Pyrrolate-catalyzed conjugate addition of pyrrole to electron-deficient alkenes

Article abstract of DOI:10.1080/02673030500391171

The conjugate addition of pyrrole as a nitrogen nucleophile can be catalyzed by potassium pyrrolate in coordinating solvents or by lithium pyrrolate in the presence of coordinating ligands offering an efficient route to protected β-amino carbonyl compound

Full text of DOI:10.1080/02673030500391171

This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University]
On: 13 November 2014, At: 20:29
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Housing Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chos20
Talking about Gypsies: The Notion of Discourse as
Control
Joanna Richardson a
a De Montfort University, Centre for Comparative Housing Research , Leicester, UK
Published online: 22 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Joanna Richardson (2006) Talking about Gypsies: The Notion of Discourse as Control, Housing Studies,
21:1, 77-96, DOI: 10.1080/02673030500391171
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673030500391171
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Housing Studies,
Vol. 21, No. 1, 77–96, January 2006
Talking about Gypsies: The Notion
of Discourse as Control
JOANNA RICHARDSON
Centre for Comparative Housing Research, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
(Received July 2004; revised June 2005)
ABSTRACT Gypsies and Travellers are increasingly part of a debate by politicians and the media
in the UK. This discourse is not a benign reflection of events; instead it is part of a complex
mechanism of control. There is a difficult relationship between the settled and travelling
communities which inhibits political discussion of a strategy for site provision. In this context, the
paper examines the links between discourse and control, by paying attention to Foucaultian notions
of the ‘gaze’, amongst other explanations. Drawing on findings from analysis of the media, focus
groups with Travellers and a case study in one local authority planning consultation exercise, the
paper proposes a theoretical explanation for the link between the discourse used around Gypsies and
Travellers and the control that is exercised over them, particularly in inhibiting their right to a
travelling lifestyle.
KEY WORDS: Gypsies/Travellers, discourse, control
Introduction
Gypsies and Travellers have been used by politicians, such as Michael Howard in his 2005
election campaign, as a way of highlighting groups in society that need controlling. It is
seen as a vote-winner to crackdown on these and other ‘folk-devils’ (Cohen, 1980) such as
asylum seekers and young, single mothers. Local authorities are under pressure to ensure
that the needs of Gypsies and Travellers are analysed (for example, the duty to assess
accommodation needs under Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004), yet there is no
legislative duty to build new sites (this was removed by the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994). Research for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Niner, 2003) has
highlighted a shortage of suitable local authority sites, yet Gypsies and Travellers are not
given planning permission to build their own. Recently, there seems to be an increasing
debate around unauthorised development, where Gypsies and Travellers are building sites
without permission, and submitting retrospective applications. The government has
responded to this with Circular 02/2005 on Temporary Stop Notices. The social housing
Correspondence Address: Joanna Richardson, Centre for Comparative Housing Research, De Montfort
University, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK. Tel: 0116 2577434. Fax: 01775 630176. Email:
jrichardson@dmu.ac.uk
ISSN 0267-3037 Print/1466-1810 Online/06/010077–20 q 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02673030500391171

78 J. Richardson
sector faces a difficult time in balancing the needs of settled and travelling communities to
promote cohesion; the discourse used by politicians and the media highlights the tension
between the two. It is a problematic base from which to devise a forward strategy for
accommodation provision and, as such, there is a need to understand how discourse is used
as a tool to control.
The discourse around Gypsies and Travellers is part of a wider, ambiguous, discussion
on equality and diversity in current policy and practice. The government is keen to
promote concepts of citizenship and community within a ‘British’ identity, and it ‘cracks
down’ on those seen to be anti-social. However, a parallel discourse includes diversity of
culture and the need to address institutional racism in public institutions.
The debate surrounding Gypsies and Travellers is current in Whitehall, town halls and
in the media. It is also discussed increasingly in the housing press (Gardiner, 2004; Snow,
2004) and issues of site provision and discrimination are examined in papers such as
The Guardian (Barkham, 2004; Bowers & Benjamin, 2004). These examples of coverage
of the issues are largely positive, as is the news (Beunderman, 2004) that the first Roma
MEP was elected to the European parliament. Despite positive moves to debate the issues,
there is also an increase in negative discursive debate (Greenhill, 2004; Kelly, 2004; Levy,
2004, Lincolnshire Free Press, 2004; Long, 2004; The Sun, 2005). To a large extent, this
negative coverage is centred upon the issue of the cost of dealing with Gypsies and
Travellers, a theme that is central to this paper. There is also recognition that Gypsies and
Travellers are subject to negative, discriminatory discourse that would not be acceptable
against other black and minority ethnic communities (Asthana, 2004).
The current discursive debate is not just limited to the press, but is manifested in recent
legislation such as the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. There is also the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and Circular 02/2005 was published in March 2005
which gave guidance on Temporary Stop Notices, allowed for in Part four of the Act, on
unauthorised developments. Political and legislative debate continues around the Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which took away the duty from local authorities to
provide sites. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Planning, Local
Government and the Regions Select Committee published their report in November 2004,
calling for a duty to be reinstated. The response in early 2005 was that the government did
not feel that a duty was needed. This official response was prompted in a statement given
at the end of 2004:
A duty to provide sites is not necessarily an appropriate solution. A duty has been
tried before and often did not produce sufficient or appropriate provision. (Johnston,
2004, p. 4)
However, ODPM have still asked councils to provide extra sites, in their good practice
guide Diversity in Equality and Planning (March 2005). Commentators suggest this will
not be possible without enforcing a duty (Hilditich, 2005). Additionally, local authorities
should also adhere to the Homelessness Act 2002 which requires them to carry out
homelessness reviews and to formulate and publish strategies; plus the Housing Act 2004
includes Section 225 which places a specific duty on local authorities to assess the
accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. The ODPM has already reprimanded
one council in Brentwood (Inside Housing, 2005), for not including the needs of this group
in their local development plans.

Talking about Gypsies 79
Housing providers need to make sense of their duties under a mixed raft of legislation.
This is not easy within the current discourse, which is positive in some areas of the
press (particularly the housing press) but extremely negative in the more popular press
(see The Sun campaign in March, 2005). This discourse affects strategies for providing
accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. Therefore, there is a need to understand the
discourse surrounding the group and to see how it can be controlling. To do this, a
theoretical approach is examined next, and this is followed with analysis of primary
research undertaken within the framework.
Theoretical Framework
There is an existing body of work that examines frameworks of control or discursive
frameworks; for instance Akerstrom Anderson (2003) and Clegg (1989). The framework
detailed in this paper focuses on Foucault’s theory of gaze and links this with explanations
of discourse. A further component of the framework is an analysis of society, norms and
folk devils. This is in an attempt to explain why control of Gypsies and Travellers, through
discourse, is seen as necessary in society. Neither Akerstrom Anderson (2003) nor Clegg
(1989) tackle this issue; they concentrate on the how, rather than the why. Clegg states as
much in his work:
The circuit of power framework enables us to analyse how this is so. Why it should
be so is another question, suited to more polemical occasions than this text allows.
(Clegg, 1989, p. 272)
The framework has three main areas: first, power and control (Foucault’s gaze, 1969),
second, theories of discourse (and the links between theories on discourse and control,
Foucault, 1976) and, thirdly, theories on society, norms and folk devils (Bauman, 1989;
Cohen, 1980).
Power and Control
For the purposes of this paper, the examination of theories on control and power focuses on
Foucault. In particular, his work on the gaze is important. It might best be described as the
eye of power and control. Foucault describes gaze, thus:
. . . the gaze is not faithful to truth, nor subject to it, without asserting, at the same
time, a supreme mastery: the gaze that sees is a gaze that dominates. (Foucault,
1969, p. 39)
The crucial element in the gaze is the interpretive element. Foucault (1969) was discussing
it in relation to doctors looking at illnesses in their patients. He explained that doctors no
longer passively viewed symptoms, but instead started to actively interpret them. This is
important because this research attempts to link theories of the gaze with those of
discourse and it raises the notion of discourse as control. The gaze is not passive
surveillance, but involves active interpretation and domination. Words and terms used
in the discourse around Gypsies and Travellers are not passively describing a situation
but instead they are interpreting them. The interpretation involved in discourse is based

80 J. Richardson
on a variety of variables including the ontology of the speaker and their social norms and
characteristics.
There are a number of examples of explicit surveillant gaze over Gypsies and
Travellers. For instance, during a project to assess Supporting People needs in the South
West of England, a Gypsy/Traveller Liaison Officer showed the researcher where a closed
circuit television camera had been hidden on a neighbouring property to the site, to record
images for the police.
Foucault’s (1969) research on surveillance was inspired by Bentham’s Panopticon
principle in his 18th century prison designs. Cohen (1985) explains panopticism:
Surveillance and not just punishment became the object of the exercise. The all
seeing world of Bentham’s panopticon is the architectural vision of the new
knowledge/power spiral: the inmate caught in a power which is visible (you can
always see the observation tower) but unverifiable (you must never know when
you are being looked upon at any one moment). The prison is the purest form of
the panopticon principle and the only concrete way to realize it. (Cohen, 1985,
p. 26)
But there are other ways of realising it. Partly, this is through society’s gaze, which is
dominating through active interpretation rather than passively watching. Additionally,
there may be other concrete ways of realising it; such as the architecture of the built
environment (Dovey, 1999).
To help understand how the ‘gaze’ dominates the individual, Nikolas Rose (1999)
examines the connections between individuals and ‘society’, through his concept of
‘grammars of living’:
Individuals are now to be linked into a society through acts of socially sanctioned
consumption and responsible choice, through the shaping of a lifestyle according to
grammars of living that are widely disseminated, yet do not depend upon political
calculations and strategies for their rationales or their techniques. (Rose, 1999, p. 166)
Rose (1999) is also useful in clarifying that the ‘gaze’ is not exercised by one particular
person or organisation. He appears to support Foucault’s (1980) notion of networks of
control and power and he states that there are multiple actors involved. Rose (1999) uses
an example of ‘government of madness’ (p. 278) and says that the controlling authorities
are ‘diverse and disputatious’.
A multitude of other groupings and collectivities have also had their say in the
government of madness—press campaigns, pressure groups, groups established by
individuals whose family members have been damaged psychiatric patients
or damaged by psychiatric patients [sic], local residents protesting . . . (Rose, 1999,
p. 278)
This multitude of other groupings could also be applied to the governance of Gypsies and
Travellers. It is important to include Rose here to remind us that there is no singular
application of a steadfast discourse. Instead, there are multiple actors involved in a
circularity of power and control.

Talking about Gypsies 81
Foucault (1969) did not just believe in the manifestation of the gaze in physical
things, such as Bentham’s panopticon, or a modern day example, surveillance cameras;
he believed that the gaze was internalised. This internalisation would normally manifest
in a person inculcating a social norm, to the extent that they did not know that it wasn’t
their own original thought or idea. The problem of understanding why the gaze is
internalised by some people and not others comes back to the issue of different group
and individual norms: why do some individuals believe in different norms to the rest of
a group, or to other individuals? If internalisation of the gaze, as a tool of power, is
dependent on everyone internalising the same values then there will never be
internalisation wholesale of one value of society, because of different individual and
group norms. Gypsies and Travellers could be viewed as eschewing the norm of living
a settled life in a house. However, this meta-norm of society, of house dwelling, does
not accord with the long history of the norm of nomadism of the Gypsies and
Travellers. In some current examples Gypsies are forced to accept the settled norm
because there is no alternative accommodation provision, but others refuse to do this
and will not give up their norm of nomadism. Cowan & Lomax (2003) highlight this
pressure to conform:
We argue that both policing and welfare require and reinforce conformity to
particular norms as preconditions to legal entitlements, and socially exclude those
who fail to conform. (Cowan & Lomax, 2003, p. 284)
They further discuss this implicit surveillance and the pressure to internalise the gaze:
Equally important, however, is the dispersal of policing processes and practices into
the enquiries and assessments made by welfare professionals . . . Submission to
assessments by health, housing and social services implies a submission to their own
individual surveillance and policing techniques. (Cowan & Lomax, 2003, p. 306)
McNay (1994) reinforces the view that control is exercised indirectly through
normalisation techniques:
Control in modern societies is achieved, therefore, not through direct repression but
through more invisible strategies of normalization. Individuals regulate themselves
through a constant introspective search for their hidden ‘truth’, held to lie in their
innermost identity. (McNay, 1994, p. 97)
Discourse
In housing research, discourse tends to be discussed in two ways, as a theoretical subject
(Clapham, 2002) and as a method of analysis (this occurs across a number of social science
fields, including housing studies). In this paper, the link is made between discourse and
control at a theoretical level, but critical analysis methods, such as through the use of
NVIVO help to examine themes in the media and in public debate. Discourse analysis is
increasingly being used in housing, and also specifically in the field of Gypsies and
Travellers. Of particular importance in this area are: Erjavec (2001); Holloway (2003);
Leudar & Nekvapil (2000); Shuinear (1997); Turner (2000, 2002). Turner’s work

82 J. Richardson
in particular is discussed further on in the paper, as certain themes have resonance with this
research. In addition, Shuinear (1997) helps to understand the Gypsy as folk devil.
The main premise of Foucault’s work on discourse and language is that it is not reactive.
Discourse does not just describe an action or thought. Indeed, for Foucault, discourse is
productive. By talking, or writing, about a particular entity it is possible to recreate it.
Clapham (2002) helps to understand the importance of discourse:
In this way language and knowledge are not copies of reality, but constitute reality,
each language constructing specific aspects of reality, on interpretation and
negotiation of the meaning of the lived world. (Clapham, 2002, p. 61)
However, it is the link between discourse and control that is the focus of this paper.
Foucault specifically links discourse and surveillance:
The examination that places individuals in a field of surveillance also situates them
in a network of writing; it engages them in a whole mass of documents that capture
and fix them. The procedures of examination were accompanied at the same time by
a system of intense registration and of documentary accumulation. A ‘power of
writing’ was constituted as an essential part in the mechanisms of discipline.
(Foucault, 1977, p. 189)
Although a theoretical link can be made between discourse and control, this paper will
later analyse research that sought to test whether this theoretical relationship applied to
Gypsies and Travellers. First, however, it is necessary to discuss further the issue of social
norms, and those seen to live outside them.
Society, Norms and Folk Devils
Objective reality can readily be ‘translated’ into subjective reality, and vice versa.
Language, of course, is the principal vehicle of this ongoing translating process in
both directions. (Berger & Luckmann, 1966: 153)
Berger & Luckmann define society as subjective reality which, through language, links in
with ‘objective’ reality, each defining the other. Not only is this useful in thinking about
what society means, but it shows the links between society, the gaze and discourse. It helps
to explain how the objective ‘reality’ of Gypsies and Travellers is internalised into
subjective reality, but then enters a dialectical process with objective reality again; a cycle
of definition and social construction of reality continues.
The circular route that Berger & Luckmann discuss is key to the theoretical framework
in this paper. In addition, there is an emphasis on the importance of society, what it means
and what is seen to be real in society. A useful debate is that of social ‘norms’, this is
necessary in order to understand that there are people who are seen to exist outside of the
norm. Elster (1989) provides an appropriate base. He states that a norm is social because it
is shared with other people, but also enforced by other people (p. 99). Living in a
permanent dwelling may be seen as a social norm, and as such Gypsies and Travellers, and
homeless people, fall outside of this; these ‘outsiders’ can be described as ‘folk-devils’
(Cohen, 1980). Bauman (1989) examines the importance of ‘proximity’ in the context

Talking about Gypsies 83
of ‘othering’. He explains that ‘othering’ and the notion of proximity leads people to
accept adverse treatment of ‘others’. In Bauman’s study he looked at the treatment of Jews
in Germany during the Second World War, as an example.
Being inextricably tied to human proximity, morality seems to conform to the law of
optical perspective. It looms large and thick close to the eye. With the growth of
distance, responsibility for the other shrivels, moral dimensions of the object blur,
till both reach the vanishing point and disappear from view. (Bauman, 1989, p. 192)
Cohen (1980) and Bauman (1989) have discussed the notion that folk devils serve a
purpose by being different. Shuinear (1997) also supports this functionalist explanation for
distancing Gypsies and Travellers as folk devils (it should be noted that Gaujo is the name
that Gypsies and Travellers give to members of the ‘settled’ community):
This need is so overpowering that time after time, in place after place, Gaujos create
situations forcing Gypsies to fill this role.
It is important to remember that what we’re talking about here are not ‘alien’ faults
and problems but Gaujo’s own; therefore, the people onto whom these are projected
must be clearly distinct from the Gaujo mainstream, but not utterly foreign to it: just
as in cinema, the screen must be neither too close nor too distant if the image
projected onto it is to remain sharply focused. (Shuinear, 1997, p. 27)
This begins to provide a reason for the control of the group, through discourse, and begins
to answer the question of why there is a perceived need for the control of Gypsies and
Travellers.
The framework brings together the above three key areas (see Figure 1). The diagram
shows three stages of a circular route of power and control: what, how and why. It is
circular, rather than linear, because there is no set start and end point. Additionally, there
are no arrows to denote direction of the route, as it is multi-directional and can flow in any
direction.
The question of ‘who’ is controlling and being controlled is different, according to
which marginalised group the framework is being applied to. It is possible to apply the
main theoretical model to any marginalised group, for instance, asylum seekers.
In applying the framework to the empirical material in this paper, the ‘who’
particularly sees the government and the media as controllers. Gypsies and Travellers
are seen as mostly subject to control. It is important to remember from explanations of
resistance by Clegg (1989) and research in housing policy by Marston (2004), and also
Foucault’s description of power (1980), that a ‘target’ of power can also apply power.
Rose (1999) also explained that there is no singular person or organisation doing the
controlling: “Programmes and technologies of government, then, are assemblages
which may have a rationality, but this is not one of a coherence of origin or singular
essence” (p. 276).
Power is relational. A contextual example of this relational, changing power is the
Gypsy Traveller Media Advisory Group (GTMAG). This group monitors media
representations of Gypsies and Travellers in an attempt to see a more positive portrayal.
The act of those under media surveillance, forming a group to monitor the media,

84 J. Richardson
WHY?
WHAT?
THEORIES ON
SOCIETY, NORMS
& FOLK DEVILS
SURVEILLANCE
CONTROL
(Foucault’s
(1969) gaze)
(Cohen, 1980/
Bauman, 1989)
HOW?
DISCOURSE
THEORIES/ LINK
WITH CONTROL
(Foucault,
1976/77)
Figure 1. Theoretical framework
demonstrates a resistance to the flow of power and exemplifies the circular route discussed
by Foucault (1969, 1980).
There are also links with the definition and redefinition of groups through discourse.
For example, Berger & Luckmann (1966) discuss the social construction of reality as
broken into subjective and objective reality. This is especially true when one looks at the
question of who is being controlled. Gypsies and Travellers are defined according to
societal norms and then kept under surveillance through societal discourse which controls
and redefines the group according to new subjective realities. This subjective reality is
then taken as a new objective reality and so the definition and redefinition, through
discourse, continues.
The motivation of government and the media to define and redefine ‘other’ groups is not
explicit, however, a number of researchers moot different ideas. For instance, Cohen
(1980) analyses the need for government to move a general fear into something more
tangible, in order to allow for political shifts. It is possible to see examples of this in
national security issues, post 9/11. The fear of terrorist attack is heightened by government
rhetoric in order that policy and legislative shifts can be made under the guise of protecting
the population. A similar explanation can be found for the government in their discourse
around Gypsies and Travellers. By ‘othering’ them, particularly on the issue of cost, the
theory of proximity (Bauman, 1989) means the general population is less concerned with
adverse treatment of them. It should be noted that there is a differentiation between
government ‘actors’. In this paper, ‘government’ largely refers to central political
government, which is concerned with retaining party political control. However, local
officers, and indeed quasi-governmental officers will have different motives for their

Talking about Gypsies 85
discourse around, and treatment of, Gypsies and Travellers. The local gate-keeping role
(Lipsky, 1980) would be an interesting area for future research in Gypsy/Traveller
discourse.
The reason for the media ‘othering’ Gypsies and Travellers is perhaps not as clear as
that of government. However, one suggestion is that by perpetuating the stereotype of
Gypsies and Travellers as ‘folk-devil’ it enables more newspapers to be sold (and thus the
link with cost as motive is further enforced). The ‘othering’ discourse surrounding Gypsies
and Travellers serves to heighten their presence in society, which makes it easier to
monitor them. This discourse redefines Gypsies and Travellers further, as folk devils, and
refuels the motive to ‘other’ them, and so the cycle continues.
The theoretical framework enables some of the concepts such as power, control, gaze
and discourse to be operationalised in the analysis of the empirical material. It outlines
what type of power and control is being used (surveillance/gaze), how it is being used
(through discourse) and why it is being used (to ‘other’ those that don’t conform to societal
norms).
Talking about Gypsies
To begin, a literature review was undertaken; this examined key texts. The primary
research focused on the way that people talk about Gypsies and Travellers, and how this
forms part of a controlling discourse. Three elements were involved in the primary
research strategy: media analysis, public consultation in Colchester, and focus groups with
Gypsies and Travellers (see Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of methodological approach
Approach
Methodology
Media analysis
Search of English and Welsh national and local
newspapers for the month of October 2003,
using Lexis Nexis database. 54 articles were found,
eight were discounted (e.g. they referred to a football
team called the Gypsies), 13 articles were viewed as being
largely positive, with the remaining 33 articles having
a negative focus. Coding and analysis of the articles was
conducted using NVIVO software.
Planning consultation
in Colchester
Effectively this part of the research analysed 100% of the
sample frame as Colchester was the only local authority
debating new site provision at the time (December 2003).
The meeting allowed for the researcher to be observer,
without any direct involvement in the discussion. Ongoing
communication with the Planning Officer also facilitated
access to previous consultation information where 598
responses from the public had been received
by the council.
Gypsy/Traveller focus
groups
A series of four focus groups was held, with a mixture of
Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers, from November to
early December 2003. Meetings were held at a
Community College, in the East Midlands.

86 J. Richardson
This approach aimed to triangulate the methodology to enable the talk about Gypsies
and Travellers to be analysed from a number of angles. A number of themes emerged from
the literature review, and these were used as key words in the analysis and explanation of
the discourse:
. Mess and cost.
. Site provision, including size and location of sites.
. Labelling—Gypsies or Travellers?
. Folk Devils.
. Who is talking about Gypsies and Travellers? (This final theme was analytical,
rather than discursive.)
It is important to remember that these themes are not merely describing the views of the
media, the public and Gypsies and Travellers. Instead, they construct new social ‘truths’
about them (see Clapham, 2002). The use of language seems to precipitate further action.
It is not the saying of the words that is the ultimate control, but instead is where it may lead
to extra vigorous policing, or renewed focus on trespass legislation or planning legislation.
Examples of this can be physical action (Lodge, 2004), implementation of legislation
(Morris, 1998), or increased visibility and surveillance that dominates the travelling
community.
Having included a brief summary of the research methodology, the paper now gives an
analysis of the findings, on a thematic basis.
Themes of Discourse and Control
Throughout the primary research, a number of themes were identified. Each of these
themes is discussed, below.
Mess and Cost
One of the most significant themes to come out in the findings of the media coding and
analysis was that of mess and cost. In the findings from the media analysis, there were a
number of ‘negative’ articles that discussed mess. This is a common theme across all three
elements of the primary research. The public consultation linked mess and cost with
Gypsies and Travellers. During the focus groups with Gypsies and Travellers, they too
knew that they were linked with mess but they felt unable to defend themselves and
change this perception.
The theme of mess was linked closely with cost. The issue of cost and mess was
couched in a way to tell the reader ‘you are paying for all this through your council tax’.
Examples of this include: “Mess left by travellers over the last two years has cost Redditch
taxpayers £50 000 to clean up” (This is Worcestershire, 2003, p. 9). “Birmingham
taxpayers have forked out tens of thousands of pounds to evict [Travellers] and clear up
their mess and litter” (Birmingham Evening Mail, 2003, p. 5). A headline in one local
newspaper said “£60 000 to keep them out” and it went on to describe the years of work
and the amount of money spent in clearing a greenfield site, and then making it ‘traveller-
proof’ for the future (This is Wiltshire, 2003, p. 1). Another newspaper carried a similar
article in which it stated that “On Wednesday Camarthenshire County Council completed
a two-day clean-up of the site, removing rubbish—including nappies and tyres—in an
operation reputedly costing more than £6000” (South Wales Evening Post, 2003, p. 2).

Talking about Gypsies 87
The discourse of the cost of Gypsies and Travellers is powerful. It quantifies the
expense of ‘otherness’ in a way that could make the settled community feel the travelling
lifestyle is too expensive to society. The particular examples from newspapers, discussed
above, make the cost of Travellers personal to the reader. This ‘costing’ of the lives of
Gypsies and Travellers was examined by Morris & Clements (2002). They looked at the
cost of not providing sites, rather than focusing on the cost of provision. They also made
the point that a lifestyle could not really have a numerical value placed upon it and
indeed, by trying to cost a lifestyle, this heightened the ‘otherness’ (costliness) of that
lifestyle.
Cost was a key theme in public speech at the planning meeting, and information from a
prior consultation exercise (which saw 598 responses received by the council) also
reflected the importance placed on cost and mess. Although, in Colchester, the issue of
cost did not just relate to the cost of clearing up mess; it also seemed to relate to the
perceived cost of reduced value in property prices. Examples of some of the quotes from
previous written objections, provided by the Planning Officer, included:
. “What would you think if you bought a £150K house from Barratts to find your
neighbours were Gypsies?”
. “The value of my property which I work hard to pay for would drop in value
overnight. Perhaps the Council would be prepared to compensate people living
close to this site”.
. “. . . put them back in Haven Road with a site warden to keep them and the site
clean and hygienically tidy”.
. “These Travellers contribute nothing, only filth”.
. “MESS, THIEVING AND POLLUTION”.
. “The Police admit they have no control as to when or where they turn up, or any
control of Travellers what-so-ever”.
. “Surely cost should be one of the most important factors? After all, it’s someone
else’s money you are spending”.
. “Looking at the last location near the Hythe river, the mess they left, the horses
wandering around and the general squalor of the site appals me and we DO NOT
want it here”.
. “I have first hand experience of Travellers and the carnage they leave behind”.
(Colchester Borough Council, Relocation of Gypsy/Travellers Site Report to
Council, 30 September 2002, Appendix One)
Negative speech was the dominant discourse around cost, however, there was a resistant
discourse (Clegg, 1989; Marston, 2004) from Gypsies and Travellers. There is an
assumption that Travellers settle on green fields and then leave a mess. It is further
suggested that any rubbish left on a Travellers’ site was left there by Travellers;
however, this is not always the case, as was highlighted by a Traveller in his letter
to The Cornishman newspaper:
1. We did not force any padlock or gate to enter the site; we merely lifted off the
chain and opened the gate which is left unlocked . . .
2. We do not drive untaxed vehicles.
3. We have not caused any damage to the land (or gate) and intend only to enhance
the site.

88 J. Richardson
This is not rural pastureland but a ‘brownfield site’—and a highways dump and local
fly-tipping spot which has been cleaned up, cared for and enhanced by a community
of people who have appreciated living here and becoming part of the community and
have felt, on the whole, very welcome. (The Cornishman, 2003b, p. 35)
Cost and mess is the most important theme to come out of this research, it links with
findings from other empirical research (Morris & Clements, 2002) and it is also explained
by two stages of the theoretical framework (see Figure 1). ‘Cost’ is a unique theme in that
it can be placed in the ‘how’ or ‘why’ section of the framework. It is possible that
reduction of cost is a motive for the government to ‘other’ the Gypsy/Traveller lifestyle in
its rhetoric. However, the language of ‘cost’ is also the method of achieving a ‘folk-devil’
status for the travelling community amongst the public and in the media.
Site Provision and Facilities
Gypsies and Travellers wanted to talk about the benefit of new site provision, a theme not
found in the media analysis or public consultation. The current lack of site provision
(Crawley, 2004; Niner, 2003) is a further manifestation of public discourse. Gypsies and
Travellers are seen as vote-losers by politicians, and the government of the day does not
want to be seen to pay ‘taxpayers’ money’ to an unpopular cause (Michael Howard, in his
2005 election campaign, attempted to make political capital out of ‘othering’ Gypsies and
Travellers and distancing them from any expenditure plans the Conservatives may have
had). The issue of new site provision is a double-edged sword. If enough sites were
provided it would reduce unpopular, unauthorised encampments. This is not to suggest
that new site provision would provide a Utopian ideal where there would be no more
divisions between the travelling and settled communities. It would, nevertheless, reduce
illegal development and unauthorised encampments that do give rise to friction. However,
to provide more sites the government would have to spend money on a group that is
unpopular in public discourse and is seen as ‘costly’ to society.
The Travellers in the focus groups felt they were being controlled by lack of site provision
and lack of services. Some of the women in one of the groups said that their privately run
site, owned by Travellers, did not have washing facilities and that the nearest public shower
facility was eight miles away. One of the women said that each of her four children was
charged £2 every time they had a shower and she was charged a little bit more. She felt
cheated by the cost of the shower but said she was a clean person and was aware of the public
perception of Gypsies and Travellers as dirty and messy. By charging so much, the owner of
the facility was almost challenging this woman’s family not to wash every day, as was the
site owner who did not provide arrangements for washing. They felt that what was needed
was more council site provision with toilet and washing facilities. All of the Travellers in the
focus group agreed that increased site provision would reduce unauthorised encampments
and would perhaps reduce the tensions between the settled and travelling communities.
The theme of site provision also extends to the location and size of existing and
proposed sites. During the Colchester consultation, the framework examining potential
sites used a points system. Proximity to residential and commercial sites carried negative
points in the consultation process. Additionally, the public were clear that they wanted the
number of pitches on the new site to be limited; the preference for smaller sites is echoed
by Gypsies and Travellers.

Talking about Gypsies 89
Bauman’s theory of proximity (1989) is important in explaining the concern over the
location and size of Travellers’ sites. Sites need to be physically distant from the settled
population; this allows Gypsies and Travellers to be seen as ‘other’ and prevents them
from being known as ‘real’. This means the ‘truth’ about them can be socially constructed
and reinterpreted through discourse. The issue of distancing and the theory of proximity is
an important component in explaining how discursive control is exercised, according to
the theoretical framework.
Labelling: Gypsies or Travellers?
The desire to classify, characterise and label satisfies a fundamental human need . . .
The processes of defining, labelling and representing Gypsies are much the same as
those involving any group, especially minority groups. The stereotypical
descriptions adopt and adapt the language and concepts of any given period, and
so reveal the nature and distribution of power in society. . . (Mayall, 2004, p. 276)
A theme which runs through the media, public and Gypsy/Traveller discourse is labelling.
This is an issue that applies not just to Gypsies and Travellers but particularly also the
debate on asylum seekers where the term ‘bogus’ has been common currency in previous
political debate.
Two newspaper articles, in the media analysis, focused on the distinction between
Gypsies and Travellers. Both of these were in fact letters from local people in the settled
community and they were negative in their portrayal:
. . . Some of these people are threatening in their behaviour, aggressive. There may
be the odd family group who are genuine but in my experience they don’t often ‘park
up’ with larger groups.
Penwith please be realistic, stop calling this group ‘travellers’—they’re hardly of the
Benedict Allen variety of ‘Romany Ryes’—gypsies never camp with ‘travellers’.
Save Penwith from becoming an easy place to doss. (The Cornishman, 2003a, p. 35)
As well as marking out a distinction between Travellers and Gypsies, fake and genuine,
the author of the article also heightens the Travelling community as ‘other’. Terms such as
‘these people’ followed with negative associated characteristics, again serve to heighten
the presence of the Gypsy or Traveller in the local population and to mark them out for
surveillance and control. Terms like ‘these people’ also link in with the theory of
proximity (Bauman, 1989) which discusses the ‘othering’ of people who are perceived to
be different, in order to make it easier to treat them badly. ‘These people’, Gypsies and
Travellers, are not like ‘us’ and therefore do not need to be treated with the respect that
‘ordinary people’ would expect.
The second letter is also negative, but specifically against Travellers as opposed to ‘real’
Gypsies.
. . . Gypsies are members of the Romany tribe. They are extremely honest, hard-
working and clean. Unlike gypsies, travellers are thieves, liars, lazy and dirty—as
we have learned to our cost here in Eldene. (Western Daily Press, 2003b, p. 12)

90 J. Richardson
It is virtually impossible to imagine a published piece of writing about any other ethnic
group, describing them as ‘thieves, liars, lazy and dirty’, being allowed past the editorial
control of the newspaper. Why then, does it seem to be acceptable to talk about Gypsies
and Travellers in this way? The writer of the letter also assumes to be blessed with the
knowledge that allows them to distinguish between ‘real’ and ‘fake’ Gypsies, just by
looking at them (Acton, 1994). In providing a distinction, the writer of the letter is making
the job of the surveillant society even easier. ‘Do not worry about the good traditional
Gypsies: concentrate on the dirty, thieving Travellers—they are the ones who need
controlling’, is what this distinction is saying. Mayall (2004) discusses the issue of
labelling and Gypsies and Travellers. One of the problems he identifies is the dual
definition of Gypsies and Travellers, on the one hand, according to race, and on the other,
to nomadism. This confusion in political and legal terminology exacerbates the problem of
labelling in other areas of discourse, such as media debate.
One letter, published in the local press, gave a Gypsy/Traveller view of the labelling
issue:
There is still an enormous amount of prejudice. In fact, we are treated like the Red
Indians of America. People want us to keep to reservations. There has always been
an inbred fear of the Romany. If Romanies move into a village and people find out,
many will start saying that the gypsies will be stealing diesel and so on. When I put
in for planning permission in the same village where my parents had lived for 30
years, I faced a huge amount of prejudice and people collected money to try to buy
me out. (Western Daily Press, 2003a, p. 6)
The focus groups with Gypsies and Travellers echoed the problem with labelling. Romany
Gypsies and Irish Travellers mainly wanted to be known as Gypsies and Travellers,
respectively. However, some Romany Gypsies felt that the word ‘Gypsy’ had been
tarnished with negative connotation, and preferred the more generic term of ‘Traveller’.
This is different to the perception of the letter writer from Eldene, above, who has a very
clear idea that Gypsies are acceptable and Travellers are not. The word ‘Gypsy’ has been
shortened, in some colloquial language, to ‘Gypo’. This is a derogatory term and it could
be this that has tarnished the word Gypsy.
The lack of objection to discriminatory language and labelling in news reports and
public speech, demonstrates public acquiescence (Zelizer, 1993). Negative labelling of
Gypsies and Travellers does not meet resistance from readers or listeners because they are
agreeing to the social construction of the ‘truth’ about Gypsies and Travellers through the
discriminatory discourse.
Folk Devils
This theme follows on from the issue of labelling and it, again, links with Cohen (1980)
and Bauman (1989). In a discussion with the Planning Officer at Colchester Borough
Council, the image of Gypsies and Travellers as ‘other’, as folk devils, was examined.
From historical information on site provision, it became apparent that there had been an
issue with one particular site, which since closed. Originally this was populated and
managed by Romany Gypsies, but the Gypsy manager then left and Irish Travellers started
to move in. The Romanies and Irish were not at ease with each other and the Romany

Talking about Gypsies 91
Gypsies left. At the same time, the previously unpopulated surrounding area started to
build up both commercially and residentially:
As a result the two communities [settled and travelling] were thrown together.
Interestingly, if you talk to people today there are a lot of urban myths of how bad
the Travellers were, from murders to eating people’s pets. At the time however, very
few complaints were raised. Without a doubt the criticism of Travellers has grown
over the intervening years.
Local populations have difficulty in distinguishing between unauthorised camping
and staying on an authorised site. They assume that Travellers are all dirty and
trouble. Quite clearly the majority of residents have a prejudice related to Travellers
which is now being fuelled by stories that have either no evidence or no way of
determining who could have been responsible. (Planning Officer, Colchester
Borough Council, 2004)
The history of people’s views of Travellers in Colchester helped to contextualise the
objections raised by the public in the consultation exercise; and the views of local people
seemed to categorise Gypsies and Travellers as folk devils. It is interesting to see that the
views have become more extreme in the years since the site was closed. This echoes
Bauman’s theory of proximity (1989) in that it seems the longer the period of time from the
site being inhabited, the more ‘other’ the Gypsies and Travellers were. There are also links
with Morris’ research (2000, 2002). It seems that the more extreme the characteristic—
murdering, eating pets—the less like ‘normal’ settled members of the community Gypsies
and Travellers are. This makes it easier for the settled community to deny them decent
homes, access to schools or welcoming neighbours. The myth of local discourse, as with the
socially constructed ‘truth’ of the media, is so strong that they cannot remember the reality.
There has been some research conducted in Scotland which looks at views of
Travellers’ sites, which may back up this theory of proximity. Duncan (1996) examined
neighbours’ views of three proposed sites for Travellers. He examined public opposition to
the planning permission, and then revisited some of the complainants to ask their views
after the site had been up and running for a while:
We have to conclude that the three sites which were the subject of this study have
had far less impact on their ‘neighbours’ than these people anticipated before the
sites were set up. The picture we obtained is that the sites have generally fitted into
their chosen surroundings better than people living in the neighbourhood
anticipated . . ..
It would be fair to say that our study backs up the view that official sites do settle
down to a large extent after they are developed. In none of the sites examined were
the number and intensity of objections an appropriate response in retrospect.
(Duncan, 1996, p. 14)
The Gypsies and Travellers that the Scottish neighbours were objecting to were the
mythical messy, costly, troublesome Travellers that are the subject of local discourse and
media social construction. However, the Gypsies and Travellers who actually populated

92 J. Richardson
the three sites were not like the people the neighbours had been imagining. The ‘otherness’
of the Gypsies and Travellers seemed to be less marked. There is some merit in replicating
Duncan’s (1996) methodology in Colchester. It would be interesting to find out the views
of the neighbours to any new sites, once approved and developed; they may show
similarities to the Scottish example.
The stereotyping of Gypsies and Travellers as folk devils was discussed, in the
theoretical framework, as part of the motive behind the media’s negative discourse.
Erjavec (2001) also found this in her empirical work, of their representation in the
Slovenian media. She found that unless they were stereotyped, they were not newsworthy.
The Gypsy, as costly and messy, sells more newspapers than the Gypsy who is represented
as ‘normal’.
Who is Talking about Gypsies and Travellers?
As part of the coding of the newspaper reports on Gypsies and Travellers, the origins of
direct quotes were examined. Speech was put into ‘ownership’ nodes, for example:
Travellers, local people, and politicians (councillors and Members of Parliament).
The ‘negative’ comments in the articles were then analysed according to who had said
them. In 14 instances it was a local person quoted with a negative comment, but in nine
instances it was a local councillor or MP. Of the negative comments 26 per cent were from
political representatives of local constituencies, people who had been voted in by local
members of the public to best represent their needs. Therefore, they could be seen to be
speaking on behalf of local constituents.
It seems that the very people who should carefully consider what they say are the ones
expounding negative images about Gypsies and Travellers. One such comment, from a
Swindon Councillor, said: “Hopefully, after all these years, we’ll finally see an end to the
illegal invasions which have caused so much misery and anger in this area” (Western Daily
Press, 2003a, p. 25). A Councillor, in Grimsby, talked about the costs associated with
Travellers, and said: “. . . increased costs of educating extra children and the potential
tension caused by possibly hundreds of travellers moving into the area” (Turner, 2003,
p. 10). The Chair of Stowe Town Council talked about abusive Gypsy youths and how
female shopkeepers had to be protected from their intimidation during the Stowe fair
(Gloucestershire Echo, 2003, p. 5). Two Birmingham Councillors showed their
impatience in an article about moving Travellers on. They suggested that evictions
were delayed because Traveller women claimed they were pregnant and one of the
Councillors referred to an example where a Traveller family was not moved on because
one of their children was in hospital (Bell, 2003, p. 5).
Because of their status in the local community, what local Councillors and MPs say
bears significance on the public discourse on Gypsies and Travellers. When elected
officials use discriminatory language about Gypsies and Travellers it has the appearance of
sanctioning the discriminatory discourse. This may be partly due to the fact that, as a
group, Gypsies and Travellers can lose votes and as such politicians are not interested to
support them. Crawley suggests as much: “What was lacking was the political will to
ensure that the accommodation needs of Travellers and Gypsies were addressed”
(Crawley, 2004, p. 19). Indeed, the Conservative 2005 election campaign relied partly on a
tough approach to Gypsies and Travellers, for example, by suggesting that
European Human Rights legislation should not be adhered to in the case of Gypsies and

Talking about Gypsies 93
Travellers (Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1988 is one of the main defences used in
Traveller cases).
In some instances senior politicians have been as acquiescent as the public in allowing
discriminatory discourse to unfairly label Gypsies and Travellers and mark them out
for surveillance by society. In one extreme example of discriminatory discourse used
in the House of Commons in 2002, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, Mr Andrew
MacKay said:
The cost to council tax payers, where there are natural budgetary restraints, is great.
Ordinary, innocent people—hard-working, normal, straightforward people who live
around Bracknell—want to get on with their lives in peace, but they want protection
under the law when they are invaded by this scum. They are scum, and I use the word
advisedly. People who do what these people have done do not deserve the same
human rights as my decent constituents going about their everyday lives. (MacKay,
2002) (Emphasis added)
MacKay’s use of inflammatory and discriminatory language was not picked up by other
Members of Parliament. Indeed, Angela Eagle (Under-secretary of State for the Home
Office at the time) spoke of her gratitude to the Right Honourable Member for raising this.
Eagle did state that Travellers should be seen as part of society, but she did not comment
on the use of language by MacKay (Eagle, 2002).
Therefore. it should not be surprising that the language of local politicians and officials,
as exemplified in the October 2003 news reports, discriminates against Gypsies and
Travellers. The example from the House of Commons is that it is acceptable to talk about
Gypsies and Travellers in discriminatory language. This public discourse about Gypsies
and Travellers contains so many socially constructed ‘truths’ that it does not seem to be
noticed or commented upon.
Therefore, whilst at first the fact that 26 per cent of the negative comments quoted in
the October 2003 press were from local councillors and MPs may seem high, an
examination of national political and public discourse goes some way to explaining it.
This finding is supported by research undertaken by Turner (2002) who found
parliamentary language to be overwhelmingly negative. He analysed a number of
speeches, including one made by Anne Widdecombe:
Miss Widdecombe was very explicit about the need for ‘control’. It was mentioned
by her several times. Indeed, the British way of life itself was threatened. She closed
her speech by arguing that there was a need to find a means of ‘controlling the
menace before it becomes a greater one, when it will no longer be so easy to bring it
within the laws that apply to the rest of civilised Britain’. (Turner, 2002, pp. 7–8)
Conclusion
One of the strongest themes to come out of the research was the association of ‘mess’ and
‘cost’ with Gypsies and Travellers. This was not evidenced by those who spoke of mess
in the media or the public meeting, in any systematic way (although a cost was attributed
to mess), but instead it demonstrated a socially constructed ‘truth’ both in the media and
the local population in Colchester.

94 J. Richardson
It was discussed, earlier, how ‘mess’ and ‘cost’ seemed to be emotive language that
made the settled community more prejudiced over the travelling community. The media
makes the links between ‘mess’ and ‘cost’ and Gypsies and Travellers, as does the settled
community; this was exemplified in the Colchester debate. The former did so because
of proprietorial pressure to use emotive headlines to sell newspapers (Kundnani, 2004).
The latter seemed to do it in order to win their objections against neighbouring planning
proposals for Travellers’ sites. Although ‘mess’ and ‘cost’ was the strongest theme in
research for this paper, the newspaper and current political debate seems to have moved
on, since 2003, to a current discourse of ‘unfairness’. This is particularly centred upon
unauthorised development of new private sites. This may be linked to a perception of an
increase in more Travellers building sites on their own land and breaching planning
legislation (following which ODPM issued Circular 02/2005), rather than a previous
concern of ‘unauthorised camping’ on roadsides and common ground.
Whatever the individual motive of the speaker of the negative terms and phrases, there
seems to be an overall desire to mark the Gypsy or Traveller out as ‘other’; as different
to the people in the settled community. Whether they are creators of mess and rubbish
(media analysis), eating people’s pets (Colchester folk devils), or whether they are
‘getting away’ with breaching planning control (current debate in national and local
press) the aim of the discourse is to highlight their ‘otherness’ and to increase their
visibility in society.
The theoretical framework is a useful aid to interpret the empirical data. It explains the
circuitous route of discourse as control and it serves as an example of how the motive to
‘other’ reinforces the stereotype and that this reinforced image causes a moral panic and a
need for further surveillance. This then produces more discriminatory discourse that
reinterprets the Gypsy/Traveller stereotype; and on it goes.
References
Acton, T. (1994) Modernisation, moral panics and the Gypsies, Sociology Review, 4, September, pp. 24–28.
Akerstrom Anderson, N. (2003) Discursive Analytical Strategies, Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Lacalau
and Luhmann (Bristol: The Policy Press).
Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003) (London: HMSO). Available at www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30038–
h.htm (accessed 24 April 2004).
Asthana, A. (2004) Gypsies are new race hate target, The Observer, 15 November, p. 5.
Barkham, P. (2004) Gypsies worker, 80, to return MBE in anger at policy, The Guardian, 10 August, p. 5.
Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust (Oxford: Polity Press).
Bell, D. (2003) Gypsy curse, Birmingham Evening Mail, Midland Independent Newspapers plc, 24 October, p. 5.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality, A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge
(Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd).
Beunderman, M. (2004) Roma MEP urges Commission to act for her people. Available at www.romea.cz/
english/index.php (accessed 11 August 2004).
Birmingham Evening Mail (2003) Brum is Gypsy capital, Midland Independent Newspapers plc, 24 October, p. 5.
Bowers, J. & Benjamin, A. (2004) Pitch battles, The Guardian Society, 28 July, pp. 2–3.
Clapham, D. (2002) Housing pathways: a post modern analytical framework, Housing Theory and Society, 19,
pp. 57–68.
Clegg, S. (1989) Frameworks of Power (London: Sage).
Cohen, S. (1980) Folk Devils and Moral Panics, The Creation of the Mods and Rockers (Oxford: Martin
Robertson).
Cohen, S. (1985) Visions of Social Control (Oxford: Polity Press).
Colchester Borough Council, Relocation of Gypsy/Travellers Site Report to Council, 30 September 2002,
Appendix One.

Talking about Gypsies 95
Cowan, D. & Lomax, D. (2003) Policing unauthorised camping, Journal of Law and Society, 30, pp. 283–308.
Crawley, H. (2004) Moving Forward, The Provision of Accommodation for Travellers and Gypsies (London:
Institute of Public Policy Research).
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) (London: HMSO).
Dovey, K. (1999) Framing Place, Mediating Power in Built Form (London: Routledge).
Duncan, T. (1996) Neighbours’ Views of Official Sites for Travelling People (Glasgow: The Planning Exchange).
Eagle, A. (2002) House of Commons Hansard Debates, Part 5, 15 January. Available at http://www.publications.
parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl (accessed 16 June 2003).
Elster, J. (1989) The Cement of Society, A Study of Social Order (New York: University of Cambridge).
Erjavec, K. (2001) Media representation of the discrimination against the Roma in Eastern Europe: the case of
Slovenia, Discourse and Society, 12, pp. 699–727.
Foucault, M. (1969) The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception, translated by A. M. Sheridan
(London: Tavistock Publications).
Foucault, M. (1976) The History of Sexuality: 1 The Will to Knowledge (London: Penguin Books Ltd).
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish, The Birth of the Prison (London: Penguin Books Ltd).
Foucault, M. (1980), in: C. Gordon (Ed.) Power/Knowledge (Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd).
Gardiner, J. (2004) Corporation will pay RSLs to build and manage Gypsy sites, Housing Today, 30 July, p. 9.
Gloucestershire Echo (2003) Hotline will curb Fair problems, 18 October, p. 5.
Greenhill, S. (2004) March of the Gipsy camps, Daily Mail, 15 November, p. 1.
Hilditich, M. (2005) ODPM takes Gypsies and Travellers’ side in sites row, Housing Today, 11 March, p. 9.
Holloway, S. (2003) Outsiders in rural society? Constructions of rurality and nature-social relations in the
racialisation of English Gypsy-Travellers, 1869–1934, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21,
pp. 695–715.
Homelessness Act (2002) (London: The Stationery Office).
Inside Housing (2005) Government set to use new gypsy land powers, Inside Housing, 11 March, p. 6.
Johnston, P. (2004) MPs in call for more official gipsy camps, The Daily Telegraph, 8 November, p. 4.
Kelly, T. (2004) £350,000 That’s the bill (so far) to evict 450 travellers from their illegal camp, Daily Mail,
1 November, p. 31.
Kundnani, A. (2004) Express newspaper faces criticism from its own journalists for anti-Roma stance,
Independent race and refugee news network, 4 February. Available at http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/february/
ak000006.html (accessed 6 February 2004).
Leudar, I. & Nekvapil, J. (2000) Presentations of Romanies in the Czech media: on category work in television
debates, Discourse and Society, 11, pp. 487–513.
Levy, A. (2004) Village in dread of travellers who sent the builders in first, Daily Mail, p. 27.
Lincolnshire Free Press (2004) Travellers’ site ruling ‘invitation to anarchy’, 5 October, p. 3.
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy, Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russell
Sage Foundation).
Lodge, A. (2004) What happened next?, Observer Magazine, 28 March, p. 65.
Long, R. (2004) Travellers vow to fight to stay at site, Lincolnshire Free Press, 14 September, p. 5.
MacKay, A. (2002) House of Commons Hansard Debates, Part 5, 15 January. Available at http://www.
publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl (accessed 16 June 2003).
Marston, G. (2004) Managerialism and public housing reform, Housing Studies, 19, pp. 5–20.
Mayall, D. (2004) Gypsy Identities 1500–2000, From Egipcyans and Moon-Men to the Ethnic Romany (London:
Routledge).
McNay, L. (1994) Foucault, a Critical Introduction (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Morris, R. (1998) Gypsies and the planning system, Journal of Planning and Environmental Law, July,
pp. 635–643.
Morris, R. (2000) Gypsies, Travellers and the media: press regulation and racism in the UK, Communications
Law, 5, pp. 213–219.
Morris, R. & Clements, L. (2002) At What Cost? The Economics of Gypsy and Traveller Encampments (Bristol:
Policy Press).
Niner, P. (2003) Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller Sites in England (London: ODPM).
ODPM (2004) Select Committee Report: Gypsy/Traveller Sites (London: The Stationery Office).
ODPM (2005) Circular 02/2005 (London: ODPM).
ODPM (2005) Diversity in Equality and Planning (London: ODPM).
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) (London: The Stationery Office).

96 J. Richardson
Planning Officer (2004) Colchester Borough Council, interview by telephone, 10 February.
Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom, Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Shuinear, S. (1997) Why do Gaujos hate Gypsies so much, anyway?, in: T. Acton (Ed.) Gypsy Politics and
Traveller Identity (Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press).
Snow, E. (2004) Nomad’s land, Housing Today, 3 September, pp. 21–24.
South Wales Evening Post (2003) Stones moved as Travellers arrive, 3 October, p. 2.
The Cornishman (2003a) I don’t think so, 23 October, p. 35.
The Cornishman (2003b) Come and meet your nomadic neighbours, 23 October, p. 35.
The Sun (2005) Stamp on the camps, 9 March, p. 1.
This is Wiltshire (2003) £60,000 to keep them out, 6 October, p. 1.
This is Worcestershire (2003) £50,000 mess bill, 27 October, p. 9.
Turner, L. (2003) Benefit reforms to present problems, Grimsby Evening Telegraph, 11 October, p. 10.
Turner, R. (2000) Gypsies and politics in Britain, The Political Quarterly, 71, pp. 68–77.
Turner, R. (2002) Gypsies and British parliamentary language: an analysis, Romani Studies, 5(12), pp. 1–34.
Western Daily Press (2003a) The end of the road for Travellers in town, 10 October, p. 25.
Western Daily Press (2003b) Travellers are not Gypsies, 15 October, p. 12.
Zelizer, B. (1993) Narratives of self-legitimation, in: D. Mumby (Ed.) Narrative and Social Control: Critical
Perspectives (London: Sage).