Talk:Dale Farm

Richard Sheridan and the House of Lords Award

According to this reference, a 'Richard Sheridan' from Dale Farm was awarded 2a" 'Volunteer of the Year' award at the House of Lords in October 2005, for work at Dale Farm. <http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/464> . Article was written by a member of the Dale Farm Housing Association, Grattan Puxon (who is named as Secretary of the Dale Farm Housing Association at <http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/293>.

a) Is this the same Richard Sheridan mentioned below (source Daily Mail)?? b) Many organisations hire the House of Lords to take their 'volunteer of the year' out to tea. Which organisation actually awarded his? I can't find any sources on the internet and would be interested to know

It says here (same website as the above source <http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/953> , that "Mr Sheridan is the recipient of numerous community awards for his work on behalf of Travellers. Most notably, he was honored by the Basildon Community for his work in installing both fire extinguishers and alarms in every property at Dale Farm." The award is said to be 'last week' in an article dated Oct 28th 2005 at <http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/464>. The fire extinguishers were thus installed AFTER the deaths of two of the McCarty family at Dale Farm in 2005. An Indymedia report indicates they died on 19.05.2005 because there was insufficient water available onsite to deal with the fire <http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/05/311479.html> and the fire service were unable to access the site fast enough due to the location.

Would have thought it was mandatory for a Landlord to install fire alarms and extinguishers at Dale Farm anyway? But again, the actual awarding body was not named - perhaps he was nominated by the Dale Farm Residents Association themselves??????.

Postscript: This article also says that 220 of the illegal pitches in the area are owned by members of the Sheridan 'clan' - not 'family' - this was in fact written by Grattan Puxon (Secretary of the Dale Farm Housing Association) - which appears to dispel the concerns that use of the term 'clan' in the press, rather than calling them 'family' is Racist - this proves it is the terminology preferred by actual members of the Dale Farm Housing Association ie the 'clan' themselves.

Who Is Grattan Puxon ?

Does anyone know the professional affiliations/qualifications of this journalist?

He is not a journalist by training or occupation, and his trade is unknown. He is the Secretary of the Dale Farm Housing Association, and a media source and is responsible for a fair number of the stories reaching the press over the past few years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.238.12 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not the place to critique or conduct research into a person's background. Puxon was a Colchester Gazette reporter, and later a freelance journalist in Dublin. (Cox, James (24 Nov 2011). "Horror of Dale Farm still hurts". The Gazette. Newsquest (Essex).. Anything beyond that such as attempts to discredit, engage in opposition research or otherwise dig into where & what a person is doing now are inappropriate and in violation of our Policies. Thanks. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is Billy Williams ?

Does anyone know the reasons why this person is mentioned in the article? Is he a traveller or a local resident. This should be mentioned in the article.

Legality of Calor Gas Barricades ?

Have any of the Dale Farm residents been prosecuted for endangering life and breaching Health & Safety Regulations over the'Calor Gas Cylinder Barricades'? The advice is available online at <http://www.devonline.gov.uk/text/index/information_and_services/environmental_health/eh-healthandsafety-intro/eh-hs-guidance/eh-hs-lpg.htm>, and includes:

1. empty cylinders areconsidered in exactly the same way as full cylinders, and that they must be stored in a weld mesh 12 gauge 50 x 50mm cage if the yard is wholly or partially accessible to members of the public. Those at Dale Farm were not. 2. The stack must be at least 1 metre from the boundary, 2 metres from a cellar opening, drain, gully, door or window and 3 metres from any combustibles unless they are behind a 30-minute fire resisting structure. Those at Dale Farm are not. 3. Appropriate fire fighting equipment must be available (there is none at Dale Farm). .....etc etc. The duties of the gas user (rather than the supplier) are detailed on p.11 of <http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/fod/inspect/lpg.pdf>. According to <http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/basildon/4195431.Gas_bottle_bombshell/>,over 40 were crammed against the neighbouring property and wired together in March 2011. Have these been removed, or are they still in place? Have the initial enforcement and improvent notices been breached, if so, have the Council set about bringing any prosecutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.234.147 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Did they really ask the Red Cross to give them free food and tents?

Is this true? It says at <http://www.advocacynet.org/page/dalefarmtimeline> that in November 2007 - "The Travellers start talking to the British Red Cross about mitigating the impact of any possible evictions. Among the suggestions - a refugee "tent city" for families that are forced out. The NGO Shelter Box, which has provided up to 35,000 tents for Tsunami victims, is also approached to provide emergency housing."

Reference is sourced to the Dale Farm Housing Association.

It's the first I've heard of it, but what's the problem? Helping refugees is supposed to be what the Red Cross is there for. 193.146.58.181 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

They don't fit the international legal definition of 'refugees', nor that used by the UNHCR <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee>: it is strange that the Dale Farm Housing Association members should have found 'tents' a culturally appropriate alternative to the bricks and mortar they were offered by Basildon Council (particularly when in Court submissions, they objected to bricks and mortar as 'culturally inappropriate'. I work pro bono for the Red Cross and Medicins Sans Frontiere, and know how hard pressed they are for funding, and how many children die each year because they do not have sufficient funds to treat all those they would like to - it seemed particularly ridiculous to me - selfish in fact - cruel- that they should attempt to use this organisation when they are residents in a country where they had been offered bricks and mortar accomodation as an alternative, yet expected the Red Cross to a) provide for them, and b) spend valuable time and money answering such a selfish (and obviously publicity seeking) request. I've checked the source - it was on a site posted by the Dale Farm Housing Association, the link of which is already given in this section. They do appear to have made a mockery of the UNHCR, who are also hard pressed for funds, and do such invaluable work for those genuinely in fear for their lives globally.

As this group asked the Red Cross for tents, they themselves found this an acceptable form of accomodation. Perhaps that is the only alternative accomodation any council in the UK should ever be obliged to offer their groups when future disputes about unlawful site expansions and breaches of domestic planning law arise? 80.42.225.105 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)twl80.42.225.105 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Any Roma residents before the eviction notice was served?

Were there actually any 'Roma' living there before the press arrived? The letter sent to the UN in March 2011, states that the site contains 'Roma and Irish Travellers'. The Sheridans the Obriens and the Quilligans all have properties in Rathkeale Co Limerick where they are known as the travelling millionaires (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035826/Dale-Farm-eviction-Travellers-secretly-Irish-houses.html). The Irish times In March of this year interviewed Rosemary Quilligan at Dale Farm, when asked where the men were she said they were working in France and Germany,but would be back for the eviction, however Ellen Sheridan disagreed and said most pitches were occupied by single mothers. Very strange. Dale Farm spokesman Richard Sheridan had twice been jailed for his part in the smuggling of fake cigarettes from Belgium. Sheridan, real name Richard O’Brien, was locked up for a year for smuggling 640,000 cigarettes. His Father, John O’Brien, 62, was jailed for a year along with Sheridan for smuggling 1.2million cigarettes in June 2003.

Does anyone know if an English council have any duty under UK law to rehouse a person who owns another home in Ireland? 79.70.229.67 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)twl79.70.229.67 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC) The UN Website for the 'Committee for the eradication of racial discrimination' is at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/. A copy of the letter sent on 12th March this year under their 'Early Warning System', which identifies this group as 'Roma and Irish Travellers' is on the UN website at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/UK_12.03.2010.pdf

Evidence of discrimination in favour of particular groups by the Council and Police??

A section on any legal attempts mounted by non-DF residents would add balance (the article at present only gives details of the DF resident's legal actions) and would be informative as a background to the matters involved and be interesting.

Legal definitions of 'ethnic groups'

Legal case law established 'Gypsies' as a recognised ethnic group in England in 1989 (Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton) and Irish Travellers, already protected by race relations law in Northern Ireland, were recognised as a distinct ethnic group in England and Wales in 2000 (O'Leary v Allied Domecq). In October 2008 K MacLennan v Gypsy Traveller Education and Information Project (CaseCheck Case Reports 2008) led to a landmark ruling that Scottish Gypsy/Travellers are a distinct ethnic group bringing them within the protection of the Race Relations Act (Amnesty International UK Blogs 2009). In Wales the Welsh Assembly Government has a general duty to ensure equality of opportunity for all people without reference to membership of specific groups. However, Irish Travellers are recognised in British law as an ethnic group.[36] Ireland, however, does not recognise them as an ethnic group; rather, their legal status is that of a "social group" (Wiki 'irish travellers' pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Traveller ).

I have edited the article by capitalising the term Traveller throughout. This reflects the minority ethnic status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinnWork (talk • contribs) 09:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Jewish support?

A Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/04/dale-farm-travellers-jewish-backing) states that the community have the full support of the Jewish community - of which country or countries, it doesn't say. Only one Rabbi - Rabbi Janet Burden - is quoted . She said: "People may not be aware that the Travellers, along with the Gypsies and a limited number of other groups with similar lifestyle patterns, are officially recognised as ethnic minorities, just like our own Jewish community. As such, they deserve protection under European human rights law." and goes on further: I believe that the obligation to protect this ethnic minority's way of life is a human rights issue that, in this particular and unusual case, may need to trump the planning law designed to protect the green belt."

Have any other Jewish groups supported her stance in the media? 79.70.229.80 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I take it you're not counting the author, who's also Jewish? Well I don't know that many Jews, maybe a dozen or so, but they all support them 193.146.58.181 (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Alleged Gypsy Child Snatching Plans by Essex County Council - any reliable sources?

According to Grattan Puxon (Secretary of Dale Farm Housing Association <http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/1204> )the Council and Police intended to seize the children living on the site, and place them into 'compulsory care'. Article reads: "A whistle-blower has revealed the existence of secret plans to seize more than a hundred Gypsy children from the besieged Dale Farm Travellers' community and take them into temporary care. According to details obtained by Ustiben, Essex County Council welfare officers would enter Dale Farm village in a fleet of coaches and mini-buses, accompanied by bailiffs and police, some in riot gear. The media will be told the removal of infants and youngsters, among them some seventy primary-school children, along with the elderly and vulnerable, is for their own safety.They will be detained at a holding centre some miles from Dale Farm.Officials anticipate that within hours frantic parents will call to demand their children back. According to instructions, they are to be released providing families agree immediately to leave the county under polic escort."

Does anyone know who the whistleblower was - all USTIBEN reports on the internet trace back to Grattan Puxon. Are there any independent reports of this ? Does it constitute Libel or Defamation against the Council (if such a charge exists in the UK)? He also posted this indentical story as long ago as September 2008 on AvenueB <http://www.avenue-b.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2454> and a host of other websites all over the world.

• • Re: above . There was never any 'evidence'. Look at this letter, sent about it. There was no 'evidence', nor any 'whistleblower', just a 'fear by some members of the Dale Farm community', ALL whom are members of the Sheridan family, which has members on the Gypsy Council (candysheridan). The UN were thus led to believe that this was the stated intention of the County Council! Since it wasn't, I wonder if is this why the CRE and UN have virtually divorced themselves from the DF campaign? There is a report on this at <http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/1206>, which shows the actual letter sent.

It reads: "At Gypsy Council, Richard Sheridan, chair of the Dale Farm Housing Association, viewed the county council plan as an abuse of welfare legislation according to <http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/1204>. He said "This is county council collusion with Basildon's policy of ethnic-cleansing," "They want to crush our homes and take away our children."

Then, the Gypsy Council secretary Joseph G.Jones, described as 'a technical expert to the UN Advisory Committee on Forced Evictions', submitted a report on the situation for the UN body, which met in Nairobi. This report was used to inform the UK's Children' s Commissioner in a biased way, as if it had been proven to be true. The actual letters sent reads as follows:

Sir Al Aynsley-Green, Children's Commissioner, 1 London Bridge, London SE1 9BG. 18 September 2008. Dear Commissioner, I am writing to you to raise serious concerns about the welfare of children at the Dale Farm Travellers' site near Cray's Hill in Basildon District in Essex....... Apparently in order to calm residents' fears, I understand that Essex County Council has made another alarming proposal. I understand that social services will be asked to round up children from the site and remove them until the eviction is complete and their parents are in a position to collect them from whatever holding centre they have been taken to. We are aware that Essex County Council would require a court order before taking children into care. But we are also aware that the Chief Constable has the power to authorise the taking of children for their own protection. Essex County Council has issued a statement saying that 'offsite accommodation will be available on the day (of the eviction) to ensure that children are not caught up in any enforcement action.' By whom and under what circumstances children would be taken to this accommodation has not been explained, and we are not at all satisfied. This raises three issues. 1) Neither parents nor children are likely to be happy to welcome social workers who have come to remove children without consent in order to facilitate a violent and destructive eviction which residents have been resisting by every legal means for years – even if, in the minds of the social workers involved, they are doing so in order to protect the children from harm. The site is large, and if children are not happy to be taken, they are likely to run away from the social workers. The possibility of completing the operation without ugly scenes, which may themselves damage the children, is low. 2) Once the eviction is complete, the parents will be legally homeless. Residents fear that they will on this ground be denied access to their children when they go to collect them from the holding centre, and that the children will be taken into care. 3) Some also fear, on the basis of past experience, that they may be allowed to collect their children only on the condition that they leave the county and not return, thus tearing the children away from their familiar school and health care provision as well as rendering them homeless....... We would be grateful if you could look into this matter and would be happy to put you in touch with the Dale Farm Housing Association which is working directly on behalf of the residents. Yours sincerely, Richard Solly, Policy Development Worker.

Does anyone have a copy of the actual information put before the UN before they 'intervened'? Was it as misleading as the tale of the 'Essex Council Child Snatching Whistleblower Who Never Existed?'

Questioning whether 'Pikey' 'Didicoy' and 'Chaveys' are actually Racist terms?

There's a BBC interview with Gloria Buckley, MBE (a Roma) at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/suffolk/content/articles/2009/06/25/gloria_buckley_lw_2009_feature.shtml>. In this she explains the meaning of the term

It says "Gloria is very happy to refer to herself as a pikey, something which many people from the non travelling community, myself included initially, may find somewhat uncomfortable, but again she is happy to point out this is just because of a lack of knowledge. "I really don't mind what you call me as long as you call me, because father always used to say you should be proud of it.One day I went home from school and told him that a boy had called me gypsy and he asked me if I had thanked him.When I told him no he said "well next time somebody calls you gypsy look at your mother, look at your things, look at the food at the table and look at the open road. Then there was another word, didicoy (a Romanichal term).Now people see that as an insult and get offended by that, but we didn't because father used to say that it was like decoy, are they gypsies or are they not? So we don't get insulted when anyone calls us didicoy. Then there was the other one, pikey, and that was because we used to gather around the turnpikes.We could either go through or stand there to sell our wares and apply our trade. So we never thought that was anything to get insulted about."

Theres also a video of her on this site, explaining how she set up her legal site for travellers at Sandy Park caravan site in Beck Row near Mildenhall.

And regarding 'CHAVEYS' - on a website penned by Grattan Puxon (Secretary of the Dale Farm Housing Association <http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/1218> ), it reads " In addition, it would mean the closure of the Saint Christopher Centre, headquarters of the Dale Farm Chaveys, a youth club that caters for some 100 young people, nurturing their culture, language and history....". Again, this term is used by the residents of Dale Farm itself,and the secretary of the dale farm housing association himself - is it therefore 'racist' or abusive if they've used it as the name of their own youth club?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.238.144 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unusual person, any Romany I know, and I am of that blood, would be highly offended if they were called a pikey or didicoy, same as being called a gyppo. As for chavvy, that simply means child - so a youth club would be accurate in using that word in its name. A chavvy however, is not the same thing as the word "chav" which is common slang today meaning burberry wearing youngsters whos main ambition is to buy a vauxhall astra and "mod it". Panderoona (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree entirely with Panderoona about 'chavveys' - depends what you take as your source. E.g. from <http://www.larp.com/jahavra/language.html>: 'chavvi' = girl, 'chava' = boy, and 'cha(h)vi' = child: 'chavvey' doesn't exist in the lexicon. AND 'DIDIKAI' MEANS 'GYPSY FRIEND' - why would a 'blood Roma' be offended by that??? If one appeals to a source cited in a Wiki article (at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Traveller>( a member of staff at Hull University), "Didicoy" is a Romani term for a child of mixed Romani and non-Romani parentage; as applied to the Travellers, it refers to the fact that they are not "Gypsy" by ethnicity but Irish by blood and lead a similar yet distinct lifestyle". So a Roma would call a traveller a 'Didicoy' as a means of identifying them ethnically - are Roma 'Racist' when they do this? Why would a 'blood Roma' be insulted at being mistaken for an Irish Traveller, as Panderoona (a blood Roma) suggests? And why would Gloria Buckley (also a blood Roma) NOT be insulted ?

This is the legal problem: these words mean different things to different people, even those who are grouped together ethnically, but do not identify with each other in any way. Similar problems exist with the 'N' word - most people with a lot of melanin in their skin (and whites too) accept this as a 'racist' term, BUT Rap artists continue to use and propagate it. Many melanin-rich people find their constant identification as belonging to the same ethnic group as (eg.) the murderous, Mugabe-friendly tribes in Zimbabwe, simply because they have 'black' skin rather offensive. Likewise, some Roma who can prove they are of true blood (with a DNA test of mitrochondrial DNA - inherited only through the female line) do not align themselves with Dale Farm in any way. In this instance of the use of 'Pikey', however, the source is reliable, (taped BBC interview), with a highly respectable lady who set up her permanent site completely legally, and has run it very well ever since. She isn't offended, yet others are. Ditto the use of 'clan' to describe some Traveller's families - there have been several attempts to claim compensation for having their families described in this manner, yet the Dale Farm Housing Association use the term as a self-descriptor. Ditto for use of the word 'Queer' and 'Gay' - some homosexuals use it themselves, others are deeply offended. Bit of a legal quagmire all round.

Absolutely agree with the above comments. By the way, it doesnt matter how you spell the word Chavvy, Romany was never a written language.Panderoona (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

AGREE, but some Roma seem to think it was, and that there were 'original dictionaries' (eg see: Veshengro's comments at < http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8808407787390337743&postID=5631083242827523108> :)

Please be careful how you sign on here, that was not my comment but was attributed to me, which I have now seperated. The JGLS were the first people I know of to try to write a dictionary of Romany words, and because the Romanies didnt know how it was spelt, they did the best they could. The question in this section was about whether or not such words as pikey and diddicoy are offensive - and the answer is yes they can be, as has been stated above, not only by myself. Panderoona (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Court verdicts/indictments have included:

(i) A Kent football fan was found not guilty of racial abuse when shouting out the word 'Pikey' at a match in 2010. < http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/march/5/fan_cleared_in_chant_case.aspx>; (ii) A business man charged in Jan 2010 with racial abuse for forwarding an email he did not author to Rother Council, which contained the phrase 'do as you likey' (which apparently rhymed with 'pikey' - cleared of every allegation) <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6959161/Businessman-arrested-over-anti-gypsy-email-he-did-not-even-write.html>; Several convictions for using the word 'Pikey' at the same time as committing another Public Order offence, exist to date (eg. 2011 <http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/9247998.Man_convicted_of_racist_abuse_at_Dale_Farm/> and one use during a physical assault on a nightclub bouncer <http://www.metro.co.uk/news/79744-pikey-is-now-a-race-hate-word>). However, use of the fake number plate 'P1 KEY on an effigy of a caravan, burned by village residents in Sussex on Bone Fire Night in 2003, was not considered to be Racist by the CPS. Dale Farm resident Nora Gore, who said of the bailiffs in March 2011 "'We will bomb them, we will gas them, we will burn them if we have to but we are going to fight" was not prosecuted with a racially-aggrevated (or any other ) offence, presumably because the Bailiffs are not a recognisable racial, ethnic or religious group <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366277/Europes-largest-gypsy-city-Essex-wont-fight.html>.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366277/Europes-largest-gypsy-city-Essex-wont-fight.html#ixzz1YuhKKRdX CPS Guidelines on what 'racially aggrevated ' means are at <http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/racially_aggravated_offences/> - this says:- " Racially aggravated offences are offences where the offender shows or is driven by racial hostility. They are offences where: At the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group;

Or the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group."

The offences covered include malicious wounding, ABH, common assault, Public Order Offences (fear of violence etc), Harassment and Criminal Damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.234.52 (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.111.224 (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Questioning NPOV

NPOV questions:

• The statement that the site is legal despite the local authority having an eviction order
• The statement that the travellers at the site have been illegally evicted from their previous sites needs references citing

--Dunstan 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the travellers may have been evicted 'illegally' from other sites is irrelevant to the case. They may have been crime victims, but it is not relevant to this JRA, which is looking at this particular case. They may have committed crimes themselves, but likewise, you would not want a Judge to take that into consideration either - the subject of the Judicial Review is this decision by this council - and nothing else.79.70.225.178 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)twl79.70.225.178 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC) The site was bought legally - the planning permissions on SOME of the structures is what is the problem. Also, many are agreed that the council have acted illegally in past evictions and would also do so in this case, as they are not housing the people as they are obliged to do. There's a judicial review in process. see http://geocities.com/freedommarch2005/6-6-5.txt http://www.easf.org.uk/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Dale+Farm+Community -- Paki.tv 08:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Paki.tv, that's completely irrelevant. It's NPOV if you put words like "illegaly" with no final legal settlement. "Many are agreed" is simply not good enough for an encyclopaedic article. I'm removing some superflous words. I'm also calling for a citation on the "legal" travellers site.Mouse Nightshirt 00:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So why is it that no citation is required for the fact that there is an eviction order???? Paki.tv 13:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

anyway, i've changed all that and added sources - so i've taken off the NPOV tag, as all your points have been answered. I do hope this is OK, Paki.tv 13:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The link given doesn't say that the commission for racial equality say the eviction is racially motivated - it just says that they have intervened. We need a better source than the Council's rather bizarre newsletter (no black or asian people in Basildon??). We need a media report of the CRE's intervention, or preferably a CRE statement itself. Secretlondon 11:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[1] - this press release says the cre are involved - but this comes from dale farm not the cre. Secretlondon 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The press release now leads to a dead page - I couldnt find ANY statement on the CRE website myself, or on google. Rather a lot of stuff on the Dale Farm supporters blog (wordpress) has altered recently. The ONLY source that links the CRE to Dale Farm is on a site posted by Dale Farm Housing Association at <http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/464>. This is headed 'CRE Join Dale Farm' , dated Oct.28th, but all it says is " The UK Commission for Racial Equality will tell the High Court in London next month that Basildon council's decision to bulldoze Dale Farm, Britain's largest Gypsy settlement, is racially motivated. Chairman Trevor Philips says he intends to ask the court on 29 November to allow CRE to join with Dale Farm residents in their application for a judicial review of the $4 million eviction plan."

Did Trevor Philips actually make a submission pp. the CRE to the court on 29th November? Can't find one? If he didn't , why not?

79.75.219.72 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)twl79.75.219.72 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a general pattern where words happily used (almost as terms of endearment) within a community, are seen by that community as offensive when used by 'outsiders'.

Sometimes this is because the comunity speaks a (more-or-less) separate language, giving the word an 'OK' context, whereas the word used in an outsider's language has different meaning and connotation - 'not-OK'

The 'N-word' is one example in a racist context.

Various homosexual epithets come and go in different cultures within and against the homosexual community

Caution seems the best approach ?

I don't think it is OK to use 'their' words against them, or even to appear to !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Balance tag added

The article is weighted very heavily in favour of the defence of the camp, even down to mentioning the support of the local vicar etc etc. Evidence is required to explain _why_ the travellers are to be evicted, and the pros and cons thereof. DWaterson 11:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is highly POV (anti-residents) in current form

I am not going to get into an edit war, but the article as it stands is very highly POV, against the residents.

For example:

"Because of the size of the site, and the threats of violence from some of the travellers, the potential cost of direct action to clear the green belt portion of Dale Farm could be as high as 15 million pounds"

No source is given, and eviction by force is obviously itself violent.

And we should not refer to the residents as "travellers" every single time they are mentioned. You can call me politically correct, but it is racist to refer to someone's ethnicity every time you mention them, when the events that have been newsworthy are that people may be evicted from the homes they've built on their own land because they have built those homes without getting planning permission to do so. Can the article at some times simply refer to them as "residents"? RE: referring to the occupiers as 'travellers' - it is their preferred identity - it was this identity that the UN acted upon - and it was this identity that spurred the CRE into action - they choose to use this identity in all court appeals - why should they (or this page) change that simply because you want them to? 79.75.219.72 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)twl79.75.219.72 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"There is currently an eviction order on the site."

This kind of formulation obscures the fact that the Council have issued eviction orders against the residents of the part of the site that has no residential planning permission. These are not orders "to clear the site". They are orders to individuals that they must move out.

It is the same kind of obfuscation as apparent by the use of the passive voice that another editor reverted to. It is important to report who is doing what to whom, and to give sufficient mention of the doers as well as of the done-to. (That refers to the eviction plan. Of course, the 'doers' of the house-building were the residents themselves).

"direct action would be taken to clear the part of the site that lacks planning permission"

No - we cannot have this. "Direct action would be taken to clear the part of the site" is highly POV. What it means is that residents on that part of the site will be evicted. That is what has made the place notable. "Direct action" is spin; it is euphemism. Eviction is what is planned - eviction of people. "Clear the site" is also spin.

Some editors seem to be unaware that planning permission can be for various things. What is relevant here is residential planning permission.

"This land is classified as green belt and is being used by the traveller community despite the lack of planning permission".

No. We should get this straight. Some travellers live on part of the site where there is residential planning permission. Others don't. We should not say that "the traveller community" live on the part without RPP - it is not true. "The traveller community" is not a synonym for "some travellers", and especially not where we have two parts of a site, lived on by two groups of travellers, one with RPP and one without.

"The entirety of Dale Farm, legal and unauthorised."

This won't do either. Make clear what the position is with regard to RPP.

"There has been a very active campaign to allow the unauthorised portion of Dale Farm to remain, largely from individuals and groups from outside Basildon. There is strong support among Basildon's settled community for the Council's actions."

This sounds like propaganda. "Very active" and "outside Basildon" and "strong support among". My formulation is better and more neutral:

"There has been considerable opposition to the intended eviction of the Traveller families. Opponents have launched a widespread campaign to prevent the eviction from taking place, and have won support from anti-racist and other campaigners from elsewhere in England and the world. Meanwhile, many in Basildon's settled community have expressed support for the Council's intended actions." I think the site's version is sufficiently neutral myself 79.75.219.72 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)omd79.75.219.72 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC) The following is also POV:

"More recently, the Commission for Racial Equality issued a statement to the effect that the eviction order is racially motivated. The Council strongly refutes this and cites the principle that planning law should apply to everyone equally."

This is a famous misuse of the word "refute". The version I wrote is neutral:

"More recently, the Commission for Racial Equality denounced the eviction order as racially motivated. The Council denies this allegation and cites the principle that planning law should apply to everyone equally"

Saying the Council "refutes" the allegation made against them by the Commission for Racial Equality is biased. It cannot be allowed to stand. Just report that the CRE has made the allegation, and that the Council have denied it, and on what basis.

Don't know what dictionary you've been using, but 'refute ' seems perfectly apt in the context used. 79.75.219.72 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)omd79.75.219.72 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to start an edit war, and I haven't reverted to the NPOV versions. But the article as it stands is biased and unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia.Cuppyola (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now edited the first paragraph, but that's all the editing I'll be doing. The point regarding "refute" should be clarified. To say the Council have "refuted" the allegation against them is undeniably POV. It means that they have successfully rebutted it. Sure, they have denied it, and they have stated their grounds for doing so, but whether they have denied it successfully or unsuccessfully is a matter of opinion and therefore a non-encyclopedic issue. The Commission for Racial Equality have called the Council racist. Report that. Report the stated reasons. The Council have responded, denying the charge. Report that. Report the stated reasons. Leave it at that. Take no view on whether the Council is racist or not.Cuppyola (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Aerial view of Dale Farm

The following is an animation of an aerial view of the site switching between 1999 - 2011

File:Http://i.imgur.com/iJ4yx.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essex chris (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, it's copyrighted, so we couldn't use it I'm afraid. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What a shame, 'Cavalry' :) :):)79.75.219.72 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)twl79.75.219.72 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Green belt

It seems to me that there is confusion in the article about this. I don't claim to understand the UK planning laws, but surely the whole area around Dale Farm is Green belt land. See this site: [2]. The council can and has allowed some residential development on some of its green belt. (See this site [3]). This huge area includes the "legal" part of the Green Farm site as well. The media talk about other residents, near the site, who are complaining of the travellers - all of them, not just those on the unautherised site. These residents also seem to be living in the green belt, but, presumably, had planning permission to build there. So, just stating that the disputed site is on green belt land, implying that it must therefore be illegal, is too simple. I am altering the new edits about this. Myrvin (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Understanding Planning Law does appear important here - there doesn't appear to be any logic in your argument. Planning looks at the site - the fact the site is 'in' a green belt does not mean it has been designated as a 'green belt' site, does it? The entire UK is 'in' the sea, but it is reognised as a landmass, isn.t it, and since we aren't living in boats, we can break regulations that govern sailing a boat when we walk up to the high street, but are bound by those that prevail on the land. All of the surrounding properties that were built before the relevant statute became active - which would be many hundreds - would of course be lawful, as no law is retrospective. Anything built without Planning Permission after a law was passed, would be unlawful. Other aspects are also relevant here, mainly the 'change of useage' from commercial to residential use, which means yet another possible site for a business that can employ people on a living wage, and generate a business rate council tax income for the local authorities has been lost. The council also have to look at other matters too - including the density of population, increased noise, overlooking other properties, increased traffic on the highways, hygeine, sanitation, and fire risk etc . Fire is particularly relevant, since on 18 April, 2005, there were two deaths from fires on the Dale Farm site - both of whom were related to the owner. An indymedia report <http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/05/311479.html> says they died because all the water on the site had been used up. Richard Sheridan only put fire extinguishers on the site after the fire, despite being urged to do so well before by the Council. He owns properties and tons of land in Limerick, Cambridge Essex, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, which seems to bely the claim that members of his family and other residents do not have alternative sites to move to <http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=38632&sectioncode=1>). When a commercial site is changed to residential use, there may be health hazards too (particularly contamination from the scrapped car batteries formerly on this site). The Planning aspects of the case were always been over the expansion of the site to twice its size and density of population - the Council won that case ages ago - the lengthy appeals going on in recent months are entirely about delaying a lawful eviction (theres' a partial timeline of court cases written by the Dale Farm Housing Association at < http://www.advocacynet.org/page/dalefarmtimeline> but it is incomplete . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.231.196 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Gosh! you seem to feel very strongly about this, whoever you are. I am Myrvin - how do you do? I don't want to upset you at all. My "case" was only about the apparent assumptions that anything built on green belt land is illegal. I think in parts of what you say you agree that it is not like that. I think all areas in the green belt zone are green belt sites. This site [4] says that about 5000 people live in Basildon's green belt. As I understand it, the council don't have to "designate" all sites as green belt or not. Even the old "Plotland" sites are said to "exist within the green belt", and presumably need special permission to build or even extend their homes. Look at Basildon's site and see what you think. I think that all newer sites in the green belt are green belt sites. Some have planning permission for residence or business and some do not. As you say, building is illegal if it happens without planning permission, not just because it is on green belt land - which was my logic too. Permission could have been given, as it was in the case of the legal part of the site, but permission was withheld for the rest. You say that all the buildings nest to the site were built before the green belt laws were passed in 1947(?). I haven't heard that before, and maybe it is true. On the photos some of them look rather newer than that. But, as I said, that wouldn't be a problem if they had been given planning permission - green belt land or not. Perhaps you are a Planner or a lawyer in the field - I am not. Maybe someone like that could help us. Myrvin (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This story is interesting too:[5] Myrvin (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at Google street view of the area around say 8, Oak lane, you will see several very nice bungalows that must have been built fairly recently. They must have had planning permission. Myrvin (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have slightly repharased the wording to reflect how it is normally expressed. Tmol42 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Can Basildon Council Seize Land To Pay For The Eviction?

Under UK law, if a private landlord is forced to evict a tenant and wins the case, the landlord can technically recover the cost of the eviction from the tenant under UK law and/or bailiffs can seize goods. Under UK legislation therefore, would Basildon Council be able to charge the owners of Dale Farm for the costs of evicting them, and/or seize land of equivalent market value from the owners (either the Dale Farm site and/or any other spare land/houses they may own? 212.139.97.246 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)twl212.139.97.246 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This Talk Page is for discussing improvements to the article not for seeking advice or legal interpretations. Tmol42 (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Basildon Council's own webpage, they will be seeking to recover costs from the residents: see <http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3976> . The Council is liable for a third of legal costs submitted in relation to the injunction granted on 19th September. They are not liable for costs linked to the judicial reviews. Solicitors for the travellers' submitted their draft costs bill at court but this was not accepted by the Council. The Court made an order meaning the parties should try to agree the amount of costs or there would be a court hearing to determine them. They are awaiting a final bill. However, all costs must be reasonable and can only relate to legitimate expenditure arising out of the court action. There are specific court rules to deal with these issues and they could not include grossly exaggerated or unreasonable expenditure.The Council intend to challenge, and would expect the court to rule out any unreasonable demands. The claimants (travellers representatives) of the original injunction are also liable for costs to the Council if the injunction is lifted, and the council are seeking to recover those costs once they have been calculated.80.42.225.105 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)twl80.42.225.105 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: 3rd December 2011 - According to the Daily Mail <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069115/Dale-Farm-traveller-families-charged-80k-eviction-cost-taxpayer-18m.html> Basildon Council intend to recover several million pounds by billing each of the 52 families who occupied the illegal plots for the cost of evicting them. The figure quoted is around £80,000 for each plot. The Council appear to be in a strong position to seize the land in lieu of payment if any cannot pay, and are currently making enquiries in Rathkeale in Ireland, with a view to tracing the ownership of various properties there, which are known to be owned by Dale Farm residents, with the help of other native Rathkeale residents. The Council is also expected to seize the Dale Farm land as part-payment, which is worth around £2,500 an acre.212.139.106.143 (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)lasthaha212.139.106.143 (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

NPV

I have added a NPV tag to this article as it seems to be overly supporting the travellers and there is very little mention saying the site is illegal and none in the opening summery. C. 22468 (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the second sentence states that the site is unauthorised and illegal. Can this be amended to simply say that it is illegal - it could not be authorised and illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.128.122 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant Link to the Battle of the Beanfield

Don't understand how this event is relevant or remotely similar to the Dale Farm site clearance: can you expand on any parallels/similarities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.99.225 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Current Events

There is a "This article may be affected by a current event" tag on this page, but at the moment there is no mention of any relevant current events (presumably this refers to the eviction) on the linked page. Digitig (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearance rather than Eviction

Just a note that the removal of people from the Dale Farm site can not be termed an eviction in the legal term of the word, as it was not a clearance of tenants on behalf of the property owner. It would be better described as 'Clearance and leveling'. 87.194.211.158 (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Without a reliable source to that effect as per WP:RS such a change of description amounts to opinion. The term eviction is the correct legal term and may be followed by restoration of the property to a previous state. Tmol42 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The objective of the operation is the clearance of the buildings and pitches, which do not have planning permission, from the site - not the 'eviction' of the owners and their guests. The land will continue to be owned by its current owners. The people have been temporarily removed so that the bailiffs can safely clear the buildings. FactController (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy to stand corrected on this point once cleared it can continue to be used by the Travellers (the owners) forany purpose in keeping with the Green Belt and any other planning etc policies that might apply to it.Tmol42 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The points about terminology raised here are actually all detailed by Basildon Council themselves on their website page 'Dale Farm Clearance' at <http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3976> However, I don't think this justifies changing the title of internet pages, as 'eviction' is the search term most people would use (including , one adds , the Dale Farm Housing Association and the Dale Farm Solidarity groups, who both use the term 'Dale Farm Eviction' in their web posts.80.42.225.105 (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)rea80.42.225.105 (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above, I still cannot see why it shouldn't be termed as a Clearance rather Eviction. What relevance does the use of the term Eviction have if it used pejoratively by Dale Farm solidarity to garner publicity - this page needs to be based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.128.122 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Site naming inconsistencies

There seems to be confusion in the article over the site name(s). Parts of the article assert that the whole area, comprising the legal pitches and the illegal pitches, is called Dale Farm, whilst elsewhere in the article the area containing the legal pitches is asserted to be called Oak Lane and only the area containing the illegal pitches is said to be called Dale Farm. Which is correct, and can we get this consistent throughout the article? FactController (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought that Oak Lane was the lane. The council called the first site "the Oak Lane site". However, surely the land on which both sites are, is Dale Farm. No doubt an old name for the area. All the media (and everyone I've heard talking and writing about the sites) call them "Dale Farm". Referring to one or both as the "Oak Lane" sites would be simply confusing for the general reader. The 2007 Prescot decision said "the school attended by children from Dale Farm", not Oak Lane. The CERD say "an unauthorised encampment on the Dale Farm site in Basildon ". Myrvin (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I based what I wrote in the lead on what was already in the body, and apparently based on this source from Basilson council. I would expect them to know the details. FactController (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This [6] calls the 6 acre site "Dale Farm". It doesn't mention "Oak Lane" at all. I think the Council are not being consistent either. Myrvin (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - that doesn't work. Myrvin (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What doesn't work? FactController (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My attempt to explain the confusion. I'm still confused. Myrvin (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotes of quotes

An edit was made for the reason that a quote was not from a person, but from the reporter who published what the person had said during an interview. This seems the thin end of quite a wedge. Virtually all the verbal quotes we put in are like that. Must we put "said to have said" every time? I would have thought saying that this is what the person said during an interview, and then giving a citation for the interview, would have been enough. "Said to have said" seems rather a convoluted phrase. Myrvin (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

When the source reports what was said in quotes - e.g.

“ Fred Blogs said: "The price of fish is outrageous". ”

then we can add the quotation to the article - and in quotes, citing the reference for support. However if, as in the case you mention, the source doesn't report what was said as a quotation, but as an apparent paraphrasing - e.g.

“ Fred Blogs said that he thought the price of fish was quite reasonable. ”

then we cannot purport that to be a quote from Fred Blogs - as it isn't, it's just what he is said to have said by the reporter. FactController (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the difference, but I still don't like the phrase. And I don't remember seeing it often. Myrvin (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could improve the wording to make it more elegant, but still without incorrectly implying the content to be a verbatim quote. FactController (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tried. Myrvin (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverting deletions of Editor's Comments here

I have twice reverted edits by User talk:A man alone who contends that they are a) racist , or b) are not encyclopaedic and or c) are not justified because there has been no change made to the article as a consequence. The contributions are not racist, the contributions do not need to be enclyclopaedic and there is no requirement to judge if a contribution is worthy based on changes to the article. I have no warned the editor about refactoring other editors contributions on this page and would also be up against £RR if I reverted again. Could another editor please review, thanks Tmol42 (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me - please describe exactly where I have contended that the removed comments may be racist? Also, entirely removing comments are not "refactoring", and finally, you have not warned me about any alledged refactoring. I suggest you take more care over your posts in the future.

Once you have clarified your above erroneous points, I'll be more in a position to comment. a_man_alone (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional: Unlike you, I'll assume good faith - where you have typed "I have no warned the editor" - I read this as a typo for "now warned", whereas I accept you may have meant to type "I have not warned the editor", although frankly, the former would make more sense rather than the latter. I haven't changed it, 'cause that would be refactoring your comments. a_man_alone (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If the discussion is over by all means archieve it so it is hidden but preserved but its not appropriate to delete these large sections of contemporary discussion for other reasons. As you know I have *not" warned you as I am sure you know the policies and can judge for yourself whether this is worth carrying on with.Tmol42 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

Deleting entire inappropriate topics is not refactoring. Please read up on Talk page guidelines, where it quite clearly states that in a nutshell "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. They are also most certainly not just a discussion forum, for discussing the subject in question." I would also point you to the very top of the Dale Farm talk page which has the {{not a forum|Dale farm|(Please also remember to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]])}} template specifically informing editors that off-topic or inappropriate talk may be removed or as you seem to intepret, be refactored. As there is no archiving set up on this page, I cannot archive the comments, hence removal is adequate.

Also, somewhat entertainingly, you seem to actually agree with me that at least one of the topics removed is not improving the article, as you have made this edit, where you point out that the conversation does not seem to be aimed at article improvement.

And lastly - why are you not engaging in this debate? You started the topic with some inaccurate accusations, and now have seen fit to revert but not comment. Remember - the onus is on the contributing editor to provide reasons why the contributions remain, not the removing one. I'll grant you that normally applies to regular articles, but it's no mean stretch to apply this philosophy to talk pages either. Tell you what - I'll pop a message on your talk page, just in case you've missed this. a_man_alone (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Partly Existing and Legal

Part of Dale Farm is legal and still remains where it was before the eviction, this was mentioned in several reports and should be mentioned here for the sake of impartiality. EquestrianAlex (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The article says

Next to the Dale Farm site there is an authorised travellers' site known as Oak Lane. This has Council planning permission, and provides 34 legal pitches. [3]

Does it neeed more? Myrvin (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dale Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607061637/http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3976&faqdetailid=4003&inplace=true to http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3976&faqdetailid=4003&inplace=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111023005243/http://www.basildon.gov.uk:80/index.aspx?articleid=3976&faqdetailid=4007&inplace=true to http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3976&faqdetailid=4007&inplace=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925042122/http://www.basildon.gov.uk:80/index.aspx?articleid=4022 to http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4022
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425080503/http://www2.basildon.gov.uk/Website2/newsroom.nsf/PRDALE/97FCDC9CBF1A8EBC8025790C0057756E?OpenDocument to http://www2.basildon.gov.uk/Website2/newsroom.nsf/PRDALE/97FCDC9CBF1A8EBC8025790C0057756E?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425080519/http://www2.basildon.gov.uk/Website2/newsroom.nsf/PRDALE/D65CE5D4800920B280257911002B498A?OpenDocument to http://www2.basildon.gov.uk/Website2/newsroom.nsf/PRDALE/D65CE5D4800920B280257911002B498A?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110408151101/http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/OurJob/cre_annual_report__and_accounts_2006-7__2_.pdf to http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/OurJob/cre_annual_report__and_accounts_2006-7__2_.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dale Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3976&faqdetailid=4007&inplace=true
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4022
• Added archive https://archive.is/20111024200651/http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/county_news/9312646.Dale_Farm_eviction__Live_updates/ to http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/county_news/9312646.Dale_Farm_eviction__Live_updates/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

December 2018

Your addition to Dale Farm has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm hoping that another editor will adjust/attribute the new material I introduced; the source was "Dale-Farm-travellers-camp-concrete-strewn-wasteland.html". True, the Daily Mail often borders on fake news, and that was my mistake. Not enough time at the moment to sort this. GerixAu (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Anarchism

Added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism. Whilst this might not seem intuitive that Dale Farm would be of interest to anarchists I remember at the time of the eviction, the crisis was big in the anarchist circles, with anarchists actively going to defend the site and working otherwise in solidarity through action, media work, etc. etc. This is only from my experience being involved in that space at the time admittedly. I can try to provide sources if needed but even a quick search of 'Dale Farm. Anarchists' has stories on just DDG front page about anarchists 'infiltrating' dale farm ahead of it's eviction, with indymedia having an inerview with anarchists on site ahead of the eviction. SP00KYtalk 01:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Do any independent, reliable, secondary sources cover its connection to anarchism? czar 07:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)