I'm not suggesting they should be discriminated against but they don't tend to be very co operative with conventional authorities. Attempting to get their kids into some minimal degree of education has proved to be very difficult. It is certainly a problem but the very nature of their society is that they do not wish to engage with normal society and are to some extent parasitic on it. And yes, I do recognise that there is a distinction between genuine Gypsies and "Travellers" generally. My comments stem from many years working for a County Council which has a statutory duty to provide for travellers.
Colin - yes there does need to be a quid-pro-quo. There has to be some measure of reciprocation. The coming of travellers does tend to be disruptive on the communities they encounter. One of the problems comes from a fundamental shift in the way government services with the Major administration - the shift in concept to view the users of services as "customers" rather than "clients" and the rather fatuous idea of the internal market. It put the emphasis on the consumers demanding what they want. Perhaps what society needs is to shift the focus back from rights to responsibilities.
Wom,
I do disagree with positive discrimination. Discrimination is Discrimination so where should it stop.
I am not so sure - it is something that can help disadvantaged groups in the short term. Problem is that it does stir up prejudices that those groups are getting an easy ride - despite the fact it is attempting to level the playing field. Problem is how do you deal with prejudice and the discrimination that comes from it? In many ways positive discrimination is perhaps not so much the best solution as one of the least worst. Political Correctness does get fairly bad press - I think that it has become a parody of itself because of the ideological and doctinaire way it is used. The basic idea of politcal correctness though is very laudible - that one sohuld be aware that the way things are said may betray you own prejudices and that as far as possible neutral or positive terms should be used, particularly when speaking on behalf of an agency or body, where what the individual says is taken as what the agency says. This can get taken to extremes though.
I think that our welfare state is something to be proud of - it embodies the ideals of a socialism that is now lost - the idea of comunity where each recieve according to their need and provide according to their ability. Problem is it don't work when the emphaisis is on the individual. The move to the right, I think, is not just a feature of the disenchantment with the political process. With the disintigration of the concept of community, people have lost their sense of belonging and become isolated and alienated. Bring in a sense of uncertainty such as economic upheaval to create a climate of fear and you have a fertile groud for the right who offer a sense of community and a set of scapegoats for the problems the individual see as besetting them. Just look at the rise of Fascism in the wake of WWI and the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
Going back to the original subject - I think that the situation is being exploited by the tabloid media for no other reason than to see papers. It is out and out manipulation. Remember what R.L. Stevenson wrote: "One can never hope to bribe or twist, thank God, the British journalist. Being seeing what the man, unbribed, will do there isn't an occaision to" The print media has a problem in that its traditional role has been taken over by the broadcast media and the Internet - they have to find a new role, and one they are trying to develop is to comment upon and interpret events rather than report them. This involves them taking on populist hobby-horses to sell their rags. Typically, inm the tabloids, this is through lowest-common-denominator rhetoric.
And the solution offered in the guidelines - in the first case it did make me uneasy, but the more I have thought about it, the more it seems to me that it is a very good solution - low cost - very simple to implement the guidelines - it ticks the positive action box meeting the requirements of the legislation and yet it relies no the travellers to come into the surgeries - if they don't come in there is no service given (no outreach costs, no special staff etc etc). Then they will get the attention - but because of their mobile lifestyle the travellers will be moving on very soon so the burden on any particular surgery or trust will be limited. A fairly elegant solution - with a Machiavellian simplicity.
Wom