Looking at this thread has been an eye-opening experience for me, I thought Mudcat was all traditional music. It's interesting though to see how the discussion has developed quite aggressively over such a short time.
I wonder, if "Travellers" are to be a group with certain rights and privileges, should they not be more clearly defined than appears in the thread? They seem to range from settled people whose ancestors travelled to anyone who wants to roam freely, with complete flexibility in definition being dependent on the point the writer wishes to make.
My only direct contact with travellers was over 50 years ago, the chap and his wife were charming and friendly, but he had a reputation as a bare-knuckle fighter and featured in the Sunday papers for kidnapping his debtors from Manchester pubs to build a monument on Snowdon to his dead father.
As a group they can't all be bad, but the piles of rubbish after many temporary sites have been vacated are not imaginary and I do get the feeling that many think that laws are meant for others, not them.
They are the victims of "progress", however it is defined, but are by no means the only group to be affected, think farm workers, miners,steel workers. They have had to face up to changed circumstances, can "Travellers" be immune?