collapse

* Welcome

Welcome to GPWizard F1 Forum!

GPWizard is the friendliest F1 forum you'll find anywhere. You have a host of new like-minded friends waiting to welcome you.

So what are you waiting for? Becoming a member is easy and free! Take a couple seconds out of your day and register now. We guarantee, you wont be sorry you did.

Click Here to become a full Member for Free

* User Info

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Newsletter

GPWizard F1 Forum Newsletter Email address:
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly

* Grid Game Deadlines

Qualifying

Race

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • Wizzo: Chat room now available. See you in there
    July 05, 2020, 02:05:12 PM
  • cosworth151: Hey Wizzo. I can see that you & dd are in the chat room but I can't get in!
    July 05, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
  • Wizzo: Hi Andy, ill look at this tomorrow.  Thanks
    May 19, 2020, 10:08:09 PM
  • Andy B: Hi Wiz, I have tried to make a donation using my UK bank account but PayPal will not accept the card as I live in NZ and have a UK card? This is not your problem but is there a way I can just pay directly with a Visa card?
    May 18, 2020, 10:41:51 PM
  • Wizzo: GPW will be down from approximately 13:30 tomorrow until the migration to the new server is complete. Once the site is "live" on the new server it could take another 24-48 hours to become accessible to all users.
    May 14, 2020, 03:18:44 PM
  • Wizzo: I've made some changes to GPW. Try it now
    April 29, 2020, 02:33:08 PM
  • lkjohnson1950: Hey Wiz, Quarantine Diaries doesn't display right for me. The bottom is cut off of the page and I can't see any post after Alia's.
    April 28, 2020, 08:13:44 PM
  • Dare: Hope your doing ok Braden...just now saw your comment. Don't be a stanger
    April 20, 2020, 04:04:18 AM
  • BraydenSoh: Hi everyone! How's life? Hope everybody still doing well!
    April 13, 2020, 03:48:17 PM
  • Wizzo: Session problem now solved. Thanks
    February 05, 2020, 09:43:41 AM
  • John S: Hey! Anyone else notice the huge number of guests on the site today - Wow!!  :yahoo:
    December 03, 2019, 08:38:00 PM
  • Wizzo: Please note: Japanese qualifying times have been updated.
    October 11, 2019, 02:05:42 PM
  • Scott: I'll be in chat for a change...hope some others will make it too.
    September 07, 2019, 08:58:16 PM
  • cosworth151: This Sunday is Mothers Day here in the States. I'll be helping with the free breakfast we do at our Amvets Post every M's Day, so I'll be popping in and out of the Chat Room
    May 10, 2019, 03:57:04 PM
  • Wizzo: Mothers day here in the UK so I will be absent in the chat room today. Have fun!
    March 31, 2019, 10:47:48 AM
  • Jericoke: For newcomers to GPWizard, make sure you check out the live chat during the race!  It's the best way to turn a dull race into a great time, and the cherry on top of a great race!  (I won't be able to attend Aussie though)
    March 15, 2019, 07:48:58 PM
  • Wizzo: The 2019 Grid Game is now open. Please check out the new rules before entering.
    February 17, 2019, 04:56:33 PM
  • John S: Glad the site is back online, we don't know how much we like it til it's gone. Thanks Wizzo.
    February 02, 2019, 09:19:33 PM
  • Calman: Glad to see you back online Wizzo.  Did the issue point to a corrupted MySQL Data Table?
    February 02, 2019, 08:53:13 PM
  • Wizzo: I apologise for the downtime. Normal service has been resumed.
    February 02, 2019, 07:53:12 PM

* Who's Online

  • Dot Guests: 62
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 1
  • Dot Users Online:

* Top Posters

cosworth151 cosworth151
15437 Posts
Scott Scott
13947 Posts
Dare Dare
12472 Posts
John S John S
10319 Posts
Ian Ian
9693 Posts

* IntentsGP Advert

pre-erected f1 camping & glamping with intentsGP

Author Topic: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott  (Read 985 times)

Offline Dare

Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« on: August 28, 2020, 12:54:39 AM »
He's the one that started that take a knee crap and backing the riots[I mean protests] but it seems it may interfere with his F1 stats nothing.
Put the money where the mouth is


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/hamilton-rules-belgium-grand-prix-180356793.html


"The
democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are
willing to work and give to those who would not."
--
Thomas
Jefferson

Offline Jericoke

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2020, 03:18:25 AM »
1)  With the leagues agreeing to postpone games, they're not really 'boycotts'.  When the Bucks were willing to forfeit a game to protest something happening in their backyard, that was meaningful.  (Don't get me wrong, this is all meaningful.)  F1 races can't easily be rescheduled.

2)  While systemic racism is a world wide problem, the issues are mostly American.  Kneeling during the AMERICAN anthem was the protest.  I don't know Belgium's record on race relations (current relations, I'm well aware the Belgian Congo was a high water mark for how to not treat people).  If anyone knows if Belgium is worthy of shutting down sport (or not) feel free to correct me.

3)  As a black star in a mostly white sport, Hamilton holds a different position than black players in a league with a large proportion of black athletes.  It's very easy for white athletes to agree with their black teammates.  In F1, it's harder.  If Hamilton did lead a protest, it puts the other drivers in an awkward position.  Now, of course, if this was Hamilton's number one priority, it would be a no brainer, he'd sit out, and Mercedes would probably not run (and the FIA would allow the exception to the Concord).  But, having one of the few black voices of F1 shut down undermines the movement as a whole.

There isn't a 'right' and a 'wrong' answer here, but history can show a black driver won the 2020 championship, and that has value.  No matter who plays in the NBA, MLB, NFL, it's going to be black players winning the championship.

Offline John S

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2020, 12:37:23 PM »
You're right of course Jeri. However I think Lewis choosing to race instead of making a personal sacrifice boycott could appear as somewhat hypocritical when viewed against his self stated goal of convincing the entire F1 driver line up to take the knee.

I can see the counter argument of - "Why should we move our position when you appear to only be making token protest yourself?" - coming to the fore. 
   
Racing is life - everything else is just waiting. (Steve McQueen)

Offline jimclark

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2020, 03:04:27 PM »
I'm still trying to figure out the "boycotting" of one's own livelihood especially when I don't see the racism within.
1) The black population of the U.s. (last I heard) was around 13-14% and the black players percentage of the population of NFL, NBA, and MLB is far greater than that. Where's the racism? If anything, it's against whites.
2) How many black racing drivers are trying to make it in F1 and are being "racially" prohibited?

Just curious.....  :DntKnw:
"Those were the days my friends. We thought they'd never end..."

jimclark

Offline Dare

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2020, 03:53:11 PM »
I'm still trying to figure out the "boycotting" of one's own livelihood especially when I don't see the racism within.
1) The black population of the U.s. (last I heard) was around 13-14% and the black players percentage of the population of NFL, NBA, and MLB is far greater than that. Where's the racism? If anything, it's against whites.
2) How many black racing drivers are trying to make it in F1 and are being "racially" prohibited?

Just curious.....  :DntKnw:


After the boycotting and speeches are over they return
to their million dollar gated homes safe from the world
they boycott.
"The
democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are
willing to work and give to those who would not."
--
Thomas
Jefferson

Offline rmassart

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2020, 06:06:16 PM »
I'm still trying to figure out the "boycotting" of one's own livelihood especially when I don't see the racism within.
1) The black population of the U.s. (last I heard) was around 13-14% and the black players percentage of the population of NFL, NBA, and MLB is far greater than that. Where's the racism? If anything, it's against whites.

What is the percentage of backroom staff and managers in these leagues? I know in Europe the football leagues are very poor in these areas when it comes to racial equality.

2) How many black racing drivers are trying to make it in F1 and are being "racially" prohibited?

Likewise, what percentage of the Mercedes or Ferrari team are black. You don't see many black faces on the pit wall, or even in the media or anywhere within F1 really. It is an issue. Not saying it is active discrimination, but what prevents black people from being in these positions? It is usually linked to income and education I guess, but that can't be the only reason.

Plenty of studies have shown that putting a black or Arab sounding name on a CV  severely limits the chances of that CV receiving a call for an interview. This might well be "subconscious" but it is a real effect.

Offline Jericoke

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2020, 04:19:55 AM »
I'm still trying to figure out the "boycotting" of one's own livelihood especially when I don't see the racism within.
1) The black population of the U.s. (last I heard) was around 13-14% and the black players percentage of the population of NFL, NBA, and MLB is far greater than that. Where's the racism? If anything, it's against whites.
2) How many black racing drivers are trying to make it in F1 and are being "racially" prohibited?

Just curious.....  :DntKnw:

NBA players are NOT paid for NBA playoff games.  They're paid for the regular season, and there is prize money for winning the championship, but it is proverbial peanuts.  Players aren't giving up a dime not playing a playoff game.  Obviously they risk reputation/endorsements etc., but in the current climate, NOT sitting out would be the bigger risk in that area.

MLB players are giving up money, but since the league rescheduled the games, they aren't. 

1)  The players aren't protesting racism in their leagues, they're using their elevated platform to get a message out.  Many of them  simply won then genetic lottery, and are reaping the rewards.  They know exactly the sort of life they'd have had if they were 3 inches shorter, or they were involved in 'incidents' themselves.

(There are players who see the leagues as racist though, forcing black players to compete in unsafe conditions for the enrichment of white guys.  I'm not sure I buy that; sports leagues were just as exploitive when they were overtly racist.)

2)  Good question.  Canada currently has two F1 drivers, both of which come from vastly rich families*. I can't tell you how many vastly rich black families are trying to get into F1 in Canada, but I suspect the number of vastly rich black families in Canada is still lower than basic demographics would suggest.  (No, I don't have facts to back this up, and would be happy to be proven wrong.)

*I maintain that Lance is in F1 on merit, but the backing from his father helps plenty.  Latifi... not all that impressed with what I've seen, but maybe Russell really is that good.

Offline monty

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2020, 09:23:53 AM »
Although I disagree with the BLM message (racism isn't all about being black) I an happy for any peaceful, non-disruptive symbolic show of support to raise awareness. Hamilton has managed to get Mercedes and F1 to highlight the WeRaceAsOne message which is good.
I do not understand how boycotting any sport or venue does anything positive. It hurts the sport, the employers, the sponsors and the fans - it must therefore have a negative impact.

Offline Alianora La Canta

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2020, 01:10:12 PM »
There is a problem. Article 1 of the FIA Statutes technically prevents the FIA from being involved in political matters (human rights are, by definition, political, which is why people get upset about them). Even the pre-race protests are, strictly speaking, a bending of the rules that is only permitted because an implied secondary requirement of motorsport (that it pushes the boundaries of human endeavour) means all humans need full opportunity to contribute as they are able, that racism interferes with this by restricting some people's ability to contribute based on skin colour/ethnicity, and therefore asking for the reduction/abolition of racism is a secondary requirement for the advancement of motorsport.

(I'm assuming, for the rest of this post, that it is literally a matter of protesting, and that for example, there isn't a raised risk of Lewis/other black-skinned members of the race team being injured or killed by a lynch mob in the country due to his skin colour that a reasonable risk assessment could not mitigate. In that case, Mercedes would be perfectly entitled to boycott the race, and Lewis would be wise to tell the world so that other teams were free to join in too).

Protesting in any way that is outside the prescribed boundary would be a breach of Article 1. If Lewis or any other driver/team boycotted a race (even the American Grand Prix) on the grounds of anti-racism, the FIA would be required, by its own Statute, to start disciplinary proceedings. It would not be able to use "this is human rights" or even "this is a secondary requirement for the advancement of motorsport" as defences, because exemptions to Article 1 are the gift of the FIA and have to be provided in advance (otherwise, as a matter of jurisprudence, it would mean teams getting affordances that were not offered to others, without good reason for differentiated treatment). If it had done so, it would most likely result in every team not attending, since such a permission would make it difficult to justify not paying out teams for missing the race - and the staff could easily be redeployed to development work for the duration of the boycott.

If the FIA allowed Mercedes to do a retroactively-approved boycott, the other teams would most likely sue on the grounds of being obliged to spend more money in order to earn what Mercedes has earned (because they'd effectively been made to do one more race), without good reason existing for them to be treated differently. That would be very expensive for the FIA (and possibly Liberty, which might have to bail them out, depending on the amount of expense claimed).

Therefore, the FIA would feel obliged to penalise Mercedes (and accept any bad publicity that resulted, most likely with poor grace) for breaking the regulations. Since this could lead to the entire team getting kicked out (or, more likely, an exemplary penalty that fell short of total exclusion due to a shortage of teams), it is unlikely Mercedes would approve a team boycott in the first place.

Lewis would not be punished by the FIA for a personal boycott as he is not the entrant - it would be a matter between himself and Mercedes... ...provided nothing Lewis said put the sport into disrepute. Since Lewis is effectively arranging his own penalty by not scoring points for the boycotted race, significant latitude is likely to be extended to him (this is the same basis on which team-mate collisions mostly don't get penalised; by upsetting one's team-mate and one's boss, one has arranged their own punishment without the FIA needing to intervene). The FIA would allow a driver boycott... ...but since Mercedes would then be obliged to put in a white substitute driver (who'd likely not be up to Bottas' standard and therefore make Mercedes vulnerable on track, thus distracting from the intended message due to "Mercedes defeatable - yay" messages), would this really achieve anything for the anti-racism movement? Would any more people decide racism was bad (let alone be moved to do anything for anti-racism)?

If you are going to stand for something and lose everything in the process, it's wise to make sure the thing one is standing for is actually going to gain something beforehand (as Colin Kaepernick did). Otherwise, a sacrifice becomes a senselessness.

Idealistic messaging is easy. Turning it into a practicable campaign is messy and difficult, which is why I am patient with the F1 paddock as it stumbles its way through the recently-changed social landscape. Also, as Reni Eddo-Lodge says in the excellent 'Why I'm No Longer Talking To White People About Race', "In theory, nobody has a problem with anti-racism. In practice, as soon as people start doing anti-racist things, there is no end to the slew of commentators who are convinced anti-racists are doing it wrong. It even happens among people who consider themselves to be progressive".

(This is also my issue with the "all anti-racists must kneel" crowd; kneeling means different things in different places, and there are parts of Italy - including some in parliament - where kneeling in this context is regarded as a racist act, essentially accepting Anglophone domination of Italian life (note that in Europe, "racism" generally covers both skin-colour-based and nationality-based discrimination). There are some audiences where a mass kneel has the opposite effect to the one intended, and this is why the only Fiat-backed driver who is kneeling is the one with a foot out of the door...)

(For the black athletes in the USA, college sports sponsorships are a major way for them to afford college education when they otherwise would not, thanks to suspected discrimination in academic college admission and scholarship awards. It's not clear how much of that is still real and how much is perceptual inertia from past decades when it was open policy, or some time after that when it was covert policy. So the proportion of athletes is itself an artifact of discrimination elsewhere in the system (directly or indirectly).

There is also a quota imposition in the NFL called the "Rooney rule". Introduced in 2002, it requires any senior operations or coaching positions to include at least one black person among the interview shortlist. Twelve black coaches in 10 years was considered to be a big success. Make of that what you will...

Likewise, what percentage of the Mercedes or Ferrari team are black. You don't see many black faces on the pit wall, or even in the media or anywhere within F1 really. It is an issue. Not saying it is active discrimination, but what prevents black people from being in these positions? It is usually linked to income and education I guess, but that can't be the only reason.

We know what the relevant percentage is for Mercedes - 3% of the entire team. The UK population has a black percentage of just under 4%, so this is a slight under-representation. Mercedes were also worried about the fact only 12% of their entire team is female (Williams are on 22%, so it's not like supply of engineers or the other conventional rationales could reasonably be stated to be an excuse). What worries me is that Mercedes was one of the teams that took my application more seriously, when I was applying to F1 teams (one team I will not name did give me a ridiculous excuse for rejecting me at interview that suggested I didn't fit their assumptions about what a good candidate would look like, which makes me think black people would also have problems getting recruited at some teams for similar reasons)...

As for "how many drivers are being racially prohibited?" that's hard to say. This is because the #1 prohibition for any driver going up is money, and the average big business (i.e. the people who provide the sponsorship) is still pretty blatantly most-stuff-ist, even in countries that are otherwise good at anti-racism matters. Add to that the propensity for certain types of big business (those with a single charismatic leader, or such a leader plus a quiet-in-public board) to be such sponsors in motorsport (because motorsports people rarely enjoy negotiating with boards directly because they've historically been less agile in decision-making), and for those to be disproportionately white compared to big business in general...

I object to #WeRaceAsOne, because the way it's been done makes it obvious that the FIA and Liberty aren't interested in anti-racism except as a way to get attention and money for themselves (and they're white, which makes such an attitude a form of whitewashing). The drivers, and some of the teams, actually mean it, but unfortunately they're not in charge of the overall campaign.
Percussus resurgio
@lacanta (Twitter)
http://alianoralacanta.tumblr.com (Blog/Tumblr)

Offline monty

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2020, 05:01:10 PM »
Ali - wow; a really well presented reply.
My only comment still relates to people with black skin. They are not the only people who are discriminated against. England has over 10% of people designated as Black, Asian, Mixed and Other ethnic groups; if you add any notifiable disabilities to these descriptions the percentage is close to 20%. I suspect that all of these groups suffer some discrimination. However, when you research the staffing demographic of most reputable UK corporations (an even small businesses like mine) you tend to find proportionate employment - if for no other reason than there are equal opportunity laws in place. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't take place just that it isn't as big as a problem in the UK as it is in some other countries. It definitely hasn't attracted the same level of attention as found in USA

Offline Alianora La Canta

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2020, 07:18:03 PM »
There are a lot of discriminated groups in the UK and the world. We do not find proportionate employment for any of these groups in the UK, according to the official UK statistics. 77% of white people vs 65% of all other ethnic groups combined, are in employment. If there was true equality in employment, they'd be close to equal. Yet despite equal opportunity laws, they are not. (Equal opportunity laws have had an effect, because the gap closed 4 percentage points between 2004 and 2020, and some relevant legislation on the topic was brought in during 2005). Unless the suggestion is that over 10% of all employment in the UK is in disreputable organisations...

Similar statistics for employment percentage of people with disabilities in the UK, including notes on how gender and certain other elements (not including race) affect this. I do not have intersectional data (about what happens to people who are neither white nor able-bodied).

It hasn't attracted the same attention in the UK as the USA, but it's still a problem.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2020, 07:23:06 PM by Alianora La Canta »
Percussus resurgio
@lacanta (Twitter)
http://alianoralacanta.tumblr.com (Blog/Tumblr)

Offline monty

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2020, 08:57:15 AM »
Quote
It hasn't attracted the same attention in the UK as the USA, but it's still a problem.
I think that is what I said.
I was just making the point that I find the whole BLM message too specific.
Of course there is a whole different discussion on why some groups are more successful than other groups and it is often nothing to do with discrimination. I am not looking to start a massive debate - we don't have the time and this isn't the place but I would argue that some people make themselves unemployable. I bring this up because I recently interviewed a 20year old from South London. The role would involve customer contact via telephone. I literally couldn't understand most of what the candidate was saying due to the completely faux South London 'gangster' language. Starting the interview by calling me 'Bro' pretty much sealed their fate but I am absolutely sure the candidate will claim that 'discrimination' was the reason they didn't get the job!

Offline rmassart

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2020, 03:50:36 PM »
I was just making the point that I find the whole BLM message too specific.

I think the point here is that whilst there is clearly discrimination across the board in all countries and all races (I don't imagine being white in Africa or Asia is going to help you get the best jobs in local companies), these protests are specifically about the treatment of black people in the US, and of their treatment by the police in particular.  I am not aware of Hispanics or Asians being killed (on what seems like a weekly basis) by the police in the US.

So yes, BLM is specific, but that's the point as far as I see it.  Others can and will start their own protests when they feel it is necessary. But at the moment it seems the racism targeted against blacks is disproportionate compared to other forms of racism.

On the positive side for BLM, at least they have a voice. In Europe an obvious form of racism is against gypsies and "travellers", especially in Eastern Europe. Gypsies have no representation anywhere and few people fighting their cause. (On the other hand corruption in those countries is such that at least they are left to their own devices and protected in sorts by their own "gypsy kings").



Offline Andy B

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2020, 10:43:10 PM »
I was just making the point that I find the whole BLM message too specific.



In Europe an obvious form of racism is against gypsies and "travellers", especially in Eastern Europe. Gypsies have no representation anywhere and few people fighting their cause. (On the other hand corruption in those countries is such that at least they are left to their own devices and protected in sorts by their own "gypsy kings").

When in the UK the experience with gypsies and or travellers was not good and they are their own worst enemy as there are problems wherever they go they no tax and believe they can put their caravans on any land they fine empty and when they leave its covered in debris.
I'm sure there are some good guys out there but for the majority the general consensus about them is poor.
Before anyone states this is racialist its not its just the facts I do not care what colour or creed you are I will always give you a fair chance.
Once you have retired every day is a Saturday!

Offline Alianora La Canta

Re: Hamilton rules out Belgium boycott
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2020, 06:06:35 AM »
Quote
It hasn't attracted the same attention in the UK as the USA, but it's still a problem.
I recently interviewed a 20year old from South London. The role would involve customer contact via telephone. I literally couldn't understand most of what the candidate was saying due to the completely faux South London 'gangster' language. Starting the interview by calling me 'Bro' pretty much sealed their fate

Please tell me you told this candidate that they needed to use formal language in interviews, and that neutral accents are considered a genuine occupational requirement in telephone jobs...

Thanks to severe underfunding, interview advice and training in schools has been nearly non-existent for the last 20 years and nearly non-existent in jobcentres for the last 7. If the candidate was from South London, where underfunding of jobcentres has been especially acute, there's a good chance they were never told that interviews required formal language - and even I never knew telephone jobs needed neutral accents until my previous employer told me... after I was hired!

Also, my previous employer moved phone office to a completely different city in order to look for people with a more neutral accent, a decision it only changed when it decided it no longer wanted to pay a competitive salary to attract people, resulting in its getting outbid by every other employer. All of this was considered legal and proper conduct, and is in fact easier to justify in the UK than the USA, because the UK technically allows it in jobs where it's not a requirement (provided the accent involved is recognisably from the UK, which South London "gangster" accent is. Had it been, say, New York "gangster" language, genuine occupational requirement is the fallback position for such a job).

When in the UK the experience with gypsies and or travellers was not good and they are their own worst enemy as there are problems wherever they go they no tax and believe they can put their caravans on any land they fine empty and when they leave its covered in debris.

Warning! Long explanation of Gypsy situation alert!

My experience with Gypsies (capital because they are a cultural group; technically there are three racial groups involved) is that they find it impossible to get anywhere to park legally (my local MP's been campaigning against the local council for years to get approval for 6 berths for Gypsy caravans, a campaign that started 18 years, two MPs and a different party ago. Meanwhile, there's known to be at least 30 Gypsies who actually use caravans in this area, in at least 10 households - a figure that's remained stable across two decades at least - and 2 berths so far legalised. This is despite the law requiring sufficient berths be provided for the demonstrated population of Gypsies in every area of the UK, and the Gypsies and police alike being very much aware of that law. I hope you can see the problem...). Knowing they have nowhere to turn for legal places to stay, they resort to parking wherever they think they can stay longest. Homeless people aren't treated this badly - they are allowed housing, and if they've been in the system 18 years, they'll be in the most appropriate housing the housing stock can provide. Gypsies aren't considered homeless, at least in my area, as the illegal camping is deemed "not homeless", even when between sites (this would not be the case for anyone else). (Granted, part of the reason for the lack of offers is that nomadic Gypsies are culturally averse to accepting council housing - it is deemed charity, which they only consider acceptable to receive if the alternative is death, and sometimes not even then... The point about berths is that they used to be legal without any need for paperwork or formalisation before the law changed during the Industrial Revolution. As far as the Gypsies are concerned, all they are after is enough of their traditional rights back so they can do what makes sense to them. Yes, this iteration of the problem is nearly two centuries old in the UK - they faced a different sort of discrimination in the UK before).

Councils (reasonably) only supply infrastructure to places where residency is permitted. Private landowners sometimes supply Gypsy berths, but supply doesn't always match demand (in my area, as far as I know, nobody supplies private land for caravans, and not that many people legally could, as it's the same rules as for a campsite that includes long-stay residents).

It's not because they believe they can. It's because most of them know they have to, and not knowing who they can trust to comply with the law or at least ignore any law-breaking associated with respectful squatting.

The whole thing is frustrating for everyone involved. Gypsies want to be able to live somewhere safe and culturally acceptable.

Police don't like moving people along, especially when they know that councils are most often the originating criminals (it being their refusal to obey the law that resulting in lack of accommodation for the Gypsies in the first place) and they also know that moving on too aggressively can cause problems down the road (lawsuits and/or extra distrust for the next encounter with Gypsies - residential Gypsies note how their nomadic fellows are treated, and try as they might, some of the resulting resentment seeps into their encounters, for both resident Gypsy and police officer).

Local residents don't like the sense of mutual distrust that tends to follow the situation, nor the consequences of lack of infrastructure provision (Andy mentioned a lack of waste disposal; I'd like to take the opportunity to remind everyone this includes sewage). And councils have 1000 other things to do and no budget to do them (this would be one of the cheaper ones, but it's still not free)...

Note that I am more inclined to by sympathetic to councils who happen to govern areas with traditional Gypsy traveller events like the Appleby Horse Show. Demand for temporary berths fluctuates a lot, there aren't always enough private renters to satisfy demand beyond the "regular" berths the law requires, and that's more the sort of supply-and-demand issue anyone going somewhere popular can face. It's not the threat to one's entire existence that the "regular" berth issue I discuss is.

(Legal council berths, in case you are wondering, are fully serviced and have peppercorn rents for council services like waste disposal that would be free to regular council renters - to get round the charity issue - on top of the standard regular rent).

They routinely break the law because they get discriminated against every time they try to obey it (in other words, they are given perverse incentives to disobey by society) - at the moment, they can't even use the local tip/recycling point because they've been blacklisted (because they thought, at one point, that taking 30 people's worth of rubbish in 2 cars was more sensible than artificially separating it out into the 6 cars they had between them). And yes, I say that having experienced them parking on my parents' neighbours' land and witnessing all this.

Also, good luck paying any tax other than VAT (which Gypsies do pay, by the way) when one cannot get a legal berth and one feels culturally obliged to be nomadic (note the majority of Gypsies are residential these days, and therefore pay all the same taxes residents of other ethnic groups do). HMRC can't even post the demand document without one, nobody can pay taxes if they do not know how much they owe or where to send it (traditionally it's been different addresses depending on which part of the UK one is in), and since the whole point of Gypsy berths is that they are for nomadic people, a berth can only be used for whoever's registered at the berth at a given time. While multiple nomadic households can receive tax bills to the same berth, it's only possible to do so if one can demonstrate access to that berth, which clearly isn't possible if the police are routinely moving people on from artificially-enforced illegal berthing (since someone with more need of the berth could come along at any moment and potentially prevent the registered household from accessing HMRC-related post). If Gypsies being moved along was rare, it would probably be possible to arrange with the nomadic population to get the tax paid, especially if the government got round to developing a decent phone app for the task (given that nowadays the system is centralised). Hence, the tax office doesn't even try to collect from most nomadic Gypsies (a few do have arrangements via residential Gypsies, most often possible due to being relatives). It would all be easier if the UK councils met their legal obligations, but they have repeatedly refused despite, in some cases, courts instructing them to meet the obligations.
Percussus resurgio
@lacanta (Twitter)
http://alianoralacanta.tumblr.com (Blog/Tumblr)

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
Menu Editor Pro 1.0 | Copyright 2013, Matthew Kerle