.@mwillersqc "what the [Gov] are effectively doing in Part 4 of the Bill is creating...'no-go' zones which the Court of Appeal has ruled would fundamentally breach [Human Rights legislation]"
https://twitter.com/GypsyTravellers/status/1394674894697287683
Again, @mwillersqc, "A Gypsy or Traveller parking on land with their family is not going to hang around when threatened with seizure of their vehicle... &[if they tried to argue their case] they would probably not get Legal Aid to challenge...the Section and prosecution. (1/2)
(cont.) In those circumstances, we're probably unlikely to see much, if any, judicial consideration of the vague terms in Part 4." (2/END)
.@mwillersqc, "Everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Pt 4 and the proposals do not just affect those that are committing significant criminal damage. They affect each and every Gypsy and Traveller who exercises their right, enshrined in our convention (1/4)
...and under the European Convention of Human Rights to nomadism, to roam. We should not be forcing them into a position where they're only lawfully exercising that right when they're on the road. On the road to nowhere. (2/4)
What this provision does... is give the police the power to seize their homes should they fall foul of these provisions. Should they camp on a piece of a land and then be asked to leave by a [prejudiced individual] is a fait accompli for the police who are then called in. (3/4)
They will have to arrest and will almost certainly seize the caravan. That puts the individual family in a position where they may end up being destitute... The proposed legislation ignores the enormous elephant in the room - the lack of site provision. (4/END)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
