WoodsEdge.
WoodsEdge - You are attempting to win the argument with semantics and make yourself look clever, but there is no substance to what you are saying.
If I'm mistreated by a surgeon, my ability to earn in impaired, therefore I will be impoverished?
If I have to pay more money because the local government decides I need to pay more tax, then clearly I will have less?
I didn't try to define anyones contract?
There are no jobs in the civil service, none that mere mortals will be able to get. Because of the grossly unfair rules protecting civil servants, redundancy pay ( not your normal redundancy pay mind ) means that any sector is at pains to employ someone already within the service so they can avoid further cost.
Ridiculous doesn't quite cover it...

louiscox wrote:

cj07589 wrote:
louiscox, what a load of cobblers. Travellers like everybody else should park at caravan sites and pay their way just like everybody else.....end off!

It's not that differcult to understand is it, I don't like paying taxes by your logic does this mean I should stop paying them despite it not being legal...

You appear to be struggling with the conversation. Perhaps your day care can help you out.

The cost of collecting the fines makes them a waste of everybody's time and money. I dont think I can make it any more simple.

Be a grown up and accept that some people dont fit the norm...

What a poorly supported, meaningless & childish response which part of obeying the law don't you understand. So should benefit cheats not be prosecuted because its a waste of time and effort??? Clear maintaining upholding principles mean very little to you, no wonder the fabric of society is being constantly undermined and eroded because attitudes like yours.... Eg. I don't fit into main stream society therefore **** to the law and you all, I'll do as I please then.....selfish I'm all right jack mentality right there!

cj07589 wrote:

louiscox wrote:

cj07589 wrote:
louiscox, what a load of cobblers. Travellers like everybody else should park at caravan sites and pay their way just like everybody else.....end off!

It's not that differcult to understand is it, I don't like paying taxes by your logic does this mean I should stop paying them despite it not being legal...

You appear to be struggling with the conversation. Perhaps your day care can help you out.

The cost of collecting the fines makes them a waste of everybody's time and money. I dont think I can make it any more simple.

Be a grown up and accept that some people dont fit the norm...

What a poorly supported, meaningless & childish response which part of obeying the law don't you understand. So should benefit cheats not be prosecuted because its a waste of time and effort??? Clear maintaining upholding principles mean very little to you, no wonder the fabric of society is being constantly undermined and eroded because attitudes like yours.... Eg. I don't fit into main stream society therefore **** to the law and you all, I'll do as I please then.....selfish I'm all right jack mentality right there!

I understand that society comes first. You are referring to obeying the law, but not because you are thinking about others, because you are thinking about yourself.
You want these people prosecuted because you feel have to do as your told, and someone else not doing that is unfair. That's your problem, not someone else's.
Buy a motorbike, grow your hair long, get a younger woman in your life - there are plenty of ways to have a mid life crisis...

louiscox wrote:

cj07589 wrote:

louiscox wrote:

cj07589 wrote:
louiscox, what a load of cobblers. Travellers like everybody else should park at caravan sites and pay their way just like everybody else.....end off!

It's not that differcult to understand is it, I don't like paying taxes by your logic does this mean I should stop paying them despite it not being legal...

You appear to be struggling with the conversation. Perhaps your day care can help you out.

The cost of collecting the fines makes them a waste of everybody's time and money. I dont think I can make it any more simple.

Be a grown up and accept that some people dont fit the norm...

What a poorly supported, meaningless & childish response which part of obeying the law don't you understand. So should benefit cheats not be prosecuted because its a waste of time and effort??? Clear maintaining upholding principles mean very little to you, no wonder the fabric of society is being constantly undermined and eroded because attitudes like yours.... Eg. I don't fit into main stream society therefore **** to the law and you all, I'll do as I please then.....selfish I'm all right jack mentality right there!

I understand that society comes first. You are referring to obeying the law, but not because you are thinking about others, because you are thinking about yourself.
You want these people prosecuted because you feel have to do as your told, and someone else not doing that is unfair. That's your problem, not someone else's.
Buy a motorbike, grow your hair long, get a younger woman in your life - there are plenty of ways to have a mid life crisis...

That's a ridiculous argument. What is the point of having a law if anyone can choose to break it and everybody stands around and says "hey, that's your right"?

woodsedge wrote:

louiscox wrote:
JamesYoung - why dont you ask some of the self employed people you know how fair it is that a teacher gets a salary twice the local wage - with a pension linked to inflation, with several months of a year paid holiday, with union rights, and so on...
What do I mean by impoverished?
I mean when I go to the hospital, the surgeon I see with a £60k pa salary performs the wrong procedure, I mean a street where a resident who already pays a huge council tax has to pay extra 'parking' cost because the corrupt local government investment department has lost eveybody's money on a clearly shonky investment because they want a fast buck.
Do I need to go on? I have plenty more examples.
Their only crime? please...I recognise the need for a good civil service but dont try and tell me they are without sin.

James will absolutely love the fact that you got us both confused!! definition of impoverished Reduced to poverty; poverty-stricken. your definition of someones contract of employment or medical negligence or corrupt local government do not fit the definition you use! If you are self employed and you do not have the ability to negotiate a good contract for yourself, then I would look inwards and consider a career change to a nurse, doctor of police officer?

Haha! For once, Woodsedge, we agree.

Haha! For once, Woodsedge, we agree.

It's isn't an argument? Who said it was?
I'm merely pointing out that he needs to have a cigarette, a cup of coffee or walk the dog. Whatever it takes.
I'm not suggesting people break the law, quite clearly that's not helpful.
I am suggesting we don't don jackboots and start picking out firing squads.

JamesYoung wrote:
Haha! For once, Woodsedge, we agree.

James, you never know it could be the start of a trend!

sure the majority of Politicians are crooks but even women get the vote so at least you get a say in who filches the money, thing I have a problem is is simple,,, a whole tank of heating oil being stolen from an elderly couple on a small pension, disappeared the same day as a tinker called offering to fix their roof, oh and not forgetting the incident last year when several gypsies pulled up and filled up at the Shell garage in Dorch & left without paying a penny for the fuel, the trash they leave behind, faeces and general rubbish for the council to clear up, now theres a thought if the council workers were all sacked who'd carry out such tasks, , .... when the travelling community rock up best lock up and better hope your kids don't get tempted to buy the cannabis they peddle thesedays as well as some more hardcore drugs, ever wondered how they pay for all the 4x4's ??? there are not that many drives left to tarmac since the arrival of block paving,

zillion wrote:
sure the majority of Politicians are crooks but even women get the vote so at least you get a say in who filches the money, thing I have a problem is is simple,,, a whole tank of heating oil being stolen from an elderly couple on a small pension, disappeared the same day as a tinker called offering to fix their roof, oh and not forgetting the incident last year when several gypsies pulled up and filled up at the Shell garage in Dorch & left without paying a penny for the fuel, the trash they leave behind, faeces and general rubbish for the council to clear up, now theres a thought if the council workers were all sacked who'd carry out such tasks, , .... when the travelling community rock up best lock up and better hope your kids don't get tempted to buy the cannabis they peddle thesedays as well as some more hardcore drugs, ever wondered how they pay for all the 4x4's ??? there are not that many drives left to tarmac since the arrival of block paving,

Never heard of 'them' (the travellers) peddling any substances, & by stating this I'm not defending their morals, merely considering the logistics. Nicking - yes, drugs - no. In that sense it's the settlers to watch out for. If you have further info please share :-)

I wonder if they'll leave the car park as they found it?
Are they paying for parking?
Is overnight camping allowed?

The last three posts outline the issue rather well (i'm not sure about drug dealing either). Travellers operate outside the law, with scant regard for everybody else. The idea that we can't deal with problems in our community until we've dealt with a greedy banker is incorrect. If everybody started behaving towards their neighbours as travellers do then the town would be a pretty miserable place to live.

JamesYoung wrote:
The last three posts outline the issue rather well (i'm not sure about drug dealing either). Travellers operate outside the law, with scant regard for everybody else. The idea that we can't deal with problems in our community until we've dealt with a greedy banker is incorrect. If everybody started behaving towards their neighbours as travellers do then the town would be a pretty miserable place to live.

That's very much in your opinion...
In my opinion, there is no incentive for people that are already behaving badly ( a minority it has to be said, generally people are decent ) to do the right thing when they see those at the top of the tree abusing everyone else ( generally breaking the law to get there ). It is because of the decent majority that those bad few in a position of respectability continue to exploit, corrupt and generally disrespect society in a much more significant way than all of the 'difficult' people in this country put together - people on benefit, homeless, travellers etc.
The travellers have just as much legitimacy to their lifestyle as the royal family in my opinion. One law, one set of rules for everyone - no exceptions. I realise that this is a democracy so I accept the fact that this might not change. It doesn't mean I have to like it, and like yourselves I have the chance to voice my opinion democratically in the hope that things might change.

JamesYoung wrote:
The last three posts outline the issue rather well (i'm not sure about drug dealing either). Travellers operate outside the law, with scant regard for everybody else. The idea that we can't deal with problems in our community until we've dealt with a greedy banker is incorrect. If everybody started behaving towards their neighbours as travellers do then the town would be a pretty miserable place to live.

Well said James, a sensible and refreshing voice of reason and logic. no matter of creed, race or lifestyle laws are there so the whole of society functions and must be adhered too. The crazy notion that you can pick or choice what laws you comply with is simply sheer stupidity and the beginning of a very slippery slope otherwise what would be the point in having laws in the first place?

louiscox wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:
The last three posts outline the issue rather well (i'm not sure about drug dealing either). Travellers operate outside the law, with scant regard for everybody else. The idea that we can't deal with problems in our community until we've dealt with a greedy banker is incorrect. If everybody started behaving towards their neighbours as travellers do then the town would be a pretty miserable place to live.

That's very much in your opinion...
In my opinion, there is no incentive for people that are already behaving badly ( a minority it has to be said, generally people are decent ) to do the right thing when they see those at the top of the tree abusing everyone else ( generally breaking the law to get there ). It is because of the decent majority that those bad few in a position of respectability continue to exploit, corrupt and generally disrespect society in a much more significant way than all of the 'difficult' people in this country put together - people on benefit, homeless, travellers etc.
The travellers have just as much legitimacy to their lifestyle as the royal family in my opinion. One law, one set of rules for everyone - no exceptions. I realise that this is a democracy so I accept the fact that this might not change. It doesn't mean I have to like it, and like yourselves I have the chance to voice my opinion democratically in the hope that things might change.

Louis, i think you are lacking some important facts.
Firstly, the Royal Family own their land. The money that is raised from that land is paid to the Treasury and a small amount is allocated to the Civil List. In other words, the Royal Family are living off the proceeds of their land.
You can argue, as i have said many times, that the royal family should not be entitled to this land. However that argument undermines the rights of every home and landowner in the country since all land has been stolen at some point in time.
The Royal Family devote a significant proportion of their time to charity work and to pushing the interests of this country. They do not fly tip. They do not steal. They do not intimidate witnesses. They don't claim benefits.
As for your argument that people commit crime because they see people in positions of power getting away with it, that is utter rubbish. People commit crime because they are greedy, self serving criminals. According to Louis' Law, we will shortly have a country where it is perfectly ok to steal your neighbours car, because the issues at the top haven't been sorted.
I fear that you are an example of Labour's legacy - totally coached to believe in the entitlement of the lower classes and the criminalisation of the wealthy. Very few wealthy people commit crimes. Most of them have created employment for the rest of us. And if some of them avoid tax, are they any worse than the plumbers, builders and chippies that do it for a pastime? Do you not think that a motivation for tax avoidance might be the knowledge that their hard earned money is wasted and the realisation that in their time of need, they will probably be treated with utter contempt by the system that they have been paying into all their lives?
You can try to justify petty criminality and anti social behaviour, but the fact is most of us would like our communities to be safe and clean places to live. The reason that they aren't is not because of these "people at the top" but because of the liberal progressive agenda, which encourages idleness, excuses crime and has stolen the power from parents and teachers to discipline wayward kids. Then, when the inevitable descent into petty crime ensues, the liberal stands back and blames the capitalist.

Louiscox, What planet are you on? decent law abiding citizens are fed up of these so called "Traverllers" that seem to think that they can turn up on someones land, be it private or Council, make a mess and move on to do the same thing at the next junction, never mind the hurt and heartache they leave behind for others to bear the cost, here is an idea, why dont you put them up in your Garden, use all your aminities for free and clear up thier mess everyday. Laws are Laws, and while i agree that even those at the top break them at times, does not mean those at the bottom can get away with it either. i pay a parking ticket to park, give me one valid reason why they should'nt?, after all, as a full paying tax earner, i not only contribute to their welfare, you think it is good i pick up thier bills as well. i dont know if you are just winding people up or just have no realisation of the damage these people do, unless of course you are one of them! And how do they afford those great big 4x4s on welfare handouts? and do you think they should pay tax on the "tree bodging, drive bodging, roof bodging jobs they do? i doubt you would, perhaps it would be more prudent to give it back to the pensioners they have stole from without a care for their wellbeing, (yes, it happened to my 85yr old Mother). but alas, i believe you live in the same world as them, where you think those that work and pay under the laws, should support those that dont give a S**T.

JamesYoung wrote:

louiscox wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:
The last three posts outline the issue rather well (i'm not sure about drug dealing either). Travellers operate outside the law, with scant regard for everybody else. The idea that we can't deal with problems in our community until we've dealt with a greedy banker is incorrect. If everybody started behaving towards their neighbours as travellers do then the town would be a pretty miserable place to live.

That's very much in your opinion...
In my opinion, there is no incentive for people that are already behaving badly ( a minority it has to be said, generally people are decent ) to do the right thing when they see those at the top of the tree abusing everyone else ( generally breaking the law to get there ). It is because of the decent majority that those bad few in a position of respectability continue to exploit, corrupt and generally disrespect society in a much more significant way than all of the 'difficult' people in this country put together - people on benefit, homeless, travellers etc.
The travellers have just as much legitimacy to their lifestyle as the royal family in my opinion. One law, one set of rules for everyone - no exceptions. I realise that this is a democracy so I accept the fact that this might not change. It doesn't mean I have to like it, and like yourselves I have the chance to voice my opinion democratically in the hope that things might change.

Louis, i think you are lacking some important facts.
Firstly, the Royal Family own their land. The money that is raised from that land is paid to the Treasury and a small amount is allocated to the Civil List. In other words, the Royal Family are living off the proceeds of their land.
You can argue, as i have said many times, that the royal family should not be entitled to this land. However that argument undermines the rights of every home and landowner in the country since all land has been stolen at some point in time.
The Royal Family devote a significant proportion of their time to charity work and to pushing the interests of this country. They do not fly tip. They do not steal. They do not intimidate witnesses. They don't claim benefits.
As for your argument that people commit crime because they see people in positions of power getting away with it, that is utter rubbish. People commit crime because they are greedy, self serving criminals. According to Louis' Law, we will shortly have a country where it is perfectly ok to steal your neighbours car, because the issues at the top haven't been sorted.
I fear that you are an example of Labour's legacy - totally coached to believe in the entitlement of the lower classes and the criminalisation of the wealthy. Very few wealthy people commit crimes. Most of them have created employment for the rest of us. And if some of them avoid tax, are they any worse than the plumbers, builders and chippies that do it for a pastime? Do you not think that a motivation for tax avoidance might be the knowledge that their hard earned money is wasted and the realisation that in their time of need, they will probably be treated with utter contempt by the system that they have been paying into all their lives?
You can try to justify petty criminality and anti social behaviour, but the fact is most of us would like our communities to be safe and clean places to live. The reason that they aren't is not because of these "people at the top" but because of the liberal progressive agenda, which encourages idleness, excuses crime and has stolen the power from parents and teachers to discipline wayward kids. Then, when the inevitable descent into petty crime ensues, the liberal stands back and blames the capitalist.

James, we were getting on so well until your very simplistic and turn a blind eye approach to tax avoidance. In a spirit of bringing some proportion to the scale of the problem and some sense to the debate, there are various amounts of how much in total “tax dodgers” owe the HMRC and the tax payers. The figure I have is 5.2 billion!

• 5.2 billion would add £21 per week to those houses experiencing fuel poverty
• 2.1 billion would double the hours of free childcare entitlement to families that want to work more hours but can’t afford too.
• 2 billion through additional tax relief, would help 4 million low income workers
• 4.5 billion would double the number of affordable homes to be built from 170,000 to 340,000

All of the above measures would help to stimulate the economy and start to get the country spending again. You cannot make sweeping statements that all crime is wrong and then protect those in suits at the top of the food chain because they apparently create wealth

Woodsedge last time i checked the article was about travellers flaunting the pay as you park facility, an amenity maintained and funded by local tax payers and used by all. It has obsolutely nothing to do with corporate tax, tax dodgers or current HMRC policy. The bottom line is the law is the law.if you breach it then the relavant penalty should be enforced irrespect of the behavioue of the 650 unhonourable lairs in Westminster or international corporate businesses that comply with the lapse current HMRC regulations. I think it fair to say that the avergage punter simply wants the law to be enforced equally without except or excuse and this never seems to happen when it comes to travellers which is extremely frusting when you contribute to society, pay your way in life and play by the rules.

cj07589 wrote:
Woodsedge last time i checked the article was about travellers flaunting the pay as you park facility, an amenity maintained and funded by local tax payers and used by all. It has obsolutely nothing to do with corporate tax, tax dodgers or current HMRC policy. The bottom line is the law is the law.if you breach it then the relavant penalty should be enforced irrespect of the behavioue of the 650 unhonourable lairs in Westminster or international corporate businesses that comply with the lapse current HMRC regulations. I think it fair to say that the avergage punter simply wants the law to be enforced equally without except or excuse and this never seems to happen when it comes to travellers which is extremely frusting when you contribute to society, pay your way in life and play by the rules.

Agreed

woodsedge wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:

louiscox wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:
The last three posts outline the issue rather well (i'm not sure about drug dealing either). Travellers operate outside the law, with scant regard for everybody else. The idea that we can't deal with problems in our community until we've dealt with a greedy banker is incorrect. If everybody started behaving towards their neighbours as travellers do then the town would be a pretty miserable place to live.

That's very much in your opinion...
In my opinion, there is no incentive for people that are already behaving badly ( a minority it has to be said, generally people are decent ) to do the right thing when they see those at the top of the tree abusing everyone else ( generally breaking the law to get there ). It is because of the decent majority that those bad few in a position of respectability continue to exploit, corrupt and generally disrespect society in a much more significant way than all of the 'difficult' people in this country put together - people on benefit, homeless, travellers etc.
The travellers have just as much legitimacy to their lifestyle as the royal family in my opinion. One law, one set of rules for everyone - no exceptions. I realise that this is a democracy so I accept the fact that this might not change. It doesn't mean I have to like it, and like yourselves I have the chance to voice my opinion democratically in the hope that things might change.

Louis, i think you are lacking some important facts.
Firstly, the Royal Family own their land. The money that is raised from that land is paid to the Treasury and a small amount is allocated to the Civil List. In other words, the Royal Family are living off the proceeds of their land.
You can argue, as i have said many times, that the royal family should not be entitled to this land. However that argument undermines the rights of every home and landowner in the country since all land has been stolen at some point in time.
The Royal Family devote a significant proportion of their time to charity work and to pushing the interests of this country. They do not fly tip. They do not steal. They do not intimidate witnesses. They don't claim benefits.
As for your argument that people commit crime because they see people in positions of power getting away with it, that is utter rubbish. People commit crime because they are greedy, self serving criminals. According to Louis' Law, we will shortly have a country where it is perfectly ok to steal your neighbours car, because the issues at the top haven't been sorted.
I fear that you are an example of Labour's legacy - totally coached to believe in the entitlement of the lower classes and the criminalisation of the wealthy. Very few wealthy people commit crimes. Most of them have created employment for the rest of us. And if some of them avoid tax, are they any worse than the plumbers, builders and chippies that do it for a pastime? Do you not think that a motivation for tax avoidance might be the knowledge that their hard earned money is wasted and the realisation that in their time of need, they will probably be treated with utter contempt by the system that they have been paying into all their lives?
You can try to justify petty criminality and anti social behaviour, but the fact is most of us would like our communities to be safe and clean places to live. The reason that they aren't is not because of these "people at the top" but because of the liberal progressive agenda, which encourages idleness, excuses crime and has stolen the power from parents and teachers to discipline wayward kids. Then, when the inevitable descent into petty crime ensues, the liberal stands back and blames the capitalist.

James, we were getting on so well until your very simplistic and turn a blind eye approach to tax avoidance. In a spirit of bringing some proportion to the scale of the problem and some sense to the debate, there are various amounts of how much in total “tax dodgers” owe the HMRC and the tax payers. The figure I have is 5.2 billion!

• 5.2 billion would add £21 per week to those houses experiencing fuel poverty
• 2.1 billion would double the hours of free childcare entitlement to families that want to work more hours but can’t afford too.
• 2 billion through additional tax relief, would help 4 million low income workers
• 4.5 billion would double the number of affordable homes to be built from 170,000 to 340,000

All of the above measures would help to stimulate the economy and start to get the country spending again. You cannot make sweeping statements that all crime is wrong and then protect those in suits at the top of the food chain because they apparently create wealth

Well, in an attempt to return myself to favour, i do not dispute that avoidance is a real issue. I merely point out that avoidance is endemic at all levels, but we cannot allow ourselves to be paralysed and take no action against anybody because a few people are ripping off the country.
A far better approach would be to allow the economic cycle to run naturally. The greater threat to those on low incomes is the inflation that is being created by Quantitative Easing, and the quiet suggestion from Mark Carney, the new Governor of the Bank of England, that high inflation will be tolerated.
The right approach would be to stop printing money, allow house prices to fall to their natural level, take the burden of inflation of people in the rented sectors, thus also reducing the housing benefit bill. This would have a far greater effect than a mere $5bn drop in a $1,200bn ocean.
The reason that we are not seeing growth is because of two things - unsustainably high house prices that are preventing labour mobility and a Funding for Lending scheme that is pointless. 96% of all UK bank lending is to home owners, not businesses. Why? Because if a business goes under, there is nothing to repossess.
Government might want you to think that tax avoidance is the biggest problem we have, but it isn't.

woodsedge wrote:

cj07589 wrote:
Woodsedge last time i checked the article was about travellers flaunting the pay as you park facility, an amenity maintained and funded by local tax payers and used by all. It has obsolutely nothing to do with corporate tax, tax dodgers or current HMRC policy. The bottom line is the law is the law.if you breach it then the relavant penalty should be enforced irrespect of the behavioue of the 650 unhonourable lairs in Westminster or international corporate businesses that comply with the lapse current HMRC regulations. I think it fair to say that the avergage punter simply wants the law to be enforced equally without except or excuse and this never seems to happen when it comes to travellers which is extremely frusting when you contribute to society, pay your way in life and play by the rules.

Agreed

Also agreed.

But i enjoy a good rant, so ignore my next post, which also has little relevance to travellers!

I think I have stated several times that I don't condone anyone breaking the law. I am however resolutely anti fascist, and there is very much a hangem and be done lynch mentality to some of the replies here. I dont like the very right wing elements that this county attracts, its ugly. To me they are just as bad as those they seek to criticise.
I'm saying ( again ) that they way to prevent those anarchistic elements of our society from trying to destroy society is to ruthlessly punish those in power when they abuse their position. I think we can all say without equivocation that the system has been shown to be very corrupt of late? Need I go into that - I hope not. We all hope things are moving in the right direction now.

The royals. Ok, well if I we were having this conversation a few hundred years ago I would be picking Cromwells side, no two ways about that. When it comes down to it, I suspect that if you asked Prince Charles in confidence why he was next in line, his answer would not differ greatly from Charles I just before they cut off his head. I just don't believe in a monarchy. To me this country has always been repressed by the royals, and those that hang onto their coat tails. You can argue with me until you are blue in the face on that one. To me they are just another family on a supersized benefit, whilst we tell others not to make claims of the state.

I should point out that I'm equally critical of the Labour Party as much as the Conservatives. In my eyes Brown and Blair did just as much damage as Thatcher. I'm for anyone that's going to be honest and do a job that is basically very well paid and crucially important to those country.

louiscox wrote:
I think I have stated several times that I don't condone anyone breaking the law. I am however resolutely anti fascist, and there is very much a hangem and be done lynch mentality to some of the replies here. I dont like the very right wing elements that this county attracts, its ugly. To me they are just as bad as those they seek to criticise.
I'm saying ( again ) that they way to prevent those anarchistic elements of our society from trying to destroy society is to ruthlessly punish those in power when they abuse their position. I think we can all say without equivocation that the system has been shown to be very corrupt of late? Need I go into that - I hope not. We all hope things are moving in the right direction now.

The royals. Ok, well if I we were having this conversation a few hundred years ago I would be picking Cromwells side, no two ways about that. When it comes down to it, I suspect that if you asked Prince Charles in confidence why he was next in line, his answer would not differ greatly from Charles I just before they cut off his head. I just don't believe in a monarchy. To me this country has always been repressed by the royals, and those that hang onto their coat tails. You can argue with me until you are blue in the face on that one. To me they are just another family on a supersized benefit, whilst we tell others not to make claims of the state.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, with the exception of this "supersized benefit". The Royal Family own their land. As far as i can establish, all of their money comes from their land. If you dispute that this is their land, i must also dispute that your home is your land, because the legal principle is the same. If we go around taking land off people just because we don't think they should have it even though it's theirs, then we will end up like Robert Mugabe, presiding over a bankrupt state. Fortunately, as the Royal Family have a very high approval rating this won't change any time soon. And the idea that this country is oppressed by the Royals is frankly laughable. They have no constitutional powers, and if every civil servant had their work ethic, we'd be a rich country indeed.
As for your definition of fascist as anybody who thinks criminals should be punished, well, frankly, that really doesn't warrant an answer. The law of this land is clear. If you are punished, it is because you have broken the law, not because somebody else is picking on you.

louiscox wrote:
I should point out that I'm equally critical of the Labour Party as much as the Conservatives. In my eyes Brown and Blair did just as much damage as Thatcher. I'm for anyone that's going to be honest and do a job that is basically very well paid and crucially important to those country.

Good. Thatcher made a lot of mistakes - selling off council houses and encouraging globalisation being two of them in my book, however she also did a lot of good. You have to consider the state of the country when she came to power. Personally i think she tried to do the right thing. I'm not sure anybody since then (with the possible exception of John Major, who was probably incapable of hurting a fly) has been anything but cynical, devious and self serving.

Shall we call this the louiscox page, but don't say disagree with anything coz louiscox is right about EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JamesYoung - The law of the land is most definately not clear. For those in positions of power it's very ambiguous. For a privileged few, setting the rules is part of life. For everyone else it's following those rules.
Whilst the rules are fair and just, suitable for the masses, I'm happy to abide. When they are unjust, or the person setting them is clearly corrupt I'm afraid you will find me in opposition.
In example, Corpus delicti is a law that goes back hundreds of years. It is meant to protect someone being shipped to a foreign destination to face alternate laws at the convenience of the ruling power. Correct me if I'm wrong, buts that's exactly what's been done to anyone accused of terrorism at the moment?
Is that the law of the land your talking about?

Ok, Louis. I give up. I presume I am free to burgle your house and rape your girlfriend? After all, some MPs are still fiddling expenses.

That's a very confrontational example to pick? Our protection is in everybody looking out for everyone else. If you live in fear your loved ones will come to harm then I would suggest more time speaking to your neighbours and less watching tv, and reading the papers.

That's a very confrontational example to pick? Our protection is in everybody looking out for everyone else. If you live in fear your loved ones will come to harm then I would suggest more time speaking to your neighbours and less watching tv, and reading the papers.