"Even Gypsies"

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

  • abibelle
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholdanswers
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    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 )

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholdanswers
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jjlandlord
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholdanswers
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • theartfullodger
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • theartfullodger
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • midlandslandlord
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    started a topic "Even Gypsies"

    "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.

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X