Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dredwerker

Getting Traveller Status

Recommended Posts

I was discussing last night about how I might get traveller status and all the benefits it bestows. Like buying a piece of land and building a house and the council being too scared to do anything about it. Even if I got a ten year run that would save £1k a month plus not paying council tax or any taxes.

I found this on the Kent County Council Website:

Legal definition of Gypsies and Travellers and context

Race Relations Case Law recognises English Romany Gypsies, and Irish Travellers as ethnic minorities. These do not include New Age Travellers.

English Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers have the same rights to race relations protection as other recognised ethnic minority groups, but most rights are available to all under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Public bodies such as Kent County Council have a legal duty to promote equality and racial harmony between these groups and others in everything they do, including decision making.

Public bodies must also look to Human Rights legislation. This does not mean that Gypsies and Travellers receive special treatment - rather their needs should are balanced against those of the settled community.

Planning guidance definition

The planning guidance definition is different to the legal definition of Gypsies and Travellers, and is used for planning purposes:

The term "gypsies and travellers" means:

"Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family's or dependants' educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such.

Note the use of lower case 'g' and 't' for gypsies and travellers. In this definition it refers to a wider group than just those who belong to the ethnic groups mentioned in the legal definition."

Housing Act 2004 definition

The Housing Act 2004 definition is used for assessing accommodation needs - not just those in caravans (link will open in a new window).

The term "gypsies and travellers" means:

"persons with a cultural tradition of nomadism or of living in a caravan; and all other persons of a nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, including:

(i) such persons who, on grounds only of their own or their family's or dependant's educational or health needs or old age, have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently; and

(ii) members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people (whether or not travelling together as such)."

So New Age Travellers don't count. Why have the gypsies got this special status? What about Scottish Highland Travellers?

So I wondered if everybody ftb said they were travellers and bought a bit of land and built a house on it what the hell anyone could do about it.

Disclaimer: I am not inciting action(sort of) or having a go at Gypsies. Gypsies irritate me but I think Dale Farm is interesting as the council let it slide.

PS. No Emma @ dale farm jokes or Davina evictions please..:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're asking the wrong question... why should anyone have the right to steal another's property, including the government?

In the UK, the green belt has existed for just 50 years. Planning permission has existed for 100 years. People existed just fine long before either came in, whether a traveller or a settler alike.

The real crime was the creation of the planning laws in the first place, which stripped people of their right to freely build shelter on their land.

EDIT: reworded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romania maybe is a good example. Lots of travellers there. Sure the UK maybe come the poor man of Europe, and people would have horses living in the dining room, but life would be much simpler and happier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was discussing last night about how I might get traveller status and all the benefits it bestows. Like buying a piece of land and building a house and the council being too scared to do anything about it. Even if I got a ten year run that would save £1k a month plus not paying council tax or any taxes.

I found this on the Kent County Council Website:

So New Age Travellers don't count. Why have the gypsies got this special status? What about Scottish Highland Travellers?

So I wondered if everybody ftb said they were travellers and bought a bit of land and built a house on it what the hell anyone could do about it.

Disclaimer: I am not inciting action(sort of) or having a go at Gypsies. Gypsies irritate me but I think Dale Farm is interesting as the council let it slide.

PS. No Emma @ dale farm jokes or Davina evictions please..:)

Why have the gypsies got this special status?

Because there are so many of them and they pose a physical threat.

This lot know every trick in the book coupled with the fact they have a few well educated tree huggers pitching in

I like the comment I read that the quality of the tarmac on the site is far better than that seen on any of their jobs

The ones I know are pretty good to be fair, they hate the Irish element as much as the public does, probably more because it affects their reputation.... they are likeable and do a good job.

What the gypsies fail to figure out is that if they left the places they had been to in the same state as when they arrived and didn't bother locals no one would care about them, fact is they always want their cake and eat it

I wouldn't become a gypsy, I have had good reason to as well as I once lived in a mobile on my site but the continual uncertainty and Council threats would wear me down, I have watched it happen to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're asking the wrong question... why should anyone have the right to steal another's property, including the government?

In the UK, the green belt has existed for just 50 years. Planning permission has existed for 100 years. People existed just fine long before either came in, whether a traveller or a settler alike.

The real crime was the creating the planning laws in the first place, which stripped people of their right to freely build shelter on their land.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're asking the wrong question... why should anyone have the right to steal another's property, including the government?

In the UK, the green belt has existed for just 50 years. Planning permission has existed for 100 years. People existed just fine long before either came in, whether a traveller or a settler alike.

The real crime was the creating the planning laws in the first place, which stripped people of their right to freely build shelter on their land.

Yes, but to whom does the 'land' belong.

Can anyone provide honest evidence?

Take the first settlers to say, America, where there would have been 'land' without title ...... free land I guess you could say.

It 'belonged' to no-one...... then some-one comes along and says "it's mine".

very odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but to whom does the 'land' belong.

Can anyone provide honest evidence?

Take the first settlers to say, America, where there would have been 'land' without title ...... free land I guess you could say.

It 'belonged' to no-one...... then some-one comes along and says "it's mine".

very odd.

If it wasn't occupied and they then have worked with the land and improved it, they would have a reasonable claim on it. Any land they have not worked, they would have little claim to. If they are no longer using a portion of land, I am sure they would be willing to sell* it for a fee too.

Ofc, there are some grey areas over land ownership, but I don't see them as insurmountable obstacles. For instance, some has always been common/communal and often communities have respected this (pre-enclosures act, for instance). Other land is bought and then shared and/or rented. These situations can co-exist - not all land needs, or should have, an owner. * EDIT: If land has been abandoned or been unused/unclaimed for a long time, arguably, the land has returned to being unowned again too.

Either way, The Crown stole all of the land and the government acts as land lord for it, while constantly fiddling about with the contract terms. If you're arguing that land can't be owned, then you're arguing against state ownership too, remember. This would make planning laws illegitimate too.

IMO, considering that The Crown is the owner and the government is the land lord summarises the current situation quite well. The question is, why is all of the land in the UK owned by The Crown in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess its the planning laws really but its interesting to see how one group can get away with flouting them. A few teenagers cant get away with some trainers and a tv in London the book is thrown at them. If they had said they were Jedis or something then they might have got away with it.

BTW I wasnt suggesting becoming a traveller. Just getting the special status of buying a £20k bit of woodland and building a nice little house on it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because William, Duke of Normandy conquered the country in 1066.

Don't you think it's about time individuals took their land back again then?

It's a Red Herring anyway. What's important is our planning system, which clearly is bonkers.

If The Crown didn't own the land, her government would have no legitimacy to act as land lord. Therefore, the planning laws would be illegitimate and this discussion would be moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess its the planning laws really but its interesting to see how one group can get away with flouting them. A few teenagers cant get away with some trainers and a tv in London the book is thrown at them. If they had said they were Jedis or something then they might have got away with it.

BTW I wasnt suggesting becoming a traveller. Just getting the special status of buying a £20k bit of woodland and building a nice little house on it :)

One group stole all the land an this isle and beyond and still hasn't paid the due restitution. That's theft on a far grander scale than either of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasn't occupied and they then have worked with the land and improved it, they would have a reasonable claim on it. Any land they have not worked, they would have little claim to. If they are no longer using a portion of land, I am sure they would be willing to sell* it for a fee too.

Ofc, there are some grey areas over land ownership, but I don't see them as insurmountable obstacles. For instance, some has always been common/communal and often communities have respected this (pre-enclosures act, for instance). Other land is bought and then shared and/or rented. These situations can co-exist - not all land needs, or should have, an owner. * EDIT: If land has been abandoned or been unused/unclaimed for a long time, arguably, the land has returned to being unowned again too.

Either way, The Crown stole all of the land and the government acts as land lord for it, while constantly fiddling about with the contract terms. If you're arguing that land can't be owned, then you're arguing against state ownership too, remember. This would make planning laws illegitimate too.

IMO, considering that The Crown is the owner and the government is the land lord summarises the current situation quite well. The question is, why is all of the land in the UK owned by The Crown in the first place?

Yes. Anyone can go anywhere on condition they do no harm to other's property( as in stuff). In other words, One can walk across a any area of ground, but must cause no damage to, say, a farmers crop....... well you can, but then you owe the farmer for the loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have the gypsies got this special status?

I'm not sure they have got a particular special status in this instance. Its a fairy regular occurance for a land owner to be in a scrap with planning authorities and it to swing one way then the other in the courts. Of course it may not get the same press cover. Still, 'wicked travellers' is red rag to a bull for some of our newspapers in the way that 'rich man trying it on' is to others.

The thing is - many people, often wealthy property owners, believe that because they own land they ought to be allowed to do whatever they like on it. These travellers are simply claiming the same. In both cases Planning gets in their way.

Cheers or boos for planning depending upon your politics.

Strangely, people of a mind to support the rights of the wealthy property owner to do as they like are often those who most object to these travellers having the same right. And vice versa. Those who support planning regs obstructing the rich property owner object when the same regs obstruct the travellers. With a principle or a law the outcome should not depend upon the type of person to whom it is being applied.

As the law stands at the minute the travellers should be out - as should anyone else trying it on in the same fashion. Equally if government were to relax planning to allow people to do what they like with their own land then Travellers will have the same rights and can come back.

Very inconvenient all round. Quite entertaining waiting for politicians on all sides to twist themselves like a corkscrew over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Anyone can go anywhere on condition they do no harm to other's property( as in stuff). In other words, One can walk across a any area of ground, but must cause no damage to, say, a farmers crop....... well you can, but then you own the farmer for the loss.

Yup, I agree with that.

The idea of trespassing laws are a bit silly really... how can anyone define compensation, when you had clearly done no damage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think it's about time individuals took their land back again then?

What difference would it make? A freehold is as good as owning land outright.

If The Crown didn't own the land, her government would have no legitimacy to act as land lord. Therefore, the planning laws would be illegitimate and this discussion would be moot.

No, wrong wrong wrong. The Crown-in-Parliament would still be sovereign over the territory of the UK. Parliament would still be able to pass any law, including planning legislation.

You're confusing land ownership with sovereignty. Many countries don't have the system of estates like we do (where by the Crown is the notional owner of all land and people own estates in it) but of course their governments/parliaments regulate what can and cannot be built etc.

As I said, it's a matter of planning legislation/rules, not the technicalities of land ownership. Prior to the 20th century there was very little, if any, planning regulation and people could build what they wanted where they wanted. And yet the system of estates in land from the Crown was the same then as it is now.

Don't fall for the Red Herring. If you want change in the planning system, get Parliament to change the law related to planning. Don't start chasing after pointless reform of what is merely a technicality (that the Crown is the notional owner of all land in the UK).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I agree with that.

The idea of trespassing laws are a bit silly really... how can anyone define compensation, when you had clearly done no damage?

No damage = no damages awarded.

But the court can impose an injunction. If you breach that then you're in contempt of court. Then you're in the do-dah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because William, Duke of Normandy conquered the country in 1066.

It's a Red Herring anyway. What's important is our planning system, which clearly is bonkers.

Don't think it's a red herring. The planning system is an effect of 'land' theft. What would be the point of a planning system if you were free to build without causing harm to others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure they have got a particular special status in this instance. Its a fairy regular occurance for a land owner to be in a scrap with planning authorities and it to swing one way then the other in the courts. Of course it may not get the same press cover. Still, 'wicked travellers' is red rag to a bull for some of our newspapers in the way that 'rich man trying it on' is to others.

The thing is - many people, often wealthy property owners, believe that because they own land they ought to be allowed to do whatever they like on it. These travellers are simply claiming the same. In both cases Planning gets in their way.

Cheers or boos for planning depending upon your politics.

Strangely, people of a mind to support the rights of the wealthy property owner to do as they like are often those who most object to these travellers having the same right. And vice versa. Those who support planning regs obstructing the rich property owner object when the same regs obstruct the travellers. With a principle or a law the outcome should not depend upon the type of person to whom it is being applied.

As the law stands at the minute the travellers should be out - as should anyone else trying it on in the same fashion. Equally if government were to relax planning to allow people to do what they like with their own land then Travellers will have the same rights and can come back.

Very inconvenient all round. Quite entertaining waiting for politicians on all sides to twist themselves like a corkscrew over it.

When you create policy on the hoof, with little usage of a moral compass, to please one set of lobbyists or another, you will always end up with these contradictions.

There is no logic to the way the current system works, because it skirts around the abuse of fundamental rights of the individual. When kings were considered to rule by divine right, it at least made some sort of sense to those who believed it - the king was acting as God's hand and people respected that (no matter how silly it sounds). Does the government have a divine right now? Can they make judgement calls in the name of The Lord, while retracting responsibility for it due to it being God's will? Of course not... most aren't fooled by that guff any more.

The days, we are 'ruled' by the mob who shout loudest. The lobbyists with the loudest mouths, closest to the ears of the politicians now get what they want. The government tries to argue that people have 'their own' property, but just can't do certain things with it, which would negate the initial assertion. The only logical answer is that The Crown still owns all of the land and the government just extracts the rent on her behalf. However, admitting that, would mean admitting that people are not free and that they do not own 'their' property at all; they are merely subjects of The Crown... tax livestock to feed the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think it's a red herring. The planning system is an effect of 'land' theft. What would be the point of a planning system if you were free to build without causing harm to others?

The planning system came about in the 20th century.

This "theft" of land took place in the 11th century.

Notice the 9 centuries in between..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No damage = no damages awarded.

But the court can impose an injunction. If you breach that then you're in contempt of court. Then you're in the do-dah.

Yes, because the court is contemptible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The days, we are 'ruled' by the mob who shout loudest. The lobbyists with the loudest mouths, closest to the ears of the politicians now get what they want. The government tries to argue that people have 'their own' property, but just can't do certain things with it, which would negate the initial assertion. The only logical answer is that The Crown still owns all of the land and the government just extracts the rent on her behalf. However, admitting that, would mean admitting that people are not free and that they do not own 'their' property at all; they are merely subjects of The Crown... tax livestock to feed the state.

Again, confusing sovereignty with land ownership. Even if you owned your freehold outright, with no system of estates derived from ultimate Crown ownership, Parliament could still authorise the government to collect taxes from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no logic to the way the current system works, because it skirts around the abuse of fundamental rights of the individual. When kings were considered to rule by divine right, it at least made some sort of sense to those who believed it - the king was acting as God's hand and people respected that (no matter how silly it sounds). Does the government have a divine right now? Can they make judgement calls in the name of The Lord, while retracting responsibility for it due to it being God's will? Of course not... most aren't fooled by that guff any more.

No, governments (in the UK at least) work on the democratic will of the people, even though that's about as believable as kings ruling by divine right in reality.

The days, we are 'ruled' by the mob who shout loudest. The lobbyists with the loudest mouths, closest to the ears of the politicians now get what they want. The government tries to argue that people have 'their own' property, but just can't do certain things with it, which would negate the initial assertion. The only logical answer is that The Crown still owns all of the land and the government just extracts the rent on her behalf. However, admitting that, would mean admitting that people are not free and that they do not own 'their' property at all; they are merely subjects of The Crown... tax livestock to feed the state.

The problem with that is that even on land unambiguously owned by the Crown the Crown can't do whatever it feels like with it either. And not letting you do whatever you want with your own land is no different from anything else. As long as anything you do can have some impact on others then it's not unreasonable to have some restrictions. Complain about the level and inconsistency of restriction - fair enough. Not about the existence of any at all though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, governments (in the UK at least) work on the democratic will of the people, even though that's about as believable as kings ruling by divine right in reality.

In reality our government works on the will of some people, with the acquiescence of everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was discussing last night about how I might get traveller status and all the benefits it bestows. Like buying a piece of land and building a house and the council being too scared to do anything about it. Even if I got a ten year run that would save £1k a month plus not paying council tax or any taxes.

I found this on the Kent County Council Website:

So New Age Travellers don't count. Why have the gypsies got this special status? What about Scottish Highland Travellers?

So I wondered if everybody ftb said they were travellers and bought a bit of land and built a house on it what the hell anyone could do about it.

Disclaimer: I am not inciting action(sort of) or having a go at Gypsies. Gypsies irritate me but I think Dale Farm is interesting as the council let it slide.

PS. No Emma @ dale farm jokes or Davina evictions please..:)

By that definition I am a traveller already then! I have travelled around Europe for the past 13 years and never settled anywhere, always on the move taking that next contract! Can I stop paying tax then? Or do I have to travel around Kent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What difference would it make? A freehold is as good as owning land outright.

If you can't do with it as you please, the real owner is preventing you from doing so. Gaining a freehold doesn't mean you have ownership.

No, wrong wrong wrong. The Crown-in-Parliament would still be sovereign over the territory of the UK. Parliament would still be able to pass any law, including planning legislation.

You're confusing land ownership with sovereignty. Many countries don't have the system of estates like we do (where by the Crown is the notional owner of all land and people own estates in it) but of course their governments/parliaments regulate what can and cannot be built etc.

As I said, it's a matter of planning legislation/rules, not the technicalities of land ownership. Prior to the 20th century there was very little, if any, planning regulation and people could build what they wanted where they wanted. And yet the system of estates in land from the Crown was the same then as it is now.

Don't fall for the Red Herring. If you want change in the planning system, get Parliament to change the law related to planning. Don't start chasing after pointless reform of what is merely a technicality (that the Crown is the notional owner of all land in the UK).

If The Crown or her government doesn't own the land, they have no legitimacy to tell you what to do with it. Either the laws are invalid or you don't really own 'your' property at all.

Lobbying the state's land lord may get you more favourable terms, but it won't mean that they will give you their land. Parliament only has legitimacy on the land it has property rights over. If people were to declare independence, The Crown (the government doesn't command the army) would either have to use force to retain the land or admit that they didn't really own it at all, leaving you to do as you please with it.

You only need to witness the travellers attempting to assert their property rights to see the picture in true clarity. The state owns you and your land, while ever you are within its borders.

As for republics with constitutions, lots of modern laws are viewed as illegal by many. This is why there is a movement in the US to return to the constitution and for illegitimate laws to be scrapped; the government never had the right to create them in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 276 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.