"Even Gypsies"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    "Even Gypsies"

    Any letting agency which works with a local council, will put in people suggested to them by the Council, who can be ex-drug addicts, just out of prison, single parents running away from their boyfriends, Mentally challenged, off the street homeless and even gypsies ( so the blurb on any council web site will show )
    The above appeared in another thread. Reads a bit like a list of those the Daily Mail loves to hate, but forget that. Without getting into a discussion about whether the word "gypsy" is derogatory and precisely what it means (i.e. whether it has a racial significance or not) I invite comments on the use of the word "even" here.

    #2
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    The above appeared in another thread. Reads a bit like a list of those the Daily Mail loves to hate, but forget that. Without getting into a discussion about whether the word "gypsy" is derogatory and precisely what it means (i.e. whether it has a racial significance or not) I invite comments on the use of the word "even" here.
    Are we talking legally or realistically (which may or may not be different)?

    "even" implies one group being an end of a spectrum.

    In this case it seems to imply prejudice.

    I'm sure we can all point to areas which have been devalued (or perceived to be devalued). I can think of two straight off - 1 'social housing' part of a large 500 'executive homes' estate which was used by the Council for bad tenants, and 1 which had a lot of settled travellers.

    The 1st was genuinely devalued, and blighted the locality for the decade; the 2nd had a bigger element of prejudice, but still blighted the locality.

    If "even" relates to a specific characteristic I have no issue if it is relevant, and *needs* to be demonstrable for use in a public dialogue. That needs to be distinguished from the right of free choice of tenant/landlord.

    ie if we were talking about wear and tear on a house I'd have no issue with "they might even put in migrant labour" referring to 10 people may end up in a property (eg problem with company lets).

    Or "even someone with a dog" if it is specialist let for people with total alleegies.

    I can see "even gypsies" being reasonable if we are talking about tracing for the purposes of suing, or perhaps ASB depending on the local experience.

    I think we must resist stepping back from making relevant and necessary comparisons for the sake of blowing diversity smoke, but equally comparisons need to be justified.

    ML
    Refer Mad Regulators to Arkell vs Pressdram.

    Comment


      #3
      Yes... I did wonder if the writer of the referenced post was thinking of people like Michael Caine, Charlie Chaplin, John Bunyan, Bob Hoskins, Yul Brynner you know, that sort...
      I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

      Comment


        #4
        Some data just published
        http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...df/2154492.pdf

        I'd be interested to hear where the 2500++ caravans on unauthorised sites are supposed to go and stay on a lawful pitch as, AFAIK, there ain't much space left in the authorised ones..

        Cheers!
        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

        Comment


          #5
          I suspect it is personal opinion of the source OP, simply adding Gypsies to a list of those in unfortunate situations or with physical or mental limitations.

          I suspect he wanted to say Pikies, but thought that was derogatory.

          It might be, but any description and it's connotations are well earned by their uncivilised behaviour.
          Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
            I suspect it is personal opinion of the source OP, simply adding Gypsies to a list of those in unfortunate situations or with physical or mental limitations.
            And comments to first post.

            the post refering to "Even Gypsies" is found at
            http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...356#post377356

            If the word Gypsies cannot be use, I would suggest the Gypsy Council
            should be informed of this new fact
            http://www.gypsy-association.co.uk/


            The people who the council can put into the private rented sector
            is stated on their websites, as being homeless, is plainly shown on
            councils websites ( look in homeless / private rented guaranteed
            rent )

            Below is what many council websites show as to who they will put
            in your house / flat.

            If there is an objection to the use of the word Gypsy, then direct
            your complaints to the councils, and not to members on here.
            Target Group
            Alcohol/ drug problems
            Homeless families
            Single homeless
            Learning disabilities
            Mental health
            Offenders
            Physical or sensory disabilities
            Teenage parents
            Gypsies/ travellers
            People at risk of domestic violence
            Young people
            Older people
            HIV/ Aids

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
              I'd be interested to hear where the 2500++ caravans on unauthorised sites are supposed to go and stay on a lawful pitch as, AFAIK, there ain't much space left in the authorised ones..
              Imho if people want to live in a caravan, either:
              1. They get in touch with a proper camping site,
              2. They buy land and get whatever planning permission is required.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
                Imho if people want to live in a caravan, either:
                1. They get in touch with a proper camping site,
                2. They buy land and get whatever planning permission is required.
                Yes I agree. They don't however get it as there is well earned reputation for a geometric increase in crime in the area, the amount of waste and prevalent antisocial behaviour on the site, and the threat of violence to those nearby.

                There are many mobile home site in the South east occupied by people behaving in an acceptable manner, not a modern day equivalent of roving bandit tribes or landlocked pirates who raped or pillaged or tarmac your drive for an archer.
                Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                  Reads a bit like a list of those the Daily Mail loves to hate, but forget that. Without getting into a discussion about whether the word "gypsy" is derogatory and precisely what it means (i.e. whether it has a racial significance or not) I invite comments on the use of the word "even" here.
                  The Daily Mail reference is obviously not intended to be forgotten, nor the issue of whether 'gypsy' is a derogatory term. Your intro arguably colours the subsequent question and indicates the type of response you are inviting.

                  A quick Google confirms that a list like this, as per ram's post #6, appears on numerous council websites.

                  Target Group
                  Alcohol/ drug problems
                  Homeless families
                  Single homeless
                  Learning disabilities
                  Mental health
                  Offenders
                  Physical or sensory disabilities
                  Teenage parents
                  Gypsies/ travellers
                  People at risk of domestic violence
                  Young people
                  Older people
                  HIV/ Aids
                  Ram was simply paraphrasing (from a list which one assumes has been thoroughly checked for politically correct terminology). His use of the word 'even' could be interpreted as derogatory but it could also be an expression of mild surprise that gypsies/travellers are regarded, by local authorities, as in need of special council attention - why are they categorized alongside people with learning disabilities or AIDS, or former prison inmates?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by westminster View Post
                    why are they categorized alongside people with learning disabilities or AIDS, or former prison inmates?
                    Thank you.
                    Please remember that the Council "Rent a flat" on a 3 year scheme is a
                    "Homeless preventative strategy" initiated by the government, to cut the
                    cost of putting homeless families into Bed and breakfast accomodation.

                    And those at risk of being homeless, are listed above.
                    e.g. caravan burns down, they become homeless.
                    Walking out of prison, you are homeless.

                    The clues are in the 2nd and third line
                    Homeless families
                    Single homeless

                    If someone IS, or has traits of a gypsy, or connotations of the perceived
                    types as mentioned in post 8, then I will call them that.
                    Same with any other variants on race or colour.

                    I will leave it there other wise I will start a war.

                    R.a.M.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Any letting agency which works with a local council, will put in people suggested to them by the Council, who can be ex-drug addicts, just out of prison, single parents running away from their boyfriends, Mentally challenged, off the street homeless and even gypsies ( so the blurb on any council web site will show )
                      My 2p...fwiw

                      Bearing in mind its context, a brief linguistic analysis of this text suggests:

                      (i) a thinly-veiled, if vague, disapproval/dislike of some, if not all, of the groups listed, despite the attempt to employ politically correct terminology. (The 'lumping' them all together in a rather jumbled list depersonalises the people in question and implies a lack of discrimination. Lists are often for objects).
                      (ii) a tendency to stigmatise those groups as being less deserving of homes than other people
                      (iii) an inference that single parents (assumed to be female or gay) 'running away from boyfriends' are an unwarranted drain on social housing (the use of 'running away' trivialises domestic violence)
                      (iv) a vagueness about drug rehabilitation, confusing addicts, recovering addicts and 'clean' ex-users

                      The non-standard use of punctuation ('Mentally challenged', 'ex-drug addicts' suggests a carelessness with the written mode which perhaps means we should not read too much into the writer's tabloid use of 'just' (as in 'just out of prison' - why 'just'?) or even (!) of the word 'even' (in 'even gypsies').

                      There's no compelling evidence that gypsies are being singled out for particular venom; semantically and pragmatically speaking, I'd say the word is used to imply a contrast between 'off the streets homeless' (referred to in the clause immediately before) and gypsies (another group associated - in the past at least - with having no fixed 'bricks and mortar' homes), but who, in the writer's mind, should not be offered them by local councils. The inference, I think, is that if gypsies choose to live in caravans/travel round the country, why should they qualify for social housing?

                      So you have a list of people who, in the writer's mind are the barely-deserving poor or vulnerable, topped off with a group who (in the writer's mind) are entirely undeserving. It might be an unconscious discriminatory/racist slur (from the same stable as the 'but' in comments like 'He's gay, but', or 'He's black, but', or 'He's disabled, but...' + positive statement,e.g. 'but he's really nice'). However, the absence of any reference to other ethnic or national minorities who are also housed by councils does not (in my view) support that interpretation. Dyed-in-the-wool racists would be harping on about asylum seekers and other foreign immigrants as well.

                      It is watered-down Daily Mail stuff - it's what much of the nation thinks.
                      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                      Comment


                        #12
                        see http://www.stockton.gov.uk/resources...0811/hps08.pdf
                        page 7 & 8 describing those who would be eligble to be put in private
                        rented housing.

                        Complain to the government.

                        also please re-name the groups, so as not to cause offence.

                        a homeless person living on the streets, is just that.

                        it is the human rights act that compells us to house everyone from
                        any country,if their need is great, and often at the expense of the indigenous population ( to answer another point made )

                        Comment


                          #13
                          All good reasons for a modern "poor house". Basic needs for shelter and security are met and access to a home of your own comes with demonstrating an understanding and appreciation of the responsibility that entails or clearly identified need and support.

                          And for those in social housing or publicly funded private housing, it removes the "get out jail free" from the consequences of say ASB by being protected from eviction- they are evicted and end up in a hostel or barracks.

                          And when it comes to the abused or single parent family it's an opportunity to have the support security and in house creche to find work or education rather than an expensive social housing or private flat with on 6 months security, and forgotten about.

                          It is about our messed up thinking, if the victims of abuse were supported quickly by the Police in the first instance, if single parenthood was something too great to risk, if those with mental deficit had proper facilities and we could hang those that abuse people in their care, if unruly gypsy sites were controlled by early arrests and proper sentencing, that we might think about the consequences of our actions beforehand, and improve our overall lot.

                          People like Howard and the philanthropists discussed these same issues a long time ago. The modern progressive movement and liberals have had a go. And here we are on the brink of simply not being able to afford it.

                          Time for a change.
                          Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                            Some data just published
                            http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...df/2154492.pdf

                            I'd be interested to hear where the 2500++ caravans on unauthorised sites are supposed to go and stay on a lawful pitch as, AFAIK, there ain't much space left in the authorised ones..



                            Cheers!
                            Very interesting thanks for that information

                            Comment

                            Latest Activity

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X