Scrutable

Some of the questions assume support for the criminalisation in these cases for the template, we have left the multiple choice section blank and included our views on the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments and increase in police powers in the comments section.

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:04 am

Plus the fact is the laws are already more than sufficient to deal with any illegal activity. This is targeting of a marginalised population to make it even harder for them to continue their way of life.

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:04 am

Plus the fact is the laws are already more than sufficient to deal with any illegal activity. This is targeting of a marginalised population to make it even harder for them to continue their way of life.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:47 pm

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:04 am

Plus the fact is the laws are already more than sufficient to deal with any illegal activity. This is targeting of a marginalised population to make it even harder for them to continue their way of life.

Yes for sure. When I read the beginning of the thread I thought the proposed laws were about criminalising trespass, which I didn't consider a massively awful issue (e.g. not all conservation orgs have the budget to bring civil cases against people trashing their reserves, and nor do they want the attendant publicity).

But the other bits of the law are crazy. Criminalising stopping beside public roads. Being able to "move on" any group of two vehicles, which would include a car with a trailer. Shifting people from one county to another.

Not only would these laws facilitate harassment of travellers, which is bad enough of itself, but would also be handing the police incredibly broad powers to harass just about anybody (and as we all know, police harassment tends to be disproportionately directed towards minority groups).

quiescent wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:42 pm

Does anyone know whether responses from people residing in Scotland would be worthwhile for this? The proposed changes appear to be specific to England & Wales.

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:00 pm

Voters don't want permanent sites in their neighbourhood - and lobby their local councils hard to prevent planning permission. Councils often require a big house building projects to allocate land to travellers - and the house building companies fight hard against it because it reduces the desirability of the new homes.

This looks like totally the wrong fight to me. I've no idea what the Conservative government has done in recent years, but will bet you 1 (one) Quality Street they've trashed every single public program designed to improve education, health and imprisonment rates of travellers. Some mad laws pandering to the prejudice matter far less than the mad austerity cuts that directly impact the communities' day-to-day lives.

We carry out policy, research and campaigning work to increase the number of sites and stopping places for Gypsies and Travellers to live.

...

Through our casework and outreach work, we have identified recurrent issues which arise when members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities seek to receive health care. Through positive health engagement and by engaging in wider Health Inclusion fora, we seek to redress structural issues which can sometimes make it difficult for Gypsies and Travellers to achieve the same health outcomes as members of the dominant community.

...

As part of the General Election 2017, we launched an electoral registration campaign, helping members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities to register to vote and promoting the importance of voting to residents on sites and encampments in Sussex and Surrey particularly. We encouraged subscribers to our newsletter to ask their local politicians questions on the topics of discrimination, site provision and protection of the nomadic way of life. Many of the people who we helped register to vote were doing so for the very first time.

...

We continue to participate in the Department for Education Gypsy and Traveller Stakeholder meetings and feed into policy development where possible. We hope to use our experiences derived from casework, homework club and outreach work to influence our policy recommendations and advice.

...

We participate in Sussex Police Gypsy and Traveller Advisory Group meetings, and have provided Gypsy and Traveller Cultural Awareness training on numerous occasions to Police and Prison staff.

In January 2014 we held a conference, in conjunction with the Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG) in London, which looked at Improving Outcomes for Offenders from Gypsy and Traveller Communities. The report from the conference is available here.

A good practice guide to working with Gypsies, Roma and Travellers in prison has been produced by HMP Ford staff in partnership with inmates from Gypsy and Traveller communities.

mediocrity511 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:13 pm

I'm surprised you weren't worried about criminalizing trespass given that aside from Travellers, the other group likely to be majorly affected are environmental protestors and folk doing stuff like sabotaging the badger cull.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:30 am

mediocrity511 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:13 pm

I'm surprised you weren't worried about criminalizing trespass given that aside from Travellers, the other group likely to be majorly affected are environmental protestors and folk doing stuff like sabotaging the badger cull.

It would be annoying to be prosecuted, but I tend to just assume that some protest activity will involve criminal activity, and that's fine.

quiescent wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:52 pm

I've finally got around to writing up some responses to this (in time, I hope). Would anyone with more knowledge of the issues than me be willing to take a look at my answers before I submit them? I have very little knowledge or experience here and, what with the survey being so obviously intended to produce a specific result, I'm worried about making things worse.