WE welcome the deal struck in the High Court concerning the behaviour of a travelling family. The alternative was draconian - a ban on their living on certain areas of land in York and Ryedale.

This case was fraught with sensitivity because it involved travellers. For years this community has been mistrusted by wider society. In turn, the travellers are suspicious of outsiders, and a gulf in understanding has opened up.

But York and North Yorkshire councils had to act against the family. This was not an example of the authorities hounding members of a minority community - they had received more than 100 complaints which needed to be investigated and addressed.

Nuisance behaviour must be tackled, whether it happens in a city suburb or on a roadside verge.

The councils say they exhausted other avenues to settle the problems before going to court. In other words, they treated the family with the same mixture of patience and resolve as they would have applied to problem council tenants.

Travellers have every right to pursue an unconventional lifestyle, but they must follow one universal convention: that their behaviour does not impinge on the welfare of their neighbours.

Most respect that. However, there are unruly elements among travellers just as there are in what we might term orthodox society.

In this case, the family have agreed to reform their disruptive behaviour in a pioneering legal deal. If it works, then the same solution might be applied to other, similar disputes. That could reduce the number of injunctions served against travellers.

Anything that lessens the antagonism between travellers and others is desirable. Their way of life and their minority status make travellers a vulnerable section of society. This is often forgotten, or even ignored.

We hope the High Court case does not reinforce prejudice against travellers. If everyone strives to understand and respect each other's point of view, we will see fewer confrontations and more conciliation.

Updated: 11:28 Monday, November 04, 2002