Why are they being favoured?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....removed-48-hours.html

Why has the council gave these illegal dwellers the assurance that all buildings will be removed 'with care' and not demolished, even going as far to say that those fences and walls that will be demolished to allow access, will later be reinstated?

/// Campaigner Candy Sheridan said: 'If they demolish walls, we will make sure they restore them with precisely matching bricks. If they damage property they are not entitled to damage, we will claim for it.///

How can this be so when there have been many who have built without planning permission, much more expensive buildings etc, but have later been made to bull-dozer the lot?

Why are these travellers who have also flaunted the planning laws, being treated so superiorly differently?

[jackthehat]

And you are plainly missing the point that it is the *siting* of these permanent structures that is illegal and NOT the structures themselves.

Were the authorities to damage these dwellings, I have no doubt that they would find themselves on the sharp end of a compensation claim...

[anotheoldgit]

Oh, so if a car is 'sited' illegally, and it is towed away and crushed, one can claim compensation??????????????

[jackthehat]

When you start offering reasonable comparisons I'll come back to this question....