was the headline in a news summary by Philip Hayter on BBC News 24 just now, followed by a brief mention of the Conservatives plans to reform the law to protect homeowners and the environment from the blight of illegal traveller encampments.
This surprised me – the last thing the Conservatives would want to do is go anywhere near starting a race row, particularly knowing how the shrill harpies of the left screech on and on at the merest hint of race being an issue – so who has suggested the issue involves race, and, more importantly, why does that become the BBC headline to the story rather than proper coverage of the substantive issue itself?
The issue is that it appears that anyone from anywhere in the EU with a caravan and an attitude can settle wherever they like in the UK, in complete contravention of the planning laws, using their ‘human rights’ to disregard everyone else’s human rights.
Turning to BBC News Online, the story is a little clearer – although their angle on the story is the same – Tories deny Gypsy race row claim. It turns out that:
Planning minister Keith Hill said the Tories were “tapping into the biggest vein of bigotry – prejudice against Gypsies and travellers”
So, there we have it, a not particularly bright leftie minister (who, one is left to assume, is Labour, since the BBC fail to name his party) has neatly demonstrated the old truism that goes:
Q. What’s a racist?
A. Anyone winning an argument with a leftie.
…and that then becomes the BBC’s focus on the whole story. Trebles all round in the newsroom.
Further down the story (timestamped 11:52, 20MAR05), in a classic piece of BBC News Online sloppy journalism, we find:
The Conservatives have already said they intend to review the Act and scrap it if it cannot be rewritten to their satisfaction.
They claim it is putting the interests of criminal “chancres” before hard-working members of the public.
While ‘chancre‘ might well be appropriate, I suspect ‘chancer’ is what was actually said – as has turned out to be the case, following a stealth edit between 3 and 3.30pm – a mere three hours after the story went online!
O/T
A SOLDIER’S TALE – Sitting at a mate’s place this afternoon i flicked through his News of the World. Pages 42 and 43 caught my attention: ‘Betrayed by the BBC’ (article about Corporal Kevin Mervin).
‘Weeks after coming home Kevin wrote: “I never expected a hero’s welcome, and didn’t want one. All I wanted was a plate of egg and chips and a decent mug of tea.
What I didn’t expect was to be sacked and spat at. At first I couldn’t understand why until I watched the news, particularly the BBC, and noticed the conflict was portrayed as some kind of invasion, which was completely different from what I had experienced.
Iraq wasn’t invaded, it was liberated. The BBC seemed to have either misunderstood the meaning of the word or chosen to use it to put across their biased views.”
I wish some tramps would go into BBCs Portland Place Broadcasting House and sleep there,claiming some human rights violation when the security guards move them on.
Keith Hill is my local MP. A few years ago (ahead of the 2001 election or the first London mayoral election, I can’t remember which) he fronted a campaign to try and encourage more black people to get on the electoral register. A very noble cause, I’m sure you’ll agree.
And what did he do to galvanise disaffected black people into regstering their vote? Perhaps give a hard-hitting interview to one of the Sunday papers highlighting how ethnic minortities have been let down by the marginalisastion of perceived ‘black’ issues by the political mainstream? Maybe give a rousing speech to some potential first time voters in the local community?
No. Instead he chose to perform a staged ‘rap’ (“Go out and Vote! Yeah!”) in Parliament Square for the assembled hacks complete with obligatory boombox, baseball cap and ‘homies’ (two black chaps in bomber jackets, dancing a la Soul II Soul c.1989 and looking thoroughly embarassed). I kid ye not.
‘Tapping into … bigotry’ is something you would know all about, Mr Hill.
Pete,
It’s a shame for that soldier to return only to be treated that way. Poor dude. That really makes me angry. And what’s really sad is that I’ll bet many more people absorb the lies of the BBC rather than read this guy’s article or even see it.
The view from behind the amoral curtain:
Russophobia, again
03/17/2005 09:47
Does BBC press coverage of Russia mask an innate hostility?
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Whilst I’m in favour of the sort of measures that Howard is proposing and the race issue is the usual red herring, surely in order to give sufficient context the BBC should mention that it was Conservative policy of removing council’s obligation to provide sites that largely created this fiasco in the first place
Cockney
Why SHOULD councils be OBLIGED to provide sites? The law has never made it unlawful for anyone to freely buy land for development within the limits of planning constraints. No-one has advocated that thieving gypsies (whoops! ‘travellers’) be treated any differently from anyone else. Michael Howard and others are merely insisting that they be treated just the same as anyone else. You and I would be denied consent to build a caravan park on green belt land. To advocate that one minority group should be allowed to is to discriminate. People like you have been telling people likeme for years that discrimination is bad. Ahhhh … I think I get it now; discrimination is bad unless it’s good, yes?
Pete,
I think your theory is quite correct, however this is one of the areas where ideals crash headlong into the juggernaut of reality. There always have been and always will be people who want to adopt a ‘travelling’ lifestyle. Other people will always be loathe to have sites situated near to them, hence the likelihood of ‘travellers’ acquiring their own land and obtaining legal permission to build there through our Byzantine planning laws is extremely low.
Whilst the Conservatives’ proposals are sensible at face value, our caravan dwelling chums will literally be left with nowhere to go. Given that they’re hardly likely to consequently shrug their shoulders and take up rented accomodation in the Thames estuary the result will be an inordinate amount of police time spent monitoring their activities. This will be vastly expensive (or given the lack of cash available just won’t get done).
The pragmatic approach is to spend a bit of cash up front identifying sites where they will be less of a menace and clamp down hard on any subsequent (significantly reduced) illegal activities.
Cockney
I’m a Planning & Development Surveyor. I know the planning regime intimately. It’s my job.
“Other people will always be loathe to have sites situated near to them, hence the likelihood of ‘travellers’ acquiring their own land and obtaining legal permission to build there through our Byzantine planning laws is extremely low.”
On the contrary, nationwide there is a huge amount of land allocated and waiting for development. Local authorities must identify and allocate land, by law, in their local plans. People don’t want Mr Wimpey building his mock Tudor executive homes close by but if consent is granted there’s nothing they can do about it. Gypsies have the same right to develop allocated land as Mr Wimpey. If they gain consent they can go right ahead. However, Mr Wimpey simply cannot develop green belt land, so local authorities should and must not discriminate by allowing a particular minority to do so.
There’s a danger here which I think you may agree with. Once you accept the principle of discriminating in favour of a minority, you are accepting the principle of discrimination in general and open the door to it in other circumstances. That the law applies equally to all and each is equal under the law protects gypsies as well as everyone else. When you discriminate in favour of Gypsies you implicitly agree (whether you intend to or not) that there may be circumstances in which gypsies may be discriminated against. In using the Human Rights Act to bend the plannig regime in their favour they will be undermining that which protects them.
I bow to your expertise but have a couple of questions.
Does local opposition not influence the decision to grant planning consent? If so, given the press hysteria (which is justified – I’ve had ‘travellers’ living near me and I appreciate that it’s not pleasant) is it not unlikely that consent will be granted without some form of compulsion.
What is the green belt issue. Is there really no non green belt land left which could be allocated?
How did the old system work in the cotext of planning laws and why would its reintroduction be so bad?
The Irish government managed to solve this problem,why cant we?
Cockney
People may make representations to a local authority while it is deciding on an application but the words of a government minister (e.g. in directing councils to make land available to gypsies) would carry far more weight. The views of locals may be taken into account or not, the view of government is a material consideration and must be allowed to direct planning policy. Even where local residents object to an application it is unlikely that the application would be refused as long as it accords with local planning policy. If a council would overturn its own planning policy because of objections to an application then the policy should never have been agreed in the first place.
There is much green belt land which can be and actually is allocated. However gypsey groups are seeking to build on green belt land in Essex and Surrey and are using the Human Rights Act to do so. Recently a gypsey group was denied planning consent to build on (non green belt) land not allocated for development. They went to the high court and won. The HRA states that everyone has the right to family life and this is the basis on which planning law was overturned in their favour. They are seeking to use the very same high court decision to build in the green belt now.
For very good reason you, I and Mr Wimpey would be denied consent to build in the green belt. It exists to prevent urban sprawl, ensures that planners and developers must use land efficiently and provides amenities for all. Since 1947 the only development allowed in the green belt has been redevelopment of existing buildings and even then the new development could not be of a greater size than what was being reveloped. The HRA has been used to tear that arrangement up.
I still haven’t seen anyone suggest that gypsies should be discriminated against. People simply want gypsies treated the same as everyone else.