Dartmoor National Park has another go at Travellers

From the Travellers' Times

Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNP) is yet again targeting Travellers by once more attacking a peaceful site in Devon.

This site, known as The Roadhouse, is scenically surrounded by the A38 expressway, the Totnes road, Southbrent road, old Buckfastleigh road and two traffic circles which adds up to 17 lanes of traffic: hardly an island of tranquillity.

Yet it is described by Chris Walledge (DNP’s legal beagle) as “an area where it is possible to find absolute peace” with “a unique assemblage of wildlife”. He also describes it as “one of the most important collections of archaeological landscapes in western Europe”, a “timeless and unspoilt place” and “an inspirational landscape.”

Is Walledge really describing the A38 and 17 lanes of traffic? One could be forgiven for thinking that these descriptive gems would logically apply to all spaces within Dartmoor National Park.

Why then does DNP allow sewage works, scrapyards, industrial units, fast food factories and a host of others, that don’t exactly qualify as “scenes of outstanding natural beauty”, to exist here? Are DNP being prejudiced? Apparently so, as only minority groups face eviction here.

DNP is a National concern. Taxpayers give the government money; the government gives DNP money who use it in turn to finance this unnecessary eviction. There are taxpayers on site and so these taxpayers are actually helping finance their own eviction, from a site that the government was supposed to have made available in the first place.

The government is also complicit in this eviction. If they were to advise DNP not to continue with this eviction, then DNP would stop and, in so doing, save loads of money. This would really upset the legal guys who’re raking in a fortune in taxpayers' cash.

Why is DNP spending large sums of money to evict people from this site, when for a quarter of that amount they could set up a couple of smaller, less crowded, easy on the eye, EU-compliant, lead-by-example type sites?

DNP decided to evict the site in 2008. They began photographing, poking, prodding, inspecting and detecting using gangs of photographers, highly skilled vehicle counters, and a posse of android-looking police to protect them from the denizens of the site. An injunction notice was served to the site, dated 30.06.2010.

The reactions from the individuals on site fell into roughly three groups. One group applied for planning permission for a portion of the site: around 25 pitches/people. A second group of around 20 people wanted to be treated as individuals, with individual lawful rights, the same as everyone else, and they each sent DNP a “notice”, declaring “no contract” to the adjudication services offered and lawfully claimed “common law” jurisdiction, giving DNP 40 days to reply or object.

DNP failed to reply/object within 40 days which normally means that the matter is over and done with. DNP also failed to reply to requests for clarification by around 20 people. A third group wanted to open 10 or so new sites in the area, on the grounds that some of the sites would survive and people would not be homeless or destitute.

However, that eviction did not pan out and so DNP sent in more teams to photograph, prod and question. Literally hundreds of photos were taken from 2009-2012 of the Gypsies, the Travellers, the alternative lifestyle folk, their children, homes, and vehicles. One villager based nearby said, “If Dartmoor National Park did that to me, I’d sue for harassment and invasion of privacy and claim big bucks compensation for stress because, as a lot of people here know, there are some disadvantaged, and some ‘not so young folk’ living on site!”

DNP then served papers for their next attempt to cleanse the area, with varied reactions once again from individuals and groups on the site. Some went for planning permission for themselves; some are challenging the blatantly false allegations presented by DNP; some are requesting, at EU level, confirmation that human rights have been breached; some are investigating whether these actions are prejudiced towards minority groups.

Some have once again sent DNP a “notice” requesting clarification; some again refused consent to enter into contract of statute adjudication and again claimed common law adjudication, with willingness to a trial under common law as is their lawful right.

They again gave DNP a set time to reply or object and should DNP fail to reply, object or agree to a common law, (law of the land) trial, then “permanent and irrevocable lawful estoppel by acquiescence” comes into effect (this is legal speak for 'we’re happy to meet in court – common law court – and should you fail to engage with us within the given time, then this matter is lawfully considered settled by your not responding').

At the time of writing, no reply has been made by DNP 's Chris Walledge, so watch this space.

Nee~sun, “The Road House” site, Devon