Minorities in the UK - Essay Example

However, there are several factors which seem incomplete in the overall claim on the part of the locals. The first one is that the identity of C is known which does not violate the same point in the Act. In this vein, 187B of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act Part 3 states: Rules of court may provide for such an injunction to be issued against a person whose identity is unknown.1 This is why the local authority made a huge mistake at imposing an illegal breach of planning toward the identified person in keeping strictly with the law.

On the other hand, the fact that C bought that piece of land is more than just weighty. She must get through a host of different executive bodies to make it her private property. Thus, if the local authority disregards the fact of purchasing land, then it disregards and sincerely blames the work of officials responsible for selling land to C. All in all, it is a provoking point addressed to the overall executive branch of power. It also does harm to the democratic freedoms proclaimed and shared by the British government.

As a result, it is a serious violation of the law. Regardless of the fact that C is of Roma decent, she is an owner. By and large, there is a universal norm on justifying the gist of private property and rights of individuals, namely: “Property rights” is an index of the degree to which the government enforces laws that protect private property.2 Thus, the eviction is not permissible. To say more, the case is all about some discriminatory nature nurtured highly on the part of the local authority.

C wants to station her caravans in order to provide her children with suffice healthcare and education which is within easy reach. This is the next hallmark of the discussion. Once again, here is the fact of straight-forward discrimination toward Roma people in the UK. In this respect the High Court should take it into account since it would be a blame for EU and the UK, in particular. Equality in rights is needed to keep the social equilibrium. However, it is a case for EU, as the British government lobbied on issues concerned with equal access to education, employment and housing for Roma people.

3 This is why the case of C should be considered in terms of international commission on the human rights and the right for housing, in particular. What is more, the fact that C could buy the piece of the land in the London Green Belt makes it possible to suppose that she has a host of other rights. According to the ECSR and the Committee on Human Rights in Europe, the right to housing permits the exercise of many other rights – civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights.

4 Hereby, C is eligible in taking her part while solving the issue of stationing her caravans near the local school and healthcare facilities. Roma people and other indigenous ethnical groups living in the UK are also protected by the OSCE conventions on their sustainable integration.5 Hence, it is another standpoint to think of by the High Court while considering the merits of the case. Along with the undeniable fact of purchasing and owning the land, C is allowed to share the rest of the amenities as declared by the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities which the UK belongs to.

6 Thus, the UK government cannot disregard a set of obligations based on the international