Top Tory hits out at 'bigoted views' on gypsy sites (From Kidderminster Shuttle)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting KS NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Top Tory hits out at 'bigoted views' on gypsy sites
10:01am Thursday 3rd November 2011 in News
A LEADING Wyre Forest Conservative has condemned what he called an opposition councillor’s “bigoted views” after he claimed a gypsy sites in Stourport would create a ghetto and increase crime.
Leader of Independent Community and Health Concern (ICHC), Nigel Thomas, said he believed the sites chosen by Wyre Forest District Council for consultation “indicates that the people of Stourport can be treated as second class citizens.”
He added: “ICHC feel very strongly that the sites should be distributed evenly throughout Wyre Forest. We fear the failure to do so will create a ghetto and may even lead to no-go areas, with a great fear that there will be an increase in criminal activity.”
Responding, district council leader John Campion said the proposed sites were not all in Stourport. He added: “I also would condemn councillor Thomas’s suggested connection between the establishment of gypsy and traveller pitches and the level of crime. This assertion is both racist and discriminatory.
“Councillor Thomas and ICHC should recognise that we live in a tolerant and inclusive society and that their bigoted views are not acceptable.”
He explained that the council was carrying out the current consultation to ensure the community was protected from unauthorised development in the future.
Mr Thomas said: “We also believe the political correctness card is being played to prevent free speech for the general public and some opposition councillors.
“Surely, free speech comes before political correctness and should not be prevented under any circumstances.
“Those who are trying to deny free speech must have something to hide.”
Comments(42)
Neville Farmer
says...
5:46pm Thu 3 Nov 11
Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.
This offence refers to:
1. Deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
2. Distributing racist material to the public
3. Making inflammatory public speeches
4. Creating racist websites on the Internet
5. Inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.
Under the law, Gypsies and Irish Travellers constitute distinct ethnic groups and, like the rest of us, are rightly protected under the Race Relations Act. Nigel Thomas and Dixon Sheppard have both said inflammatory things about Gypsies and Travellers that deserve closer investigation. There are good and bad in all communities but it does little to ease tensions when you hear the kind of ignorant clap-trap being spouted by these two elected representatives about the travelling community.
Jon D
says...
8:16pm Thu 3 Nov 11
FranOb
says...
9:48pm Thu 3 Nov 11
When he was MP, Dr Richard Taylor made great efforts to see the Gypsy community was recognised, had its culture acknowledged and, indeed, tried very hard to get a member of that community to attend the Holocaust Memorial Commemoration to ensure that their sacrifice was recognised.
Now, by their horrendous behaviour,Cllrs. Thomas and Sheppard are undermining everything he did!
Inciting racial hatred is not a joke and using the language which has been used by some members of IHC cannot go unchallenged!
DOEPUBLIC
says...
7:40am Fri 4 Nov 11
that I think this is, sadly, another example of ‘tabloid’ politics’ clouding the issues. It is a fact that some people’s limited experience of a minority of the GTTS community, namely travellers, results in fear of disruption in the community. These fears are often compounded by personal experience of criminal damage by individuals. It is also a fact that members of the GTTS community fear the majority community as a whole, due to personal experience of abuse, leading to a natural response of withdrawing into a gathered community.These genuine fears on both sides should IMO be heard in a healthy and compassionate community. All politicians need to take the lead in this, especially in there communication of information and its reporting in a public space. IMO the council leadership have a responsibility to encourage acceptance of the GTTS community across Wyre Forest. IMO this will happen when the GTTS community are encouraged to live across the Wyre Forest community. Sadly at present this wish IMO is undermined by political manipulation of the information contained in the limited Baker Report(its failure to include public suggestions) and of selective reporting. In addition, if consultation is to be genuine then all fears, no matter how invalid they are perceived need to be listened to. I suspect my comments may be misinterpreted , but hope that they are seen as genuine attempt to move beyond sound-bite political charades. Lets move beyond political point scoring to finding a safe comfortable home for all in our community.
FlipC - The Mad Ranter
says...
9:22am Fri 4 Nov 11
You see bigots don't like facts. Facts have a nasty tendency to counter whatever foul-mouthed diatribes or paranoid scenarios they like to concoct. As such they'd prefer to keep it at name-calling level and accuse anyone disagreeing with them as being politically correct.
As such I note three politicians have now had their say on the matter (including John's original piece) and none have categorically stated that Nigel is wrong.
That's all that's required - a person in authority and who is thus most likely to have all the facts and figures (sorry Jon) to state that the Police tell them that crime does not increase in such circumstances. I would then be in the same line as everyone else insisting Nigel apologise.
Until someone does that stop waving racism around like it's some instant argument stopper; you're being just as bad as the person on the other side.
Gobby Robby
says...
9:45am Fri 4 Nov 11
FlipC - The Mad Ranter
says...
10:22am Fri 4 Nov 11
As I've said before the flaw in human behaviour is to polarise arguments in twain. If I'm pointing out the errors in 'your' side's arguments then by definition I'm on the 'other' side. This is not the case. If you can't answer the questions I pose even with the answers I try to lead you to how much better are you than those you oppose?
By calling you out on these things I'm strengthening YOUR arguments and hopefully you and others think beyond the superficial arguments and name-calling that seem to plague such discussions.
As such when a similar discussion occurs again you will already have all the arguments to hand and be able to deliver them in one go crushing the opposition in one fell swoop.
If I were truly on the 'other' side that would be a pretty stupid thing for me to do.
Now as such you, along with Jon, state that "there are no figures to suggest crime goes up" I think you're wrong. I think crime does increase in ANY new residential building simply by virtue of its existence via increase of both people and opportunity for crime.
Of course what you mean is that there is no disproportionate increase in crime dependent on the residents' ethnicity. Fine and if that's the case then one of our fine councillors who have access to the police data, who can ask such questions and receive definitive answers will confirm that here.
Otherwise everyone is dancing around the subject of whether Nigel's statement was actually correct by hiding it under a blanket of racism.
neilhar
says...
6:21pm Fri 4 Nov 11
@Flip: Err, where are YOUR facts to back up that statement? Perhaps the councillor you seek will be able to ask the police person that they know if crime went up with ANY of the recent increases in residential developments for he reasons that YOU think they do. Sorry, but I had to call you out on that.
neilhar
says...
6:34pm Fri 4 Nov 11
I expect that whilst the gtts community is perhaps a little tougher than most other individuals, this could be compared to spider. humans are scared of them but you can bet your life they are more scared of us. do/did we ever see travellers rioting and looting, in the football or street gangs and such like. I doubt it. there is more to worry about than that for this ethnic group and ok, like many others, some have a propensity to fight after a few beers, yet it takes two to tango. The way of honour and respect for family within the GTTS community is something we should all try to emulate. If we do, then maybe some of theirs will be directed out towards us.
I want the barrier that has been built over centuries, destroyed. The west got to see the Berlin wall come down, It's time to find a way to understand each other and break down these barriers and misconceptions. Of course, again it takes two and I truly hope that it can finally begin here in wyre forest soon.
Gobby Robby
says...
7:46pm Fri 4 Nov 11
"you're being just as bad as the person on the other side" - (on saying 'racist'); Councillor Thomas makes racist accusation against Travellers (there are no police figures to suggest crime goes up therefore it is racist - this has been spelt out to you about 3 times) therefore someone points out that this is racist so therefore the person deducing this is the same who is rabble rousing. So much for the 'truth'. As for emotion you cannot get away from it, it exists even in the scientific workings of the left hand side of the brain. On a more naked emotional level it clearly effects you the same as everyone else. Not once have you ever picked a racist or bigot up on their semantics it is only ever those who are horrified by the bigots who you try & pick up with your petty semantic arguments. So that is your emotional choice to do that as you are clearly not moved by the consequences of racism (i.e The Holocaust). You are clearly more emotionally tuned to..err...semantics. If you can't see the dangers of letting blatant racist rabble rousing (which is the route of nearly all conflict i.e to make negative stereotypes against a set of people) go unchallenged and think people are merely interested in Nigel's semantics you sadly represent, as Jon D rightly surmised, 'the banality of evil'.
jflawson
says...
10:26pm Fri 4 Nov 11
came up with another possible site as Fran has said they promise to look at any resonable suggestions.
But now after over 2000 people attending all the meeting i believe party politics should be put aside and that all the elected councillors try to resolve this extremely difficult situation. I was concerned that it was suggested by some people that nothing is done i really think that is a bad idea, because many people will be agonising over the final decision.
Regretably as many people have posted on various headlines the matter has been badly handled I spoke to Councillor Onslow and said whichever party was in control would have a major problem with this issue.Lets cut out the bickering take a a positive approach and bring a sense of calm back to the what i believe is one of the best places to live certainly in the U.K
JIM LAWSON
ICHC Spokesperson for Rock & District
p.s.the Long Bank Bewdley Site where travelling people have to move from is not Bewdley it is in fact Callow Hill in the parish of ROCK.
FranOb
says...
11:31pm Fri 4 Nov 11
Nowhere near 2000 people have attended the Council consultation meetings.
The true figure is around 1000.
I have been advised to report certain IHC Councillors to the Police for statements likely to incite racial hatred!
Jon D
says...
11:49pm Fri 4 Nov 11
Jon D
says...
11:52pm Fri 4 Nov 11
jflawson
says...
9:31am Sat 5 Nov 11
All i am saying obviously by the public concern by attending these meetings this is extremely difficult problem that must be overcome sooner than later.
If my comments are considered illegal send the police round they can walk to my house in less than five minutes.
Jim Lawson ICHC spokesperson for
Rock & District
51 Kings Road,
Kidderminster,
Worcs DY11 6YU
PS.I did not think maths was an illegal subject.
Gobby Robby
says...
12:05pm Sat 5 Nov 11
Stephen Brown
says...
2:56pm Sat 5 Nov 11
The debate has been lively and informative.
That is not to say that some have not made such remarks, I have seen them and heard them and some comments even verging quite close on the edge of being racist remarks. I wish that people when dealing with the traveller site issue would stick to facts rather than splutter absolute nonsense and bigotry as that achieves nothing in this debate apart from making those same people look fools.
When embarking upon this issue the Tory cabinet have either wittingly or unwittingly, courtesy of their political antics, has allowed a hand to be played that has whipped up some peoples bigotry. They may have been clever with language and will deny that but the sad fact is that they have used it for political gain.
If folks feel a need to report people for making racist remarks then do so but I don't think it will necessarily achieve anything. It would be better to sit down with them and have it out and explain to them why they are wrong and remind them we are actually living in the 21st century, we do not have an empire anymore and the little matter of a second world war saw many ethnic and cultural groups targetted for no reason other than bigotry and that is not a path anyone should be treading, ever!
If that does not satisfy everyone, just think about making a more informed choice next time you vote.
DOEPUBLIC
says...
3:02pm Sat 5 Nov 11
Fran, I fear the Tory leadership are going to use you as the scapegoat on this. It is as shame more people are not prepared to move beyond 'Alice in Wonderland antics'. Sadly, IMO the WFDC political leadership in our community care more about their own patch than the whole community. Supposedly in the guise of compassion. Maybe they could answer the question 'If I were a member of the GTTC community that was hoping to move to the Wyre Forest because I knew of work,. How would I go about getting a pitch ? How long would it take ?
Jim I find your threat for the police to visit very unhelpful in this context. IMO all parties still have alot of listening and learning to do in this matter. Considered responses are better IMO than emotive reaction.
Gobby Robby
says...
6:15pm Sat 5 Nov 11
DOEPUBLIC
says...
11:25pm Sat 5 Nov 11
Jerome K
says...
5:01pm Sun 6 Nov 11
DOEPUBLIC
says...
7:55pm Sun 6 Nov 11
Jerome K
says...
9:29pm Sun 6 Nov 11
FlipC - The Mad Ranter
says...
9:36am Mon 7 Nov 11
In my case - logic. Prior to a development there can be no crime. Allow that some people will shift from one area to another including outside this area and allow that some may well be criminals. Take into consideration that with a new development people will take the opportunity to furnish their homes with new items and it becomes a tempting target. I'm happy to be proven wrong by those with access to the data.
In the case of Nigel - for the very reason I stated in my first comment. If it's untrue that should have been the first thing out of John's mouth. I'm asking why it wasn't and again why no-one with official access to the data has stated as such (no Rob having this "spelt out to you about 3 times" doesn't count if your data is as official as that posed by the 'other' side ).
@Rob - "he has a hotline to God and all of his views are the 'truth'
Of course they're not. But why should your views be held as the truth over mine? Is it just because...
"Councillor Thomas makes racist accusation against Travellers "
Are they? You think they are (I think they are) but is your reaction because he's told an untruth about an ethic group or because he made a negative comment about an ethic group?
If it's the former then any councillor could refute his comments by simply stating as such. One simple statement from them would elevate this to dealing with facts rather than...
"therefore the person deducing this is the same who is rabble rousing"
That's because you're just making your point in exactly the same (though oppositely directed) manner. It becomes a case of "are not, am too" and that's because...
"...emotion...it exists even in the scientific workings of the left hand side of the brain"
I won't deny emotion, but as a species we're very happy to fool ourselves by letting them dominate our discussions. That's why it's best to deal with facts and lay out things logically and then apply emotion to them - not the other way around.
"Not once have you ever picked a racist or bigot up on their semantics"
That's because everyone jumps in to shout "racist" at them as if that was some sort of argument killer and they never progress beyond that. If that becomes a truth then it will be impossible to ever make a negative (or even a positive) comment about an ethic minority even if it is factually correct and differences and problems will get swept up under a blanket of "You can't say that!"
When that happens the racists and bigots 'win' because they'll claim 'political correctness' is stopping them from voicing the truth and racism just gets pushed underground where it can fester.
Finally "you are clearly not moved by the consequences of racism (i.e The Holocaust)"
That's cheap. I recognise racism and its consequences, but that doesn't blind me to the flaws that exist within efforts made to deal with it. As you've brought up the Holocaust - 'Hey the Jews were brutally treated by the Nazis during the war so let's take away a piece of land from one ethic group and give it to them so as to a) surround them by their enemies and b) give those enemies a 'legitimate' excuse to hate them even more' Did the gypsies get a homeland, how about homosexuals or disabled? They were persecuted too you know.
DOEPUBLIC
says...
1:48pm Mon 7 Nov 11
Thanx for the clarification. I disagree, however, with your 'cloning' on key individuals. If time was taken to listen to what is being said within the context and with its underlining motive a different conclusion maybe reached.
As I stated previously 'These genuine fears on both sides should IMO be heard in a healthy and compassionate community. All politicians need to take the lead in this, especially in there communication of information and its reporting in a public space'
Sadly, the conduct of politicians has become a distraction from the real issue of finding homes for all in our community.
Neville Farmer
says...
2:29pm Mon 7 Nov 11
This is by no means political point scoring, any more than it was with one or two other cases of local officials' illegal activities over the last few years. Far worse that this sort of behaviour is allowed to continue, particularly from an elected representative who is supposed to speak for his constituency.
If we are going to sort out the Travellers' site issue, it can only be done with common sense and balance, not bigoted rabble-rousing.
DOEPUBLIC
says...
2:51pm Mon 7 Nov 11
Gobby Robby
says...
6:30pm Mon 7 Nov 11
Truth - I have never stated my views as literally the 'truth' just my strongly held beliefs. Something that your over dominant left hand side of the brain mistakes for literal truth when it comes to yourself.
The next bit of gobbledegook - if you honestly think the difference between racist rabble rousing and it's potential consequences and those that point this out is simply one of legalese then I genuinely pity you.
"That's because everyone jumps in to shout "racist" at them as if that was some sort of argument killer and they never progress beyond that" - ah at last signs of imagination, for that is where that has come from. You clearly haven't been paying attention to the painstaking and labourious attempts by the usual suspects to neutralise racist arguments. Not once has someone just shouted 'rascist' and left it at that. Obviously when things are going out of the window things may end up going that way. So as usual another FlipC lie. It is not pleasant, even from the safety of a computer, arguing against a majority especially when it is being driven by something as nasty as racism. There has been ample opportunity for you to indulge your passion for legalise against bigots but not once have you chosen to do so.
As for the Holocaust gibe, no I don't think it's cheap, I firmly believe in Jon D's accusation that you represent the banality of evil. Any keen student of the rise in fascism will know that a large part of the operation was performed by clinical scientists, like your goodself, who had no time for emotion only cold logic. So when presented with the logic of gassing a disabled person they could coldly and rationally persuade themselves that they were doing the logical thing on the grounds that the person's life was not worth living and any objection was to be dismissed as based on 'emotion'. Ironically judging by your cold, colourless, literal and emotion free view of the world you better hope that one of Clr Thomas' ICHC goons don't come round for you on the grounds that your life isn't worth living. I should hide the calour gass Flip :-)
FlipC - The Mad Ranter
says...
9:06am Tue 8 Nov 11
And yet they used to; now they don't... why is that I wonder?
As to the crime levels having spoken to the Police unofficially they confirm that crime does increase in new developments and there is no disproportionate increase dependent on the ethnicity of the occupants.
As such the argument that such a development would increase crime is valid for ALL such developments.
Now if someone uses such an argument, but only for developments aimed at a particular culture and not at others; then one can draw one's own conclusions as to their reasons for doing so.
That is what happens when you ascertain the facts and then apply emotion to them and not the other way around.
FlipC - The Mad Ranter
says...
9:43am Tue 8 Nov 11
ankieury
says...
10:46am Tue 8 Nov 11
Perhaps someone could enlighten me regarding a few observations and simple facts surrounding the NEED for so many sites to accomodate the people referred to in some cases as "Gypsies" and in other posts "Travellers" ?.
Firstly where are so many of these people coming from and WHY ?
When is a person a gypsy as opposed to a traveller ?
Why do "Travellers never seem to WANT to travel ?.
Statistics regarding the increase in crime rates could be ascertained from the police forces and public where existing sites such as Dale farm are located!
One experience I had of an influx of "Gypsies/Travellers was in the parking area on Heronswood next to the nature reserve some years ago.
We were apprehensive about walking our dogs through their "Site" for fear of their dogs and could not use the public walkway through the woods for weeks. After they were evicted the council had to close and "Sanitise" the woods which were used as toilets.
Conversely when we lived in Gloucester there was a community of "Static travellers" who's children were the best dressed at school and well mannered to boot.
Finally; is it "Bigoted" not to want an encampment of caravans at the bottom of your garden and for your house to be devalued ?.
Is the truth that most of the postings are likely to be from people who would never be in a position where they will have to experience such a proposition so they feel free to stigmatise any opposition as "Racism or Bigotry."
Gobby Robby
says...
6:13pm Tue 8 Nov 11
"crime does increase in new developments" - verging on a tautology, of course it does if there was nothing there before, why even mention it if your not simply interested in legalese?
"That is what happens when you ascertain the facts and then apply emotion to them and not the other way around" - err...get the same conclusion? Thanks for that. Of course as has been repeated there are no facts concerning gypsy crime rates so we'd already established that. You're trailing a bit behind. What I find abhorent is that you think you are sitting on a factual timebomb and don't use it to combat the bigots' views just use it as something to use for your semantic games. Clearly you couldn't give a ****. It's like if you are campaigning for something and some berk who's never lifted a finger for anyone in their lives says "why don't you campaign about such and such". The operative word here being "you". Flip's got ideas on how to argue but he wants YOU to do it not himself. Why don't you put your semantic skills to the test and argue ankieury's hackneyed post? I've done the laborious task over about 10 near identical posts, why don't YOU do it this time? It's tiresome, especially when you get someone supposedly with the same view trying to trip you up. As for the Holocaust I referred to the disabled not the Jews, get your facts right Flip. Although with the Jews there was a logical (though wrong) case made against them that they were responsible for the First World War & Germany's subsequent predicament. But that's another story (hopefully).
FlipC - The Mad Ranter
says...
9:40am Wed 9 Nov 11
"why even mention it if your not simply interested in legalese"
Because it's a fact. If you're not interested in those then you're taking Nigel to task for making a negative comment rather than a non-factual one.
"err...get the same conclusion?" In this instance yes, but as I've said we like to fool ourselves. By starting with emotion we have a tendency to look for facts that match it. So by stating the equivalent of "You can't say that!" first we then look for facts to back up that 'truth'. It's an more unstable subjective base and at the heart of the matter (as I've said) lowers your arguments down to the same level as theirs.
"Flip's got ideas on how to argue but he wants YOU to do it not himself"
As I've said I fear a time when uncomfortable facts cannot be mentioned. If I simply countered the arguments you might recall them and use them in the future. If you're forced to counter them you're much more likely to remember them.
Also people are interested in conflict. I hope people are reading both your and my comments and thinking about them rather then defaulting to "That's racist!"
"I've done the laborious task over about 10 near identical posts"
I agree with you and contrary to what you seem to think I don't want to argue with you because you are using facts - I'm waiting for at least one of our elected officials to condemn this as being untrue or do you prefer that they argue using emotion?
To use the outdated left-right side of the brain argument using facts and then applying emotion to them reinforces both and stimulates both sides rather than just the one thereby making it sink in more.
At this point we're arguing about how to argue.
"As for the Holocaust I referred to the disabled not the Jews,"
quote - "So that is your emotional choice to do that as you are clearly not moved by the consequences of racism (i.e The Holocaust)." I admit I assumed that you were referring to the general association of Jews and the Holocaust, but you didn't explicitly specify any group.
To refer back to my very first comment if someone said something to me such as um... "Black people have smaller brains than white people" my first instinct wouldn't be to complain that the statements was racist it would be to complain that it was factually incorrect.
As such when such an implied incorrect statement is made (while factually true the implication is that this only applies to one ethic group) I have to wonder why that isn't the first response and point that out.
Again if that sort of response is allowed to go uncommented on then we risk shutting down or hiding facts we don't want to acknowledge.
farther ted
says...
10:46am Wed 9 Nov 11
Gobby Robby
says...
5:24pm Wed 9 Nov 11
@Father ted - no back biting or point scoring, this is a biannual spat between me and FlipC over the same subject - fact & emotion and the digs are mainly tongue in cheek (mainly). Which is a lot more fun than commenting on ankieury's irrelevant post i.e. "so they feel free to stigmatise any opposition as "Racism or Bigotry" really? If you two had understood the article and subsequent arguments you would have understood that people were only being accused of racism over their racist comments not their opposition to gypsy sites. Finally i'll copy and paste Father Ted's last comment for him to explain to me as I had trouble deciphering it:
"Not wanting to gate crash the party, i for one would like to be across the road from them.Gypsies are like marmite,(trying not to offend the anti bigot brigade) i love this country because of the freedom of FREE SPEECH. Trying not to laugh to much now :)"
Explanation Ted?
neilhar
says...
9:31pm Wed 9 Nov 11
Sorry flip and this is not meant to extend the debate, but how can you say that. - no crime. crime happens everywhere, on occasion. Also you claim that all new developments will contain a criminal. A little worrying to say and conmpletely without the facts you so desire. And your unofficial conversation with a police officer cannot be regarded as fact in any way shape or form, but only to add weight to your own argument as it suits you, because you have no idea how much emotion is involved with his answer. again, where are your facts?
@Doe: This all happened in a public meeting in the civic hall last wednesday.
And the reason it has ended up in the press and not dealt with at the time is purely down to Councillor Campion. HE and he alone chose to use this for political advantage. He does like an attack. He could have raised this in private or as you say at the meeting as could any other of the councillors that were in attendance from all parties and most of the cabinet. It could also have been the press themselves, maybe they heard it, decided to write an article and asked JPC for his opinion. Boom, controversial headline, attention grabbing and here we are........The latter , I doubt very much
neilhar
says...
9:36pm Wed 9 Nov 11
farther ted
says...
11:10pm Wed 9 Nov 11
FlipC - The Mad Ranter
says...
9:10am Thu 10 Nov 11
For those who don't 'get it' I consider that Rob and I share most of the same values; we just disagree about how they should be expressed and/or implemented; wait isn't that a definition of a socialist organisation ;-)
@Neil - It was a twofer - a new development creates opportunity for crime that didn't exist before and playing the odds in a new development there may well be a criminal amongst the newcomers. I'm not saying this is invariable, but that this would mean a tendency to an increase in crime. Oh and no I don't consider my unofficial chat as facts; which is why I've been so insistent that it such statements come from officials. Now as Rob and Jon have stated no separate figures are kept then this is what I'd expect to be said. But it hasn't - why hasn't it.
Personally I can think of several answers:
Possibility 1: They think it's so obviously wrong there's no need to explain it.
I consider that a dangerous mindset for those in power.
Possibility 2: They know the facts or lack of facts, but prefer to argue emotionally.
Which I consider condescending.
Possibility 3: They don't know the facts and have no interest in them.
Again I consider this a dangerous mindset.
Possibility 4: They think/know the facts won't bear out their point of view so they don't want to use them.
Which would make them liars or cowards and condescending.
I just don't like knee-jerk emotional responses because once they've been stated those doing so will do almost anything to uphold them.
Gobby Robby
says...
5:32pm Thu 10 Nov 11
Gobby Robby
says...
5:39pm Thu 10 Nov 11
FlipC - The Mad Ranter says...
11:01am Thu 3 Nov 11
"I also would condemn councillor Thomas’s suggested connection between the establishment of gypsy and traveller pitches and the level of crime. This assertion is both racist and discriminatory." and untrue?
Because I mean that's the biggie isn't it - if a councillor made such an assertion and didn't have the facts to back it up that would be the first thing I'd expect them to be called out on.
So John, just for the record, please state that there is no correlation between new or enlarged Gypsy and Traveller sites and an increase in crime in that area.
For those getting their knickers in a twist I'm not saying there is (I'm not saying there isn't) I'm just curious as to why this wasn't shown to be used as a refuting argument and allowing John to rectify that error.