Freedom for the Firle 12
- Thread starter Gazwag
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Gully
Monkey in a seagull suit.
This is where the problem lies Yorkie, I wouldn't mind betting that there was some form of consultation in Leeds, it is a pity that their attempt to help has proved unpopular. This goes back to my point that there needs to be a bit of give an take from all parties, surely the travelling community would rather live untroubled by many of the issues that affect them, by accepting the fact that using sites provided by councils eases this problem would be a good first step.
Sorrel
Well-known member
Personally I don't see why any sites should be be provided at all. I don't agree with treating "travellers" as any different from anyone else.
Obviously if they want to buy land, they can do what they like (provided they abide by local planning laws), but they should get no special treatment.
Obviously freedom of movement is a human right, and people can travel (on the public roads) wherever and however they like. But I don't think there's a human right that allows people to live wherever they decide, is there?
Obviously if they want to buy land, they can do what they like (provided they abide by local planning laws), but they should get no special treatment.
Obviously freedom of movement is a human right, and people can travel (on the public roads) wherever and however they like. But I don't think there's a human right that allows people to live wherever they decide, is there?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
This has been a very difficult eight months for a lot of people out here at Firle. The frustrating thing has been the fact that everyone was advised to say nothing publicly while the investigation was in progress. This has meant that the only version of the story that has been in the public arena has been the version created by the media.
The facts are:-
Firle Bonfire Society held its annual bonfire celebrations on Saturday 25 October. As happens ever year, there was a fiery tableau on a topical theme. The 2003 tableau was selected to reflect the fact that earlier in the summer there had been an influx of travellers, who had taken over a field on the outskirts of the village. This is not unusual. Firle gets regular visits from the travelling community and has rarely experienced any problems.
In 2003, however, anti-social behaviour by this particular (and large) group of travellers had caused considerable problems. The numbers were such that the volume (and nature) of the waste generated by the site was a big issue. No facilities were available to deal with this. There was also a significant incursion onto neighbouring land, including the slaughter of a very large number of pheasants, with carcasses simply left lying around the local gamekeeper's sheds.
Complaints were made to the local authorities, Lewes District Council, East Sussex County Council and Sussex Police. At no point did any of these organisations intervene in any way. Most significantly, no efforts were made by Lewes District Council to deal with the waste issue.
Eviction of the travellers was eventually achieved by the landowner obtaining a court order. However, it is in the nature of this process that it takes a considerable amount of time before it can be enforced. During the whole of that time, the authorities maintained their position that this was nothing to do with them.
The October bonfire effigy arose from these events. The target of the effigy was the inaction of the local authorities in the face of complaints by local people. The notorious caravan that features in the story had slogans painted on it that made this very clear (including the logo of Lewes District Council, accompanied by the words "Lewes District Council - always welcome"). The speech that accompanied the ignition of the effigy fireworks made it clear that the Bonfire Society's target was the lack of action by the authorities.
Several hundred people were present on the night, including a number of Sussex Police officers. No complaints were made at the time.
Three days later, a woman called Patricia Knight contacted the BBC South East newsroom at Tunbridge Wells to tell them that the Bonfire Society had made a racist attack targeted at gypsies and travellers. Without attempting to contact any members of the Bonfire Society, the BBC approached Trevor Phillips, of the Commission for Racial Equality, to ask him what he thought about the burning of gypsy caravans. Not unreasonably, on the basis of what he had been told, he condemned the Bonfire Society and demanded that they be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred. Over the next few days, other media organisations picked up the story and spokespeople for the National Gypsy Council and other travellers' representatives also pitched in.
The Home Secretary then contacted the Chief Constable of Sussex and instructed him to undertake a very thorough investigation, with a view to obtaining convictions. The Bonfire Society co-operated fully with these investigations throughout the process, initially by supplying the police with the names of twelve people who might have information to corroborate the fact that this was not a racially motivated incident.
Instead of simply interviewing these twelve witnesses, the police arrested them all. They were then told not to say anything publicly until the investigation was completed.
Within a couple of weeks, Patricia Knight (who had raised the matter with the BBC) publicly stated that she did not wish her complaint to be pursued to a prosecution. However, by this time, after all the media coverage, the police had been inundated with other complaints. None of these complainants had witnessed the events of Firle Bonfire Night. Their only source of information had been the TV or newspapers.
And it's taken eight and a half months for the authorities to reach the conclusion that there should be no prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred or public order offences.
In the meantime, the local authorities seemed to have learned that they cannot ignore the plight of the travelling community. Lewes District Council now make much better arrangements do deal with waste disposal issues on travellers' sites. Sussex Police have discovered that they do in fact have powers to remove travellers from private land when the numbers exceed the relevant threshold. East Sussex County Council are taking their responsibilities for the welfare of travellers more seriously.
The visitations by travellers to Firle that have taken place this summer have been dealt with properly and without disruption either to the travellers themselves or the local resident community.
It's been a very difficult period for the twelve members of the Bonfire Society who were arrested. They were never charged with any offence. But the threat of prosecution has always been there - and it has impacted seriously on their lives and their work. We in Firle now know how unpleasant it can be to see the media camped outside our houses, with journalists harrassing anyone who simply wants to walk down the street - including old people who are doing no more than waiting for a bus.
Yesterday's decision by the Crown Prosecution Service confirms what Firle Bonfire Society have always said about the events of 25 October 2003. There was no racial motivation or intention to attack the travelling community. The Society's criticisms were always directed at those authorities who had claimed to be powerless in the face of an outbreak of anti-social behaviour that seriously affected the local community.
I'm sorry that it's taken a long post to get this message across. But, as most people on NSC know, the media rarely tell the whole story.
The facts are:-
Firle Bonfire Society held its annual bonfire celebrations on Saturday 25 October. As happens ever year, there was a fiery tableau on a topical theme. The 2003 tableau was selected to reflect the fact that earlier in the summer there had been an influx of travellers, who had taken over a field on the outskirts of the village. This is not unusual. Firle gets regular visits from the travelling community and has rarely experienced any problems.
In 2003, however, anti-social behaviour by this particular (and large) group of travellers had caused considerable problems. The numbers were such that the volume (and nature) of the waste generated by the site was a big issue. No facilities were available to deal with this. There was also a significant incursion onto neighbouring land, including the slaughter of a very large number of pheasants, with carcasses simply left lying around the local gamekeeper's sheds.
Complaints were made to the local authorities, Lewes District Council, East Sussex County Council and Sussex Police. At no point did any of these organisations intervene in any way. Most significantly, no efforts were made by Lewes District Council to deal with the waste issue.
Eviction of the travellers was eventually achieved by the landowner obtaining a court order. However, it is in the nature of this process that it takes a considerable amount of time before it can be enforced. During the whole of that time, the authorities maintained their position that this was nothing to do with them.
The October bonfire effigy arose from these events. The target of the effigy was the inaction of the local authorities in the face of complaints by local people. The notorious caravan that features in the story had slogans painted on it that made this very clear (including the logo of Lewes District Council, accompanied by the words "Lewes District Council - always welcome"). The speech that accompanied the ignition of the effigy fireworks made it clear that the Bonfire Society's target was the lack of action by the authorities.
Several hundred people were present on the night, including a number of Sussex Police officers. No complaints were made at the time.
Three days later, a woman called Patricia Knight contacted the BBC South East newsroom at Tunbridge Wells to tell them that the Bonfire Society had made a racist attack targeted at gypsies and travellers. Without attempting to contact any members of the Bonfire Society, the BBC approached Trevor Phillips, of the Commission for Racial Equality, to ask him what he thought about the burning of gypsy caravans. Not unreasonably, on the basis of what he had been told, he condemned the Bonfire Society and demanded that they be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred. Over the next few days, other media organisations picked up the story and spokespeople for the National Gypsy Council and other travellers' representatives also pitched in.
The Home Secretary then contacted the Chief Constable of Sussex and instructed him to undertake a very thorough investigation, with a view to obtaining convictions. The Bonfire Society co-operated fully with these investigations throughout the process, initially by supplying the police with the names of twelve people who might have information to corroborate the fact that this was not a racially motivated incident.
Instead of simply interviewing these twelve witnesses, the police arrested them all. They were then told not to say anything publicly until the investigation was completed.
Within a couple of weeks, Patricia Knight (who had raised the matter with the BBC) publicly stated that she did not wish her complaint to be pursued to a prosecution. However, by this time, after all the media coverage, the police had been inundated with other complaints. None of these complainants had witnessed the events of Firle Bonfire Night. Their only source of information had been the TV or newspapers.
And it's taken eight and a half months for the authorities to reach the conclusion that there should be no prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred or public order offences.
In the meantime, the local authorities seemed to have learned that they cannot ignore the plight of the travelling community. Lewes District Council now make much better arrangements do deal with waste disposal issues on travellers' sites. Sussex Police have discovered that they do in fact have powers to remove travellers from private land when the numbers exceed the relevant threshold. East Sussex County Council are taking their responsibilities for the welfare of travellers more seriously.
The visitations by travellers to Firle that have taken place this summer have been dealt with properly and without disruption either to the travellers themselves or the local resident community.
It's been a very difficult period for the twelve members of the Bonfire Society who were arrested. They were never charged with any offence. But the threat of prosecution has always been there - and it has impacted seriously on their lives and their work. We in Firle now know how unpleasant it can be to see the media camped outside our houses, with journalists harrassing anyone who simply wants to walk down the street - including old people who are doing no more than waiting for a bus.
Yesterday's decision by the Crown Prosecution Service confirms what Firle Bonfire Society have always said about the events of 25 October 2003. There was no racial motivation or intention to attack the travelling community. The Society's criticisms were always directed at those authorities who had claimed to be powerless in the face of an outbreak of anti-social behaviour that seriously affected the local community.
I'm sorry that it's taken a long post to get this message across. But, as most people on NSC know, the media rarely tell the whole story.
BensGrandad
New member
Lord B have you seen the headline in todays Sun
YOBS GET LET OFF ON GIPSIES HATE FIRE.
I am sure that you do not consider those people as YOBS
YOBS GET LET OFF ON GIPSIES HATE FIRE.
I am sure that you do not consider those people as YOBS
London Irish
Well-known member
Accepting your viewpoint Lord B that there was never any active intention to racially stigmatise either gypsies or travellers, and that the local authorities were the real target, surely you must admit that the slogans used were open to genuine misinterpretation, to say the least, and, as such, these slogans were an error of judgment by those who were responsible for them.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
I wouldn't argue with that, London Irish. The problem was that all dialogue and explanation was effectively made impossible once the police decided to ARREST everyone whose name had merely been offered up as a WITNESS.
The circumstances were generally fully understood by most of the people attending the event (which is not widely advertised beyond the local villages who contribute hundreds of members to the Bonfire Society). Once the event received national publicity (as a result of the one complainant going straight to BBC South East, despite having the opportunity to talk things through with Bonfire Society members) things obviously changed.
But the people who could do the talking were effectively gagged.
I'm sure lessons have been learned, though.
The circumstances were generally fully understood by most of the people attending the event (which is not widely advertised beyond the local villages who contribute hundreds of members to the Bonfire Society). Once the event received national publicity (as a result of the one complainant going straight to BBC South East, despite having the opportunity to talk things through with Bonfire Society members) things obviously changed.
But the people who could do the talking were effectively gagged.
I'm sure lessons have been learned, though.
Last edited: