Jun 2009 08

Stop "engaging" and just do your job6

The Telegraph reports a truly ridiculous example of the police failing to do their job and enforce the law:

"However, police and council workers have ruled out fixing the pothole-ridden road because they are worried about sparking a riot from travellers who could think they are about to be evicted if workmen turn-up.

The decision has been branded "appalling" by local residents and even the travellers say work to fix the road urgently needs to be done.

Essex County Council wants to resurface the road but will only send workmen with a police escort incase the workers prompted a hostile response from travellers. Essex Police has turned down requests, saying it may cause problems by creating fears in travellers that they are about to be evicted.

MP John Baron wrote to Basildon Police Chief Inspector Simon Dobson asking for a police escort for road workers but was told before any work was done experts would need to consider 'traveller engagement'. He said before any potholes were filled they would need to create a network of people to negotiate with the travellers, send a clear and consistent message and hold an open meeting so travellers could ask any questions about the works."

It's bad enough that the law isn't being enforced in the first place, and the illegal camp hasn't been closed.  It is completely outrageous that the police are now unwilling to escort builders to get the road fixed, just in case the travellers think the police officers might be doing their job.

This whole case is even worse because the travellers insist there is no need for the builders to get a police escort in the first place:

"Even the travellers think the process to fill in a few potholes is long-winded. Gratton Puxon, a spokesman for the families, said: "I think I speak for everyone when I say the police are not needed.

"People at Dale Farm want the road fixed as much as residents. It should be done without the need for this rigmarole.""

So, it looks entirely possible that the massive traveller riot that is stopping the road being fixed is a figment of the council's imagination.

Regardless, and leaving aside the absurdity of not being able to evict an illegal camp even after spending £700,000 on the legal case, if the police think that the traveller group are going to riot just because they approach to safeguard some building work then they should turn up in force and arrest the rioters.  The police need to stop thinking so much about "traveller engagement" and focus on doing their job, enforcing the law and making sure law-abiding citizens can freely go about their business.

Related Posts

  • john

    I agree entirely. There should be zero tolerance for the illegal activities of ‘travellers’.

  • James

    Ridiculous right wing garbage. I’ve previously remarked upon the fact that TPA articles seem to be intentionally misleading so I’ll have to assume that you are actually aware of the fact that the residents of Dale Farm actually own the land on which they live (previously used a scrap metal yard for over 25 years). Along with this, they have developed it with their own money and actually pay around £1,000 per dwelling, each year in Council Tax.
    Poor research skills, Ben or just selective reporting?

  • http://profile.typepad.com/benfarrugia Ben Farrugia

    James,
    Thanks for the comment. I didn’t actually write the blog above, but I read your comment and thought it warranted a response.
    My problem is that I’m not entirely sure to what you take objection. What my colleague Matthew Sinclair (who wrote the blog yesterday) was really commentating on is the council’s decision to put on hold the planned resurfacing of a road, and the police’s hesitation to assist them. He was not commentating on the particulars of the Dale Farm case; those appear to have been dealt with extensively in the courts (a point he alludes to). The camp does remain technically illegal, but the eviction orders have been waived until a less crude solution can be found. I don’t know, but I expect Matt probably feels that if something is found to be illegal, it is illegal. You may disagree with that, for the reason you give above.
    I myself know very little about the case, but Matt Sinclair was neither being selective in his reporting, or a poor researcher. If your objection is with the councils (continued) opinion on the camp, then feel free to make your feelings known about that.
    And by no means hold back in your opinion on any of the matters at hand on our blogs, but please consider disparaging remarks about our intentions and approach a little more closely in the future.

  • James

    Aha, Don’t worry, I understand. I’d be annoyed too if someone had accused me of writing something so bereft of context or analysis.
    Accept my apologies but I’m still confused as to what, if anything, I’m meant to have gained from reading the above critique. For instance, even if we put aside the wider moral debate – and in such a situation, surely we never can – and evaluate the article from a purely financial position, it still seems bizarre that you apparently do not expect the reader to anticipate a degree of enquiry or constructive thought rather than simply a 200 word moan against all involved. An article concerning the forced-relocation of nearly a hundred poor, socially-ostracised and newly homeless families with many elderly dependants and children, surely justifies a more thoughtful and rounded examination than a sneering harangue against the Police’s level-headed desire to be sensitive to the soon-to-be shattered community. These are human beings after all and not just, as I mentioned previously, houseproud taxpayers with all the inherent rights, dignities and entitlements.
    Notwithstanding all this however, the actual reason that I was prompted to respond to your reply was to recommend that you consider readers’ contributions more carefully before responding to them as you’ve evidently misinterpreted my opening sentence, which was intended to demonstrate my exasperation with this topic generally rather than a ‘disparaging’ remark against your colleague. Bearing in mind that Mr Sinclair supplied comfortably less than half of the total written content of his own ‘blog,’ I’d have thought that such an assumption would be by no means obvious. I’d like to refrain from repeating your comments about approaching things a ‘little more closely’ but, given the circumstances, it’s simply too apt.
    Unfortunately, this is an obvious case of news begetting ‘news,’ an article for an article’s sake and frankly, a clear-cut example of profoundly lazy journalism. As such, I won’t be wasting any more time by commenting upon it further.

  • Penny M

    I’m confused. If the people who are camping on the land actually own it, then how can their occupation be declared illegal? Camping (as opposed to building houses without planing permission) doesn’t break any laws. Surely they have a right to use their property without government interference?

  • Nick Gallop

    We (as well as the Council) have got distracted: The road needs to be fixed, so fix it… stop wasting money worrying about how people will feel about it being fixed. The job is to mend the road, all the other behaviours are indicators of excess buget.