Vorpal wrote:Psamathe wrote:Cugel wrote:.....
Generally I find "travellers" very friendly folk, even if there are also some other habits less attractive amongst some such folk. In fact, they vary a great deal, to the point where there really is no easy classification of "them, the travellers". Just because they are peripatetic.....
.....
After our Parish Council meeting discussing the local Traveller Planning application to destroy protected rural countryside and contrary to many planning policies, most people attended would say no more than that they felt too intimidated to speak. I was not and I was threatened, people asking afterwards if I felt safe now. (The Travellers concerned attended and were not shy in telling people what would happen ...).
Ian
I'm sorry that you experienced that. And I do not condone violence.
However, aggression of that sort has a cause. What have they already been through to feel they need to threaten someone? Where have they been and how many planning applications have been rejected? What, if any, sanctioned sites are available to them? How many times have authorities told them they can't live on land that they've bought, but must go live somewhere that no one else wants? How many times have their human rights been violated?
It's probably rather off-topic and I'm reserved about deflecting too much from the main topic which I do regard as important, particularly as my own experience becomes anecdotal and thus of limited useful. Bt to answer your questions:
Sanctioned sites are available.
No other previous planning applications rejected (they were previously in Council Housing which the decided to leave). Thus, not been told "no" by authorities previously (at leave not for quite a few years).
I have no idea how many times their "Human Rights" have been violated.
It was not only me who got threats in the Parish Council. One Councillor shocked the rest of the council by abstaining from all votes on the issue - I get on well with the Parish Council and the reason for that was later revealed!
They paid well over the top for land protected from development. They then did a fair bit of damage to the protected ecosystem and protected species. Access was dangerous (I was nearly "taken out" by a cab truck reversing out and I then had a torrent of verbal abuse), local nurse had been blocked from attending a patient by site related vehicles blocking the road, etc..
What has made things worse for this area is that this was not the 1st such case. It is a fairly regular thing these days. Lasts about 4 years. 1st couple of years spent with planning whilst the site gets trashed (get permission, do something different, argue, get more permission, fail to comply with conditions, etc.). Then maybe a year later the site is abandoned and left like an abandoned landfill site. People (round here) don't object because for discriminatory reasons as they know it will be gone shortly after the planning has settled down; they object to the protected environments being trashed.
But, in replying I don't want to divert from the school cycling issue ...
Ian