You are quite right and you are not the only one to notice: http://pileusblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/gypsies-land-use-planning-and-the-tyranny-of-social-democracy/

“Nor were some traditional defenders of the rights of property owners much outraged by the Dale Farm evictions:”

The Dale Farm settlement was built on greenbelt land without planning permission. The inhabitants had no right to build on it in the first place; it is not, therefore, inconsistent to support property right, and support the eviction of the Dale Farm residents.

Saying “Gypsies” or “Travellers” does tend to set folks off in a way that, half a century ago, they might have done against other minorities. Indeed, here in Crewe another 1100 new homes have been approved – with a little grumbling, but general acceptance – but when a proposal was made for Cheshire East Council to provide twelve patches for Travellers …

http://zelo.tv/pIbYXR

@2 – Well, where’s your outrage at Basildon pushing forwards illegally with other developments without the required residents meetings? Well?

Hostility towards travelling people is a WONDERFUL canary bird for racism.

There’s plenty of hypocrisy to be found in the Mail, but is this really it? The articles you reference seem to involve cases of technicalities with no significant impact on the local area. I think it’s clear that the residents near Dale Farm think, rightly or wrongly, that this development has an adverse impact on their area.

Planning restrictions are about “your right to extend your fist stops at my nose” – freer planning laws aren’t necessarily better. If my neighbour wants to build a wall that puts my garden in shade, or somebody wants to open a boneworks nearby, I’ve got a legitimate interest that should be balanced against theirs.

4 – unfortunately you’ll find that a lot of hostility to travellers is based not on prejudice but actual experience. The few times they have set up near me has resulted in them being caught stealing tools from peoples’ sheds, throwing bricks through car windows and stealing and burning cars. Anybody who happens to mentions examples of such behaviour are dismissed as providing only “anecdotal evidence” which doesn’t change the fact that such things have happened and understandably cause people to be suspicious when travellers turn up.

You could of course argue that all communities contain good and bad but that’s no comfort for those used to living in tranquillity having to put up with their shed being broken into when a particular community suddenly lands on their doorstep. Some stories are no doubt exaggerated and there may well be prejudice lurking beneath the surface in some cases but certainly in my experience it is past exposure to or knowledge of factual traveller criminality which provokes hostility.

@5. Jason: “The articles you reference seem to involve cases of technicalities with no significant impact on the local area. I think it’s clear that the residents near Dale Farm think, rightly or wrongly, that this development has an adverse impact on their area.”

I suggest that you have a look at an aerial photograph of the Dale Farm area (look for Oak Lane, Crays Hill). It is evident that objections to the site are purely technical and that the additional “illegal” bit does not add significantly to the environmental impact. In my opinion, its comparable to the wendy house example.

I’m a property owner, and I’m all for the planning laws. The occupants of the illegal section of Dale Farm got exactly what they deserved, I’m also just as happy with the majority of similar cases where people deliberately flout the planning laws and then get what they deserve. The owners of Dale Farm still own the land, it’s not like it was taken off them, all that has happened is the law has been applied, as it should be, to everyone.

As for closing st. pauls, I don’t give a toss, I’m not religious. Having said that, if I was planning a protest, I would do my best to not inconvenience anyone other than those I was protesting against, why should other people suffer just so I can have my say?

@6 – Given a society which is largely hostile to them from kids, what do you expect to happen? Did you try going to greet them? To try to do anything except, based on the stories you’d heard, shun them and treat them as hostile?

There have also been quite a few cases of locals using the cover of travellers to commit crimes, some were caught at it a few years ago in Coventry, for example.

@8 – So protest should be illegal the moment it annoys someone? Nice

And where’s your outrage at Basildon council pushing through planning permission illegally for some developments in the last week, after having cancelled the required residents meetings using Dale Farm as the excuse!

No, it’s quite clear the bias at play here.

Charlieman; I’m sure you’re already aware that planning permission depends on more than just physical constructions. A large residential area will have an impact far beyond the immediate locality, and a wendy house will not.

The Mail et al might be (are) racist bigots, but I don’t think they’re inconsistent or hypocritical in this particular case.

Denying planning permission to the Dale Farm travellers might be the wrong decision and deeply unfair, but it’s certainly right that they have the right to *make* that decision.

@11. Jason: “I’m sure you’re already aware that planning permission depends on more than just physical constructions.”

I think those additional considerations support the illegal extension at Dales Farm. The plot with planning permission ensured that the development had appropriate utilities, waste disposal and vehicular access — sufficient for the extension. The extension increased the number of people living on the site by a few hundred. The number of people was known to the local authorities (residents were paying council tax) who would have been able to plan for possible educational and health requirements. Given the location and the development’s practicality, the council’s decision appears to be based solely on prejudice.

“…but it’s certainly right that they have the right to *make* that decision.”

Alas, I have to agree. Whether you like exercise of power depends on being a winner or a loser.

@12 – I was *there* three years ago when a Basildon council official referred to “getting rid of the gyps” and “cleansing the land”.

It was just as well, since I had to hold my friend back from assaulting him.

Leon @ 4:

“Well, where’s your outrage at Basildon pushing forwards illegally with other developments without the required residents meetings? Well?”

Not having enough time to follow the minutiae of every local council in Britain, I was not aware that they had done such a thing. I do, however, think that they were wrong to do so, now that this action has been brought to my attention.

“@6 – Given a society which is largely hostile to them from kids, what do you expect to happen?”

Given that the hostility is a result of criminal activity they could perhaps cease that activity and prove themselves to be harmless? The most recent time some turned up there weren’t (as far as I’m aware) any crime problems they merely trespassed on private land but in fairness left by the deadline they were given and were complemented for doing so. More of this would go a long way to strengthening their reputation.

“Did you try going to greet them? To try to do anything except, based on the stories you’d heard, shun them and treat them as hostile?”

Personally I never had any contact with them – they weren’t right next door to me. I did walk through a field some of them temporarily parked in a few weeks ago but it would have been odd if I’d started randomly conversing with them. Apart from some barking dogs they didn’t strike me as threatening.

“There have also been quite a few cases of locals using the cover of travellers to commit crimes, some were caught at it a few years ago in Coventry, for example.”

It strikes me that even if the traveller crime rate is no higher than the national average (and any figures on this would be appreciated), if they frequently camp next to communities where the crime rate is much lower than the national average it’s nevertheless going to have a noticeably negative impact.

The Dale Farm evictions were a disgrace.

The police illegally took on a role that should have been undertaken by bailiffs. They should have no role in anticipating a breach of the peace or other crime and taking the dirty work on themselves to prevent it. That they tasered someone in the process was utterly despicable.

Planning laws are only legitimate when it can be clearly shown that a development on one persons property obviously and seriously impacts upon the rights of a neighbour.

That was very far from the case in this instance.

pagar (#16); “illegally”? Could you be a bit more specific about what statute or precedent you think was broken?

@17 – The police, legally, are not allowed to assist directly in evictions. They are allowed to arrest anyone who is violent or otherwise breaks the law, but not in the eviction itself.

Moreover, they lied about their role, they said they were there in their legal role, instead they were the spearhead. You cannot trust a word the gang otherwise known as the police say.

It’s contempt for the law. One rule for the proles, another for the police.

Taking the piss out of a group of people defined by their criminal behaviour is not racist, it’s funny. The old Viz classic:

http://pigeonsnest.co.uk/stuff/thieving-gypsy-bastards.html

Oh, come on, seriously? You don’t think, maybe, there were a few clues that a breach of the peace was likely?

Oh, come on, seriously? You don’t think, maybe, there were a few clues that a breach of the peace was likely?

Yes, of course there was.

So are you saying the police should have tasered the bailiffs to prevent it?

#16; very entertaining. Is your point *really* that perfectly legitimate decisions of the courts shouldn’t be enforced? Because I don’t think that’s a principle that would be good for many people at all.

@20 – Yes, that’s why the police were there. Police often are for evictions. Again, legally, they have no right to do it themselves.

And they indeed said that was their role there. Instead, riot police smashed their way through a barrier which legally should have remained standing after the site had been cleared.

The police are out of control.

Is your point *really* that perfectly legitimate decisions of the courts shouldn’t be enforced? Because I don’t think that’s a principle that would be good for many people at all.

You’re entitled to your view. But there are rules established about the way in which civil court decisions may be enforced.

The legitimate role of the police is to prevent and investigate crime. No crime had been committed by the inhabitants of Dale Farm and the police should have had no role in evicting them, other than to maintain order.

Didn’t it cost something like £20 million to evict the travellers from Dale Farm? Sheesh, with that money they could have bought, well, four properties in Notting Hill, left them empty, and all these travellers could squat there and STILL generate headlines for The Daily Mail…

@16

”That they tasered someone in the process was utterly despicable.”

Protestors attacking the police with bricks and shovels need to be tasered.
Are you saying that the police can’t even do that? All of them people who were seen to have shown violence towards the police should be doing six months in prison at least. It’s not a game. Trying to injure someone with a brick is a serious crime. Particularly a police officer.
They should have let the Dale Farm people stay there IMO, but the outside protesters who turned up are total idiots I think.

@22 – Civil law vs criminal. Does it mean anything to you?

Bring back debtors prisons? (Yes, low blow, but the police have sunk lower!)

@25 – The Daily Fail will find it’s scandlerag headlines elsewhere, they always do…

16, 18, 23 The police did many times state on camera and to residents, protesters and supporters personally that they were there to prevent a breach of the peace. I can’t find any media coverage of it. The police were brutal and used fear of violence as justification to ‘get in first’. They did destroy fences (plural) which were protected by law and damage people and caravans.

26 In addition to firing tasers through fencing (they were hardly at risk there) they used their batons and also their shields as weapons. That some bricks were thrown is hardly surprising. That those images were repeatedly shown and referred to is disgraceful. The police behaved brutally and illegally and out of sight of most cameras.

I was amazed that some residents were unaware before 19 October that police regularly behave in this way and had some trust in them. I actually think there were one or two police officers there that were also unaware that police regularly act in this manner as they were told to stand in lines not quite knowing why.

Chris Dillow: ‘pi***y’ is a derogatory term such as n****r, it’s extremely offensive. Otherwise i quite liked your article.

I’m aware of the difference between civil and criminal law, yes. I’m also aware that there are criminal offences associated with obstructing the progress of civil judgements, for example: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45

I suspect this *particular* clause might not apply here, but Essex Police clearly believe there’s a relevant criminal offence, and in the unlikely event they’re wrong they’re going to have a lot of unlawful arrest claims to deal with: http://www.essex.police.uk/news_features/dale_farm-1/total_of_39_people_arrested_at.aspx

Julia;

It’s strange, in this world of “citizen journalism” with so many people in any given crowd wielding a video camera of some kind, that the rampant police brutality going on wherever you look is so seldom actually caught on camera with enough context to judge.

Bullshit.
Nothing made them slime over in their dubiously funded caravans onto England’s green and pleasant land.
Why do they ALWAYS have to travel from Ireland to drop their filthy nappies, inbred offspring, rubbish, dodgy Tarmac driveway refuse, slaves and criminally inclined/tax avoiding/local people abusing Tinker arses on England?

No room inIreland?

Their only race is Irish, they are not Gypsies, they are simply a bunch of law breaking, arrogant, dodgy, leeching Irish people who have decided its easy to shit on England (thanks to the Left) as we are weak and slow to defend OUR basic rights as the people of our own country!

Nothing made them leave Ireland, nothing stopping them pissing off back!

@ Julia

‘pi***y’ is a derogatory term such as n****r, it’s extremely offensive.

The word “pikey” may or may not be offensive, depending on the context in which it is used, however it has been happily part of our language since Shakespeare’s time. You cannot even try to forbid it by tarring it with the racist brush- it is specifically used to refer to non-Roma gypsies.

I rather like it and am not prepared to see it surrendered to yet another prohibition order from the word police.

I can’t find Mr Justice Ouseley’s judgement, but apparently he said travellers were breaking criminal law on a daily basis by remaining on the site. What law(s) was this, please?

The Left care not for these people, just as they don’t care about Muslims.

But because they hate Britain (well mostly England) and the English in particular and despise English culture and history The Left partner up (just as they joined The Nazis) with anyone or anything that also shits on all it hates.

So foreign criminals shitting all over English villages and towns is okay with them, just as Islam killing, destroying and threatening it’s way into destroying Britain is okay with them.

The British Commie hates the fact he is British (worse,English) hates the country they are in and hoped their ‘makes the Nazis look like hippies’ Soviet empire would liberate them and the world.
But when their Commie shitpile collapsed the bitterness made them jump into bed with anyone who also hated The West and the English.

Sadly they also contaminated once pure liberal movements, turning them into illiberal loving and supporting traitors to the word liberal. As they too jumped into bed with anything anti-English and embracing the illiberal atrocity of Islam.

@35 – Go hug your Taliban soul-mates, you racist dog dropping.

@30 – IF there is criminal action THEN the police are legally entitled to intervene. They are NOT legally entitled to enforce the eviction itself! No, the police are out of control thugs. (And I’d refuse point-blank to help them with anything under a murder investigation these days)

Leon; fine*. But breach of the peace and obstructing a bailiff are both crimes, we both know there was very strong reason to suspect both would be committed, so they were perfectly justified in turning up prepared to deal with those.

* (I’m a bit dubious about your assertion that it’s illegal for them to assist as opposed to just not part of their job, but I don’t think that really matters here)

@ukliberty #34:

I can’t find Mr Justice Ouseley’s judgement, but apparently he said travellers were breaking criminal law on a daily basis by remaining on the site. What law(s) was this, please?

s179, TCPA90.

Thank you Robin.

@Leon Wolfson passim:

This wasn’t a possession eviction; it was action taken by bailiffs pursuant to the powers of the local planning authority under s178 of the TCPA90.

s178(1): “Where any steps required by an enforcement notice to be taken are not taken within the period for compliance with the notice, the local planning authority may—(a) enter the land and take the steps; and (b)…”

s178(6): “Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of powers under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”

But breach of the peace and obstructing a bailiff are both crimes, we both know there was very strong reason to suspect both would be committed, so they were perfectly justified in turning up prepared to deal with those.

Agreed.

However once you accept that the police are entitled to anticipate the possibility of a crime and take the law into their own hands in order to subvert it, we are on a slippery slope.

The police have to be scrupulous in upholding the rule of law without acting as if they were an instrument of the state.

Of course ACPO thinks otherwise.

@40 – Yes, but by *Bailiffs*. There is no exception in the TCPA90 to allow *enforcement* by the police!

@Leon Wolfson #41: (I’ve only seen this so far by email – the site isn’t showing it).

Yes, but by *Bailiffs*. There is no exception in the TCPA90 to allow *enforcement* by the police!

Can I quote you back at yourself?

They are allowed to arrest anyone who is violent or otherwise breaks the law, but not in the eviction itself.

They will claim that they were clearing an encampment of protesters that were present on the land for the express purpose of obstructing the bailiffs; and the travellers themselves had of course indicated that they would resist – obstruct – the bailiffs. Th police actions bear a remarkable similarity to arresting someone “who is violent or otherwise breaks the law”. To be fair, when you said that it hadn’t occurred to you that obstructing the bailiffs was in this instance a breach of the criminal law…

@47 – No, I would not, short of a life or death situation.

And yet again a cowardly racist xenophobe posts nonsense because he CAN. It’s his LEVEL, right down there with Hamas and the Ku Klux Clan, his kind of people.

Pagar (#41); I disagree, I’m afraid. Part of the duty of a police constable has always been to *prevent* crimes. They can and should use reasonable force if they believe an offence would otherwise be committed.

I can see your point that there is a potential slippery slope of taking that idea too far into speculation and Minority Report style “pre-crime”, but there’s not really any serious question here about whether offences were going to be committed. Is there?

Part of the duty of a police constable has always been to *prevent* crimes. They can and should use reasonable force if they believe an offence would otherwise be committed.

Is it really too much to ask that the police legitimised their actions?

Could they not have sent a lone bailiff to the gates to be “obstructed” before they went in mob handed, demolishing property and tasering the occupants?

By not doing so, they appear to have acted as an instrument of the Local Authority rather than as a neutral force charged with keeping the peace and once we allow them to exercise their considerable resources to oppress citizens ex-judicially we are in dangerous territory.

The same principle applies to them kettling crowds.

@pagar #46:

Could they not have sent a lone bailiff to the gates to be “obstructed” before they went in mob handed,

Let’s say said lone bailiff approaches the gates, takes a brick to the head and dies. In the ensuing enquiry (closely ffollowed by the HSE and relatives of the deceased) IPCC enquires of the Essex force whether they had any intelligence relating to possible violence on the part of the protestors or travellers, with particular reference to alleged stockpiles of bricks for the throwing thereof.

IPCC also enquires whether the police had any intelligence relating to the intentions of the protestors and travellers in relation to the enforcement action being taken by Basildon Council; specifically it enquires whether upon approaching the front gate of the illegal development, the travellers/protestors had indicated that they would immediately vacate so as to allow access to the site for works in default to take place. On being told that the protestors/travellers had indicated that they would not vacate immediately, IPCC asks why the police did not recognise that that was in and of itself obstruction of the bailiffs, and why they felt it further necessary to expose a bailiff to possible violent reaction.

Let’s now pretend you are the officer in comand of the operation. How do you reply?

I would reply that it was not my role to try to second guess the reaction of the residents who were being evicted or of their supporters. Whilst obstruction of bailiffs in the execution of their duty is a criminal offence, I could not, legally, take action until such an offence had been committed.

I could not take the view that the behaviour of the residents was likely to cause a breach of the peace because to have done so would be to seem to take sides in a dispute with political overtones and would be contrary to the even handed approach required of the service. I had not, at the time, read the memo reminding me that the police should respond directly to the will of government, as interpreted by ACPO.

Incidentally, I did advise the bailiffs to wear crash helmets in case of trouble.

41 twadlle

pagar,

Whilst obstruction of bailiffs in the execution of their duty is a criminal offence, I could not, legally, take action until such an offence had been committed.

But they had prima facie committed the offence of obstruction: barricades, people’s limbs in concrete, people chained or locked to vehicles and other obstacles.

pagar,

I would reply that it was not my role to try to second guess the reaction of the residents who were being evicted or of their supporters. Whilst obstruction of bailiffs in the execution of their duty is a criminal offence, I could not, legally, take action until such an offence had been committed.

If a senior police officer replied thus, his or her career would be over. It is their job to try and second guess people, and deploy police officers on that basis – hence the presence of police at football matches or demonstrations (where there is no more a priori evidence of a crime about to be committed). Moreover, the presence of protesters, the building of barricades and the stockpiling of possible weapons would suggest second guessing wasn’t necessary here.

I could not take the view that the behaviour of the residents was likely to cause a breach of the peace because to have done so would be to seem to take sides in a dispute with political overtones and would be contrary to the even handed approach required of the service.

The police cannot refuse to apply the law and do their duty just because things might be political. By that logic, investigating a racist crime would be a no-no, as some idiots (examples occur above) seem to believe racism is politics, and it would be a political decision to discount that view. Indeed, if I adopt a political view that property is theft, would it not be a political decision to arrest me for criminal damage? Not being involved in politics actually involves enforcing the rules of court, not rejecting them because it might be ‘controversial’.

But they had prima facie committed the offence of obstruction: barricades, people’s limbs in concrete, people chained or locked to vehicles and other obstacles.

This debate is getting to the point of angels and pinheads but, until such time as the bailiffs attempted to exercise their warrant (and they didn’t), those inside the farm could not be guilty of have obstructed anyone.

If I were defending those arrested by police and accused of “obstructing a bailiff”, I think that such a line of defence would be the one to pursue.

Just as I could argue that I was not guilty of murdering UK Liberty on the grounds that…… you are still alive……

It is their job to try and second guess people, and deploy police officers on that basis – hence the presence of police at football matches or demonstrations

Yes, of course, but they are not entitled to baton the crowd on the basis that someone might throw something at them.

The police cannot refuse to apply the law and do their duty just because things might be political.

No, but where laws conflict they need to be scrupulous in balancing the interests of the individual and the state. For example, in this instance the protesters could have, and may still do, rely on Article 11 of the ECHR as a defence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/290584.stm

@43 – The law is quite clear, though. If the Bailiffs had tried and failed, THEN there might have been a *fig leaf*. But there wasn’t – the police LEAD. Which is entirely illegal!

Moreover, I didn’t “consider it”? WHAT? It’s irrelevant – the obstruction HAS TO TAKE PLACE FIRST. You can’t arrest people because of something they MAY do on private land! Over a *civil* issue, ffs.

@50 – It’s THEIR land. You can’t use that one. Moreover, preventing bailiffs from carrying out their duty is NOT a passive offence, the Bailiffs have to TRY first!

@51 – There are laws specifically authorising what they do at football matches and other sports events. They don’t apply here!

pagar,

Just as I could argue that I was not guilty of murdering UK Liberty on the grounds that……

…the last Labour government was already found guilty of doing just that. Sorry, I’ll get my coat…

pagar,

Yes, of course, but they are not entitled to baton the crowd on the basis that someone might throw something at them.

If you’re referring to the tasar incident, something was thrown at them (or at least, so their story goes – if it is proven to be false, disciplinary and criminal measures should be activated, but to assume this is going to far from the parameters of debate).

Otherwise, if the police had been able to walk through the demonstraters and their barricades, so the baliffs could walk behind them, I think we would have a peaceful demonstration. If protesters tried to disrupt them, I think we have interference in the actions of the baliffs – basically, if the police had marched through the site without problems or obstruction, they could not have done anything (or if they had, I would agree with you on this thread).

No, but where laws conflict they need to be scrupulous in balancing the interests of the individual and the state. For example, in this instance the protesters could have, and may still do, rely on Article 11 of the ECHR as a defence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/290584.stm

As that case was on a public highway, and involved peaceful protest, not obstruction, I don’t think it counts. The protesters were chosing to put themselves in the way of baliffs remember – they may not have expected the police but they knew what they were doing, and this was not breaking a bylaw, but stopping the execution of a court judgement.

@Leon #54:

Just a quick response for the moment.

Over a *civil* issue, ffs.

Sorry? You’re not listening. Breach of an enforcement notice (continuing to reside on the land and refusing to remove the installations that made that possible) is not a civil matter – it’s criminal. Obstructing the local authority’s officers (including bailiffs) who are trying to exercise their powers under s178 is criminal. None of this is a civil issue.

@Leon Wolfson #54:

The law is quite clear, though. If the Bailiffs had tried and failed, THEN there might have been a *fig leaf*.

They did. Don’t you remember the negotiations at the front gate? They were to try to gain access to the land, weren’t they? That’s the story the travellers tell, anyway. Access wasn’t given; hence there was “obstruction”.

Leon (#54); you keep saying the law is “clear” on what the police are allowed to do in these cases, but so far you haven’t mentioned what laws or judicial decisions or legal opinions you’re basing this on. Could you enlighten us?

@57 – Where precisely does it say this in the law? Eviction is a civil matter from start to end!

@58 – “Negotiations” don’t count. There has to be an *access attempt*.

@59 – Um, it’s been linked in this thread…and added to with a range of cases. Got access to a legal case database?

Pagar, is your claim that the bailiffs did not attempt entry before the police went in? Please cite.

Pagar, is your claim that the bailiffs did not attempt entry before the police went in? Please cite.

Yes. That is precisely my point.

One resident, Nora Egan, said she was struck as she told police they were not entitled to break down fences, which are legal.

She said: This is being led by the police, there is no sign of bailiffs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/oct/19/dale-farm-evictions-live

@56. Watchman: “If you’re referring to the tasar incident…”

I don’t think anyone should ignore the taser incident. In UK policing, tasers are intended to be used in hostage and stand off situations, primarily as a “less lethal” alternative to shooting people. Which raises the question why police carried them on a maintenance of public order exercise. Tasers are not intended for use to maintain public order, and given that hostage taking seemed unlikely, tasers should have stayed away from Dale Farm.

@Leon Wolfson #60:

@57 – Where precisely does it say this in the law? Eviction is a civil matter from start to end!

You aren’t listening. This isn’t a possession eviction; it’s the local planning authority exercising its right to enter and carry out works to bring the site back into compliance with planning control. The failure to comply with the enforcement notice is criminal, not civil; the refusal of entry is criminal. Stop thinking of this as landlord and tenant – it isn’t. Read the legislation I’ve referred to.

@58 – “Negotiations” don’t count. There has to be an *access attempt*.

Rubbish. If the police say to the travellers/protestors “Are you going to remove the obstacles to access that you have installed and give the bailiffs access?”, and the travellers/protestors say “No”, you have a complete offence under s178(6) TCPA90.

@59 – Um, it’s been linked in this thread…and added to with a range of cases. Got access to a legal case database?

Um, no it hasn’t – unless you’re referring to the 1977 Act, which is irrelevant. I do have access to legal cases – cite me some.

@Leon #60 (previous reply seems to have disappeared):

@57 – Where precisely does it say this in the law? Eviction is a civil matter from start to end!

Read the legislation I”ve cited. This was not a landlord and tenant eviction; it was the local planning authority exercising its s178 powers to enter land to bring it into compliance with an enforcement notice. Breach of an EN is criminal; so is obstructing exercise by the LPA of its s178 powers. Simply continuing to reside there in the face of the enforcement ntoice was a criminal act.

@58 – “Negotiations” don’t count. There has to be an *access attempt*.

Where precisely does it say this in the law? The travellers/protestors placed obstacles in the way of access to the land. They refused to remove them. How is that not obstruction?

@59 – Um, it’s been linked in this thread…and added to with a range of cases. Got access to a legal case database?

In reverse order: Yes I have; and not it hasn’t been (unless you refer to the CLA77, which is irrelevant). Cite me some *relevant* cases and legislation.

@65 – Except it doesn’t say that anywhere I can find. And eviction law is civil throughout.

“Where precisely does it say this in the law?”

Evictions work like that. Again, there is nothing in the law you cite which overrules this!

‘Leaon #66:

Evictions work like that. Again, there is nothing in the law you cite which overrules this!

Leon, Leon, Leon; take it from someone who knows, rather than guesses – “evictions work like that” just doesn’t cut it. This was *not* an eviction in any sense analogous to a “possession” eviction.

pagar,

Pagar, is your claim that the bailiffs did not attempt entry before the police went in? Please cite.

Yes. That is precisely my point.

One resident, Nora Egan, said she was struck as she told police they were not entitled to break down fences, which are legal.

She said: This is being led by the police, there is no sign of bailiffs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/oct/19/dale-farm-evictions-live

I can’t find a timeline but on the dalefarm.wordpress.com site they do report seeing bailiffs, as do named witnesses.

Also,

letdalefarmlive Dale Farm Solidarity
basildon council already using intimidation tactics at #dalefarm ahead of court judgement. helicopter overhead and bailiffs in the woods.
17 Oct
http://twitter.com/#!/letdalefarmlive/status/125952785626832896

letdalefarmlive Dale Farm Solidarity
As bailiffs amass at #dalefarm, residents condemn bailiffs Constant & Co’s brutal record (and multimillion £ contract) bit.ly/qZEN6X
18 Oct
http://twitter.com/#!/letdalefarmlive/status/126087030894637058

letdalefarmlive Dale Farm Solidarity
Bailiffs have started arriving at the Council compound at #dalefarm- looks like they’re getting ready for tomorrow. Where will you be?
18 Oct
http://twitter.com/#!/letdalefarmlive/status/126299437151686657

letdalefarmlive Dale Farm Solidarity
Bailifs mustering at #dalefarm. Looks like early morning eviction. Come up now
19 Oct
http://twitter.com/#!/letdalefarmlive/status/126534376916914176

Also,

“Travellers describe how bailiffs and police arrived through barely-guarded back entrance to site, with violent clashes following”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/19/dale-farm-eviction-clashes?CMP=twt_fd

I would add that the dalefarm.wordpress.com site also calls for “resistance” – add that to the barricades etc and I think you’re on completely the wrong track wrt to the illegality of the operation in principle (I’m sure there is an argument to be had about the details, the individual actions, the morality of the whole thing).

Charlieman, I think I’m as shocked as you about the use of Taser and for the same reasons. I think it’s pretty horrifying if Taser is ‘normalised’ for such contexts.

Sorry, correction:

“I would add that the dalefarm.wordpress.com site also calls for “resistance” – add that to the barricades etc and I think you’re on completely the wrong track wrt to the illegality of the operation in principle (I’m sure there is an argument to be had about the details, the individual actions, the morality of the whole thing).”

That looks at it the wrong way around; ISTM you are wrong if you claim that they were not obstructing enforcement per TCPA 90.

@ UK Liberty

Did you watch the video on the last link you posted?

According to what can be seen ONLY police were involved in invading the site.

There is not a bailiff to be seen anywhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/19/dale-farm-eviction-clashes?CMP=twt_fd

pagar,

I would not expect bailiffs to be on the frontline in such a situation.

I asked if your claim was “that the bailiffs did not attempt entry before the police went in?”

You replied, “That is precisely my point.”

You added a quote from a Dale Farm occupant that “there is no sign of bailiffs.”

I posted several links to claims that bailiffs were in fact present. Indeed underneath that very video it says, “But when the bailiffs did arrive, just as day began to break, they came unannounced, through the barely-guarded back of the site.”

But none of this answers the question as to whether the bailiffs did or did not attempt entry before the police went in – neither of us have answered that question.

Do you think that the travellers would have complied with the bailiffs?

Incidentally, you claimed earlier in the thread that “No crime had been committed by the inhabitants of Dale Farm.” I hope you now accept this is incorrect in terms of those occupying the area subject to the enforcement notice.

@pagar #70:

From the first paragraph of the Grauniad link:

Protesters thought the barricade at Dale Farm was secure. Knowing that bailiffs could arrive at any time, a small band locked themselves to the gates – some with D-locks, others with chains looped through a bar sunk into a concrete-filled barrel – and waited for them to come.

Why exactly did the police need to send a “lone bailiff” in? Use of their eyes would be sufficient to establish that the barricade was intended to obstruct entry to the site by local authority officers and bailiffs – an obvious s178(6) offence. The fact that the barricade was not removed despite request during the negotiations between police and bailiffs and the travellers/protestors merely reinforced this.

@ UK Liberty

My understanding is that police and bailiffs approached the front of the site as a diversionary tactic. Meanwhile police (no bailiffs) broke down fences and attacked from the rear. Indeed, this is what can be seen in the video. However you are correct that we cannot be certain of the precise detail.

Do you think that the travellers would have complied with the bailiffs?

No of course not. There is ample evidence that they intended to obstruct the clearance of the site and, as individuals, they were entitled to break the law (with which they profoundly disagreed) and to suffer the consequences of doing so.

My point is that they could not have broken the law because of the precipitate actions of the police (which could be argued to be themselves illegal).

you claimed earlier in the thread that “No crime had been committed by the inhabitants of Dale Farm.” I hope you now accept this is incorrect in terms of those occupying the area subject to the enforcement notice.

Not at all.

I commit no crime by driving my Ferrari on the motorway, even though it is capable of exceeding the speed limit and may well do so.

pagar,

as individuals, they were entitled to break the law (with which they profoundly disagreed) and to suffer the consequences of doing so.

A failure of logic there. You are not entitled to break the law and suffer the consequences; you can, but you have no such entitlement. To do so is called criminal activity.

Furthermore, if the protesters or residents did intend to break the law, the police had proper reason to enter the site as they had reason to suspect a crime was in progress…

pagar,

you claimed earlier in the thread that “No crime had been committed by the inhabitants of Dale Farm.” I hope you now accept this is incorrect in terms of those occupying the area subject to the enforcement notice.

Not at all.

I commit no crime by driving my Ferrari on the motorway, even though it is capable of exceeding the speed limit and may well do so.

Remember that Mr Justice Ouseley said travellers were breaking criminal law on a daily basis by remaining on the site. Their crime was the failure to comply with the enforcement notice already served s179 TCPA 90 – it is a different offence from the offence of obstructing enforcement, s178(6).

TCPA 90
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/178
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/179

@ UK Liberty

Section 179 only applies to the landowner or someone “who has control of or an interest in the land”. I can’t find evidence that anyone has been prosecuted under this section (though whether they will be is presumably a matter for the CPS).

Almost all of the people arrested during the clearance were charged with “obstructing a bailiff” under section 178 of the act.

My (admittedly narrow but important) point remains (and you have accepted this above) that there is no evidence that any bailiff was actually obstructed by anyone (unless they tripped over a policeman in the aftermath).

http://www.essex.police.uk/news_features/dale_farm-1/total_of_34_people_arrested_fo.aspx

@pagar #76:

Section 179 only applies to the landowner or someone “who has control of or an interest in the land”. I can’t find evidence that anyone has been prosecuted under this section (though whether they will be is presumably a matter for the CPS).

That’s because proseuctions for breach of the EN are taken by the local authority (so no, not a matter for the CPS). The travellers residiing on the illegal plots will have been committing the offence.

My (admittedly narrow but important) point remains (and you have accepted this above) that there is no evidence that any bailiff was actually obstructed by anyone (unless they tripped over a policeman in the aftermath).

There is plenty of evidence, from the barricades across the entrance that were expressly there to deny the bailiffs entry, to the buring barricades on the roads within the site etc etc. The s178 offence is complete upon obstruction of access onto the site, and the travellers/protestors were given, and did not take, the opportunity to remove the barricade across the entrance which denied the bailiffs’ access.

Incidentally, regarding the taser issue.

Here is footage showing how they were used. Look to the far left towards the end of the short clip.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/oct/19/dale-farm-police-tasers-protesters-video?intcmp=239

pagar,

Section 179 only applies to the landowner or someone “who has control of or an interest in the land”. I can’t find evidence that anyone has been prosecuted under this section (though whether they will be is presumably a matter for the CPS).

I don’t think they have been prosecuted under s179. But if we are going to analogise to murder, your position is akin to you being caught literally red-handed, stabbing me to death, but nevertheless denying having committed murder because you have not yet been convicted of it; or if to driving, you deny speeding despite exceeding 100mph on the motorway in your Ferrari because you haven’t yet been convicted of it.

AIUI the fact is that the travellers did not comply with the enforcement notice. That is why Ouseley said travellers were breaking criminal law on a daily basis by remaining on the site.

My (admittedly narrow but important) point remains (and you have accepted this above) that there is no evidence that any bailiff was actually obstructed by anyone (unless they tripped over a policeman in the aftermath).

I didn’t accept that there is “no evidence any bailiff was actually obstructed” at all. I have after all mentioned the barricades and people’s limbs in cement etc once or twice as well as the calls for resistance and obstruction. It seems to be that is highly suggestive of intent to obstruct, which you accept. What you seem to want is a timeline along the following lines:

1. Bailiffs ask one final time to be allowed in to enforce the notice
2. Occupants refuse and obstruct
3. Police go in

or

1. Police just go in absent bailiffs.

What I accept is that neither of us has yet been able to show whether the bailiffs tried to enforce the notice or not before the police went in.

The facts are:

There were bailiffs present.
There were obstacles of various kinds preventing entry.
There was an enforcement notice that the travellers were not complying with.
Travellers did not comply with bailiffs.

I’m not sure ‘what more you can want’, legally speaking (as I said there may be an argument to be had about the morality of it all).

The s178 offence is complete upon obstruction of access onto the site, and the travellers/protestors were given, and did not take, the opportunity to remove the barricade across the entrance which denied the bailiffs’ access.

The same could be said for my locked front door.

My refusal to unlock it is not, in itself, an act of obstruction. It is the role of the bailiff to legitimately access my home to execute his warrant and he is not permitted to have riot police break down my back fence to do so (at least not until I have pointed a shotgun at him or otherwise obstructed him).

In this instance, the correct procedure was for the bailiffs to try to access the site and, if there was physical resistance (as we all know there would have been), the police role should have been to intervene and arrest those obstructing under Section 178.

They should not be able just to miss out a bit of the process because it suits them. Once we concede that, we’re all potentially exposed to the tyranny of a police state.

@67 – Cite. And link to your CV. Because I’ve witnessed evictions later ruled illegal, one for precisely that reason (and involving a policeman nearly throwing a pregnant woman down a flight of stairs).

I’m sure “use of their eyes” is sufficient for the Bailiff to see that the door was locked (it wasn’t) and to send the police in, smashing the door off it’s hinges, before manhandling my friend (and probably killing her if I hadn’t happened to have been in position to catch her). Same logic.

“Breach of an EN is criminal”

Where does it say this? Prosecutions by the local authority over a civil matter (eviction) are civil. That they have a fine attached to them is not a default indicator they’re criminal!

That you state the complete fallacy that breach of the law is always criminal when in fact it’s often a civil offence (unauthorised copying, defamation, etc.) is telling!

I’m only willing to accept a direct reference in statute or case law on the matter, I’m afraid.

Leon; I think you’re very confused. An “offence” *is* criminal. You’re right that defamation and some copyright violations are matters of civil law, but those are not offences and the relevant acts won’t call them such.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/part/3/crossheading/powers-of-arrest

(1)A constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is about to commit an offence;

(b)anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;

(c)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;

(d)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.

I think everybody’s agreed above that at the very least subsection (c) applied here…?

@82 – Simply Untrue, see e.g. the Sale of Goods acts

@83 – They did not, however, arrest them under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, and it applies only to criminal law. And that’s another “sneeze and be arrested law”, which is there purely to be abused to harass people.

And where exactly does the sale of goods act specify an “offence”? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/contents

The section of SOCPA I referenced just (re)defines the constable’s power of arrest; there’s nothing limiting it to offences under that particular act.

But, you’re absolutely right on one point! It does indeed “apply only to criminal law”, and yet the text there just talks about “offences” without qualification. What do you think that implies about other acts that specify “offences”…?

@Leon Wolfson #81:

I use my real name. If you can’t use that to establish my bona fides, you don’t know enough to pontificate about the law – but we knew that already.

How many times do I have to repeat this; this was not a possession eviction. Read Egan v Basildon DC (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2416.html); this was enforcement under s178 of an enforcement notice. The travellers were not being removed from the land permanently – the Council has no right to possession which would permit that – but to enable the Council to do works that would bring the land into compliance with the enforcement notices.

Where does it say this? Prosecutions by the local authority over a civil matter (eviction) are civil. That they have a fine attached to them is not a default indicator they’re criminal!

The fact that both breach of an enforcement notice and obstruction of a local authority officer in the execution of his rights of entry under 178 are both “offences” “prosecuted” in the magistrates court, that the criminal standard of proof applies, that there is a criminal penalty (a fine is not a civil penalty in general) all rather points to the fact that we are not talking about the civil law here. Stop obsessing over the word “eviction”; you are loading it with too much baggage.

I’m only willing to accept a direct reference in statute or case law on the matter, I’m afraid.

Look at the Fraud Act 2006 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/crossheading/fraud) and tell me where fraud is defined as criminal – beyond its description as “an offence”.

Oops – blockquoting fail – trying again (with slight amendments):

@Leon Wolfson #81:

I use my real name. If you can’t use that to establish my bona fides, you don’t know enough to pontificate about the law – but we knew that already.

How many times do I have to repeat this; this was not a possession eviction. Read Egan v Basildon DC (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2416.html); this was enforcement, under s178, of an enforcement notice. The travellers were not being removed from the land permanently – the Council has no right to possession which would permit that – but so as to enable the Council to do works that would bring the land into compliance with the enforcement notices.

Where does it say this? Prosecutions by the local authority over a civil matter (eviction) are civil. That they have a fine attached to them is not a default indicator they’re criminal!

The fact that both breach of an enforcement notice and obstruction of a local authority officer in the execution of his rights of entry under s178 are both “offences” “prosecuted” in the magistrates court, that the criminal standard of proof applies, that there is a criminal penalty (a fine is not a civil penalty in general) all rather point to the fact that we are not talking about the civil law here. Stop obsessing over the word “eviction”; you are loading it with too much baggage.

The issue here is “planning control”, not “eviction”

I’m only willing to accept a direct reference in statute or case law on the matter, I’m afraid.

Look at the Fraud Act 2006 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/crossheading/fraud) and tell me where fraud is defined as criminal – beyond its description as “an offence”.

The s178 offence is complete upon obstruction of access onto the site, and the travellers/protestors were given, and did not take, the opportunity to remove the barricade across the entrance which denied the bailiffs’ access.

The same could be said for my locked front door.

My refusal to unlock it is not, in itself, an act of obstruction. It is the role of the bailiff to legitimately access my home to execute his warrant and he is not permitted to have riot police break down my back fence to do so (at least not until I have pointed a shotgun at him or otherwise obstructed him).

Are you saying that if a bailiff comes to your front door and tries to enter and you refuse to open the door that you are not obstructing him?

Are you saying that if a bailiff comes to your front door and tries to enter and you refuse to open the door that you are not obstructing him?

Yes. Look it up.

pagar; I did, as it happens, without much luck. Did you have a reference in mind? In particular, did you have a reference in mind that takes into account the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007?

pagar; I did look it up, without much luck. Did you have a reference in mind? (that takes into account the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007)

pagar; I did look it up with no luck. Did you have a reference in mind, that takes into account the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007?

@ Jason

If the bailiffs come to your home, you don’t have to let them in. They can’t force their way in, but they can enter through an open window or an unlocked door.

Forced entry includes pushing past you once you have opened the door to them, or leaving their foot in the door to prevent you closing it. Such action would make the whole process illegal.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingDebt/DebtsAndArrears/DG_10034289

@pagar #94:

You are having the same problem as Leon. These are not bailiffs enforcing a possession order; nor bailiffs distraining; nor bailiffs acting under a warrant of execution. There is no general offence of obstructing a bailiff; there is an offence of obstructing local authority officers/agents acting under section 178 powers.