"Yes, but they won't be evicted because there will be problems with getting them evicted after the precedent on non eviction from Dale Farm has been established. "
My original comment related to the eviction of DF rather than subsequent ones, but I see what you're saying. My question is whether the situation you are portraying is really as impossible to recover from as you seem to imply. Maybe I'm just naive, but will this really put us on the road to anarchy like you suggest? Really? If the government simply enforces the law in other cases, will your apocalyptic scenario actually play out? This will of course generate accusations of hypocrisy, but isn't that preferable to having thousands of homeless children on your conscience?
Please don't get me wrong - this will sound like I'm arguing emphatically in favour of not going through with the eviction. I'm not - as I say, I'm undecided because I think the issue is complicated. I just think we need to really weigh out the consequences and think deeply about our attitude to the law rather than just saying 'end of'.