Eliminating communities? Exploring the implications of policing methods used to manage New Travellers

ARTICLE IN PRESS

InternationalJournal of the

Sociology of LawInternational Journal of the Sociology of Law

33 (2005) 159–168

0194-6595/$ -

doi:10.1016/j

�Tel.: +4E-mail ad

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsl

Eliminating communities? Exploring the implicationsof policing methods used to manage New Travellers

Zoe James�

School of Sociology, Politics and Law, Faculty of Social Science and Business, University of Plymouth,

Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK

Accepted 29 July 2005

Abstract

This paper sets out to explore the implications of the management of New Travellers by police

under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA). Based on empirical research the

paper initially describes the New Travellers experience of policing and the law prior to and post the

CJPOA’s enactment. Having established that New Travellers rarely experience the law through

the courts, but instead are policed using a range of methods including those provided by the CJPOA,

the paper moves on to analyse the implications of such management. It concludes by surmising that

the New Travellers are a community who are culturally excluded through extensive policing and

legislation which could result in the elimination of their community and others similarly defined as

‘dangerous’.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the 1980s and 1990s in Britain the Conservative Government created legislation thatincorporated provisions to manage nomadic communities. These provisions grew up as aresponse to large groups of New Travellers living in vehicles, moving around England andWales to attend festivals, hold outdoor parties, take part in anti-nuclear protests and settleon land for periods of time between such events. In this paper, I will discuss the implicationsof the development of this legislation and the policing methods that have accompanied it

see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

.ijsl.2005.07.002

4 0 1752 233252; fax: +44 0 1752 233206.

dress: [email protected].

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsl

ARTICLE IN PRESSZ. James / International Journal of the Sociology of Law 33 (2005) 159–168160

that could potentially function to eliminate the New Traveller community. I will do this byaddressing the key findings of my empirical research that explored the use of this legislationon New Travellers in the period 1995–1998: immediately after the most extensive provisionswere set out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA).I will initially outline the genesis of the CJPOA by setting out a brief history of the New

Travellers and their relationship to the police and State. Having established this context Iwill then go on to address the core aim of the paper which is to consider the implications ofthe enactment of the CJPOA to law, community and policing in England and Wales. Theseimplications are far reaching and cause for concern for the New Travellers themselves, butalso for other similarly ‘dangerised’ (Lianos and Douglas, 2000) communities in society.The doctoral research that has resulted in this paper developed out of a Home Office

evaluation of the CJPOA public order provisions (Bucke and James, 1998). As part of thatstudy 18 in depth interviews were carried out with police officers throughout England andthose interviews were re-analysed for my doctoral study. I then carried out 14 in depthinterviews with New Travellers who had travelled all over England1.

2. The history of New Travellers—before ‘94

The New Travellers are a community (Dearling, 2001, James, 2004) who have beenliving in vehicles and travelling around the UK since the mid-1970s. They can be culturallydefined as having been borne out of hippy ideology, quite different from racial groups ofTraditional Travellers such as Gypsies. The New Travellers began travelling after the 1974Peoples Free Festival at Stonehenge when they discovered it was easier to travel fromfestival to festival throughout the summer, living in vehicles, rather than going home.Ultimately the vehicles became home. The New Travellers are now in their fourthgeneration of travelling and represent a broad community rather than one typified by theoriginal 1970s hippy ideals (Earle et al, 1994, McKay, 1996, Martin, 2002). Incoming NewTravellers are commonly recognised to have been pushed or pulled into travelling due to arange of circumstances including poor home lives, homelessness or poverty (Davis et al,1994, Webster and Millar, 2001, Martin, 2002). There are no accurate counts of thenumbers of New Travellers anywhere in England and Wales, the only available figurehaving been produced from data in 1995 that estimates their number at 6000 (Staines,1998). Annual Gypsy counts are carried out, but the incorporation of New Travellers intothese figures is variable from one local authority to another (Niner, 2003).The New Travellers have had historically poor relations with the police who carried out

numerous large operations to deal with them in the 1980s; most famously ‘OperationSolstice’ in 1985 that is more commonly known as ‘The Battle of the Beanfield’. In thisinstance the police mounted an operation to prevent the New Travellers gathering for their12th annual free festival at Stonehenge that had been banned. The police blocked a convoyof New Traveller vehicles on their way to Stonehenge and when the New Travellers tried toescape the police by driving through a bean field they were unsuccessful. A directconfrontation between police and New Travellers ensued, which has been described as a‘one-sided massacre’ (Kenrick and Clark, 2000, p. 121) and an ‘ambush’ by police (Lodge,1998). This Operation utilised 1363 police officers and 537 arrests of New Travellers weremade, none of which resulted in conviction. Numerous children were temporarily taken

1I am currently carrying out further research in this area with British Academy funding.

ARTICLE IN PRESSZ. James / International Journal of the Sociology of Law 33 (2005) 159–168 161

into care and pet animals were destroyed (McKay, 1996). The police had to paycompensation to 24 New Travellers who successfully took civil actions out against thepolice for wrongful arrest, injury and damage to vehicles.The Battle of the Beanfield might be described by Waddington (1992) as a ‘flashpoint’: a

representation of the oppressive nature of a policing situation. Indeed, this conflict was notthe first between New Travellers and police; throughout 1984 the police had been evictingNew Traveller sites and gatherings forcibly (Earle et al, 1994, McKay, 1996). However, theBattle of the Beanfield was a qualitatively different situation due to the fact thatStonehenge represented a sort of spiritual home to the New Travellers (Hetherington,2000). Thus, the preclusion of New Travellers from Stonehenge by police represented theiroppression over a number of years and a flashpoint occurred. Following this conflict thePublic Order Act 1986 was passed by government that included provisions to manageTravellers (note the statutory provision includes all Travellers, not just New Travellers),limiting the numbers of vehicles that could camp together without eviction and giving thepolice powers to prevent public assembly. The Conservative Government at the time wasdetermined to get rid of these ‘medieval brigands’, as Home Secretary Douglas Hurdreferred to them in 1986.The New Travellers did not disappear however, increasingly travelling in small groups and

gathering in more hidden spaces (James, 2004). Between 1986 and 1994 the police continuedto mount operations to deal with them. Annually some level of confrontation would occurbetween the police and New Travellers at or near Stonehenge as New Travellers madeattempts to gather there. The confrontations never reached the excesses of 1985 again, thoughin 1989 there were 261 arrests made around Stonehenge and 800 police were used. Otherattempts by New Travellers to arrange festivals around the country were also prevented bypolice or disrupted with large numbers of officers (Earle et al, 1994). The tradition of NewTravellers gaining an income from and centring their social lives around festivals in thesummer was therefore broken down. The New Travellers did become more ingenious atarranging impromptu events though and some of them became involved with the new ‘rave’culture that was developing in Britain in the late 1980s and early 1990s (McKay, 1996).In 1992 an impromptu gathering of New Travellers occurred on Castlemorton Common

in Worcestershire. The Avon and Somerset police had successfully prevented the NewTravellers from gathering for the banned Avon Free Festival, but they had not informedtheir neighbouring West Mercia force of their operations. This meant that West Mercia didnot anticipate any movement of New Travellers in to their area or any subsequentpotential gathering. The lack of communication and thus preparedness for dealing with aninflux of New Travellers meant that the West Mercia police were unable to stop thegathering. The New Travellers then held a rave on Castlemorton Common that lasted foreight days, was free and saw the ‘pinnacle’ (McKay, 1996) of the amalgamation of NewTraveller and rave cultures. Following this event the government introduced the CJPOA.The Prime Minister John Major, fuelled by media panic, made a speech at theConservative party conference in which he said, ‘New Age Travellers? Not in this age.Not in any age.’ (Hester, 2000:69-70). The CJPOA legislated his point.

3. New Travellers under the law—Post-‘94

Police use of the CJPOA on New Travellers was extensive in the period 1994–1998. Aspart of the police toolkit to manage the New Travellers the CJPOA effectively functioned


to remove New Travellers from privately and publicly owned land. The CJPOA providestwo specific provisions for the police to manage Travellers2—Sections 61 and 62. Section61 gives the police the power to direct Travellers from land if they have six or morevehicles, have caused any damage and have been asked to leave by the landowner. If theTravellers do not leave the land on direction to do so they can be imprisoned for amaximum of 3 months. Section 62 gives the police the power to seize Travellers vehicles ifthey do not leave the land under a Section 61 direction3. Comparisons of use of thesedirections between forces were hard to make due to the variable way that the directionswere applied and recorded by the police. Also the police commonly failed to fulfil the entirerequirements of the law, but lack of knowledge of the CJPOA by New Travellers and/ortheir fear of vehicle seizure meant that the police were rarely challenged on their processes.The variability of enforcement practices, coupled with the fact that New Travellers tend tomove prior to eviction in order to protect their vehicles, meant that very few cases enteredthe court process and the scrutiny of action that would provide.The key concern of police in applying the law was the extensive resources required to

carry out eviction. A frustrating situation arose for the police as officers found that NewTravellers would not move on until a show of force was presented by them. However, oncethat show of force had been displayed the Travellers would move on immediately—justprior to the resources required for eviction mobilised. The police then would make everyeffort not to deploy resources for New Traveller eviction in an attempt to minimise cost.They rather used new styles of policing that had developed throughout the police service asa cost reducing measure within the tenets of New Public Management (NPM) that wereprogressively being incorporated into the public services in the 1980s and 1990s (Leishmanet al, 1996). This meant more use of surveillance techniques, intelligence led approachesthat would result in the use of pre-emptive strategies to ensure New Travellers left land.Police increasingly attempted to negotiate with New Travellers to get them to leave land orthey would use a range of techniques of disruption, de-stabilisation and spatial exclusionthat I have called ‘guerrilla tactics’ (James, 2005) to ensure New Travellers moved out oftheir area.The CJPOA acted as something of a watershed in the policing of New Travellers.

Despite the preceding Public Order Act 1986 that allowed eviction of Traveller sites, theCJPOA had a greater impact on the New Travellers for two particular reasons. Firstly, theNew Travellers were placed within a raft of provisions to manage direct action protest andraves that were themselves protested against and from which mass disorder occurred (Kingand Brearley, 1996). The late modern perception of protest as referring to a ‘single issue’(Reiner, 1998) and the portrayal of the anti-CJPOA protests as such in the media, resultedin the New Travellers being perceived as part of a spectrum of protesters. Although theconnection between New Travellers and ravers were in some cases real, this connection wasby no means valid for all New Travellers. Neither were the majority of New Travellersconnected to animal rights or environmental protests (Earle at al., 1994; Kenrick andClark, 2000). The exaggerated connections made between New Travellers and these groups

2Sections 77–79 of the CJPOA provide powers of eviction to local authorities.3Section 62 was amended by the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 reducing the number of vehicles that can camp

on any land other than an official Traveller site to one. This extension of the CJPOA allows for leniency if no

official Traveller site space is available. But, given the poor relations between New Travellers and Traditional

Travellers who occupy the vast majority of official sites, this provides little protection to New Travellers who are

unlikely to feel able to encroach on Traditional Traveller spaces that are already limited.


were to persistently affect public and police perceptions of the New Travellers as athreatening group after the CJPOA came into force.The second reason for the CJPOA having a particular impact as opposed to other

legislative changes was the removal of the requirement for local authorities to providestopping places for Travellers under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Local authorities hadrarely provided enough sites for Travellers under this legislation and those sites that wereavailable were used by Traditional Travellers. Despite some local authority sitedevelopment, Morris and Clements (2002) research found that in the years 1995–2000(reflecting my research time frame) numerous local authority sites were lost; resulting in318 fewer sites in 2000 than there were in 1994. Although the loss of local authority sitesdid not impact on New Travellers in terms of places to stay as Traditional Travellersnormally resided on them, it did place the New Travellers in direct conflict withTraditional Travellers over unauthorised encampments. The tension between New andTraditional Travellers was therefore intensified and the fight for space to live a nomadiclifestyle was augmented. New Travellers found themselves pushed out of their own illegalspaces, as well as legal ones. They had great difficulty finding places to stop and stay andwere pushed together on to the fewer sites available to them. Hence, site sizes actuallyincreased after the CJPOA. The police deemed New Traveller sites more problematic ifthey were large and eviction became more likely.Overall then, the CJPOA is the legislation that provided the police with the means to

evict New Travellers, whom they perceived as an organised threat, from any land. Thepolice used this legislation as part of their armoury against the New Travellers whichincreasingly incorporated pre-emptive policing tools such as surveillance and intelligencegathering as well as less formal methods of disruption, de-stabilisation and spatialexclusion. The key aim of the police was to remove New Travellers from land with limiteduse of resources, though they were prepared to use force in evictions as they hadsuccessfully done so in the past. The fact that New Travellers are rarely prepared toquestion police methods due to their fear of losing their homes under Section 62 of theCJPOA means that they are managed largely without the scrutiny of due process. Thispaper will now go on to address the implications to the law, policing and community of thelegislated state of New Travellers.

4. The implications of the use of the CJPOA

Legally the application of the CJPOA has broad implications. The application of the lawon New Travellers without a subsequent provision of space for them in which to reside,means that a number of social groups who are nomadic are immediately criminalised andthus placed within a discourse of discipline and punishment due to their nomadic lifestylerather than as a result of any criminal behaviour (Bancroft, 2000). As identified byCampbell (1995) the Travellers are only acting within the law when they are on anauthorised site or when they are actually travelling on the road4. Given the limitednumbers of authorised New Traveller sites, as opposed to some Traditional Traveller sites,in England and Wales, the New Travellers are particularly vulnerable to legal prosecutionand loss of their homes via confiscation. The law then is being used to promote

4Unless there are no local authority site spaces as noted in footnote 2.


sedentarism by criminalising nomadism and New Travellers live in constant fear ofpunishment for living nomadically.Use of hard line legislation to socially manage or control groups of individuals who are

not acting criminally has broad ranging implications. Other groups who could becontrolled similarly are the homeless and asylum seekers. The difference between thesegroups and other less negatively regarded subcultures and social movements is that theidentity of these individuals is criminalised, rather than their actions. Asylum seekers arethe current ‘folk devil’ (Cohen, 1972) of the mass media whom the government haslegislated on most recently in 1999 and 2002. There is a long history of managing thehomeless similarly via legislation in England and Wales: the Vagrancy Act 1824 created asummary conviction for being a ‘rogue or vagabond’. However, the requirement in the lawto provide accommodation for vagrants was set in the Vagrancy Act 1924, upon whichprecedent the Caravan Sites Act 1968 functioned. Hence the CJPOA, with the repeal of therequirement for local authorities to provide Traveller sites under the Caravan Sites Act,removes the general acceptance of nomadism within statute. The Human Rights Act 1998provides some protection in legislation for the private rights of individuals to live as theysee fit. However, for the New Travellers to engage in a debate over their civil rights andthus utilise the legislation, they must first engage with the criminal justice system byrefusing to move on when required to by the police. Such action by New Travellers placestheir homes at risk of confiscation and their children at risk of care proceedings.The fears of New Travellers that they will experience police use of force, have their

homes removed or their children taken away has determined their choice to functioninformally with the police within the law. The reasonableness incorporated into theCJPOA and police pragmatism promotes such informal action. Similarly the guidanceissued by the state as Home Office circulars and currently ‘Best Practice’ promotes cautionin use of legislation. This leaves the New Travellers in a tenuous position where they arereliant on the law not being used as a facilitator of their lifestyle, rather than their actionsand lifestyle being legally recognised. My research shows that the police have not used theirpowers according to the requirements of the law, nor have their actions been recordedeffectively; due process has therefore failed to protect the citizenship rights of NewTravellers. Waddington (1999) says that New Travellers do not have full citizenship rightsas they choose to live unconventional lifestyles that remove them from mainstream society.Again, it is clear from my research that the New Travellers do not ‘choose’ their travellinglifestyle, but are ‘pushed’ or ‘pulled’ into it. To suggest that unconventionality removes therights of citizenship fails to recognise the fragmentation of society in late modernity andthe inability to define the homogeneity which Waddington suggests accords such rights toindividuals (Reiner, 1992, King and Brearley, 1996). The ability of the law and policing toallow a failure of citizenship rights to New Travellers implies that other ‘unconventional’groups can be similarly managed and excluded, as well as migrants/asylum seekersdescribed above.However as King and Brearley (1996) note in their discussion of the implications of late

modern forms of policing, unconventionality has changed in the late 20th century as morenon-deviant people become involved in subculture and actions such as protest. Thus thosepeople commonly judged as ‘normal’ or non-deviant are drawn into a role which is policedand modern methods of policing are used against them: widening the ‘net’ of social control(Cohen, 1979). My research confirms this point as the New Traveller identity is determinedby their nomadism, rather than unconventionality. It therefore poses the problem that in


managing the New Travellers, the state and police are showing that they are prepared touse action on communities, rather than only on public order problems such as protest.Here Presdee’s (2000) use of cultural criminology is helpful as it argues that the cultural iscriminalised in late modernity. According to Presdee the powerful people in society definenorms according to their own commodified understanding of social order. In the pastcarnival provided a space for expressions of transgression but now such transgressive actshave been dispersed into society and are acted out as cultural expression. Carnival acts areplayed out in society in multiple ways by different people such as New Travellers whosecultures are consequently criminalised creating ‘the carnival of crime’.Police use of new techniques, such as technology, surveillance and inter-agency working,

as a response to late modern concerns are limited in the findings of my research. However,such techniques have been used to some extent on New Travellers and the language ofintelligence-led policing and pro-activity is clearly a part of police practice. Policing policyand legislation firmly places intelligence led, inter-agency approaches as central to policingtoday and the trends towards such methods identified here in the mid-1990s continueapace. The implications of such policing methods are extensive. Maguire says that inter-agency working functions on a local level with new technologies, surveillance andinformation sharing in policing to deal with both serious and minor offending behaviour,including ‘nuisance’. New Travellers come into this nuisance category, as they areperceived as a public order problem. He suggests that such techniques, previously usedagainst organised crime, are now used by the police to remove or ‘eliminate’ wholenetworks (Maguire, 2000, p. 319). If the aim of inter-agency working is to facilitate theelimination of whole networked groups, then in practice this has not been evidenced here.However, the application of policy and legislation (the police National Intelligence Modeland the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) since this research was carried out may mean thatthe possibility of such action is more relevant. The network of New Travellers, whom thepolice perceive as an organised threat, could thus be ‘eliminated’. Such action is seriousindeed, as the New Travellers represent a community rather than a criminal fraternity.Hester (2000) likens such action by the state via its agencies to the attempted eradication ofthe Gypsies in Nazi Germany. Though such comparison is extreme, it is relevant as ithighlights the proportionality of policing actions that should be considered as determiningtheir justification (Maguire, 2000). In other words, do the New Travellers represent athreat/risk that is so great to the police that it is worth the elimination of their wholecommunity?Risk assessment is a vital part of modern policing ideas as the police are required to

ensure and account for their efficient and effective practice. The risk posed by NewTravellers is related distinctly to their organised nature which poses a threat to publicorder. The new police accountability requires the police to justify their actions viameasures such as performance indicators. The lack of formal action on New Travellersmeans that such measures can not be applied and thus such accountability is hard todetermine. Likewise, the hidden nature of the policing of New Travellers via negotiationand guerrilla tactics are difficult to judge through traditional accountability tools such asrecord keeping. These methods in policing result in what Mathiesen (1983) describes as‘hidden discipline’, where whole groups of people are controlled in society by methods thatare not visible and are therefore unaccountable. The informal management of NewTravellers by police and use of guerrilla tactics accompanied by their lack of accountabilityimplies that there is a distinct potential for the police to actually eliminate them as a group


or at least so disrupt their lifestyle as to prompt the exit from travelling of those lesscommitted to the lifestyle. The continued use of force by police when New Travellers willnot move on additionally increases the pressure on New Travellers to return to sedentaryliving. Thus, both old and new policing methods and attitudes and the lack of scrutiny ofsuch actions combine to have dire implications for New Travellers.I have already discussed above the implications that the application of the CJPOA has

on other groups similar to the New Travellers. Likewise the policing of New Travellers canbe applied to other cultural groups. The implications of such legislation and police actionon communities are great as there is clearly the potential for communities to be policed andlegislated out of existence or out of their existence in ‘normal’ society. Indeed, the policeare developing tools that can potentially be used to quiet any dissenting voice. A broadliterature on the social exclusion of societal groups has developed in sociology andcriminology that generally focus on the fiscally excluded, whereas my research highlightsthe social exclusion of groups who are culturally excluded in sedentarist industrialcapitalist western societies. The ‘dangerisation’ of individuals in risk society means that welive according to our knowledge of safe spatial areas or zones which are managed bycontrol agencies such as the police (Rose, 2000). Outside of these zones live the sociallyexcluded whose space is ever shrinking as public space diminishes in the interests of privateownership and capital (Shearing and Stenning, 1981). This marginal space is not solelyoccupied by the poor however, as the culturally excluded are forced into it as well. Lianosand Douglas (2000) simply describe those who occupy the marginal spaces in society,

5For

police

They are not the moral incorrigibles of the past and they are known to bedisadvantaged. They are not to be morally condemned but they are to be contained.They are not to be patronisingly ‘‘treated’’ but they are to be avoided, even thoughwithout value judgements. They are not detestable but they are disposable. They aresimply ‘‘dangerous’’, ‘‘suspicious’’, ‘‘aggressive’’, ‘‘threatening’’, ‘‘dodgy’’. They donot need to break rules to be excluded. (Lianos and Douglas, 2000, p. 104)

5. Conclusion

In this paper, I have presented a brief glimpse of the legislative experience of NewTravellers in England who most commonly experience the law through policing, ratherthan the courts. I have described the legal position of New Travellers as based in theirhistoric relationship with the police and State. I have then illustrated their experience ofpolicing under the extensive provisions provided by the CJPOA. However, the thrust ofthis paper analyses the implications of the police action and legislation described.The legislation and new policing methods used to manage New Travellers have

implications which affect civil rights, the welfare of individuals and communities and theintegrity of the police. New Travellers are a community who have few supporters in societyand hence the actions used against them by police are rarely questioned. Burgeoningresearch5 in criminology is beginning to recognise the appalling societal position ofTravellers generally in the UK, but most commonly this is perceived as a problem of racialdiscrimination against Traditional Travellers. Such racism should be highlighted and

example, aspects of Rowe (2005) work has recognised the racist treatment of Traditional Travellers by

and Spalek et al. (2005) have noted the importance of accessing such hidden communities as Travellers.


tackled comprehensively. However, the sole focus on issues of race rather than difference

simply serves to fail to recognise all discrimination. The focus on racial analyses of policingmay result in a perpetuation of the other discriminatory practices of the police as they arerequired to confront their racism, rather than the issue of discrimination itself. In the caseof New Travellers, as highlighted by this paper, the legislative changes wrought in 1994have supported their informal management as a ‘dangerous’ cultural group.Ultimately, policing is ambivalent because the State provides an ambivalent message to

its control agencies (Garland, 1996). The police are guided by policy to use minimumresources and work with other agencies and communities to gain efficient and effectiveresults, while also utilising hard line legislation to maintain strong and stern control overthe marginal spaces of society, prepared to act with force when necessary. Suchambivalence is shown here to have direct implications to the law, policing andcommunities.

References

Bancroft, A., 2000. No interest in land: legal and spatial enclosure of Gypsy-Travellers in Britain. Space and

Polity 4 (1), 41–56.

Bucke, T., James, Z., 1998. Trespass and Protest: Policing Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Home Office, London.

Campbell, S., 1995. Gypsies: The Criminalisation of a Way of Life. Criminal Law Review January, 28–37.

Cohen, S., 1972. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. MacGibbon and Kee,

London.

Cohen, S., 1979. The punitive city: notes on the dispersal of social control. Contemporary Crises 3 (4), 341–363.

Davis, J., Grant, R., Locke, A., 1994. Out of Site, Out of Mind. The Childrens Society.

Dearling, A., 2001. New Travellers—an international community? In: Zegg International Communal Studies

Association Conference 2001, Germany.

Earle, F., Dearling, A., Whittle, H., Glasse, R., Gubby, 1994. A Time to Travel? An Introduction to Britain’s

Newer Travellers. Enabler, Lyme Regis.

Garland, D., 1996. The limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British

Journal of Criminology 36 (4), 445–471.

Hester, R., 2000. Social control of New Age Travellers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Birmingham.

Hetherington, K., 2000. New Age Travellers: vanloads of uproarious humanity. Cassell, London.

James, Z., 2004. New Travellers, new policing? exploring the policing of New Traveller communities under the

criminal justice and public order act 1994. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Surrey.

James, Z., 2005. Policing space: managing new travellers in England. The British Journal of Criminology.

Advance Access published August 15, 2005, 10.1093/bjc/azi077.

Kenrick, D., Clark, C., 2000. Moving on: the Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. University of Hertfordshire Press,

Hatfield.

King, M., Brearley, N., 1996. Public order policing: contemporary perspectives on strategy and tactics. Perpetuity

Press, Leicester.

Leishman, F., Loveday, B., Savage, S.P. (Eds.), 1996. Core Issues in Policing. Longman, Harlow.

Lianos, M., Douglas, M., 2000. Dangerization and the end of deviance: the institutional environment. In:

Garland, D., Sparks, R. (Eds.), Criminology and Social Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lodge, A., 1998. [online] Available from: http://tash.gn.apc.org. [14.05.98]

Maguire, M., 2000. Policing by risks and targets: some dimensions and implications of intelligence-led crime

control. Policing and Society 9 (4), 315–336.

Martin, G., 2002. New Age Travellers: uproarious or uprooted? Sociology 36 (3), 723–735.

Mathiesen, T., 1983. The future of control systems: the case of norway. In: Garland, D., Young, P. (Eds.), The

Power to Punish: Contemporary Penality and Social Analysis. Heinemann, London.

Morris, R., Clements, L., 2002. At What Cost? The Economics of Gypsy and Traveller Encampments. The Policy

Press, Bristol.

McKay, G., 1996. Senseless Acts of Beauty: Cultures of Resistance Since the Sixties. Verso, London.

http://tash.gn.apc.org


Niner, P., 2003. Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller Sites in England. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.

Presdee, M., 2000. Cultural Criminology and the Carnival of Crime. Routledge, London.

Reiner, R., 1992. Policing a Postmodern Society. The Modern Law Review 55 (6), 761–781.

Reiner, R., 1998. Policing Protest and Disorder in Britain. In: Della Porta, D., Reiter, H. (Eds.), Policing Protest.

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Rose, N., 2000. Government and Control. In: Garland, D., Sparks, R. (Eds.), Criminology and Social Theory.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Rowe, M., 2005. Police anti-traveller racism: last bastion or tip of the iceberg? In: British Society of Criminology

Conference 12-14.7.05, University of Leeds.

Shearing, C., Stenning, P., 1981. Modern Private Security: Its growth and implications. In: Tonry, M., Morris, N.

(Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 3. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Spalek, B., Garland, J., Chakraborti, N., 2005. Hearing Lost Voices: Issues in researching ‘hidden’ minority ethnic

communities. In: British Society of Criminology Conference 12-14.7.05, University of Leeds.

Staines, S. (with the assistance of Alexander, S.), 1998. Planning Appeals and Gypsies and Travellers. FFT,

Glastonbury.

Waddington, D., 1992. Contemporary Issues in Public Disorder: A Comparative and Historical Approach.

Routledge, London.

Waddington, P.A.J., 1999. Policing Citizens: Authority and Rights. UCL Press, London.

Webster, L., Millar, J., 2001. Making a Living: Social Security, Social Exclusion and New Travellers. Policy Press,

Bristol.

Zoe James did her undergraduate degree at the University of Surrey, after which she worked for the Home Office

Research Unit carrying out a range of studies on crime and criminal justice. Her work on the Criminal Justice and

Public Order Act 1994 at the Home Office was developed through the Ph.D. study at the University of Surrey

which focused on the policing of New Travellers. Zoe joined the University of Plymouth in 1999 where she is now

Senior Lecturer in Criminal Justice. She is currently working on British Academy funded research looking into

New Travellers recent experiences of plural policing.

Documents

Eliminating communities? Exploring the implications of policing methods used to manage New Travellers