Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The GRT Community

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

    The GRT Community

    https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1377903509102813184?s=19

    #2
    I saw this and thought I'd start a thread, I'm sure there was another one but I cannot find it.

    Comment


      #3
      Another reason for starting this thread is that I need some help, advice or support.

      I work in a school with a small Roma community, along with a few from the Traveller community.

      The Roma students and their families are from the traditional Eastern European countries you'd expect but by far the greatest number are from Bulgaria. And the majority of those are Turkish speakers.

      Sadly I've noticed a pattern of very disrupted education or almost none at all and the real issue of child marriage.

      It looks like I'm going to have to go to court as a witness for social services because I've reported this.

      I've no problem with this.

      However I've been told that social services is also planning to use the lack of education as another aspect of their case and to say that by not sending their children to school this is child abuse.

      This makes me deeply uncomfortable. Deeply.

      There are numerous reasons why the children haven't been schooled in the traditional Western and UK view, many which don't exist in the UK and some that do.

      I'll write more later, but in short, what do I do?

      Comment


        #4
        The filthy racism in the replies...

        I don't know what to suggest, AE, except getting in touch with GRT advocacy organisations.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by TonTon View Post
          The filthy racism in the replies...

          I don't know what to suggest, AE, except getting in touch with GRT advocacy organisations.
          Thanks, all the UK ones I've seen don't seem to deal with Bulgarian Roma. I'll try again.

          Comment


            #6
            Wasn't aware “traveller incursions” was racist

            So that’s ok then

            https://twitter.com/charlotte2153/st...46124212539393

            Comment


              #7
              Yeah she's a liar.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Antepli Ejderha View Post

                Thanks, all the UK ones I've seen don't seem to deal with Bulgarian Roma. I'll try again.
                So I don't know him or the organisation, but Assen Slavchev seems to be from that community and works for Luton Roma Trust, so might be able to give you some ideas:

                assen@lutonromatrust.org.uk

                Comment


                  #9
                  Good luck, Antepli.

                  I think Nichols is being left out to dry a bit. Given that, as far as I am aware, the Labour Party didn't oppose the anti traveller measures in the Policing Bill, I think it is fair to assume that acquiescence with (at best) anti traveller racism is party policy.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    It comes to something when racist shadow cabinet members can't rely on solidarity from other racists in the Labour leadership, indeed.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Well, I mean she could just have said that her literature was in line with party policy.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        They've now pulped the leaflets. I mean, I've not heard of plans to go to every door they out one through and out forward a half-decent anti-racist line instead. But at least the bastards have been embarrassed.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          https://twitter.com/ankahajkova/status/1378007024651358216?s=21

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Thanks DCI Harry Batt I've contacted him and heard back

                            I really appreciate your help on this.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Oh aces, I'm really pleased.

                              Comment


                                #16

                                https://twitter.com/thatbloodyMikey/status/1378495412739407874?s=20

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  A couple of articles from the excellent Adam Ramsey on how the head of the Scottish Tories is fighting a war on Travellers

                                  https://twitter.com/adamramsay/status/1383346777269575682?s=21

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    https://today.aubg.edu/news/mihail-m...ing-decisions/

                                    This is a really good piece by a Roma activist from Bulgaria.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      An update from my opening piece.

                                      I contacted the Luton Roma Trust and spent over an hour talking to Assen. We had a very fruitful conversation and agreed to set up some meetings and try to engage in an existing partnership in the same borough.

                                      Now comes the wtf part.

                                      There's already a community partnership set up in Enfield, Assen suggested we join it. I had a look and it's only fucking based in the the other secondary school in our multi academy trust. I'm fuming and embarrassed that I didn't know about this despite raising concerns for years about this and when we were taken over by this trust explaining what help we needed.

                                      So I drop the head an email asking if we can join, I'm expecting a yes. I get an in principal (sic) response. He'll ask.

                                      I then get another response. It's a no. The main school only want to have this project in their immediate surroundings.

                                      I wait for a week before responding so that I can calm down.

                                      I've said we need to set up our own community partnership. I've not heard anything back.

                                      The attitude here is that of an ostrich, bury the head in the sand and hope that the problem goes away. Often it does as the children leave the school or country. Sometimes it doesn't.

                                      The solution is on our doorstep, people knew that the solution existed but didn't say, and they want us to cooperate.

                                      Now I'm sure that the previous rumours about our lead school are true, they've come to asset strip and sell the land. They tried it elsewhere but it didn't materialise.

                                      Corruption is rife in this country.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Sorry to hear that AE. The academy scam is just madness.

                                        i saw a worrying petition going around about an academy in north london- hope that’s not your place

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          This is good on how vile Patel's legislation is (could be even more damning on Parris's piece of shit article though)

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by Etienne View Post
                                            This is good on how vile Patel's legislation is (could be even more damning on Parris's piece of shit article though)
                                            "Resource Limit Is Reached

                                            The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later."

                                            I get this when I click on the link, could you copy paste it please.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by Antepli Ejderha View Post

                                              "Resource Limit Is Reached

                                              The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later."

                                              I get this when I click on the link, could you copy paste it please.
                                              I think it's OK now AE, but here it is in case"

                                              What on earth has happened to Matthew Parris?

                                              For the last thirty years or so he has produced beautifully written, persuasive columns on subjects from llamas to high politics, typically characterised by thoughtfulness, tolerance and moderation. Then, last Saturday he wrote an extraordinary piece under the headline “We should stop pandering to Travellers.”

                                              It seems to have been prompted by the arrival of some travellers in a Matlock car park:

                                              “… I’ve walked through the encampment many times a week for ages now. A scattering of Portaloos and wheelie-bins have arrived, more caravans recently, dogs on chains, and a string of steel barricades: the town is facing a serious loss of amenity and people worry — reasonably or otherwise — about security.”

                                              Mr Parris concedes that the Travellers have done neither him, nor anyone he knows any harm. Nevertheless, “public anger is undeniable.”

                                              Parris: Travellers have done me no harm

                                              His central argument was that “there is simply no place for the nomad [that is travellers and gypsies moving around the countryside in caravans] – in modern Britain.”

                                              Mr Parris admits that the conclusion of his piece is “brutal.”

                                              So we should stop forcing local authorities to create Traveller sites, phase out the ‘ethnic minority’ rights of people who are not a race but a doomed mindset, prioritise with the utmost generosity the offer of social housing to Traveller families; and, to those who refuse it, begin a gradual but relentless squeeze on anyone who tries without permission to park their home on public property or the property of others.”

                                              Mr Parris’s argument is not just brutal. It is also remarkably ignorant.

                                              The law does not “force” local authorities to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers. If it did there would be some legal sites provided in Derbyshire Dales (the local authority in which Matlock is situated). In fact there are none. What perhaps he is referring to is the 1968 Caravans Act, S.6 of which did indeed place a duty on local authorities “to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies residing in or resorting to their area.” That section was in force while Mr Parris was an MP but it was repealed in 1994, so Mr Parris is only out by about 27 years.

                                              Instead of clear legislation there is now a bewildering patchwork of housing, planning and human rights law, open to differing interpretations, and in practice relieving unwilling local authorities of any incentive to provide sites for Gypsies.

                                              Derbyshire Dales District Council itself has identified a need for 6 authorised pitches, plus a further three which it hopes to have ready by 2034. Derbyshire County Council, the higher level local authority, currently has a mere 4 authorised sites in the county although a 2015 Council-commissioned study assessed that a further 17 were needed throughout Derbyshire by 2024.

                                              And of course Derbyshire is not alone. There remains a nationwide shortage of legal places to camp. Local authorities’ twice yearly “caravan counts” show that the problem of unauthorised encampments has in fact decreased since 1979, despite a steady rise in the number of caravans. The proportion of Gypsies and Travellers living on unauthorised sites has fallen from around 50% in 1979 to just 12% in 2020, while in absolute terms the number of caravans pitched on unauthorised sites fell from over 4,000 in 1979 to under 3,000 in 2020. This does not mean that there are sufficient decently-run sites now available, or that Gypsy homelessness is not a serious problem. In 2020 there were only 13 permanent sites, and 5 transit sites with pitches available in the whole of England.There were nearly 1700 households on waiting lists for pitches.

                                              Source: An overview of unmet need for pitches on Traveller sites in England, FFT 2021

                                              So unauthorised encampments remain a problem for landowners, local authorities and the general public, but the widespread perception – contributed to by articles like this – that unauthorised Gypsy encampments are a growing problem to the “law-abiding majority” requiring “brutal” solutions is not supported by the evidence. That is a polite way of saying that it is informed by prejudice.

                                              Mr Parris’s solution to these undoubted problems is not to provide a sufficient number of decently appointed, legal sites where Gypsies and Travellers can live or stay. It is to encourage ancient prejudices against the Romany and to call for their way of life to be “squeezed” out of existence. Couched in Mr Parris’s seductive prose it is nonetheless a call for something approaching cultural genocide.

                                              The caravan is more than the Gypsy’s preferred home.

                                              National Federation of Gypsy Liason Groups

                                              It is not just that many Gypsies would no more wish to live in a building built of bricks than you would wish to live in a caravan. The caravan is the veryembodiment of Gypsy culture: central to Gypsy and Traveller identity. If Gypsies are prevented from living in or travelling in caravans they are denied the single most distinctive part of their culture. That does not mean every Gypsy is travelling all the time, or even wants to travel all the time. Almost all would prefer to have a permanent base.

                                              According to Mr Parris there is no place for the “nomad” in Britain because:

                                              “… life here involves having an address, being contactable, keeping children in school, paying tax on your property, accepting responsibility for a defined patch of real estate as proprietor or tenant.”

                                              No-one much likes paying tax on their property, but Mr Parris’s assumption that Gypsies do not want an address or an education for their children is again sheer prejudice.

                                              Depressingly, almost all of the 1200+ people commenting below Mr Parris’s article agreed with him. Many of the comments – and I doubt that they were those sympathetic to Gypsies – had been deleted as “violating our policy,” but a sample of those considered acceptable included comments such as:

                                              They live below the legal radar and do not abide by the same rules of decency and respect that most people do.

                                              Poor to non existant (sic) education, high levels of criminality, high unemployment and truly dreadful attitudes to women make it a group we can do without in the future.

                                              These groups are the most violent of societies and live by crime. Of course their children are uneducated; wives are beaten; medical staff are intimidated. The list is endless.

                                              [T]heir lifestyle is at root parasitic – it feeds almost entirely off the mainstream without giving back – or any intention of doing do – it’s all take and no give; all entitlement and no responsibility.”

                                              That their children are deprived of education is the fault of their lifestyle, children moving all the time cannot have a settled education. That they die young, is also their own fault too.”

                                              And Times readers are more polite than most. Elsewhere in the press it is easy to find, below almost any story about Gypsies commenters describing them as “filthy,” “thieves,” “freeloaders” “rats” and worse. The occasional slightly more liberal commenter might observe that whilst all these things are true of Travellers they are less so of the “genuine Gypsy,” a view shared by Heinrich Himmler who wished to spare a few “pure-bred” Gypsies while organising the murder of at least 500,000 whom he considered racial vermin.

                                              How little has changed in 500 years. It has been the Gypsy and the Traveller’s lot to be hated, feared and misunderstood for centuries. The preamble to the Egyptians Act 1530 illustrates how little those prejudices have changed:

                                              FORASMUCH as before this time divers and many outlandish people calling themselves Egyptians, using no craft nor feat of merchandise have come into this realm, and gone from shire to shire and place to place in great company, and used great, subtil, andcrafty means to deceive the people … and so many times by craft and subtilty have deceived the people of their money, and also have committed many heinous felonies and robberies, to the great hurt and deceit of the people that they have come among ….”

                                              The Act made it unlawful for Gypsies to enter the country, and those already here were given 16 days to leave or forfeit their possessions.

                                              Henry VIII’s attempt at ethnic cleansing failed, as did another Act passed during his eldest daughter’s reign in 1554, which exempted Gypsies from deportation or execution if they assimilated into the general population or, as the Act put it, gave up their “naughty, ungodly and idle” way of life.

                                              Washing the horses at Appelby Horse Fair, 2004
                                              Credit: Dave Atkins

                                              Subsequent attempts to squeeze them out of existence have also failed. For four hundred years Gypsies were able to travel relatively freely around the country because (as explained by Mr Justice Sedley in a 1995 case):

                                              The commons of England provided lawful stopping places for people whose way of life was or had become nomadic. Enough common land survived enclosure to make this way of life still sustainable, but by the 1960 Act, local authorities were given power to close the commons to travellers. This they did with great energy, but made no use of the concomitant power given to them by s24 to open caravan sites to compensate for the closure of the commons.”

                                              As Sedley J noted, 1960 marked the beginning of another “squeeze” on Gypsies as roads were increasingly fenced off from common land.

                                              Mr Parris generously concedes that there is a place for [Gypsies and Travellers], but no longer for their way of living. Is there a party, is there a politician in Britain, with the courage to say so?”

                                              This is repulsive. We watch aghast as the Chinese Communist Party tries to destroy the Uighur way of life in Xinjiang, yet Mr Parris calmly advocates the destruction of the British Gypsy’s whole way of life (albeit he advocates doing so “with as much humanity as is consistent with telling a group of people honestly that their lifestyle offers them and their children no future”).


                                              It is true that few politicians have been quite as explicit as Mr Parris, but Gypsies are now faced with a Home Secretary, supported by a large Parliamentary majority, intent on passing legislation that seems calculated as much as anything in the last 60 years to further the destruction of the Gypsy way of life.

                                              Part 4 of Priti Patel’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a horrifying piece of proposed legislation.

                                              To understand why we need to look at the existing law, and the changes that the Bill proposes.

                                              The starting point is that under English law trespass has never been a criminal offence. It has been a matter to be dealt with in the civil courts. Mere trespass still is not a criminal offence.

                                              However, under S.61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (the same Act that repealed the statutory duty on local authorities “to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies,” and introduced, by Michael Howard who did not become Home Secretary by espousing a liberal approach to the criminal law), two or more people residing on land as trespassers can be ordered to leave by a police officer; and if they fail to do so they then commit an offence. There are conditions, though, before the officer can make such an order. In summary, either the trespassers must have:

                                              * caused damage to the land or property on the land, or

                                              * used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

                                              * they must have between them 6 or more vehicles on the land.

                                              (Other provisions were made for moving Gypsies on when alternative sites are available, a largely useless power when they so rarely are).

                                              If the order to leave is not obeyed police officers are then given the power to seize any vehicles. Crucially, however, any such seizure is temporary, and the owners of the vehicles can get them back, after paying storage charges. It was regarded at the time as a harsh law, and it has been used very effectively either to control illegal encampments or to criminalise the Gypsy way of life, depending on ones point of view.

                                              So how does Priti Patel’s Bill change things? Again, what follows is a summary rather than a complete statement of the proposed new law.

                                              There will no longer be any need to show that the campers have caused damage, or used threatening etc behaviour. It will be enough to show that there is a likelihood of significant damage, disruption or distress. “Disruption” is not defined.

                                              There will no longer be a necessity that a person should actually be “residing” on the land before the offence is committed: an intention to do so will suffice.

                                              Moreover, once these minimal conditions are met, a failure to follow the landowner’s order to leave – not necessarily, as now, a police officer’s order – will mean that an offence is committed.

                                              Taken together, these provisions substantially lower the threshold for the commission of an offence. That is, of course, their point.



                                              But it is the provisions for the seizure of property that carry the strongest echo of the sixteenth century Acts designed to drive Gypsies into a cruel choice between having their property seized or giving up their way of life and assimilating. The proposals in the Bill would permit a police officer to seize any property (including caravans or other vehicles) on the land as soon as he “reasonably suspects” that the offence has been committed.

                                              Rather than being required to return the property to its owners, the police will be empowered to retain it pending any criminal trial. If the case is contested, of course, that trial might be months or even years in the future. Given that in many cases the seized property will be the Gypsies’ or Travellers’ homes, the effect of such a seizure could be to make them homeless and destitute. It is an extraordinary and utterly disproportionate power to give to police officers, exercisable on mere suspicion of the commission of a trivial offence in which neither damage, distress nor “disruption” need have been caused.

                                              And it does not stop there: the Bill also entitles the police to seize any vehicle “wherever located” which an officer “reasonably suspects” the Gypsy intends to have with them on the land. The police will be able – with no court order and on mere suspicion of an “intent” – to seize cars and caravans which have not been used at all and might be hundreds of miles away.

                                              Once seized the owners will not be able to get their property back until the conclusion of the court case. At that point, the Court will be able to decide between ordering the permanent forfeiture of any property seized, or not making any such order when the police will finally have to return it. By then families will have been made homeless, their children perhaps taken into care, and their lives turned upside down. It is easy to see how the threat of such action will further discourage Gypsies from travelling at all, although there will be some who have no choice. It is also easy to see how others, faced with a flagrantly unjust law, crafted to destroy their culture and way of life, may not always meekly surrender.

                                              Ms Patel’s attack on Gypsies is not supported by the Police, who have every interest in preventing public disorder but none in becoming the agents of the state in a cultural war against Gypsies. A Home Office consultation in 2018 asked, amongst other questions:

                                              Do you consider that the Government should consider criminalising unauthorised encampments in addition to the offence of aggravated trespass?”

                                              84% of police respondents answered “No.” The National Police Chiefs Council explained why:

                                              We believe that criminalising unauthorised encampments is not acceptable. Complete criminalisation of trespass would likely lead to legal action in terms of incompatibility with regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, most likely on the grounds of how could such an increase in powers be proportionate and reasonable when there are insufficient pitches and stopping places?”

                                              A further consultation in 2019 asked, amongst other things, whether the Police should be given powers to seize the property of trespassers residing on land. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Officers was distinctly lukewarm:

                                              If this power were to be introduced, we believe that it should be used with caution and only in extreme circumstances.

                                              A number of colleagues outlined their concerns to me that the seizure of property such as vehicles could be counterproductive, and result in individuals who may reside in these vehicles (e.g. caravans) being rendered effectively homeless, Not only would this impact adversely on the individuals concerned but would also create a greater burden on the police in terms of storing the seized property, and also local authorities in terms of rehousing people whose property has been seized. Indeed prevention of homelessness is a local authority responsibility: the removal of a residence would appear to be in contravention of this duty, and potentially human rights legislation.”

                                              Even in the dry bureaucratic language of the Crime Commissioners’ response to a government consultation, the evil of a proposed law permitting the police to confiscate the homes of the poor shines through.

                                              Liked it? Take a second to support Matthew on Patreon!

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                https://www.eurasia.undp.org/content...violence-.html

                                                This is thoroughly depressing, I'm sure this is true in the UK too.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  I'm in family court on Thursday for a five day hearing into the forced marriage of a 14 year old Roma girl, this is the second time for this child. The first time social services completely failed her by refusing to believe the evidence we presented to them. An hour long livestream on Facebook of the event.

                                                  As a school we've failed her and the Roma community. On numerous occasions. Constantly and consistently.

                                                  It's thoroughly depressing.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X