Why are they being favoured?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....removed-48-hours.html

Why has the council gave these illegal dwellers the assurance that all buildings will be removed 'with care' and not demolished, even going as far to say that those fences and walls that will be demolished to allow access, will later be reinstated?

/// Campaigner Candy Sheridan said: 'If they demolish walls, we will make sure they restore them with precisely matching bricks. If they damage property they are not entitled to damage, we will claim for it.///

How can this be so when there have been many who have built without planning permission, much more expensive buildings etc, but have later been made to bull-dozer the lot?

Why are these travellers who have also flaunted the planning laws, being treated so superiorly differently?

[anotheoldgit]

http://menmedia.co.uk...built_500k_dream_home

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0629/murray.html

http://www.dailymail....-permission-home.html

[Zeuhl]

They are not being favoured.

Illegal structures are being demolished.

Some walls that have been destroyed were not themselves illegal just obstructing the clearance.

Many of the 'buildings' were not illegal just their placement on illegal hard standing. So the buildings will be carefully returned to their owners and the hard standing ripped up.

It's called enforcing the Law in a proper manner - it's what we do in Britain given half a chance. It's just a pity this wasn't done 10 years ago.

[saxy_jag]

Because you are allowed to build fences and walls around your land.

And demolition is always done 'with care'. Anyone who drives a bulldozer straight through a property is acting stupidly, dangerously and illegally. I suspect anyone being asked to remove an illegal building will have it taken down 'with care'.

[anotheoldgit]

/// The majority of the clearance is likely to get under way on Monday, with a council spokesman saying properties would be removed 'with care' and not demolished.///

Why are their properties being removed with 'care and not demolished', whereas the persons in the three links I provided had no choice but to demolish them?

[ummmm]

I very much doubt Cliff Richard demolished his conservatory without care.

[Zeuhl]

Old Git

The posts already here answer your question (Good Grief)

[jackthehat]

Because it is not entirely practical to try to tow a masonry house/conservatory to elsewhere.......

In your links the buildings themselves were illegal constructions, the caravans at Dale Farm are simply situated illegally and are easily transportable.

[Zeuhl]

To spell out what should be obvious ...

many of the Dale Farm properties are not permanent structures so are quite different from the cases in Old Git's links.

As such they are not illegal in themselves - it is their placement on illegal hard standing. They can easily be removed intact and the illegal hard standings 'demolished'.

[anotheoldgit]

I may be old but I am not senile, if you had cared to notice some of the properties are not mobile and to anyone with a little bit of understanding would realise it is them that I am obviously referring to and not the towable caravans.

/// many of the Dale Farm properties are not permanent
structures ///

Notice that Zeuhl was careful to type 'MANY' not 'ALL' but 'MANY'.

Struth it's hard getting through to some.

[emmie]

Trig, no you don't, he understands, but sometimes it does look as though
there is one rule for one, and one rule for another, whereas if all people were
treated equally but fairly then there wouldn't be so much cribbing.

[Brenden]

Equal justice trig not social justice, i have repeated this so many times on these links.

[Zeuhl]

Old Git

It is not a question of difficulty getting through.

If you had more respect for truth and accuracy in the detail of what you post and the way you argue points you might appreciate that sometimes the answer lies in that detail and vague generalisations only lead to mis-communication and annoyance.

<<some of the properties are not mobile and to anyone with a little bit of understanding would realise it is them that I am obviously referring to and not the towable caravans.>>

Even those that are not obviously 'towable caravans' may be in that grey area called 'mobile homes' or structures that are, in legal terms, not permanent

ie they can be lifted intact from their bases - unlike the conventional structures you cited.

As has been posted several times already, if the council can lift these not-illegal but illegally placed structures off the illegal hard standing with care then they will and they should.

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

Not just hard, but double hard it seems.

[Lonnie]

Ten years ago, these Travellers, if that's what they really are, leagally bought that land, knowing it was Green Belt and can't legally build on it, but that's exactly what they did, then put in for retrospective planning permerission also knowing it wouldn't be granted.

I live about a mile from this site, on the Wickford side of Crays Hill.

These people are Travellers, let them live up to that name, and Travel.

[emmie]

Lonnie, you have my sympathies.

[Zeuhl]

<<Not just hard, but double hard it seems.>>

There's none so blind as the deliberately stupid

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhi

/// There's none so blind as the deliberately stupid ///

That fits you perfectly then, considering that you can't see that some buildings are of a permanent construction.