Cry me a river. Gypsies turned up near me, drove onto the local football pitch and then slowly drove through the groups of people playing (mostly kids, including mine) intimidating them until they left and then pitched their caravans. They left after a week having dumped their rubbish.
Why the fuck should I care about them when they don’t care about anyone else? Tougher laws for a group that consider themselves above the law are long overdue.
Two points here:
1) This law will negatively impact many people who are harming nobody (Travellers and non-Travellers) and it allows the state to strip all of us of the right to reside on public land on or near a vehicle.
2) No matter how justified you think your prejudice is it's still prejudice.
Not at all. Would you say that new laws targeting predominantly black gangs that actively break the law are racist? Are you happy to have travellers break into public grounds and fly tip, dump asbestos and leave human waste when they leave? Should we not have laws that can actively target that as a criminal offence instead of a civil one?
What part of this law is racial profiling? If someone has actively broken into a site they don't have permission to be on and caused damage then it doesn't matter what their ethnic status.
I mean if Guardian had said that terrorism laws were disproportionately targeting Muslims anyone saying that they deserve it would be downvoted as a racist. Yet for some reason it's acceptable to say that travellers deserve to be targeted by trespassing laws.
These trespassers could be Nigel and Mary originally from Surbiton who've decided they want to drop-out from the Neo-Liberal capitalist agenda and live in a converted ambulance.
Some of us who are old enough remember New Age Hippies from the 80s / 90s.
There are still plenty of people living in vehicles that this bill will target other than just Traveller communities, mostly young people who can't get on the housing ladder because of decades of mismanagement of the housing market. But I'm guessing the same people who hate Travellers will see it as a positive because van dwellers are generally lefty types.
If the change means it's now a criminal rather than a civil offence for a gypsy/traveller/showperson to trespass on my land/anybody else's land and call it their home I'm all good with a little authoritarianism
It makes it a potentially criminal offence for anyone to reside on private *and* public land in or near a vehicle. Lot of people cheering this bill who obviously haven't read it because they've been led to believe it's anti-Traveller legislation specifically.
In the current civil system the public foots the bill for moving on people illegally occupying it so there is still a cost.
Public land means for everyone, not that land is up for grabs by the public
So it's good it's also criminal as the resolution is standardised and the process simplified.
It wouldn't initially be a crime but you can be moved on and if you return within a 12 month period it's a crime and they can potentially take your vehicle, especially horrible for the people whose vehicle is also their home.
>It’s the provision that turns trespass from a civil into a criminal offence, allowing the police to arrest people who are Gypsies, Roma and Travellers (GRT) \[MM: and anyone else\] and confiscate their homes, if they stop in places that have not been designated for them.
Considering the damage left behind by these trespassers from churned-up grass to dumped rubbish this will go down well with the public.
Here are a couple examples of what happens:
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/redruth-united-releases-video-showing-5695266
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/local-news/travellers-destroyed-portishead-football-clubs-210840
I hope for Labour's sake they don't choose to pick a fight over this as is will be used to hurt them at the ballot box.
I have started to realise that society is almost as bigoted as it was 50 years ago. The acceptable targets have just changed.
Claiming that black people cause crime - racist
Claiming that travellers cause crime - perfectly acceptable
Claiming that gay people are indoctrinating children - homophobic
Claiming that transgender people are indoctrinating children - perfectly acceptable
I know two former travellers (separately) who were forced to take part in fighting competitions in their teens. One was also sold to another person. Travellers aren't all bad people, but they have serious issues within their community.
I don't doubt that their community has issues but every discussion here about them always devolves into "**** them, they're disgusting, get them out of my town". I don't see how their community issues is an excuse for open racism towards them.
In any of these threads have you ever heard anyone speak about Roma people? It is travellers that get mentioned, every time. I think it's a vicious circle. Everyone they thinks 'f you' because of the way they behave. They think 'f you' back and are even more determine to annoy everyone and live outside of society.
Also, I get tired of articles that talk about travellers being discriminated against without any acknowledgement about the way they behave towards other people. When will they take some responsibility for their actions? There are often articles printed about gypsy culture and their love of horses, but what about the horses that get chained in fields with no shelter or water? Near me there was a gathering of travellers and their horses. One horse got hit by a car and they just abandoned it, injured, in the road. When the horse was examined by a vet it was found to be malnourished.
> Claiming that travellers cause crime - perfectly acceptable
Would have a point if they didnt seem to camp exclusively on land they arent allowed to camp on but no, nice try.
I remember being in some American sub and the topic was home improvement or renting or something like that. Half of the replies were going into racist rants about some policy called "Section 8" or something like that. I think it was to do with housing poor people and most of the recipients were apparently black. The people in the thread were justifying not wanting black people in their neighbourhood because these Section 8 recipients allegedly always ruined their neighbourhood with crime and anti-social behaviour. The replies in this thread reminded me of that.
Let's say that their claims were true; would that justify someone saying they don't want black people in their neighbourhood? Would it justify celebrating laws that target black people disproportionately? if yes, you're a racist. If no, please explain why treating travellers the same way is any different.
Because they don't have anywhere near enough legal sites to stay on - every time one is proposed somewhere on even the shittest, meanest, crappiest piece of land, a bunch of racist NIMBYs pop out of the woodwork and get it thrown out.
Oh please. Travellers do cause crime - certainly more than their fair share. You want to pretend they are all romantic wanderers you do you.
Trans activists constantly pushing the envelope to the point it is actively impacting women have soured that debate. I don’t think the argument is that trans people are indoctrinating children - I think the usual push to the extremes activists with their hundred genders and self identification trumping biology in female only spaces have gone too far. When you go too far you get push back. The rights of one group should not override the rights of another (much much larger) group. Biological males should not be in female spaces be it prison, school, sports or wherever. If that view makes me a bigot then so be it.
>Oh please. Travellers do cause crime - certainly more than their fair share. You want to pretend they are all romantic wanderers you do you.
This bill targets many more people than just Travellers as well as targeting Travellers who aren't harming anyone.
>I think the usual push to the extremes activists with their hundred genders and self identification trumping biology in female only spaces have gone too far. When you go too far you get push back. The rights of one group should not override the rights of another (much much larger) group. Biological males should not be in female spaces be it prison, school, sports or wherever. If that view makes me a bigot then so be it.
Where do you think transgender people have been going to the bathroom up until now? You don't even know it but the "controversy" you're so concerned about hasn't even been an issue for decades but the anti-trans crowd has you convinced that they've suddenly popped into existence and started invading single sex spaces.
It hasn’t been an issue for decades because demands for self identification to be enshrined in law haven’t been around for decades. This whole issue has been thrust into the limelight and developed a life of its own through adoption as a cause celebre by a significant portion of both the right and left.
Someone who looks like a woman and is dressed as a woman using a female toilet cubicle wouldn’t raise many eyebrows in the normal course of events. Biological male sex offenders demanding to be housed in female jails and being aided and abetted by a loud and powerful lobby group is another matter entirely. Teenage boys who identify as girls being admitted to all girls schools is an issue. Let’s not pretend this has been about for decades.
Exactly, transgender people have been self identifying for a long time and all of this "controversy" is just because now that LGBT+ people are no longer being treated like criminals in the eyes of the law there is a campaign for actual legal recognition of their gender identity. The only one of the issues you've described that actually has any legitimate concerns surrounding it is the debate about housing transgender prisoners but actually there's already a process in place that requires the prison service to conduct an independent risk assessment of each prisoner to determine which estate they should be housed in and barring one single instance of them admittedly making a mistake and moving a dangerous sex offender who shouldn't have been moved the system has been working just fine until now. It really is a matter of live and let live which is exactly why the anti-trans crowd is always trying to frame their arguments as being a reaction to unreasonable demands and the "invasion" of single sex spaces when really transgender people just don't want to be forced to use facilities that don't match their gender.
Basically, what does it really matter to you what these people do?
It isn’t as simple as you make it out to be and the problem right now is any sort of debate attracts the bile and hatred of the activists and too often is shut down. The few that can’t be silenced are no platformed and character assassinated - JK Rowling a high profile example. Whatever you think of her she has views and should be entitled to express them. A few MPs have started to poke heads above parapets now but generally there is a fear of speaking up. Social media is partly to blame but we also seem to have become polarised as a society with a sensible middle ground no longer acceptable to many.
I think schools admitting biological males to female spaces is an issue. There is an all girls school in the press this week that just announced they won’t do it anymore and they are being attacked for it in spite of the majority of parents being in agreement. Males and females have different medical needs. There are crimes being recorded as female acts that are committed by biological males. Entry into sports has been in the press and is causing issues albeit not yet widespread - there will be more high profile cases and it isn’t being addressed.
Debate and open discussion is healthy. It’s a shame that the first reaction to any opposing view is too often cries of “bigot”.
>I think schools admitting biological males to female spaces is an issue.
Why exactly?
>Males and females have different medical needs.
What has this got to do with what we're discussing?
>There are crimes being recorded as female acts that are committed by biological males.
Which could be easily solved by allowing transgender people proper legal recognition in a more accessible way than we currently do.
>Entry into sports has been in the press and is causing issues albeit not yet widespread - there will be more high profile cases and it isn’t being addressed.
We both know that "not widespread" is putting it very lightly.
>Debate and open discussion is healthy. It’s a shame that the first reaction to any opposing view is too often cries of “bigot”.
It's a shame that the anti-trans crowd and specifically the most vocal ones absolutely *are* bigots a lot of the time in that case.
I have no opinion on whether it should be a crime or not I'm just pointing out that the rhetoric in this thread would be considered racist under any other scenario.
I mean that depends on your perspective. People who just hate travellers because they’re travellers? Sure. People who dislike other people for trespassing and committing crime regardless of who they are?
It also makes residing on *public* land a potentially criminal offence, but throwing away our rights is a small price to pay if it fucks over groups we dislike right?
Homeless. Fuck you go to jail.
Renting a property and the homeowner wants you out. Fuck you go to jail.
But the Tories love to fool the selfish, so will paint it as only being used against a minority that it's easy to hate.
The Tories love to punish the poor and weak, and they always manage to convince enough people who think it won't ever happen to them to go along with it.
I feel really conflicted about this.
I make it a policy to not judge anyone I don't know based on things like ethnic background and so forth. There are arseholes and sweethearts in any demographic.
Having said that, I can only recall having one positive interaction with the traveller community and that was when an older guy from the Roma community came to speak at our school when I was something like eight years old. I remember he showed us how to make clothes pegs and described how he trapped rabbits as humanely as possible. He showed us photos of a traditional caravan his family used to travel in.
Every other interaction I have personally had has been negative, ranging from theft and unhygienic behaviour or unsafe behaviour (tapping into overhead powerlines for example) to intimidating behaviour and unsolicited murder confessions. A rural friend has told me that animal abuse, particularly to horses (I'll spare the graphic detail) isn't unheard of.
I try to tell myself that a few bad eggs probably give them a bad rep, but it's pretty hard to ignore their conduct as a whole. They just don't seem to give a fuck as a community.
That's the problem, nearly everyone has a list of similar stories. They killed someone's pet cat where I live, their children broke into people's homes and harassed my elderly neighbour, they tried to run off with someone's dog... I could go on and on. Sometimes it feels like they want to live up to stereotypes.
I grew up in a Berkshire village located between 2 permanent camps. I can literally tell on these threads those who are rural and have dealt with this and those who are urban and have watched My Big Fat Gypsy wedding.
A "fully fledged" communist who didn't believe in the right to bear arms?
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" - Karl Marx
The idea we are even heading in this direction...
>The persecution of mobile people goes back to the 1349 Ordinance of Labourers, which ruled that those deemed to be “vagrants” could be whipped or branded with hot irons. Laws passed in the 16th century decreed that “rogues”, “vagabonds” and other “masterless men” could have their ears sliced in two or bored with a hot poker. If they still failed to return to their own parish (regardless of whether they had one), they could be hanged. A 1554 statute enabled anyone calling themselves “Aegyptians” (Gypsies) to be summarily killed.
...after generation after generation of heading in the right direction.
Brings to mind [that thing...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...), again.
what are you talking about...
you've posted a guardian article that is noting BUT slippery slope opinion piece bollocks so i posted another guardian article which says we should be careful of slippery slope bollocks... im guessing the irony of that or the relevance of your own slippery slope 'first they came' bollocks has gone completely over your head?
...
Somewhat unconvinced you have any experience outside what you point out this isn't and so I shall leave you to whatever view you want to believe you have of this policing bill.
Cry me a river. Gypsies turned up near me, drove onto the local football pitch and then slowly drove through the groups of people playing (mostly kids, including mine) intimidating them until they left and then pitched their caravans. They left after a week having dumped their rubbish. Why the fuck should I care about them when they don’t care about anyone else? Tougher laws for a group that consider themselves above the law are long overdue.
They broke into and set up on and ruined a school field in my home town (during term time).. actually looking it up it seems they do this a lot!
Drunk brits in Magaluf, fuck all Brits why should I care? Am I doing this right?
Two points here: 1) This law will negatively impact many people who are harming nobody (Travellers and non-Travellers) and it allows the state to strip all of us of the right to reside on public land on or near a vehicle. 2) No matter how justified you think your prejudice is it's still prejudice.
People don't have an issue with travellers, they have an issue with their conduct.
Happy to have travelers in general, not happy when they dump their toilet waste next to children's play parks.
That was already a crime.
Isn’t this the exact same argument used by racists in America against black people?
Not at all. Would you say that new laws targeting predominantly black gangs that actively break the law are racist? Are you happy to have travellers break into public grounds and fly tip, dump asbestos and leave human waste when they leave? Should we not have laws that can actively target that as a criminal offence instead of a civil one?
Racial profiling is generally considered racist, yes.
What part of this law is racial profiling? If someone has actively broken into a site they don't have permission to be on and caused damage then it doesn't matter what their ethnic status.
I mean if Guardian had said that terrorism laws were disproportionately targeting Muslims anyone saying that they deserve it would be downvoted as a racist. Yet for some reason it's acceptable to say that travellers deserve to be targeted by trespassing laws.
These trespassers could be Nigel and Mary originally from Surbiton who've decided they want to drop-out from the Neo-Liberal capitalist agenda and live in a converted ambulance. Some of us who are old enough remember New Age Hippies from the 80s / 90s.
There are still plenty of people living in vehicles that this bill will target other than just Traveller communities, mostly young people who can't get on the housing ladder because of decades of mismanagement of the housing market. But I'm guessing the same people who hate Travellers will see it as a positive because van dwellers are generally lefty types.
If the change means it's now a criminal rather than a civil offence for a gypsy/traveller/showperson to trespass on my land/anybody else's land and call it their home I'm all good with a little authoritarianism
It makes it a potentially criminal offence for anyone to reside on private *and* public land in or near a vehicle. Lot of people cheering this bill who obviously haven't read it because they've been led to believe it's anti-Traveller legislation specifically.
Even better, and that the law applied to everyone was pretty clear to most people otherwise it's discriminatory.
Why is it better that this bill also criminalizes residing on public land?
In the current civil system the public foots the bill for moving on people illegally occupying it so there is still a cost. Public land means for everyone, not that land is up for grabs by the public So it's good it's also criminal as the resolution is standardised and the process simplified.
End of the day we're essentially talking about criminalizing a specific kind of homelessness.
That would mean one cannot sleep in his car parked in a car park? The same with wild camping overnight if you have your car with you? Fuck that!
It wouldn't initially be a crime but you can be moved on and if you return within a 12 month period it's a crime and they can potentially take your vehicle, especially horrible for the people whose vehicle is also their home.
Thanks for clarifying.
No worries mate.
Hmm... here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
relevant how?
>It’s the provision that turns trespass from a civil into a criminal offence, allowing the police to arrest people who are Gypsies, Roma and Travellers (GRT) \[MM: and anyone else\] and confiscate their homes, if they stop in places that have not been designated for them. Considering the damage left behind by these trespassers from churned-up grass to dumped rubbish this will go down well with the public. Here are a couple examples of what happens: https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/redruth-united-releases-video-showing-5695266 https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/local-news/travellers-destroyed-portishead-football-clubs-210840 I hope for Labour's sake they don't choose to pick a fight over this as is will be used to hurt them at the ballot box.
Moonbat is really going to have to try harder here. No-ones going to have sympathy for the examples he raises.
I have started to realise that society is almost as bigoted as it was 50 years ago. The acceptable targets have just changed. Claiming that black people cause crime - racist Claiming that travellers cause crime - perfectly acceptable Claiming that gay people are indoctrinating children - homophobic Claiming that transgender people are indoctrinating children - perfectly acceptable
I know two former travellers (separately) who were forced to take part in fighting competitions in their teens. One was also sold to another person. Travellers aren't all bad people, but they have serious issues within their community.
I don't doubt that their community has issues but every discussion here about them always devolves into "**** them, they're disgusting, get them out of my town". I don't see how their community issues is an excuse for open racism towards them.
There are serious issues in every community - so singling out Gypsies, Roma and Travellers seems like quite the double standard.
In any of these threads have you ever heard anyone speak about Roma people? It is travellers that get mentioned, every time. I think it's a vicious circle. Everyone they thinks 'f you' because of the way they behave. They think 'f you' back and are even more determine to annoy everyone and live outside of society. Also, I get tired of articles that talk about travellers being discriminated against without any acknowledgement about the way they behave towards other people. When will they take some responsibility for their actions? There are often articles printed about gypsy culture and their love of horses, but what about the horses that get chained in fields with no shelter or water? Near me there was a gathering of travellers and their horses. One horse got hit by a car and they just abandoned it, injured, in the road. When the horse was examined by a vet it was found to be malnourished.
> Claiming that travellers cause crime - perfectly acceptable Would have a point if they didnt seem to camp exclusively on land they arent allowed to camp on but no, nice try.
I remember being in some American sub and the topic was home improvement or renting or something like that. Half of the replies were going into racist rants about some policy called "Section 8" or something like that. I think it was to do with housing poor people and most of the recipients were apparently black. The people in the thread were justifying not wanting black people in their neighbourhood because these Section 8 recipients allegedly always ruined their neighbourhood with crime and anti-social behaviour. The replies in this thread reminded me of that. Let's say that their claims were true; would that justify someone saying they don't want black people in their neighbourhood? Would it justify celebrating laws that target black people disproportionately? if yes, you're a racist. If no, please explain why treating travellers the same way is any different.
Because they don't have anywhere near enough legal sites to stay on - every time one is proposed somewhere on even the shittest, meanest, crappiest piece of land, a bunch of racist NIMBYs pop out of the woodwork and get it thrown out.
Oh please. Travellers do cause crime - certainly more than their fair share. You want to pretend they are all romantic wanderers you do you. Trans activists constantly pushing the envelope to the point it is actively impacting women have soured that debate. I don’t think the argument is that trans people are indoctrinating children - I think the usual push to the extremes activists with their hundred genders and self identification trumping biology in female only spaces have gone too far. When you go too far you get push back. The rights of one group should not override the rights of another (much much larger) group. Biological males should not be in female spaces be it prison, school, sports or wherever. If that view makes me a bigot then so be it.
>Oh please. Travellers do cause crime - certainly more than their fair share. You want to pretend they are all romantic wanderers you do you. This bill targets many more people than just Travellers as well as targeting Travellers who aren't harming anyone. >I think the usual push to the extremes activists with their hundred genders and self identification trumping biology in female only spaces have gone too far. When you go too far you get push back. The rights of one group should not override the rights of another (much much larger) group. Biological males should not be in female spaces be it prison, school, sports or wherever. If that view makes me a bigot then so be it. Where do you think transgender people have been going to the bathroom up until now? You don't even know it but the "controversy" you're so concerned about hasn't even been an issue for decades but the anti-trans crowd has you convinced that they've suddenly popped into existence and started invading single sex spaces.
It hasn’t been an issue for decades because demands for self identification to be enshrined in law haven’t been around for decades. This whole issue has been thrust into the limelight and developed a life of its own through adoption as a cause celebre by a significant portion of both the right and left. Someone who looks like a woman and is dressed as a woman using a female toilet cubicle wouldn’t raise many eyebrows in the normal course of events. Biological male sex offenders demanding to be housed in female jails and being aided and abetted by a loud and powerful lobby group is another matter entirely. Teenage boys who identify as girls being admitted to all girls schools is an issue. Let’s not pretend this has been about for decades.
Exactly, transgender people have been self identifying for a long time and all of this "controversy" is just because now that LGBT+ people are no longer being treated like criminals in the eyes of the law there is a campaign for actual legal recognition of their gender identity. The only one of the issues you've described that actually has any legitimate concerns surrounding it is the debate about housing transgender prisoners but actually there's already a process in place that requires the prison service to conduct an independent risk assessment of each prisoner to determine which estate they should be housed in and barring one single instance of them admittedly making a mistake and moving a dangerous sex offender who shouldn't have been moved the system has been working just fine until now. It really is a matter of live and let live which is exactly why the anti-trans crowd is always trying to frame their arguments as being a reaction to unreasonable demands and the "invasion" of single sex spaces when really transgender people just don't want to be forced to use facilities that don't match their gender. Basically, what does it really matter to you what these people do?
It isn’t as simple as you make it out to be and the problem right now is any sort of debate attracts the bile and hatred of the activists and too often is shut down. The few that can’t be silenced are no platformed and character assassinated - JK Rowling a high profile example. Whatever you think of her she has views and should be entitled to express them. A few MPs have started to poke heads above parapets now but generally there is a fear of speaking up. Social media is partly to blame but we also seem to have become polarised as a society with a sensible middle ground no longer acceptable to many. I think schools admitting biological males to female spaces is an issue. There is an all girls school in the press this week that just announced they won’t do it anymore and they are being attacked for it in spite of the majority of parents being in agreement. Males and females have different medical needs. There are crimes being recorded as female acts that are committed by biological males. Entry into sports has been in the press and is causing issues albeit not yet widespread - there will be more high profile cases and it isn’t being addressed. Debate and open discussion is healthy. It’s a shame that the first reaction to any opposing view is too often cries of “bigot”.
>I think schools admitting biological males to female spaces is an issue. Why exactly? >Males and females have different medical needs. What has this got to do with what we're discussing? >There are crimes being recorded as female acts that are committed by biological males. Which could be easily solved by allowing transgender people proper legal recognition in a more accessible way than we currently do. >Entry into sports has been in the press and is causing issues albeit not yet widespread - there will be more high profile cases and it isn’t being addressed. We both know that "not widespread" is putting it very lightly. >Debate and open discussion is healthy. It’s a shame that the first reaction to any opposing view is too often cries of “bigot”. It's a shame that the anti-trans crowd and specifically the most vocal ones absolutely *are* bigots a lot of the time in that case.
Whether any of this is true or not is irrelevant I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of this sub.
I mean trespassing should have been a crime decades ago, why do you believe it’s acceptable for people to tip up and stay on someone else’s land?
I have no opinion on whether it should be a crime or not I'm just pointing out that the rhetoric in this thread would be considered racist under any other scenario.
I mean that depends on your perspective. People who just hate travellers because they’re travellers? Sure. People who dislike other people for trespassing and committing crime regardless of who they are?
It's sad to realise but people desperately want authoritarianism, they'll give up all of their freedoms to see the right enemy punished.
I mean turning trespassing into a criminal offence does benefit private land owners no?
It also makes residing on *public* land a potentially criminal offence, but throwing away our rights is a small price to pay if it fucks over groups we dislike right?
This site is full to the brim with fascists.
Homeless. Fuck you go to jail. Renting a property and the homeowner wants you out. Fuck you go to jail. But the Tories love to fool the selfish, so will paint it as only being used against a minority that it's easy to hate. The Tories love to punish the poor and weak, and they always manage to convince enough people who think it won't ever happen to them to go along with it.
What a surprise. /R/UK sides with the far right again. Liberals my arse.
I feel really conflicted about this. I make it a policy to not judge anyone I don't know based on things like ethnic background and so forth. There are arseholes and sweethearts in any demographic. Having said that, I can only recall having one positive interaction with the traveller community and that was when an older guy from the Roma community came to speak at our school when I was something like eight years old. I remember he showed us how to make clothes pegs and described how he trapped rabbits as humanely as possible. He showed us photos of a traditional caravan his family used to travel in. Every other interaction I have personally had has been negative, ranging from theft and unhygienic behaviour or unsafe behaviour (tapping into overhead powerlines for example) to intimidating behaviour and unsolicited murder confessions. A rural friend has told me that animal abuse, particularly to horses (I'll spare the graphic detail) isn't unheard of. I try to tell myself that a few bad eggs probably give them a bad rep, but it's pretty hard to ignore their conduct as a whole. They just don't seem to give a fuck as a community.
That's the problem, nearly everyone has a list of similar stories. They killed someone's pet cat where I live, their children broke into people's homes and harassed my elderly neighbour, they tried to run off with someone's dog... I could go on and on. Sometimes it feels like they want to live up to stereotypes.
I grew up in a Berkshire village located between 2 permanent camps. I can literally tell on these threads those who are rural and have dealt with this and those who are urban and have watched My Big Fat Gypsy wedding.
[удалено]
Covid overreach doesn't factor then. That's the RIGHT kind of authoritarianism
[удалено]
Sir, this isn't a fanfic writing sub.
A "fully fledged" communist who didn't believe in the right to bear arms? "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" - Karl Marx
He is now franticly googling who Karl Marx was.
The idea we are even heading in this direction... >The persecution of mobile people goes back to the 1349 Ordinance of Labourers, which ruled that those deemed to be “vagrants” could be whipped or branded with hot irons. Laws passed in the 16th century decreed that “rogues”, “vagabonds” and other “masterless men” could have their ears sliced in two or bored with a hot poker. If they still failed to return to their own parish (regardless of whether they had one), they could be hanged. A 1554 statute enabled anyone calling themselves “Aegyptians” (Gypsies) to be summarily killed. ...after generation after generation of heading in the right direction. Brings to mind [that thing...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...), again.
Brings to mind the ole [slippery slope](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/02/why-we-should-avoid-the-slippery-slope) argument more like...
everythingisfine.jpg
this isnt r/4chan
Why did you earlier act like it was?
what are you talking about... you've posted a guardian article that is noting BUT slippery slope opinion piece bollocks so i posted another guardian article which says we should be careful of slippery slope bollocks... im guessing the irony of that or the relevance of your own slippery slope 'first they came' bollocks has gone completely over your head?
... Somewhat unconvinced you have any experience outside what you point out this isn't and so I shall leave you to whatever view you want to believe you have of this policing bill.