BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:18 AM

They not only preserved the oral tradition in Ireland but much of Ireland's music as well. For all we know, they may be descended from the Firbolgs themselves ;>)

Every country has its homeless wanderers, its rag pickers, its tin smiths, etc. Seems that the old caste system seems to continually rear its ugly head. Ireland is not the only country who have people living off the waste of others. Look at Rio or Mexico City. Look at India! At least the Travellers of Ireland have some dignity.


I think Michael Howard sounds like the kind of bully that would like to strip them of that. Another world-class bully! An inept politician that needs to use a scapegoat because he really has nothing positive to offer. Its easy to find scapegoats. The only way people like Howard get any power is from the crowd that stands around and cheers them on.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:11 PM

I am a bit surprised that no one has mentioned on what is after all a folkie site the reason we all should be grateful to travellers in general, that they preserved our oral tradition after it had largely disappeared from the general population. The generalisations about travelling people do smack of racism very strongly to me.

As for the Labour versus Tory argument, I have never had any illusion that when voting in a general election, I am voting for a faction of the ruling class. This has been particularly blatant with the takeover of the Labour Party in the mid nineties when the part of the ruling class that wants us to integrate more with Europe destroyed what was left of democracy in the party because they had despaired of the Tories ever achieving it.

The interesting thing is that they then went on to attack the other faction by trying to reform the Lords etc. I envy some people's luxury of deciding which way to vote. I live in Oldham and the fascist BNP are putting up a candidate so I have no alternative but to vote for the candidate most likely to win which is Michael Meacher. Thank god I don't live in a Tory constituency or I would be forced to vote for them.

The choice for a lot of us is between New Labour neo Thatcherism or Conservative crypto fascism. For a working class person and/or a socialist, voting in a parliamentary election is always tactical. For the record I have always got on quite well with travellers who like my music and I am willing to forgive them virtually anything for the survival of Black Dog and Sheep Crook.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:46 AM

Agreed Richard, and maybe I could have been clearer in my post. My main point was that there are some "travellers" (a small minority I'm sure) who are neither ethnic Roma nor genuine nomads, but simply avoid the responsibilities that the rest of us, including those two groups accept.

My main point was that the people who are complained of are unlikely to be gypsies, and should not be labelled as such.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:42 PM

Don, we are all mongrels. You yourself say that you are the only Englishman in your family for centuries.

I would be pretty careful before pontificating about the geographical or ethnic origin of Roma, and twice as careful before drawing rigid lines between Roma and other nomadic members of modern societies.

Oh, and by the way, quite a few of the locals who want us to play folk in the pub next door to me have at least some family members linked to local "travellers" - some of whom I think are part-blood Roma. Certainly a careful ear to the language would imply so.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:14 PM

Could I point out the error which both politicians and many real people persist in making.

The terms "Traveller" and "gypsy" are not, repeat NOT, synonymous.

Gypsies are not "travellers"! They originate from the India/Pakistan sub continental area of Asia, and are an independent ethnic group.

Anyone who has read the history of these people will be aware that they differ from us only in the fact that they choose to live a nomadic life. They are generally fastidious about leaving their camp sites spotless, and show genuine concern for their environment.

True, they had a reputation of stealing, and of kidnapping young people (largely undeserved), because people are always inclined, when property is stolen, to blame a passing stranger rather than believe that their neighbours would be guilty.

Youngsters would often run off with a gypsy group, for the romantic notion of "The open road", and to escape the hardships of a life of near slavery on their parents' farms, and there is little real evidence to support any other scenario.

Travellers, on the other hand, may include some descendants of ethnic Romany, but are in many cases people who choose the travelling life to avoid paying taxes, and being subject to the law of the land.

Called Tinkers (wrongly) in Ireland, and Didikoi by the real Romany, they are the ones that are responsible for most of the mess that is being complained of.

Perhaps we all need to re-assess just what it is we feel we want to support?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 09:14 AM

The real difference in this case is that the words of Michael Howard together with the slogan, with its nudge-nudge implication, are implicitly supporting and seeking to take advantage of tabloid press campaigns, notably in the the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, which are very unambiguously directed at stirring up and exploiting hatred and fear directed against gypsies.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 09:06 AM

The real difference in this case is that the words of Michael Howard together with the slogan, with its nudge-nudge implication, is implicitly supporting and seeking to take advantage of tabloid press campaigns, notably in the the Daily and the Daily Express, which are very unambiguously directed at stirring up and exploiting hatred and fear directed against gypsies.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:58 AM

Se my post of 11.25, 22nd march, for the Tories published policies on travellers. The only way they are any worse than any of the other parties on this issue is a scary slogan.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:49 AM

Noreen says to snipe at the Labour government? Not impressed- but then that is how MH behaves.

That's how they all behave, Noreen.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Noreen
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:45 AM

Cllr- the best you can come up with in the current discussion to support the Conservative policies is to snipe at the Labour government? Not impressed- but then that is how MH behaves.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:22 AM

Glok: OK, I'll come clean. I have got an anti-Tory axe to grind. And it's shining steel, tempered in the fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: LadyJean
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:46 AM

When George Wallace of Alabama began his political career, he was a populist, with good ideas to improve life for everyone in his impoverished state.
His opponent, played the race card, claiming that Wallace was soft on Blacks.
Wallace lost the election, and vowed that no one would ever "outn-gger him again". He won two terms as governor, running on a racist platform, and, when he couldn't run again, he ran his wife, and she got elected.
Lester Maddox, of Georgia, also got a good deal of political capital by running as a racist. Finding a group people don't particularly like, and running against them, instead of having an actual platform, is a fine, old, political tradition.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:58 PM

Yes very Max Miller Kevin, Honi soit qui mal y pense, and all that.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:43 PM

"Are you thinking what we are thinking".

No, they know better than to actually spell it out, its "Nudge nudge, know what I mean" time.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:35 PM

Is the Tory party adopting a racist anti traveller policy? I haven't heard that said by any member of the party! I have heard it assumed that that is what their poster means, by those with an anti Tory axe to grind.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:23 PM

There's still instinctive tendency to talk as if this was a presidential style national vote. It's not, it's hundreds of local polls, and in different places different choices are appropriate.

As eliza pointed out, Scarborough, which is where Norma and Martin are voting, is a seat where there's every possibility that not voting Labour puts the Tory in - and with a Tory party adopting a racist anti-traveller policy, that isn't something they are prepared to go along with.

In other seats it's a different story, and a different choice would make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Cllr
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:20 PM

Anybody who wants to support the party who introduced the PEL laws feel free and vote labour

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: EagleWing
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:00 PM

BTW Do you feel better now Frank? ¦¬]

Better than what, John?

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:21 PM

At least the Tories have made travellers an issue for some time. The Labour party seem to have no policy, and as for the Lib Dems:

20th October 2004,

David Heath MP, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Home Affairs.

David Heath asked: "Colleagues and I have repeatedly raised the issue of the proliferation of unauthorised Travellers' sites in our constituencies. Given the written answer of yesterday's date stating thatthere are 3,571 caravans on unauthorised encampments or unauthorised developments of land without planning permission, and the court case that occurred in recent weeks, is it not time that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister produced proposals which, to be fair, it has promised, to increase the powers of local planning authorities? Many people worry about the integrity of the planning process and relationships between our communities and travellers."

From the Lib dem website. Bold highlighting mine.

So none of the major parties (in England) are even thinking about building more sites, which is what is needed. Making it easier to move people on if they are creating a nuisence should not be contraversial if there are places for them to go.

The Tories in the mid 90's helped create this shortfall in sites, but why attack them for saying what the other parties are thinking anyway?
Or do we think Prescott might find room for a few sites in his plan to concrete over Southern England?

Bunnhabhain

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Jim McLean
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:14 AM

Most of the previous postings assume we are only talking about England. If you live in Scotland or Wales there are other choices. Before proportional representation in Scotland, the Tories were scuppered and presently the SNP is the second party. Labour runs Scotland due to the Lib/Lab pact, something one seldom reads about in the English Press. Votes for the Scottish Socialist Party could send shivers down Blair's spine and in Wales, of course, Plaid Cumry is an alternative to Blair. And there is Respect. We have to put pressure on our prospective and incumbant MPs for answers regarding their views on human rights, before voting. This is a democracy and by definition the majority of people will get the government they vote for. Tactical voting can only be justified in a very marginal seat and all the parties' policies have to be considered. We musn't forget some of the good things to come from New Labour; the minimum wage and help for families with children etc., however by following Bush into war, illegally and immorally, Blair has pushed all this into the background. I live in England and I'll be voting Labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,eliza c
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:24 AM

Hear,hear McGrath. More legal sites and less hearsay and racism. It's a vicious circle, there have to be systems in place that allow everyone to live with dignity, because these people exist and the longer they are excluded and vilified the less respect they will have for everyone else. Of course, there will always be morons, settled or not! :-) x e

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:35 AM

Travellers who are able to live on legal sites do pay council tax towards local services on the same basis as other people.

The assumption that tax evasion is greater any other section of the population is just that, an assumption. If that kind of argument were being made about say, Jews in general, it would be recognised for what it is.

People who get out of paying their share towards the common good ought to be made to pay, fair enough. And most of that does in fact involve wealthy people with dodgy lawyers, and it's called "tax avoidance" rather than "tax evasion" and it escapes prosecution because it's so complicated and expensive prosecuting the people carrying out the scams that they get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:00 AM

Greg

you may well be correct in your recycling scenario, however if people wish to take advantage of facilities provided be it schooling, electricity, land etc it would seem logical that they contribute to the cost. People should give according to their ability and take according to their needs, if certain sections/individauls do not contribute the effect is felt by the rest of the population. I wonder if the people who are sympathetic to the cause of the Travellers are the same people who shout from the roof tops when some rich bugger avoids paying taxes through dubious means

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:46 AM

Greg we regularly had "gipsies" moved onto a piece of open ground near us, a place that was part playing fields, and part peaceful riverside walk. When they had gone there were piles of garden rubbish, along with the usual detritus of broken kids toys, and household and personal waste. There was also a blackened and burned circle about 10' across where they had been burnig the plastic covering off cable they had 'acquired' [clean scrap is worth more], how many PCBs and Phenols along with other deadly chemicals they released in doing this I hate to think, but 3 years later the grass still hadn't grown back. Add to that the fact that our dog received a very deep cut on her paw due to broken glass left there in the grass, and it will become clear, what chaos and pain their "recycling" can cause.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:49 AM

Thanks for posting this letter McGrath - surely no-one could have put the conundrum that faces decent voters any better than Martin and Norma. If I were still living in Britain I would have to vote Labour because the Tories stink even worse - the lesser of two weevils, as they say in the Navy. But if I thought the Lib-Dem candidate could get in I would vote for him or her.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:08 PM

The beauty of first past the post elections. They build in biases better than any other system, and benifit the party in power, and so is resistent to reform. The system may be bad, but is no worse than the alternatives.

This is, of course, unless you're a lib dem, in which case FPP screws you all the time, as opposed to the other two who it is only a problem for some of the time...

Roll on the day when the seats are equalisied.

Bunnhabhain.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,eliza c
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:07 PM

Scarborough isn't a marginal seat. 1997 was the first year our area had voted Labour for at least as long as my parents had lived there. How depressing this non-choice is, how frightening and awful the rhetoric and the risks. At least bloody Blunkett isn't with them any more. x e

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:35 PM

Back in the days when New Labour was new, the clear message was that a Labour Government could be expected to change the electoral system, to avoid this kind of dilemma. Then they ratted on it. Understandably - the possibility of the Tories slipping back in is the strongest weapon in New Labour's armoury, when it comes to persuading people to vote Labour tactically when they don't actually feel like doing so.

It always makes me think of a hostage situation "Vote me, or the kid gets it".

And they have the effrontery to suggest that the reason voting numbers are falling away is "voter apathy".

One thing - Michael Howard's majority down in Folkestone is only 5,907 - a lot lower than Tony Blair's 17,713 voters. Now wouldn't it be good if they could both be wiped out electorally, the way they deserve to be wiped out!

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:18 PM

I'm not bothered by people avoiding the taxman in this context.;

I'm not bothered by people making a living processing junk.

I am bothered by people processing junk, and leaving the 90% they cannot use for the council to clear up.

It's not the responsible majority of travellers who cause the problems for everyone. Same as Motorists. Same as...

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:54 PM

Greg is so right. In our borough the council charge us to remove bulky household items. We leave them outside our houses and at night the travellers come in their open back vans, load 'em up and by the morning it's gone. No problem at all. And they manage to do all that without stealing our children.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: greg stephens
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:12 PM

GUEST draws attention to the crap some Gypsies/Travellers have left behind in Whitby on occasion. He may well be right. However, could I also draw attention to an example of the Bleeding Obvious, that the Gypsies/Travellers round here in Stoke (and doubtless elsewhere) have been making their living for generations in part by removing and processing other people's rubbish, since long before words like "recycling", "ecology" and "environment" crept into current political currency.
    I was in a chapel undegoing a refit just down the hill from us a week or two back. A friend of mine was doing the work, and I dropped in to see how it was going on. In the middle of the floor was big heap of assoted cables, pipes etc. Your very young man from Donegal(possibly. I'm guessing) looked in, had a nose around. He had a flatbed truck outside, loaded up with assorted junk. He made a quick assessment, pulled out his roll and said "Fifty quid the lot". Now my mate Peteer said "No" actually, so the lad went off. Peter had is own idea, and took the pile away himself at the end of the day. I was intigued by the lad's business, and how it works, so I asked Peter how much he'd got whn the stuff was weighed in. Seventy five quid, he told me.
   So that's how it works, for those who are unfamiliar with the precise mechanics(as I was). The gypsy lad drives around Stoke, making enquiries, following his nose if he spots some building work. Buys junk off people when he can, sells it for recycling, and makes a few bob. Quite probably without unduly troubling the tax man, if that bothers you.
    So if people occasionally settle somewhere, get moved on and leave a few bits of stuff around. OK, it's disgusting. But please remember the huge pile of crap they are shifting on our behalf every day(and yes, making a precarious living out of it, fair play to them). And they seem to me, on average, to have a bit more respect for traditional music than the average suburbanite. But of course, that may just be my romantic prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:57 PM

What a fascinating pair of ads Google has currently picked out to go with this thread:

Conservative Singles
Join Free, We Match Conservatives! A Community of Conservative Singles

Say Thanks to Tony Blair
Send a thank you note to the British for helping the USA in Iraq

So far I can't see many takers for either of those from the people who have posted in the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:50 AM

Each year at whitby Regatta a site (albeit basic)is set up for the Travellers who attend. Each year it costs many thousands to clear up the site afterwards of rubbish and debris including on occasion human waste. Who foots the bill, the tax payers of Whitby Scarborough and Filey, the Travellers move on. Now I don't have a problem if people desire to live a nomadic existence, it has a certain attraction for me, however every indivdual has a responsibilty to the common cause and if people negate their responsibilty if puts more pressure on the rest of us. If facilities are provided it would seem only just that some recompense is paid, not only for it's use but for clearing up afterward. It is really asking too much ?

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:26 AM

It seems to me that "New Labour" is merely venal.

Howard's conservatives, like those of Thatcher are indeed purely evil.

We cannot take the risk of Howard.

I will be guided by the polls. If there is any risk of a conservative victory then I must vote New Labour. Alas Labour is unavailable. Voting Lib Dem in a close race might let Howard in.

If, however, B. Liar's majority is reduced, then perhaps his arrogance may be reduced, and Old Labour MPs like Robert Marshall-Andrews may exercise influence. So if it looks as if a Labour landslide is likely I will vote Lib Dem. I don't suppose there will be any other option locally.

Perhaps I should have paid more attention to the recent programmes on the Russian Revolution...

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:14 AM

Anybody who values integrity will dislike that traitor Tony Blair! He is a latter day Vicar of Bray who is determined to leave no coat unturned.

Giok

BTW Do you feel better now Frank? ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,Labour voting Liberal Democrat
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:57 AM

How sad that Martin & Norma have fallen for an old Tory trick.

In many marginal coastal seats the Tories have more to fear from the Lib. Dems. than Labour.

Michael Howard will be delighted if his disgraceful slurs against gypsies, immigrants etc. scare the likes of Martin and Norma back towards Labour and away from the Lib. Dems.

The Tories have more to fear from the Lib. Dems. than Labour in areas like Martin & Norma's.

They should do as Billy Bragg is doing, make it clear they are still Labour at heart but are voting Lib. Dem. to make their vote count and get the Tories out of marginal Tory / Lib. Dem. seats.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:20 AM

I was going to vote for blair anyway. how much better does it get? A Labour Party leader who actually wins elections. I mean you're not going to get Albert Schweitzer... ..he's dead you know.

Interesting to know just why Matrin/Norma hate Blair so much - no tax on fisherman's smocks yet even suggested.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: EagleWing
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:18 AM

As a slight aside, what is the balance here between those who think:

1. The Tory and Labour parties are virtually interchangable.

2. The Tories are evil incarnate, and should never be voted in again,      ever.

3. Any other views...

Bunnahabhain.

Both 1 and 2.

Virtually is the operative word here. Labour is very slightly less evil especially now that Howard has displayed his fascist leanings.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: EagleWing
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:05 AM

"Those little houses are 'HOME' to many people who love them, and are happy in them, aesthetics is a luxury they can't afford. You may not want to, or have to, live in one, nor would I, but they fit the bill for so many 'Daily Mail' readers, and others who have different taste in their daily newspaper."

In the same way as "Those little caravans are 'HOME' to many people who love them, and are happy in them."

Frank L

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: EagleWing
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:01 AM

" There is the fact that a certain section of the traveller/gypsy population are flouting the law of the land."

There is also the fact that a certain section of the landowning/country life population have threatened to flout the law of the land and John made it clear that he supported them.

If the law of the land that they are flouting is the one that says they have no right to be the people that they are (ie Travellers) then they can do nothing but flout it or cease to exist.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: EagleWing
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:56 AM

If you want to build a new home, you have to get planning permission first. And if you don't, you can be fined or forced to pull it down. That's fair enough because we need to protect our local environment (M. Howard)

It is, indeed, fair enough! If it really worked that way. Not far from where I live a gypsy family bought a piece of land in an eminently suitable place, applied for planning permission and were refused without any reason. That would not have happened had it been a group of landowners.

"There's a bye-law to say we must be on our way, and another to say we can't wander (Ewan McColl)"

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: EagleWing
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:49 AM

Punkfolkrocker says ".. but any labour party.. no matter how emasculated
is preferable to letting the tories back in through electorial negligence..
to inflict their mean spiefull wickedness on the population of our UK"

I'd be ready to agree with you on this except that Blair is as great a tory as anything the conservatives can manage. The problem is that real labour people will never accept that the LibDems are now the leftwing alternative and vote for them en-masse. It would only have to happen once and the labour party might begin to return to its roots.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: EagleWing
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:42 AM

"It was not to survey their homes but to monitor the electicity supply point, which is not a sub-station in the sense you mean. As for the question about whether I would object to CCTV 'in my home', apart from your overstretching a point to make an argument, I have no objection. We are after all surveyed by CCTV day in day out, in thousands of locations so it is a bit of a fait accompli. Apart from which, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear."

For John, obviously, 1984 has come 21 years late.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:20 AM

You said it Stu. 100% right.

Our last, best, hope is a hung parliament, with the Libs waking up and cherrypicking the best policies to support. Oh look is that a pig I see flying past my second floor window?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:34 AM

I'm with Punkfolker all the way, and with those hoping Blair loses his seat.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:29 AM

If a person feels they are capable of running a country then surely they are not worth voting for at all are they? After all anyone with such a deluded sense of responsibility cannot be considered mentaly stable.

Give it all to Richard Branson I say. After all, he runs everything else;-)

Cheers

DtG
(Who's vote in every election since about 1980 has been for the Klingon candidate. Whether they are standing or not...)

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Piers
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:15 AM

As the early American Socialist Eugene Debs once pointed out, why vote for something you don't want just because you can't vote for what you do want?

Capitalism controls political parties and not the other way around, and unless you can vote for an anti-capitalist (only Vauxhall, London, will be able to do this) I can either stay at home and not bother to vote at all or cast a blank or spoilt vote. If you forget the personalities you see that there is no difference in the way the Tories administer and the way Labour do. Labour-Liberal-Tory, same old futile story.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: s&r
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM

British politics and voting is a bit like choosing which knee to be kneecapped in, left or right. Party politics lead to a one size fits all compromise that satisfies no-one

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:39 AM

The realities of running a country when in government, will always overcome the the idealism of opposition. That's when you realise that not only are some of your policies 'pie in the sky', but also that the pie is not big enough for everybody to have a slice. Idealism is for youth and opposition, not for life.
I am reminded of a quote, don't know who said it but he said something like this.

"If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 21 he has no heart, if that same man is still a socialist by the time he is 31, he has no brains".

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,Lefty
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:13 AM

If Labour wins, do not forget that TB will soon be gone: one year, two years or at the most, three years. A lot less if his health problems persist.

The Tory party will sink to lower and lower depths before the campaign is over, that is why they employed Lynton Crosbie in the first place.

There is a choice: Labour or Tory.

The no-shows could give victory to the Tories.


Can anyone remember Thatcher?

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:11 PM

Bunnahabhain,

No. 1. definitely. There is no labour party, just two sneaky, conniving, dishonest, and utterly disappointing tory parties.

In spite of this, the only possible alternative party has still not had sufficient political acumen to establish in the public conciousness that they do have policies, and to tell us exactly, in detail, what those policies are. I will never vote for a party who say, "Vote for us 'cos we're different, without telling me how they differ from the rest.

So I have the same problem as many others, which Tories to vote for.

I firmly believe that the only wasted vote is no vote, so I suggest that general issues might decide for us.

Do we want to hang on the coat tails of Mr. Bush, as he works his way through the destruction of the muslim states, followed by most of the Far East? Do we want to become a minor, and largely disregarded state in a federal Europe controlled by Germany and France? Do we want to become a third world country, thanks to a government which refuses to give any measure of protection to British companies, in the face of rank protectionism on the part of countries which are nominally our "partners" in this laughable "Common Market", making it impossible for us to compete?

I know where my vote is going.

Anti Bush
Anti War.
Anti Europe.
And I'm afraid that means Anti Blair.....Inshallah!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:24 PM

"they're not likely to knock on your door or mine."

So it's "I'm alright, Giok..."? And that's good enough?   

They don't have CCTV outside my house or in my street, and I wouldn't much want it. All right, there's been the normal amount of undesirable behaviour going on over the years, like any street, but being under constant surveillance is a price I don't want to pay for reducing it. And that's just in the street outside my home. And if you're living in a van or a tent, outdoors is pretty well as much part of your home as much as indoors is.

As I said above, if there are sites that people don't want to live in, there are likely to be other factors than not wanting to pay for the facilities. Giok's cited example demonstrated one such factor.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:20 PM

As a slight aside, what is the balance here between those who think:

1. The Tory and Labour parties are virtually interchangable.

2. The Tories are evil incarnate, and should never be voted in again,      ever.

3. Any other views...

Bunnahabhain.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:08 PM

hi Piers..


i mostly agree up to a certain point..

... i do believe from bitter experience
that the tories are a much greater evil
than the disapointment of blairs "UK.PLC" friendly new labour


so i will not squander my opportunity
to make my vote count AGAINST my local tory candidate...

..even if in my small very conservative provincial town
it means strategicaly voting liberal to do my little pragmatic bit to help their
slender majority to keep tories out...


... but i'll never accept that abstaining from voting
can ever be a positive strategy..

hey..why not propose we all just quit and roll over and play dead..
while the tories take advantage of misguided political abstainers
and intellectual 'conciencious objectors'..
while they stroll back into power effectively unopposed..

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 05:50 PM

Greg I lived on a boat for 15years, and I know what problems there can be. As for the CCTV remark it was alluding to outdoor CCTV which is what I was talking about when I brought them into the thread. I don't think we have so much to fear from the misuse of them by an oppressive regime, they're not likely to knock on your door or mine. Just think of all the evidence turned up by CCTV, and used to solve crimes, remember those sad sad CCTV pictures, of the two boys leading Jamie Bolger away. CCTV is like a lot of things it all depends what use you put it to, and on the whole I regard them as a power for good.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Piers
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 05:45 PM

Dear Punkfolkrocker, many people fully expected a new dawn when Labour got in, in 1997. However, we saw the continuation of Tory policies, rebranded maybe, but none-the-less fulfilling the same function. Did they repeal the Tory anti-union laws? Did they reverse the trend of increasing taxation? Did they stop making oppressive Law and Order legislation?
Did they buggery!
The only difference between the Labour, Tory, Libdem, UKIP, etc is the colour of their rosettes. This is because they can only ever attempt to run capitalism more efficiently. These parties are funded by the rich, the state borrows money from the rich and if they tax the rich too hard the rich will take their money elsewhere. They are, as we all are, slaves to the rich. Putting the mark of an illiterate in a box every five years is something up with I will not put. I will not choose something I don't want, frankly between Labour and the Tories, its impossible to say which is the lesser evil. So I will be casting a write-in vote for socialism, that is writing something along the lines of 'world socialism, anything else would spoil my ballot paper' right across the names of all the various shades of grey that tell us to vote for them because they will run the show better than the next guy. There is no 'higher moral principles' here, the capitalist system is not in my interest and I will not kiss the hand the slaps me by voting for it.

Travelling people will continue to be discriminated against whoever get in. If they are disturbing the money making system, even indirectly (e.g. by upsetting the labour force) they will be legislated against by the state.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 05:26 PM

But that needn't get in the way of the good people up in Sedgefield giving the man the boot - THE SEDGEFIELD CAMPAIGN

Wouldn't it be a hoot though? A Portillo moment... And MPs with bigger majorities than Blair have lost it before now.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 04:45 PM

better a less than trustworthy 'new-labour' prime minister
than a truly despicable tory..

Is there really any difference?

__________________________________________________


yes.. at this moment in time still plenty enough difference

that any comfortable middle-class 'educated' single-issue protest voters
should feel ashamed if their 'principles' help contribute to bringing the tories back into government..

..so they can inflict their greedy corrupt inhumane policies
on those less fortunate
who cant afford to live in such a privileged and protected
life style to indulge such 'higher moral principles'..

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: greg stephens
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:49 PM

Glok: if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. Really? Are you sure? try reading a little European history. Or better still, why not go and buy a caravan or a boat, live in it for a year and then come back here and tell us if you wish to modify your remarks in any way.
   And I wish you should re-read my post about Dunroamins: I was not being snobbish about the houses particularly, I was just pointing out that the economic power of the builders of those hideous estates destroys countryside completely and irrevocably in a way a thousand-fold beyond the powers of the most anti-social traveller you could find.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:25 PM

"Those little houses are 'HOME' to many people who love them, and are happy in them, aesthetics is a luxury they can't afford."

And that isn't true of the Travellers living on those illegal sites they have set up, typically on land owned by them? And in respect of which the Tories propose to make it an offence of "Traveller Trespass" if they dare to try to stop on that land?

The point Greg was surely making was that housedwellers destroy the natural environment far more than Travellers ever could.

A case in point. Soem years ago we had a few unauthorised Travellers move onto a small patch of land across the road from where I live. They stayed there a while, and then they got moved on in a hurry. And the patch of land, that looked pretty bad - maybe if they'd geen given a bit longer before being made to mive on they might have tidied it up, perhaps they woudln't. But the point was, within a couple of months it was back to normal, you'd never have known they'd been there.

Some time later though the church who owned the patch of land decided to fence it in properly so it cpouldn't happen again. And then they concreted over most of it, with some idea of having an extra car park, but then they decided it wasn't suityable for that because of access probkems, and they didn't need it anyway.

So there it is behind a high rusty fence, an ugly patch of broken concrete, a total mess, and it has been like that for years. Kids used to use it to play, or pick blackberries, but they can't get in now, even if they wanted to.

As I said, housedwellers destroy the environment around us. We can't help us, it's how we are. It's our way of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: jonm
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:04 PM

Michael Howard has shown the depths he is prepared to plumb to buy votes. Any politician prepared to parade his family in the spotlight for TV coverage has no integrity anyway.

Once the latest attempt to woo BNP voters and the knee-jerk Daily Mail fraternity has backfired, the next policy and advertising statements will be aimed at... the Greens? who else? They have to cover all the bases while still sniping at Labour and the LibDems.

The Human Rights Act was implemented for the common good. If a few individuals are exploiting it through the courts for their own benefit, should we be reforming the legal system and not the Act?

My experience of travellers local to here has been poor - they have been found to be responsible for crime, vandalism, destruction and anti-social behaviour. Like many people, I have a sneaking admiration for their way of life, the freedom from wage-slavery and taxation, but that is no excuse for that sort of behaviour, which would not be tolerated by traditional Romanies either.

While it is true travellers have often not treated their immediate neighbours with consideration and respect, the reverse is all too often true. Perhaps we are getting the travellers we deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:48 PM

Labour couldn't have hoped for a better pre election Tory cock up as these posters are proving. In their effort to instil fear amongst the electorate, they have suceeded. Only problem being the fear is of the Tories themselves. Three cheers for whatever dickhead dreamt up that ad campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:47 PM

"Apart from which, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear."

I don't believe it, I really don't believe it, someone said it and appeared to mean it.....

There is much wrong in the way the travelling community behave - sometimes - but there is much wrong in the way they are treated. It is a traditional way of life under genocidal attack. An irony indeed that the attack comes from Michael Howard.

As usual Martin and Norma get my support.

But I am also worried about the Howard and the Human Rights Act.   It is the whole point of the Human Rights Act that it confers Human RIghts where other laws fail to protect Human Rights.   There do seem to be the occasional cases where odd decisions are made (but this is also true of other areas of law, and the appearance may depend on our being given slanted alleged facts) but to suggest the repeal of the entire Act as a result can only be seen as very repressive. Who, in all seriousness would want to repeal Human Rights? If there had been an effective Human RIghts Act and jurisprudence in Germany in the 30s and up to say 1945, there would have been no holocaust, and the holocaust was wholly in accordance with German Law - because the German law of the time was drafted to achieve its precise objective.

So the victims of the holocaust of course needed to be above the law - because the law was wrong.

Yet Michael Howard believes that the Human Rights Act (which is law) by creating rights makes some people above the law. I think he worries me a lot more than the Human Rights Act does.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:39 PM

And just what is the difference between the John Prescott plan for thousands of houses in the SE, and the Dunroamins you are so scathing about Greg? Those little houses are 'HOME' to many people who love them, and are happy in them, aesthetics is a luxury they can't afford. You may not want to, or have to, live in one, nor would I, but they fit the bill for so many 'Daily Mail' readers, and others who have different taste in their daily newspaper.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: greg stephens
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:26 PM

Just take a look at the housing estates springing up round rural villages where the Daily Mail readers reside. The estates are generally called Badger Close, or Nightingale Mews or something. No Gypsy site, however surrounded by smouldering mattresses and piles of fridges,can compare with the soul-hammering gut-heaving gloom-inducing suburban sprawl inflicted on the countryside by Tories on the lookout for a little Dunroamin to settle in and gawp out of the window at their bluetits and blackbirds(the nightingales and badgers will have long since moved on).
    So Michael Howard wants to protect the countyside from Gypsies, does he? Well, bully for him.
Like Noreen earlier, I dont recall writing before to an elctioneering party political thread: but this Michael Howard has seriously disgusted me.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Piers
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:24 PM

better a less than trustworthy 'new-labour' prime minister
than a truly despicable tory..

Is there really any difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:13 PM

If you want to build a new home, you have to get planning permission first. And if you don't, you can be fined or forced to pull it down. That's fair enough because we need to protect our local environment (M. Howard)

Didn't we suspect it all the time that the conservatives are for conservation?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:25 AM

The Tories do have a tendancy at the monent to raise important isssues, where they have a reasonable policy, and then make it seem extreme all by themselves.

The Tories published action plan on travellers:

1.Review of the Human Rights Act to ensure it does not clash with laws against unauthorised land development

2.New powers for councils to remove illegal caravans and the option of larger court fines

3.Local authorities to be able to purchase land compulsorily where there is a continuing breach of a Stop Notice

4.Revised guidance to police on traveller trespass and criminal or anti-social behaviour on traveller sites

5.Empowering local people to decide on the location of traveller sites

If that has " a whiff of the gas chamber about it", then the goverment had better get some gas masks for itself.


Bunnhabhain

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:14 AM

its an imperfect world and politics is a dirty squalid human affair..

better a less than trustworthy 'new-labour' prime minister
than a truly despicable tory..

anyday..

trouble with 'highly principled' protest/non voting ..

is..

its not just one vote less in favour of Blair and his cronies..

its more importanly one vote less against

the truly vile and corrupt tories regaining [absolute ???] power..


BTW.. as if a prime minister from any other party
could have stood up succesfully against the power of the US
and not been 'persuaded' to take UK into Iraq war..


i dont like blair.. been suspicious of him since day 1..

dont respect him for imposing his 'vision' on the labour party
and what he's failed to achieve for my ' class & community '

.. but any labour party.. no matter how emasculated
is preferable to letting the tories back in through electorial negligence..
to inflict their mean spiefull wickedness on the population of our UK

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:52 AM

Well, they've got to die of something if they are going to die off...

Except that a lot of them just became born again Blairites.

I gather in Sedgefield, where Tony Blair has to win his own personal election, there are possibilities of a stop-Tony candidate whose son was killed in Iraq, with most of the other candidates standing down. Labour back, and Tony defenestrated, now that would be a pretty good result - 'I'll hold Blair to account'.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:48 AM

It was not to survey their homes but to monitor the electicity supply point, which is not a sub-station in the sense you mean. As for the question about whether I would object to CCTV 'in my home', apart from your overstretching a point to make an argument, I have no objection. We are after all surveyed by CCTV day in day out, in thousands of locations so it is a bit of a fait accompli. Apart from which, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:43 AM

...errrrr..   die off....


my spelling 'obviously' a clear indication of cost cutting tory impact on quality of state higher education in 1980's

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:39 AM

been waiting over 25 years for all the old tory's to die of..

so dismaying to see them being replaced by a new generation
of selfish ignorant fools and scoundrels..

equally alarming to see so called 'educated intelligensia'
elevating their personal principles and desire to protest
elector[y]ily on single issues

above and beyond the need

to vote wisely keep the national asset stripping / welfare state destroying torys
from ever regaining the power to lead UK and our families future welfare
to real corrupt oblivion...

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:35 AM

When you're living in a tent or a van, just outside it is as much part of your home as inside. If they stuck CCTV in your home mightn't you feel like moving, Giok?

I can't see that bang next to an electricity sub-station is necessarily the best place to put a camp full of children.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:29 AM

I think that slogan could backfire - like the one about 'vote for Blair and get Brown" whiuch they have dropped after it turned out that that is just what most people choose. See here the way today's Guardian used it on the front page, with a picture of Michael Howard with his eyes shut, looking even shiftier than usual. (And the video clip from which that was taken actually had him looking even worse, it seemed to me.)

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Piers
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:27 AM

You'd think Waterson and Carthy would have the nowse not to bother worrying about which faction of the Capitalist Party to vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:09 AM

Well I can only go on the local situation for my information. The Highland Council has a non-harassment policy on travellers, but we have the ludicrous situation where gipsies are permanently parked in a large lay-by with toilets by the side of the A9, and less than a mile away there is a council provided site which is often empty. This site has had to have CCTV installed, as when there were travellers camped there they broke into the electricity sub-station to by-pass the meters. Since the CCTV went in they've virtually stopped using the site, this to me looks like they have something to hide. One other problem I've been told about is family feuds amongst travellers, so that one group will not use the same site as another.
I agree they should have rights, and proper sites, but many of them don't want to live like that, and they prefer their whereabouts and income to be unknown. As long as they realise that rights are part of a package, and with those rights come responsibilities.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:05 AM

Yes eric, that's what McG just said.

And though it pains me to do this, here is a link to the Conservative party's website, so people can read what they are actually saying.

jmc, the phrase is a sort of tag line to all their adverts in the current 'election' campaign- meaning to imply that they are in line with the groundswell of public opinion on many matters.

Whar really angers me is that they set up an argument which is easily knocked down, as if it were what the current government think, then they knock down that argument- nothing simpler. An example is the current poster 'What's wrong with a little discipline in schools?'

No politician has ever annoyed me as much as Michael Howard does (and I've never posted to a political thread on mudcat before).

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:34 AM

It was the feckin tory's who repealed the law requiring local authorities to provide gypsy s or travellers with camp sites.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:31 AM

Where sites are provided they are not used, because they have to pay toward the services provided.

Maybe there are instances where that happens - but not round here. Our sites in Harlow are full, and there's been no problem about people being unwilling to pay to use them. (If there actually are sites which people are reluctant to use, I suspect there could be other factors involved, such as having been put in unpleasant and even dangerous places.)

In fact sites should always have more pitches than are needed at any one time, to allow for people who are still leading a travelling life.

Typically, where illegal sites have ben set up, this has been because of local authorities obstructing attempts to set up legal sites, on land purchased and owned by travellers.

Labour doesn't come out of this too well - all right, it was the Tories who in 1994 abolished the duty of local authorities to provide sites (as a kind of reward to the many local authorities which had for years ignored the law, without being penalised in any way). But Labour has been in power since 1997, and that was more than enough time to undo the harm done.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:23 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: GUEST,jmc
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:08 AM

Has anyone from the Tory party explained what they meant it to mean? It is really creepy.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:59 AM

I have never voted in my life. But I was going to vote Tory simply because I am pro hunting and shooting, but that ill advised slogan has left me sitting on the fence again.It does have an eery/sinister feel to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM

There are two or three factors involved here.
1 There is the fact that a certain section of the traveller/gypsy population are flouting the law of the land.

2 They are trying to make use of European Human Rights legislation to get round the laws of this country.

3 There are not enough gypsy sites being built by local authorities

4 The law compelling them to build these sites was repealed several years ago

5 Where sites are provided they are not used, because they have to pay toward the services provided.

6 Where they have established sites illegally, and used the human rights laws to legitimise them, will they be paying council tax?

You see we all believe in the rights of man, and agree that they should have somewhere to stay. We also resent the fact that they seem to pay no taxes, council, income whatever, they also appear to live by their wits, and not to work except for their own interests. While you or I do the commute, the hours at work, and come home to utility bills, and home repairs, they appear feckless. I daresay there is a touch of jealousy of the freedom they seem to enjoy, and many of us would like to do it, but lack the courage. Then there is the unanswerable statement of fact, you or I would not get away with some of the things they do. They will always be regarded with suspicion and even hatred, because they are different, and people from Adolf Hitler onwards have recognised this fact, and used it to their advantage.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:53 AM

We can only hope that most of the electorate can see exactly what the Tories are thinking.

My local chioce - in THE most marginal of Labour held seats - is similarly problematic.

Subject: RE: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: greg stephens
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:23 AM

I wouldnt presume to tell other people how to decide on their voting strategy, there's good reasons for voting Labour, Lib Dem, Green or all sorts of things. But it is worth pointing out just how disturbing those Tory posters are that are currently appearing everywhere: their "are you thinking what we're thinking?" line means one very unsavoury thing. It means "You don't need to bother to vote BNP, we'll take of immigration and gippoes and other non-Aryan elements". I am not so naive as to assume the racist bigots are only to be found among the Tories. But when they start sticking up posters like that you do have to have a little think, dont you?

Subject: BS: Gypsies, Tories, & Waterson/Carthy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:14 AM

Letter in today's Guardian which reflects how a lot of people must be feeling, in face of the bid by Tory leader Michael Howard to feed on what he sees as a populist wave of hatred against gypsies currently being drummed up by some of the press:

Hard choice
Tuesday March 22, 2005
The Guardian

Until a week ago our electoral choice was straightforward: a pro-war Labour MP who has toed the party line, an anti-war Lib Dem, along with a laughable Tory. For Labour members like us, the choice was simple. Vote Lib Dem.

Then Michael Howard reached into the gutter and played the Gypsy/Traveller card. The current demonising of an entire community is so shocking we are going to have to vote for a party led by a man we believe to be the slipperiest, most profoundly disliked politician to hold the office of prime minister in our lifetime. A PM whose time is up and whose representative here needs to be voted out. But sadly not by us. Not this time.
Martin Carthy and Norma Waterson
Robin Hood's Bay, N Yorks

I see that Labour MP Kevin McNamara has referred to Tory plans to repeal the Human Rights Act in order to make it easier to bring in tougher laws against Gypsies and Travellers as having "the whiff of the gas chambers about them". And here are two sites to remind people what lies behind that comment - "A brief Romani Holocaust Chronology", and Books on the Romani Holocaust"