VIDEO: Delight for residents as temporary traveller site proposals for Creekmoor and Oakdale are thrown out

Delight for residents as temporary traveller site proposals for Creekmoor and Oakdale are thrown out

Delight for residents as temporary traveller site proposals for Creekmoor and Oakdale are thrown out

Delight for residents as temporary traveller site proposals for Creekmoor and Oakdale are thrown out

VIDEO: Delight for residents as temporary traveller site proposals for Creekmoor and Oakdale are thrown out

Will Cobley objecting to the plans on behalf of Forelle Estates.

First published in News
Last updated
by

THERE were jubilant scenes at Poole’s Lighthouse Theatre after controversial applications for two traveller sites were thrown out by the borough’s planning committee.

More than 200 people had packed into the venue to hear members of the committee debate the proposed temporary stopping places at Marshes End, Creekmoor, and the smaller site at land off Broadstone Way.

See how the meeting unfolded in our rolling coverage here

After first hearing representations on behalf of residents, local businesses, and the travelling community itself – which all condemned the selection of the Marshes End site – Borough of Poole’s planning committee refused to grant permission.

Then committee members followed suit for the Broadstone Way site an hour later.

Speaking to the Daily Echo afterwards, council leader Elaine Atkinson said Borough of Poole must still press on to find alternative sites within the town, or face more summers of escalating tension between residents and the travelling community.

She added: “My reaction to the committee’s decision is that this is democracy, this is how it works, democracy in action.

“From the beginning of the proposal to look at these potential temporary stopping places, we always knew that they may not go through the planning committee.

“Indeed, I have strongly suggested that the place for the decision to be made was at the planning committee.”

Meanwhile, Creekmoor ward councillor Judy Butt, who was sacked from her cabinet position after refusing to back the borough’s stance on the Marshes End site, said she was delighted with the result.

Cllr Butt explained: “The committee really did interrogate on the issues and came up with the answer that was right. We now need to work to find a permanent site.”

Fellow ward councillor Les Burden, who spoke against the application alongside his Creekmoor ward councillor colleagues, said: “Common sense has prevailed.”

The two separate proposals refused were for 12 pitches at Marshes End, Creekmoor, and four pitches at land north of the B&Q car park, Broadstone Way.

Officials, including Dorset Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill, have argued that by having designated temporary stopping places within the borough, they hoped to avoid a repeat a last summer that saw a number of unauthorised encampments encroach on the town’s parks and open spaces.

Dorset Police say they would be able to move on unauthorised encampments more swiftly if the borough had designated stopping sites to direct travellers to.

Following yesterday’s ruling, Borough of Poole deputy leader Cllr Mike White said: “In terms of temporary stopping places, I think we will now struggle to find any alternative sites in Poole.

“I don’t think we’ll find another possible site because we’ve been through a process starting with 90 sites across Poole and narrowed it down to these two.”

Cllr White said the council must now concentrate on working towards a permanent transit site outside of the borough.

Creekmoor resident Roger Wommacott, aged 65, said: “I am very pleased with the result. I was a bit dubious about the ways of this council and thought they may wrangle this in their favour, so it is good to see due process and justice has prevailed.”

'Council should consult more with gypsy and travelling communities'

GYPSY Council member Joseph Jones, who has lobbied government on traveller issues for more than 40 years, says Poole’s temporary stopping site saga highlights the prejudices faced by the travelling community.

Mr Jones, who officially spoke against the Marshes End site at the planning meeting, caught up with the Daily Echo afterwards.

He said: “I’m happy with the result, but what I would like to see now is for the council to consult more with the local gypsy and travelling communities.

“Stop treating us like mushrooms – keeping us in the dark and feeding us on...well you know what.

“This whole thing has highlighted the prejudices people have, all because of a small percentage of our population. One percent misbehaves, the other 99 per cent gets the blame as well.”

Mr Jones stressed that members of the travelling community should be treated like human beings.

“Basically, we are economic migrants. We move for economic reasons, going where the work is. And there are one million of us in the country, not the 300,000 figure that’s been used since 1959.

“Our children have the same aspirations as any other children. The health members of our community go out and provide for everyone – the youngsters and the elderly.

“We are being failed by policy. Basically central government passes down to local authorities, and these local authorities fail to provide, fail to talk to our communities.

“We have the same aspirations as everyone else, we just want to be respected.”

Crime Commissioner: Official site is neccessary so police can take fast action

LAST summer was generally regarded one of the worst for traveller incursions, with Bournemouth, Poole and other parts of Dorset all affected by illegal encampments.

Bournemouth and Poole council officers spent much of the summer pursuing travellers who set up short-term camps in car parks, open spaces and play areas.

In Poole, camps were established at Turlin Moor, Verity Park in Canford Heath, Baiter, Whitecliff, Broadstone Recreation Ground, Haskells Recreation Ground and Branksome Recreation Ground.

In Bournemouth, there were camps at Slades Farm, Pelhams Park, Turbary Common and West Howe.

There was also a camp at West Parley in Dorset.

In most of these cases, residents expressed concerns about the illegal camps and councils were forced to go to court and obtain an eviction order, only for the travellers to move just before this took effect.

Bournemouth council leader John Beesley has ruled out the prospect of finding a suitable site anywhere in the borough, saying the only land available was in the green belt.

But Dorset’s Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill has warned police will only be able to take swift action against unauthorised camps if there is an official site.

Comments (60)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:37pm Thu 20 Mar 14

carrrob says...

Well done Judy Butt not in my back yard typical that !
Well done Judy Butt not in my back yard typical that ! carrrob
  • Score: -8

5:43pm Thu 20 Mar 14

MotorbikeSam says...

Now give Judy her job back!! and I guess the price is now reduced somewhat...
Now give Judy her job back!! and I guess the price is now reduced somewhat... MotorbikeSam
  • Score: 14

5:49pm Thu 20 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

why have original comments been removed ?.
why have original comments been removed ?. pete woodley
  • Score: 3

5:56pm Thu 20 Mar 14

cunone says...

The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer
The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school.
Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign
The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school. Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign cunone
  • Score: 21

5:56pm Thu 20 Mar 14

SeeTheBee says...

It was great to see reasoned argument prevail this morning. But how did such a fundamentally flawed proposal get this far?
It was great to see reasoned argument prevail this morning. But how did such a fundamentally flawed proposal get this far? SeeTheBee
  • Score: 23

5:57pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

cunone wrote:
The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer
The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school.
Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign
well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...
[quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school. Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign[/p][/quote]well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer... PooleFirst
  • Score: -16

5:58pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

SeeTheBee wrote:
It was great to see reasoned argument prevail this morning. But how did such a fundamentally flawed proposal get this far?
ask JUDY BUTT she has been running this for the last year
[quote][p][bold]SeeTheBee[/bold] wrote: It was great to see reasoned argument prevail this morning. But how did such a fundamentally flawed proposal get this far?[/p][/quote]ask JUDY BUTT she has been running this for the last year PooleFirst
  • Score: -11

6:02pm Thu 20 Mar 14

cunone says...

PooleFirst wrote:
cunone wrote:
The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer
The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school.
Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign
well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...
Clearly sir you have little understanding of the events or worried travellers may disturb your summer until a proper solution is found
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school. Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign[/p][/quote]well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...[/p][/quote]Clearly sir you have little understanding of the events or worried travellers may disturb your summer until a proper solution is found cunone
  • Score: 7

6:09pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

cunone wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
cunone wrote:
The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer
The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school.
Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign
well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...
Clearly sir you have little understanding of the events or worried travellers may disturb your summer until a proper solution is found
I understand very well,,, your statement was about the waste of money in this process, I was just pointing out who was in charge of the process.

I personally was against this site, as I am against any site, I am for the government getting a spine and and changing the trespass law to give police the powers to move people on within 24 hours. Apparently the European Human Rights act wont allow this,,, then my answer would be to opt out of that then.
[quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school. Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign[/p][/quote]well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...[/p][/quote]Clearly sir you have little understanding of the events or worried travellers may disturb your summer until a proper solution is found[/p][/quote]I understand very well,,, your statement was about the waste of money in this process, I was just pointing out who was in charge of the process. I personally was against this site, as I am against any site, I am for the government getting a spine and and changing the trespass law to give police the powers to move people on within 24 hours. Apparently the European Human Rights act wont allow this,,, then my answer would be to opt out of that then. PooleFirst
  • Score: 16

6:20pm Thu 20 Mar 14

cunone says...

PooleFirst wrote:
cunone wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
cunone wrote:
The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer
The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school.
Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign
well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...
Clearly sir you have little understanding of the events or worried travellers may disturb your summer until a proper solution is found
I understand very well,,, your statement was about the waste of money in this process, I was just pointing out who was in charge of the process.

I personally was against this site, as I am against any site, I am for the government getting a spine and and changing the trespass law to give police the powers to move people on within 24 hours. Apparently the European Human Rights act wont allow this,,, then my answer would be to opt out of that then.
Friends? We clearly have many of the same opinions
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school. Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign[/p][/quote]well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...[/p][/quote]Clearly sir you have little understanding of the events or worried travellers may disturb your summer until a proper solution is found[/p][/quote]I understand very well,,, your statement was about the waste of money in this process, I was just pointing out who was in charge of the process. I personally was against this site, as I am against any site, I am for the government getting a spine and and changing the trespass law to give police the powers to move people on within 24 hours. Apparently the European Human Rights act wont allow this,,, then my answer would be to opt out of that then.[/p][/quote]Friends? We clearly have many of the same opinions cunone
  • Score: 2

6:21pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

PooleFirst wrote:
cunone wrote:
The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer
The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school.
Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign
well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...
Get your facts right.
......
Judy Butt was NOT IN CHARGE. She was tasked with bringing organisations together for discussion to report back to the council. She did just that. What happened after that and the selection of sites was nothing to do with her.
....
She is one of the few councillors who have acted with integrity, as did the 7 members of the planning committee who voted against the plans due to safety, contamination and other considerations.
......
It would have made no difference except to waste more of council tax payers money. The travellers would not have used the sites but would have pitched up on private land, probably near where you live.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school. Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign[/p][/quote]well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...[/p][/quote]Get your facts right. ...... Judy Butt was NOT IN CHARGE. She was tasked with bringing organisations together for discussion to report back to the council. She did just that. What happened after that and the selection of sites was nothing to do with her. .... She is one of the few councillors who have acted with integrity, as did the 7 members of the planning committee who voted against the plans due to safety, contamination and other considerations. ...... It would have made no difference except to waste more of council tax payers money. The travellers would not have used the sites but would have pitched up on private land, probably near where you live. Carolyn43
  • Score: 15

6:25pm Thu 20 Mar 14

SuperSnooper says...

Judy Butt has a lot to answer for, she should do the decent thing and quit, but I dont think she will, who else would have her ?
Judy Butt has a lot to answer for, she should do the decent thing and quit, but I dont think she will, who else would have her ? SuperSnooper
  • Score: -7

6:33pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

I am sorry she was in charge and indeed she actually championed it, the fact that she would sort out the whole traveller issue single handed...
And you clearly do not understand about this site, if the travellers had not used it then that's great,, even better,, but if there is a site then that gives the Police the powers to move travellers on from other illegal sites immediately and if they dont move they can be arrested,, thats what the whole point of a temporary site was all about, just to give the Police the powers we all wished they already had.
As I have said I was against this site and am against any site, I would just like to see Government change the law to give Police to power, however thats nothing to do with local council. But Judy Butt was in charge of this whole process, however she tries to dress it up, the buck stops at her, and they way she then sidestepped her responsibility right at the end is a disgrace, perhaps we should ask her to repay all the money she was paid being in charge... I can guess her answer to that.
I am sorry she was in charge and indeed she actually championed it, the fact that she would sort out the whole traveller issue single handed... And you clearly do not understand about this site, if the travellers had not used it then that's great,, even better,, but if there is a site then that gives the Police the powers to move travellers on from other illegal sites immediately and if they dont move they can be arrested,, thats what the whole point of a temporary site was all about, just to give the Police the powers we all wished they already had. As I have said I was against this site and am against any site, I would just like to see Government change the law to give Police to power, however thats nothing to do with local council. But Judy Butt was in charge of this whole process, however she tries to dress it up, the buck stops at her, and they way she then sidestepped her responsibility right at the end is a disgrace, perhaps we should ask her to repay all the money she was paid being in charge... I can guess her answer to that. PooleFirst
  • Score: -1

6:36pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Big Man 2 says...

PooleFirst wrote:
cunone wrote:
The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer
The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school.
Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign
well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...
You need to get your facts right before you criticise !
Judy , along with Les Burden and John Rampton have done an excellent job for the whole town, not just Creekmoor !
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school. Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign[/p][/quote]well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...[/p][/quote]You need to get your facts right before you criticise ! Judy , along with Les Burden and John Rampton have done an excellent job for the whole town, not just Creekmoor ! Big Man 2
  • Score: 8

6:44pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Tictock says...

Snag is, the problem remain - we have people who seem to ignore the general rules of society by thinking they can - and will, do as they please. The problem needs addressing in the way the French and Irish have - make it illegal to take-over land for any period of time without the owners consent. Will not happen of course because of the spineless leaders to whom it does not effect.
Snag is, the problem remain - we have people who seem to ignore the general rules of society by thinking they can - and will, do as they please. The problem needs addressing in the way the French and Irish have - make it illegal to take-over land for any period of time without the owners consent. Will not happen of course because of the spineless leaders to whom it does not effect. Tictock
  • Score: 20

6:45pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

Big Man 2 wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
cunone wrote:
The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer
The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school.
Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign
well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...
You need to get your facts right before you criticise !
Judy , along with Les Burden and John Rampton have done an excellent job for the whole town, not just Creekmoor !
I think Les Burden did a great job,, the job he was supposed to do,, and I am sure if he had been the portfolio holder for that post he would have resigned because he wanted to best represent his constituents, I believe he is an honourable man like that.
However Judy Butt lead the whole process then wobbled at the end, you cant expect to hold down a top job if you dont have the character to see it through.
She is looking very silly now, she could have kept[t her job and done her job properly, the outcome would still be no traveller site in Creekmoor, but she would have come out of it with integrity.
Dont forget, it was the people on the planning committee that voted against this, Judy Butt had no say at all in that, they are the people everyone should be thanking.
[quote][p][bold]Big Man 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school. Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign[/p][/quote]well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...[/p][/quote]You need to get your facts right before you criticise ! Judy , along with Les Burden and John Rampton have done an excellent job for the whole town, not just Creekmoor ![/p][/quote]I think Les Burden did a great job,, the job he was supposed to do,, and I am sure if he had been the portfolio holder for that post he would have resigned because he wanted to best represent his constituents, I believe he is an honourable man like that. However Judy Butt lead the whole process then wobbled at the end, you cant expect to hold down a top job if you dont have the character to see it through. She is looking very silly now, she could have kept[t her job and done her job properly, the outcome would still be no traveller site in Creekmoor, but she would have come out of it with integrity. Dont forget, it was the people on the planning committee that voted against this, Judy Butt had no say at all in that, they are the people everyone should be thanking. PooleFirst
  • Score: -5

6:48pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

Tictock wrote:
Snag is, the problem remain - we have people who seem to ignore the general rules of society by thinking they can - and will, do as they please. The problem needs addressing in the way the French and Irish have - make it illegal to take-over land for any period of time without the owners consent. Will not happen of course because of the spineless leaders to whom it does not effect.
100% correct,,, but unfortunately this is a national government/European issue, not a local one. No government will ever have the balls to change that. too scared of being called raciest.
[quote][p][bold]Tictock[/bold] wrote: Snag is, the problem remain - we have people who seem to ignore the general rules of society by thinking they can - and will, do as they please. The problem needs addressing in the way the French and Irish have - make it illegal to take-over land for any period of time without the owners consent. Will not happen of course because of the spineless leaders to whom it does not effect.[/p][/quote]100% correct,,, but unfortunately this is a national government/European issue, not a local one. No government will ever have the balls to change that. too scared of being called raciest. PooleFirst
  • Score: 5

7:02pm Thu 20 Mar 14

SuperSnooper says...

I just hope Judy Butt does the right thing and steps down at the next election, or stands as an indepentant, see how she does then... she is HISTORY
I just hope Judy Butt does the right thing and steps down at the next election, or stands as an indepentant, see how she does then... she is HISTORY SuperSnooper
  • Score: -4

7:05pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

SuperSnooper wrote:
I just hope Judy Butt does the right thing and steps down at the next election, or stands as an indepentant, see how she does then... she is HISTORY
I second that,, Les Burden does the right job for Creekmoor, dump Judy Butt she is an embarrassment
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: I just hope Judy Butt does the right thing and steps down at the next election, or stands as an indepentant, see how she does then... she is HISTORY[/p][/quote]I second that,, Les Burden does the right job for Creekmoor, dump Judy Butt she is an embarrassment PooleFirst
  • Score: -6

7:06pm Thu 20 Mar 14

loftusrod says...

If Joseph Jones is so interested in these peoples' way of life, why is he nowhere to be seen when the local parks, fields, etc need clearing up after the latest unauthorised encampment?
If Joseph Jones is so interested in these peoples' way of life, why is he nowhere to be seen when the local parks, fields, etc need clearing up after the latest unauthorised encampment? loftusrod
  • Score: 15

7:33pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

So Poole's play areas continue as a magnet for camps all summer with people travelling from all over the country because it is one of the last places left where you can't be moved on from.
Poole, truly jurassic.
So Poole's play areas continue as a magnet for camps all summer with people travelling from all over the country because it is one of the last places left where you can't be moved on from. Poole, truly jurassic. ashleycross
  • Score: 1

7:43pm Thu 20 Mar 14

BIGTONE says...

But Dorset’s Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill has warned police will only be able to take swift action against unauthorised camps if there is an official site.


But they cannot do nothing if the site is full or when it's closed for the season. There will still be illegal camps. So what's the point in wasting time,money and resources?
But Dorset’s Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill has warned police will only be able to take swift action against unauthorised camps if there is an official site. But they cannot do nothing if the site is full or when it's closed for the season. There will still be illegal camps. So what's the point in wasting time,money and resources? BIGTONE
  • Score: 8

7:47pm Thu 20 Mar 14

peterm8264 says...

PooleFirst wrote:
Big Man 2 wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
cunone wrote:
The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer
The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school.
Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign
well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...
You need to get your facts right before you criticise !
Judy , along with Les Burden and John Rampton have done an excellent job for the whole town, not just Creekmoor !
I think Les Burden did a great job,, the job he was supposed to do,, and I am sure if he had been the portfolio holder for that post he would have resigned because he wanted to best represent his constituents, I believe he is an honourable man like that.
However Judy Butt lead the whole process then wobbled at the end, you cant expect to hold down a top job if you dont have the character to see it through.
She is looking very silly now, she could have kept
why don't you get your facts right before commenting ,comes to mind think before opening mouth
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Man 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: The council commenced work on the site ahead of consent this together with the surveys etc has cost maybe £50,000 who is going to pay? Oh us the rate payer The planning committee did a splendid job in seeking out the issues if only the full council had done so we could have been spared all of the last few months and my granddaughter may have had some decent books in her school. Whoever authorised the expenditure please resign[/p][/quote]well JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this until a couple of weeks ago... there is your answer...[/p][/quote]You need to get your facts right before you criticise ! Judy , along with Les Burden and John Rampton have done an excellent job for the whole town, not just Creekmoor ![/p][/quote]I think Les Burden did a great job,, the job he was supposed to do,, and I am sure if he had been the portfolio holder for that post he would have resigned because he wanted to best represent his constituents, I believe he is an honourable man like that. However Judy Butt lead the whole process then wobbled at the end, you cant expect to hold down a top job if you dont have the character to see it through. She is looking very silly now, she could have kept[t her job and done her job properly, the outcome would still be no traveller site in Creekmoor, but she would have come out of it with integrity. Dont forget, it was the people on the planning committee that voted against this, Judy Butt had no say at all in that, they are the people everyone should be thanking.[/p][/quote]why don't you get your facts right before commenting ,comes to mind think before opening mouth peterm8264
  • Score: -3

8:08pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

ashleycross wrote:
So Poole's play areas continue as a magnet for camps all summer with people travelling from all over the country because it is one of the last places left where you can't be moved on from.
Poole, truly jurassic.
Perhaps we should have a welcome to Poole sign like the one on the wessex way, but reminding any travellers that they are welcome at any open space in poole, because there are no official sites in the entire borough so they can't be moved on.
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: So Poole's play areas continue as a magnet for camps all summer with people travelling from all over the country because it is one of the last places left where you can't be moved on from. Poole, truly jurassic.[/p][/quote]Perhaps we should have a welcome to Poole sign like the one on the wessex way, but reminding any travellers that they are welcome at any open space in poole, because there are no official sites in the entire borough so they can't be moved on. ashleycross
  • Score: -1

8:37pm Thu 20 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End,
The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups.
1 The EU.
2 Public Secter Workers,
3 Minority groups,
They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,,
We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,
Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End, The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups. 1 The EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, 3 Minority groups, They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,, We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends, cromwell9
  • Score: -3

8:50pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

cromwell9 wrote:
Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End,
The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups.
1 The EU.
2 Public Secter Workers,
3 Minority groups,
They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,,
We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,
I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones.
I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End, The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups. 1 The EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, 3 Minority groups, They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,, We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,[/p][/quote]I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones. I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting.. PooleFirst
  • Score: 3

8:53pm Thu 20 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

cromwell9 wrote:
Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End,
The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups.
1 The EU.
2 Public Secter Workers,
3 Minority groups,
They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,,
We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,
Marshes End was a LIB DEM idea,
This party are only interested in 3 groups,
1 THE EU.
2 Public Secter Workers, (A lot of them live in Creekmore/Broadstone
,That is how they got in,
3 Minoritys,
This party are anti British,They dont even believe in marrage,etc.
I have a list as long as my arm.
We fought 2 WORLD WARS to keep our freedom.And I owe it to my farther who got sunk on the Russion Convoys not to vote Lib Dems, to hand over this country to the GERMANS and the EU,
So before you put your x at the next election THINK about it
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End, The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups. 1 The EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, 3 Minority groups, They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,, We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,[/p][/quote]Marshes End was a LIB DEM idea, This party are only interested in 3 groups, 1 THE EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, (A lot of them live in Creekmore/Broadstone ,That is how they got in, 3 Minoritys, This party are anti British,They dont even believe in marrage,etc. I have a list as long as my arm. We fought 2 WORLD WARS to keep our freedom.And I owe it to my farther who got sunk on the Russion Convoys not to vote Lib Dems, to hand over this country to the GERMANS and the EU, So before you put your x at the next election THINK about it cromwell9
  • Score: 6

8:56pm Thu 20 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

PooleFirst wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
UKIP
The trouble with UKIP is they have a hell of a lot of the right things to say, and I suspect a lot of people agree with a lot of it, me included, however, they are really and European in or out party, they dont have any policy on local issues, people should not confuse local politics with national, it is really a different story.
Vote UKIP at the Europeans, but locally vote for who you feel would best help the town... thats my plan anyway.
UKIP are looking increasingly attractive, and as more than a single issue Party to many people. Not least because they would aim to rise above all of the local arguments going on right here by nationally replicating the Irish Republic's common sense position on 'travellers' and sites in the UK. (EG. Ethnically unrecognised, no sites - and certainly subject to all the same UK laws we residents already are.)

But they are certainly not promoting a simple 'in/out' EU position either, because they are very keen to maintain some formal/informal and mutually beneficial working relationship (say, a Common Market!) with all of mainland Europe (EU and non-EU Countries). UKIP do however certainly wish to end the UK's unwitting and very expensive participation in the development of a bureaucratic EU political super state, something the British public were never consulted about - a bit like they were never asked about 'travellers' or opening wide our UK borders.....
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: UKIP[/p][/quote]The trouble with UKIP is they have a hell of a lot of the right things to say, and I suspect a lot of people agree with a lot of it, me included, however, they are really and European in or out party, they dont have any policy on local issues, people should not confuse local politics with national, it is really a different story. Vote UKIP at the Europeans, but locally vote for who you feel would best help the town... thats my plan anyway.[/p][/quote]UKIP are looking increasingly attractive, and as more than a single issue Party to many people. Not least because they would aim to rise above all of the local arguments going on right here by nationally replicating the Irish Republic's common sense position on 'travellers' and sites in the UK. (EG. Ethnically unrecognised, no sites - and certainly subject to all the same UK laws we residents already are.) But they are certainly not promoting a simple 'in/out' EU position either, because they are very keen to maintain some formal/informal and mutually beneficial working relationship (say, a Common Market!) with all of mainland Europe (EU and non-EU Countries). UKIP do however certainly wish to end the UK's unwitting and very expensive participation in the development of a bureaucratic EU political super state, something the British public were never consulted about - a bit like they were never asked about 'travellers' or opening wide our UK borders..... muscliffman
  • Score: 8

8:57pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

PooleFirst wrote:
cromwell9 wrote:
Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End,
The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups.
1 The EU.
2 Public Secter Workers,
3 Minority groups,
They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,,
We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,
I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones.
I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..
Well I do think you are a little of the mark there, especially if you think about it logically. Lab & Con are always the only two parties that have a chance of gaining a majority with the FPTP system we have, though in 2010 neither of them could manage it and then there were only three parties in the running. In 2015 there are four in the running which will make gaining a majority even harder, I suspect Nigel Farage will be the man to decide who the next PM will be because the LibDems are lucky to keep their deposit in most local elections of late. It is certainly going to be an interesting General Election.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End, The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups. 1 The EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, 3 Minority groups, They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,, We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,[/p][/quote]I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones. I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..[/p][/quote]Well I do think you are a little of the mark there, especially if you think about it logically. Lab & Con are always the only two parties that have a chance of gaining a majority with the FPTP system we have, though in 2010 neither of them could manage it and then there were only three parties in the running. In 2015 there are four in the running which will make gaining a majority even harder, I suspect Nigel Farage will be the man to decide who the next PM will be because the LibDems are lucky to keep their deposit in most local elections of late. It is certainly going to be an interesting General Election. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

9:05pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
cromwell9 wrote:
Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End,
The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups.
1 The EU.
2 Public Secter Workers,
3 Minority groups,
They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,,
We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,
I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones.
I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..
Well I do think you are a little of the mark there, especially if you think about it logically. Lab & Con are always the only two parties that have a chance of gaining a majority with the FPTP system we have, though in 2010 neither of them could manage it and then there were only three parties in the running. In 2015 there are four in the running which will make gaining a majority even harder, I suspect Nigel Farage will be the man to decide who the next PM will be because the LibDems are lucky to keep their deposit in most local elections of late. It is certainly going to be an interesting General Election.
i think you are dreaming if you think UKIP can do anything in a general election,,, dont get me wrong I did vote UKIP at the european elections, and will again, however nationally they are no where near in contention, I think they will be very lucky to end up with one or two MPs.
The other big issue we have is Scotland, if Scotland go for independence then it will be very difficult for the Labour party to ever get a majority in a general election,,, (which is why I dont understand why the Cons are not supporting Scottish Independence)
However, this thread is about a local issue, and local Councillors,,,
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End, The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups. 1 The EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, 3 Minority groups, They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,, We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,[/p][/quote]I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones. I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..[/p][/quote]Well I do think you are a little of the mark there, especially if you think about it logically. Lab & Con are always the only two parties that have a chance of gaining a majority with the FPTP system we have, though in 2010 neither of them could manage it and then there were only three parties in the running. In 2015 there are four in the running which will make gaining a majority even harder, I suspect Nigel Farage will be the man to decide who the next PM will be because the LibDems are lucky to keep their deposit in most local elections of late. It is certainly going to be an interesting General Election.[/p][/quote]i think you are dreaming if you think UKIP can do anything in a general election,,, dont get me wrong I did vote UKIP at the european elections, and will again, however nationally they are no where near in contention, I think they will be very lucky to end up with one or two MPs. The other big issue we have is Scotland, if Scotland go for independence then it will be very difficult for the Labour party to ever get a majority in a general election,,, (which is why I dont understand why the Cons are not supporting Scottish Independence) However, this thread is about a local issue, and local Councillors,,, PooleFirst
  • Score: 1

9:29pm Thu 20 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

PooleFirst wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
cromwell9 wrote:
Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End,
The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups.
1 The EU.
2 Public Secter Workers,
3 Minority groups,
They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,,
We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,
I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones.
I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..
Well I do think you are a little of the mark there, especially if you think about it logically. Lab & Con are always the only two parties that have a chance of gaining a majority with the FPTP system we have, though in 2010 neither of them could manage it and then there were only three parties in the running. In 2015 there are four in the running which will make gaining a majority even harder, I suspect Nigel Farage will be the man to decide who the next PM will be because the LibDems are lucky to keep their deposit in most local elections of late. It is certainly going to be an interesting General Election.
i think you are dreaming if you think UKIP can do anything in a general election,,, dont get me wrong I did vote UKIP at the european elections, and will again, however nationally they are no where near in contention, I think they will be very lucky to end up with one or two MPs.
The other big issue we have is Scotland, if Scotland go for independence then it will be very difficult for the Labour party to ever get a majority in a general election,,, (which is why I dont understand why the Cons are not supporting Scottish Independence)
However, this thread is about a local issue, and local Councillors,,,
But do UKIP really need to 'invade' the House of Commons or any Council Chambers en masse to set the agendas? As I see it much of yesterday's budget was just further proof that the UKIP tail has been wagging the Tory dog rather well in recent months, UKIP are certainly in the House we just cannot see them........yet.

Locally we shall see, but I believe it is a close run thing as to whether Bournemouth or Poole is the town most fed up with it's present Tory Council! Turning to the pro-EU, PC (travellers) and 'green' obsessed Lib-Dums after their coalition disaster is now surely going to be unthinkable to an awful lot of voters - interesting times and how timely of UKIP to drop by.....
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End, The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups. 1 The EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, 3 Minority groups, They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,, We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,[/p][/quote]I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones. I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..[/p][/quote]Well I do think you are a little of the mark there, especially if you think about it logically. Lab & Con are always the only two parties that have a chance of gaining a majority with the FPTP system we have, though in 2010 neither of them could manage it and then there were only three parties in the running. In 2015 there are four in the running which will make gaining a majority even harder, I suspect Nigel Farage will be the man to decide who the next PM will be because the LibDems are lucky to keep their deposit in most local elections of late. It is certainly going to be an interesting General Election.[/p][/quote]i think you are dreaming if you think UKIP can do anything in a general election,,, dont get me wrong I did vote UKIP at the european elections, and will again, however nationally they are no where near in contention, I think they will be very lucky to end up with one or two MPs. The other big issue we have is Scotland, if Scotland go for independence then it will be very difficult for the Labour party to ever get a majority in a general election,,, (which is why I dont understand why the Cons are not supporting Scottish Independence) However, this thread is about a local issue, and local Councillors,,,[/p][/quote]But do UKIP really need to 'invade' the House of Commons or any Council Chambers en masse to set the agendas? As I see it much of yesterday's budget was just further proof that the UKIP tail has been wagging the Tory dog rather well in recent months, UKIP are certainly in the House we just cannot see them........yet. Locally we shall see, but I believe it is a close run thing as to whether Bournemouth or Poole is the town most fed up with it's present Tory Council! Turning to the pro-EU, PC (travellers) and 'green' obsessed Lib-Dums after their coalition disaster is now surely going to be unthinkable to an awful lot of voters - interesting times and how timely of UKIP to drop by..... muscliffman
  • Score: 4

9:49pm Thu 20 Mar 14

SuperSnooper says...

muscliffman wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
cromwell9 wrote:
Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End,
The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups.
1 The EU.
2 Public Secter Workers,
3 Minority groups,
They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,,
We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,
I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones.
I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..
Well I do think you are a little of the mark there, especially if you think about it logically. Lab & Con are always the only two parties that have a chance of gaining a majority with the FPTP system we have, though in 2010 neither of them could manage it and then there were only three parties in the running. In 2015 there are four in the running which will make gaining a majority even harder, I suspect Nigel Farage will be the man to decide who the next PM will be because the LibDems are lucky to keep their deposit in most local elections of late. It is certainly going to be an interesting General Election.
i think you are dreaming if you think UKIP can do anything in a general election,,, dont get me wrong I did vote UKIP at the european elections, and will again, however nationally they are no where near in contention, I think they will be very lucky to end up with one or two MPs.
The other big issue we have is Scotland, if Scotland go for independence then it will be very difficult for the Labour party to ever get a majority in a general election,,, (which is why I dont understand why the Cons are not supporting Scottish Independence)
However, this thread is about a local issue, and local Councillors,,,
But do UKIP really need to 'invade' the House of Commons or any Council Chambers en masse to set the agendas? As I see it much of yesterday's budget was just further proof that the UKIP tail has been wagging the Tory dog rather well in recent months, UKIP are certainly in the House we just cannot see them........yet.

Locally we shall see, but I believe it is a close run thing as to whether Bournemouth or Poole is the town most fed up with it's present Tory Council! Turning to the pro-EU, PC (travellers) and 'green' obsessed Lib-Dums after their coalition disaster is now surely going to be unthinkable to an awful lot of voters - interesting times and how timely of UKIP to drop by.....
Poole isnt actually a tory council,, its no overall control by any party, the Liberals voted to keep Atkinson as the leader, even though she is a Tory,, which in my mind says that they must think she is doing something right,, or at least nothing wrong...
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End, The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups. 1 The EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, 3 Minority groups, They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,, We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,[/p][/quote]I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones. I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..[/p][/quote]Well I do think you are a little of the mark there, especially if you think about it logically. Lab & Con are always the only two parties that have a chance of gaining a majority with the FPTP system we have, though in 2010 neither of them could manage it and then there were only three parties in the running. In 2015 there are four in the running which will make gaining a majority even harder, I suspect Nigel Farage will be the man to decide who the next PM will be because the LibDems are lucky to keep their deposit in most local elections of late. It is certainly going to be an interesting General Election.[/p][/quote]i think you are dreaming if you think UKIP can do anything in a general election,,, dont get me wrong I did vote UKIP at the european elections, and will again, however nationally they are no where near in contention, I think they will be very lucky to end up with one or two MPs. The other big issue we have is Scotland, if Scotland go for independence then it will be very difficult for the Labour party to ever get a majority in a general election,,, (which is why I dont understand why the Cons are not supporting Scottish Independence) However, this thread is about a local issue, and local Councillors,,,[/p][/quote]But do UKIP really need to 'invade' the House of Commons or any Council Chambers en masse to set the agendas? As I see it much of yesterday's budget was just further proof that the UKIP tail has been wagging the Tory dog rather well in recent months, UKIP are certainly in the House we just cannot see them........yet. Locally we shall see, but I believe it is a close run thing as to whether Bournemouth or Poole is the town most fed up with it's present Tory Council! Turning to the pro-EU, PC (travellers) and 'green' obsessed Lib-Dums after their coalition disaster is now surely going to be unthinkable to an awful lot of voters - interesting times and how timely of UKIP to drop by.....[/p][/quote]Poole isnt actually a tory council,, its no overall control by any party, the Liberals voted to keep Atkinson as the leader, even though she is a Tory,, which in my mind says that they must think she is doing something right,, or at least nothing wrong... SuperSnooper
  • Score: -3

10:00pm Thu 20 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

SuperSnooper wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
cromwell9 wrote:
Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End,
The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups.
1 The EU.
2 Public Secter Workers,
3 Minority groups,
They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,,
We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,
I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones.
I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..
Well I do think you are a little of the mark there, especially if you think about it logically. Lab & Con are always the only two parties that have a chance of gaining a majority with the FPTP system we have, though in 2010 neither of them could manage it and then there were only three parties in the running. In 2015 there are four in the running which will make gaining a majority even harder, I suspect Nigel Farage will be the man to decide who the next PM will be because the LibDems are lucky to keep their deposit in most local elections of late. It is certainly going to be an interesting General Election.
i think you are dreaming if you think UKIP can do anything in a general election,,, dont get me wrong I did vote UKIP at the european elections, and will again, however nationally they are no where near in contention, I think they will be very lucky to end up with one or two MPs.
The other big issue we have is Scotland, if Scotland go for independence then it will be very difficult for the Labour party to ever get a majority in a general election,,, (which is why I dont understand why the Cons are not supporting Scottish Independence)
However, this thread is about a local issue, and local Councillors,,,
But do UKIP really need to 'invade' the House of Commons or any Council Chambers en masse to set the agendas? As I see it much of yesterday's budget was just further proof that the UKIP tail has been wagging the Tory dog rather well in recent months, UKIP are certainly in the House we just cannot see them........yet.

Locally we shall see, but I believe it is a close run thing as to whether Bournemouth or Poole is the town most fed up with it's present Tory Council! Turning to the pro-EU, PC (travellers) and 'green' obsessed Lib-Dums after their coalition disaster is now surely going to be unthinkable to an awful lot of voters - interesting times and how timely of UKIP to drop by.....
Poole isnt actually a tory council,, its no overall control by any party, the Liberals voted to keep Atkinson as the leader, even though she is a Tory,, which in my mind says that they must think she is doing something right,, or at least nothing wrong...
Thank you I take your point but both Councils are 'led' by a Tory - at least in theory in Poole's case!
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End, The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups. 1 The EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, 3 Minority groups, They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,, We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,[/p][/quote]I am not a big fan of the Libs, but to be fair there are some good ones locally, as there are some good Cons,, its just the bad ones that overshadow the good ones. I think the liberals will be looked at in a different light at the next election because of the national party,, I dont think Clegg has done them any favors going into coalition with the tories,, the libs were always the safe "not sure" vote,, but now they are seen as the Tories lap dog,, so perhaps people will vote Cons or Labour which in reality is the only two parties that have a chance of winning,, could be interesting..[/p][/quote]Well I do think you are a little of the mark there, especially if you think about it logically. Lab & Con are always the only two parties that have a chance of gaining a majority with the FPTP system we have, though in 2010 neither of them could manage it and then there were only three parties in the running. In 2015 there are four in the running which will make gaining a majority even harder, I suspect Nigel Farage will be the man to decide who the next PM will be because the LibDems are lucky to keep their deposit in most local elections of late. It is certainly going to be an interesting General Election.[/p][/quote]i think you are dreaming if you think UKIP can do anything in a general election,,, dont get me wrong I did vote UKIP at the european elections, and will again, however nationally they are no where near in contention, I think they will be very lucky to end up with one or two MPs. The other big issue we have is Scotland, if Scotland go for independence then it will be very difficult for the Labour party to ever get a majority in a general election,,, (which is why I dont understand why the Cons are not supporting Scottish Independence) However, this thread is about a local issue, and local Councillors,,,[/p][/quote]But do UKIP really need to 'invade' the House of Commons or any Council Chambers en masse to set the agendas? As I see it much of yesterday's budget was just further proof that the UKIP tail has been wagging the Tory dog rather well in recent months, UKIP are certainly in the House we just cannot see them........yet. Locally we shall see, but I believe it is a close run thing as to whether Bournemouth or Poole is the town most fed up with it's present Tory Council! Turning to the pro-EU, PC (travellers) and 'green' obsessed Lib-Dums after their coalition disaster is now surely going to be unthinkable to an awful lot of voters - interesting times and how timely of UKIP to drop by.....[/p][/quote]Poole isnt actually a tory council,, its no overall control by any party, the Liberals voted to keep Atkinson as the leader, even though she is a Tory,, which in my mind says that they must think she is doing something right,, or at least nothing wrong...[/p][/quote]Thank you I take your point but both Councils are 'led' by a Tory - at least in theory in Poole's case! muscliffman
  • Score: 1

10:17pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Lewcee says...

Contaminated? Along with Haymoor Estate, Fleets Lane, Wessex Retail Park, Cabot Lane, Nuffield Estate, Tower Park, Winston Avenue, Redlands, Pottery Road Estate, Canford Heath Estate, (mostly old clay pits), Baiter, (Town Dump & Plague Pits) etc., etc.. Liable to Flood? Along with Falkland Square, Old Town & East Quay Road, Bailey Crescent & Fleetsbridge Roundabout, Whitecliff, Shore Road, Canford Heath ( believe me), oh good grief, the mob wins again. None of them interested in whatever else goes on in the town until it is in their own back yard.
Contaminated? Along with Haymoor Estate, Fleets Lane, Wessex Retail Park, Cabot Lane, Nuffield Estate, Tower Park, Winston Avenue, Redlands, Pottery Road Estate, Canford Heath Estate, (mostly old clay pits), Baiter, (Town Dump & Plague Pits) etc., etc.. Liable to Flood? Along with Falkland Square, Old Town & East Quay Road, Bailey Crescent & Fleetsbridge Roundabout, Whitecliff, Shore Road, Canford Heath ( believe me), oh good grief, the mob wins again. None of them interested in whatever else goes on in the town until it is in their own back yard. Lewcee
  • Score: 3

10:38pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Yankee1 says...

Why is this group afforded privileges not afforded to rate paying citizens?

I think this anomaly should be taken before the EU Court of Human Rights. Clearly, the 'travelers' are claiming rights not afforded to all.

Go on. Do it. Why do they have special 'rights'?
Why is this group afforded privileges not afforded to rate paying citizens? I think this anomaly should be taken before the EU Court of Human Rights. Clearly, the 'travelers' are claiming rights not afforded to all. Go on. Do it. Why do they have special 'rights'? Yankee1
  • Score: 3

10:47pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

Yankee1 wrote:
Why is this group afforded privileges not afforded to rate paying citizens?

I think this anomaly should be taken before the EU Court of Human Rights. Clearly, the 'travelers' are claiming rights not afforded to all.

Go on. Do it. Why do they have special 'rights'?
you are so right,,, however the local council has no say over this,, we need to get central government to change this,, but of course they wont,, scared of being called raciest..
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: Why is this group afforded privileges not afforded to rate paying citizens? I think this anomaly should be taken before the EU Court of Human Rights. Clearly, the 'travelers' are claiming rights not afforded to all. Go on. Do it. Why do they have special 'rights'?[/p][/quote]you are so right,,, however the local council has no say over this,, we need to get central government to change this,, but of course they wont,, scared of being called raciest.. PooleFirst
  • Score: 3

11:02pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

and,, the reason I am anonymous is because I am a wage slave for this authority...
and,, the reason I am anonymous is because I am a wage slave for this authority... PooleFirst
  • Score: 2

11:32pm Thu 20 Mar 14

KDMALE says...

There was an article in the Echo recently from Bournemouth Council that really hit the nail on the head regarding these sites & this issue has been missed in amongst the hype around these 2 proposed sites. Putting sites such as these in Poole would have bounced the problem to Bournemouth, Wimborne or any where else around Poole. The travellers would go to A N other place where they could sit on the sites they chose and stay there for a good amount of time before they can legally be moved on. There is no if's but's or maybe's about that statement. I am aware that owing to government rules the prevent councils working together to provided joint sites but that does not really make much sense for this area where its pretty much 1 mass of joined up buildings from Christchurch right the way through to Poole - all surrounded by large open area's. The solution lies in getting the local MP's together & have them work to change the law or to get an exemption for this area & then produce 1 large shared site in a central, low impact area.
Mr Trent this is your answer - its common sense.
Lets put aside playing silly party politics or what ever other games have gone on over this & look around us with wide angle lenses on, not just narrow focus ones.
The issue of travellers - their impact on local area's and proposed sites like this will always stir up emotions from those affected - lets all calm down take a breath & work to the common aim with a common sense approach such as the above.
There was an article in the Echo recently from Bournemouth Council that really hit the nail on the head regarding these sites & this issue has been missed in amongst the hype around these 2 proposed sites. Putting sites such as these in Poole would have bounced the problem to Bournemouth, Wimborne or any where else around Poole. The travellers would go to A N other place where they could sit on the sites they chose and stay there for a good amount of time before they can legally be moved on. There is no if's but's or maybe's about that statement. I am aware that owing to government rules the prevent councils working together to provided joint sites but that does not really make much sense for this area where its pretty much 1 mass of joined up buildings from Christchurch right the way through to Poole - all surrounded by large open area's. The solution lies in getting the local MP's together & have them work to change the law or to get an exemption for this area & then produce 1 large shared site in a central, low impact area. Mr Trent this is your answer - its common sense. Lets put aside playing silly party politics or what ever other games have gone on over this & look around us with wide angle lenses on, not just narrow focus ones. The issue of travellers - their impact on local area's and proposed sites like this will always stir up emotions from those affected - lets all calm down take a breath & work to the common aim with a common sense approach such as the above. KDMALE
  • Score: 5

11:38pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Bob49 says...

"Apparently the European Human Rights act wont allow this,,, then my answer would be to opt out of that then."

oh dear, have you been at the Mail again ?

as in the real world we have in regard to unauthorised camping

"Each encampment location must be considered on its merits ...." NOT this supppsed carte blanche that you an other Mailers keep bleating out.

In fact -

"The human rights of members of the settled community are also material if any authority fails to curb nuisance from an encampment."

And it was a Brirish court that ruled that those wandering about in a caravan in the summer are a seperate ethnoc group.

Sadly little we be done as long as the Mail is able to fill simple heads with ill informed tosh, resulting in said simpletons not asking why this absurd ruling has not been challenged or why local councils choose to contain these nuiscance causers rather than move them on - and also apply the laws the land equally.
"Apparently the European Human Rights act wont allow this,,, then my answer would be to opt out of that then." oh dear, have you been at the Mail again ? as in the real world we have in regard to unauthorised camping "Each encampment location must be considered on its merits ...." NOT this supppsed carte blanche that you an other Mailers keep bleating out. In fact - "The human rights of members of the settled community are also material if any authority fails to curb nuisance from an encampment." And it was a Brirish court that ruled that those wandering about in a caravan in the summer are a seperate ethnoc group. Sadly little we be done as long as the Mail is able to fill simple heads with ill informed tosh, resulting in said simpletons not asking why this absurd ruling has not been challenged or why local councils choose to contain these nuiscance causers rather than move them on - and also apply the laws the land equally. Bob49
  • Score: 4

11:41pm Thu 20 Mar 14

KDMALE says...

I need to add a PS to the above - some comments have been made regarding working being done to prepare the Marsh end site for the TSP prior to the application being approved. The appearance of people on this site was pointed out to me & I raised it with BOP and have assurances that the work was routine work to maintain the site and some surveying which was required to gather information for the planning process. I can assure you that the source of this was really well placed & provided me with a full explanation which reassured me that the events were coincidental.
I need to add a PS to the above - some comments have been made regarding working being done to prepare the Marsh end site for the TSP prior to the application being approved. The appearance of people on this site was pointed out to me & I raised it with BOP and have assurances that the work was routine work to maintain the site and some surveying which was required to gather information for the planning process. I can assure you that the source of this was really well placed & provided me with a full explanation which reassured me that the events were coincidental. KDMALE
  • Score: 2

6:44am Fri 21 Mar 14

carrrob says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Now give Judy her job back!! and I guess the price is now reduced somewhat...
Give Judy her job back haha what a joke so she can suggest a site near someone elses home !
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Now give Judy her job back!! and I guess the price is now reduced somewhat...[/p][/quote]Give Judy her job back haha what a joke so she can suggest a site near someone elses home ! carrrob
  • Score: 0

6:49am Fri 21 Mar 14

carrrob says...

Big Man 2 wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
Perhaps everyone should now be calling for JUDY BUTT to resign !!! what a disgrace she has been.
Far from it , she should be reinstated, and given Atkinson's job !
Butt is a typical hypocritical councillor make no mistake if this site would have been miles from her home would she have resigned i think not!
[quote][p][bold]Big Man 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: Perhaps everyone should now be calling for JUDY BUTT to resign !!! what a disgrace she has been.[/p][/quote]Far from it , she should be reinstated, and given Atkinson's job ![/p][/quote]Butt is a typical hypocritical councillor make no mistake if this site would have been miles from her home would she have resigned i think not! carrrob
  • Score: 0

7:14am Fri 21 Mar 14

SuperSnooper says...

Good morning all,,,
So, will Judy Butt resign today ?
I bet she woke up this morning feeling very foolish. There is no future for her in this town.
Not sure what she did before she got her snout stuck in the trough of the taxpayers money, but I wonder if they would have her back.
Good morning all,,, So, will Judy Butt resign today ? I bet she woke up this morning feeling very foolish. There is no future for her in this town. Not sure what she did before she got her snout stuck in the trough of the taxpayers money, but I wonder if they would have her back. SuperSnooper
  • Score: -4

7:21am Fri 21 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

SuperSnooper wrote:
Good morning all,,, So, will Judy Butt resign today ? I bet she woke up this morning feeling very foolish. There is no future for her in this town. Not sure what she did before she got her snout stuck in the trough of the taxpayers money, but I wonder if they would have her back.
Your very confused Super Snooper, are you refeering to the Leader or has she put you up to it?
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: Good morning all,,, So, will Judy Butt resign today ? I bet she woke up this morning feeling very foolish. There is no future for her in this town. Not sure what she did before she got her snout stuck in the trough of the taxpayers money, but I wonder if they would have her back.[/p][/quote]Your very confused Super Snooper, are you refeering to the Leader or has she put you up to it? ADST_2008
  • Score: 1

7:27am Fri 21 Mar 14

dogsoftheworld says...

I somehow suspect the new posters supesrnooper and poole first are very closely linked with Elaine Atkinson and the portfolio holder councilor Mike White, desperately trying to wriggle out of what they've done.
Working in secret to select the creekmore site, then ruining anyone who dared to oppose, wasting huge amounts of public money on a site which was clearly never going to work, trying to stop the offer of jobs and prosperity...well, you two really, really screwed up. Bigtime. Not only wicked but incompetent too.
Now go, the pair of you.
I somehow suspect the new posters supesrnooper and poole first are very closely linked with Elaine Atkinson and the portfolio holder councilor Mike White, desperately trying to wriggle out of what they've done. Working in secret to select the creekmore site, then ruining anyone who dared to oppose, wasting huge amounts of public money on a site which was clearly never going to work, trying to stop the offer of jobs and prosperity...well, you two really, really screwed up. Bigtime. Not only wicked but incompetent too. Now go, the pair of you. dogsoftheworld
  • Score: 2

7:44am Fri 21 Mar 14

SuperSnooper says...

Oh dear sounds like a few idiots on here are trying to be super detectives, i don't need anyone to put me up to do anything, I didn't want this gypsy site, I have always been against it, and always will be when someone tries to plan another one somewhere else.
Don't know who Mike White is, and don't care.
But everyone can see how stupid Judy Butt has been and I can't believe we are still paying her. I pay tax, not sure if you do but if you do then I assume you are OK with it going in her pocket as she sits at home
Oh dear sounds like a few idiots on here are trying to be super detectives, i don't need anyone to put me up to do anything, I didn't want this gypsy site, I have always been against it, and always will be when someone tries to plan another one somewhere else. Don't know who Mike White is, and don't care. But everyone can see how stupid Judy Butt has been and I can't believe we are still paying her. I pay tax, not sure if you do but if you do then I assume you are OK with it going in her pocket as she sits at home SuperSnooper
  • Score: 1

8:34am Fri 21 Mar 14

we-shall-see says...

So they cleared the site in readiness - removing all bushes and scrub to stop birds nesting, which would have held up any potential works on the site as they are not allowed to destroy nesting birds - and now the planning permission didn't get the go ahead.

So not only do birds now have to find somewhere else to nest, us tax payers have to foot the bill for the pleasure of it!!

Where are the environmental department while this was going on? Not protecting the interests of wildlife that is for sure :o/
So they cleared the site in readiness - removing all bushes and scrub to stop birds nesting, which would have held up any potential works on the site as they are not allowed to destroy nesting birds - and now the planning permission didn't get the go ahead. So not only do birds now have to find somewhere else to nest, us tax payers have to foot the bill for the pleasure of it!! Where are the environmental department while this was going on? Not protecting the interests of wildlife that is for sure :o/ we-shall-see
  • Score: 9

8:55am Fri 21 Mar 14

SuperSnooper says...

Sell the land quick before someone comes up with another crazy idea
Sell the land quick before someone comes up with another crazy idea SuperSnooper
  • Score: 5

9:13am Fri 21 Mar 14

RM says...

we-shall-see wrote:
So they cleared the site in readiness - removing all bushes and scrub to stop birds nesting, which would have held up any potential works on the site as they are not allowed to destroy nesting birds - and now the planning permission didn't get the go ahead.

So not only do birds now have to find somewhere else to nest, us tax payers have to foot the bill for the pleasure of it!!

Where are the environmental department while this was going on? Not protecting the interests of wildlife that is for sure :o/
Nor protecting the interests of their employers, we the public, who now have to foot the bill.
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: So they cleared the site in readiness - removing all bushes and scrub to stop birds nesting, which would have held up any potential works on the site as they are not allowed to destroy nesting birds - and now the planning permission didn't get the go ahead. So not only do birds now have to find somewhere else to nest, us tax payers have to foot the bill for the pleasure of it!! Where are the environmental department while this was going on? Not protecting the interests of wildlife that is for sure :o/[/p][/quote]Nor protecting the interests of their employers, we the public, who now have to foot the bill. RM
  • Score: 2

9:26am Fri 21 Mar 14

SuperSnooper says...

I don't there are any losers in all this, it's just a shame it was done is such a bad way.
The end result is what we all wanted
I don't there are any losers in all this, it's just a shame it was done is such a bad way. The end result is what we all wanted SuperSnooper
  • Score: -1

9:42am Fri 21 Mar 14

CourtOffside says...

cromwell9 wrote:
cromwell9 wrote:
Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End,
The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups.
1 The EU.
2 Public Secter Workers,
3 Minority groups,
They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,,
We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,
Marshes End was a LIB DEM idea,
This party are only interested in 3 groups,
1 THE EU.
2 Public Secter Workers, (A lot of them live in Creekmore/Broadstone

,That is how they got in,
3 Minoritys,
This party are anti British,They dont even believe in marrage,etc.
I have a list as long as my arm.
We fought 2 WORLD WARS to keep our freedom.And I owe it to my farther who got sunk on the Russion Convoys not to vote Lib Dems, to hand over this country to the GERMANS and the EU,
So before you put your x at the next election THINK about it
It'll go next to the Lib Dems as a tactical vote against the Tories as always.

Cheerio.
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Lets not forget this was a LIB DEM idea to put this traveller sight at Marshes End, The LIB DEMS are a anti British party,They are only interested in 3 groups. 1 The EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, 3 Minority groups, They force thelr way in to comunitys,organising all sorts of different prodgets ,and ideas .But what they are wrealy all about is undermining our traditional British way of live.and changing it to their way regardless,, We did not fight 2 WOLD WARS to hand it over to the lib dems and their EU friends,[/p][/quote]Marshes End was a LIB DEM idea, This party are only interested in 3 groups, 1 THE EU. 2 Public Secter Workers, (A lot of them live in Creekmore/Broadstone ,That is how they got in, 3 Minoritys, This party are anti British,They dont even believe in marrage,etc. I have a list as long as my arm. We fought 2 WORLD WARS to keep our freedom.And I owe it to my farther who got sunk on the Russion Convoys not to vote Lib Dems, to hand over this country to the GERMANS and the EU, So before you put your x at the next election THINK about it[/p][/quote]It'll go next to the Lib Dems as a tactical vote against the Tories as always. Cheerio. CourtOffside
  • Score: 0

10:16am Fri 21 Mar 14

TheDistrict says...

I thought this story was about the proposed travellers sites at Creekmoor and Oakdale. It appears to have been taken over by Poolefirst, who believes in himself, and no one else. Certainly does not listen to others, or take heed of what is being said. So much for a democratic society.

It is also the hypocrits as usual on this forum. Cllr Judy Butt was the Queen of Creekmoor a week or so ago, now most want her out. Is that not a typical council ploy. You made us look a fool now get out. I think she should be given back her cabinet job, and a public apology by the Council Leader, Elaine Atkinson. Oh yes, then she should step down. If she felt that Creekmoor and Oakdale, as she says now, were no go for planning, then why did she sack Judy Butt. In reality she was agreeing with her.
I thought this story was about the proposed travellers sites at Creekmoor and Oakdale. It appears to have been taken over by Poolefirst, who believes in himself, and no one else. Certainly does not listen to others, or take heed of what is being said. So much for a democratic society. It is also the hypocrits as usual on this forum. Cllr Judy Butt was the Queen of Creekmoor a week or so ago, now most want her out. Is that not a typical council ploy. You made us look a fool now get out. I think she should be given back her cabinet job, and a public apology by the Council Leader, Elaine Atkinson. Oh yes, then she should step down. If she felt that Creekmoor and Oakdale, as she says now, were no go for planning, then why did she sack Judy Butt. In reality she was agreeing with her. TheDistrict
  • Score: 2

10:16am Fri 21 Mar 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

SuperSnooper wrote:
Good morning all,,,
So, will Judy Butt resign today ?
I bet she woke up this morning feeling very foolish. There is no future for her in this town.
Not sure what she did before she got her snout stuck in the trough of the taxpayers money, but I wonder if they would have her back.
I somehow suspect that she woke up feeling a whole lot happier than you did this morning. I am a little curious though as to why you think a councillor should resign for voicing their constituents opinions. It's a pity there are not more on the council like her but for some strange reason people tend to vote for some that work far harder for those outside the community than they do for those who actually contribute towards their salaries and expenses.
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: Good morning all,,, So, will Judy Butt resign today ? I bet she woke up this morning feeling very foolish. There is no future for her in this town. Not sure what she did before she got her snout stuck in the trough of the taxpayers money, but I wonder if they would have her back.[/p][/quote]I somehow suspect that she woke up feeling a whole lot happier than you did this morning. I am a little curious though as to why you think a councillor should resign for voicing their constituents opinions. It's a pity there are not more on the council like her but for some strange reason people tend to vote for some that work far harder for those outside the community than they do for those who actually contribute towards their salaries and expenses. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

10:36am Fri 21 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

It's very obvious that most posters haven't even bothered to read the 200 documents from individuals and various businesses on the planning application web site, the majority of which express very good reasons why the site was unsuitable. And I don't suppose any of those commenting bothered to send in a comment supporting the planning application. They just sat back and waited to they could post libellous comments and call Creekmoor residents a mob. It doesn't seem to have got through to them that it was the PLANNING COMMITTEE who rejected the planning application and I don't suppose that any of them have checked to see who was on planning committee, who could be one of their councillors.
It's very obvious that most posters haven't even bothered to read the 200 documents from individuals and various businesses on the planning application web site, the majority of which express very good reasons why the site was unsuitable. And I don't suppose any of those commenting bothered to send in a comment supporting the planning application. They just sat back and waited to they could post libellous comments and call Creekmoor residents a mob. It doesn't seem to have got through to them that it was the PLANNING COMMITTEE who rejected the planning application and I don't suppose that any of them have checked to see who was on planning committee, who could be one of their councillors. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

10:55am Fri 21 Mar 14

BarrHumbug says...

It seems they only tip up (literally) on mass during the weeks running up to the steam fair and then they go so why doesn't the County Council make it the responsibility of the organisers to provide a site and if they don't then revoke their licence for the event?

This may be a victory for the residents and businesses of Creekmoor but it doesn't address the issue, it just moves it along to the next proposed site to be argued over and rejected.
It seems they only tip up (literally) on mass during the weeks running up to the steam fair and then they go so why doesn't the County Council make it the responsibility of the organisers to provide a site and if they don't then revoke their licence for the event? This may be a victory for the residents and businesses of Creekmoor but it doesn't address the issue, it just moves it along to the next proposed site to be argued over and rejected. BarrHumbug
  • Score: 2

11:31am Fri 21 Mar 14

Mad Karew says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
It seems they only tip up (literally) on mass during the weeks running up to the steam fair and then they go so why doesn't the County Council make it the responsibility of the organisers to provide a site and if they don't then revoke their licence for the event?

This may be a victory for the residents and businesses of Creekmoor but it doesn't address the issue, it just moves it along to the next proposed site to be argued over and rejected.
Dorset have opened a site at Piddlehinton for the Steam Fair.

It's not true that that's all they come for, they start turning up as soon as the sun comes out - the first traveller of the season was spotted at B&Q car park a week ago.

The TSPs proposed wouldn't have even dented the problems because they were too small - the small encampments are usually gypsies who respect their camp site and leave it clean and tidy.

The trouble makers are the large encampments of 20-30+ caravans and the planned sites were too small to make any difference to them.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: It seems they only tip up (literally) on mass during the weeks running up to the steam fair and then they go so why doesn't the County Council make it the responsibility of the organisers to provide a site and if they don't then revoke their licence for the event? This may be a victory for the residents and businesses of Creekmoor but it doesn't address the issue, it just moves it along to the next proposed site to be argued over and rejected.[/p][/quote]Dorset have opened a site at Piddlehinton for the Steam Fair. It's not true that that's all they come for, they start turning up as soon as the sun comes out - the first traveller of the season was spotted at B&Q car park a week ago. The TSPs proposed wouldn't have even dented the problems because they were too small - the small encampments are usually gypsies who respect their camp site and leave it clean and tidy. The trouble makers are the large encampments of 20-30+ caravans and the planned sites were too small to make any difference to them. Mad Karew
  • Score: 5

3:45pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

Surely no coincidence that PooleFirst is an anagram of Fools Tripe?! And SuperSnooper is Poseur Person (along with a few less savoury anagrams)?!?
Surely no coincidence that PooleFirst is an anagram of Fools Tripe?! And SuperSnooper is Poseur Person (along with a few less savoury anagrams)?!? Jo__Go
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Surely no coincidence that PooleFirst is an anagram of Fools Tripe?! And SuperSnooper is Poseur Person (along with a few less savoury anagrams)?!?
I hadn't noticed, but now you point it out .......
...
Have they been encouraged by parties unknown? to make defamatory and libellous comments about Judy Butt. There's free speech and then there's just plain nastiness. Not people I would ever like to meet.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Surely no coincidence that PooleFirst is an anagram of Fools Tripe?! And SuperSnooper is Poseur Person (along with a few less savoury anagrams)?!?[/p][/quote]I hadn't noticed, but now you point it out ....... ... Have they been encouraged by parties unknown? to make defamatory and libellous comments about Judy Butt. There's free speech and then there's just plain nastiness. Not people I would ever like to meet. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

8:28am Sat 22 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

SuperSnooper wrote:
Oh dear sounds like a few idiots on here are trying to be super detectives, i don't need anyone to put me up to do anything, I didn't want this gypsy site, I have always been against it, and always will be when someone tries to plan another one somewhere else.
Don't know who Mike White is, and don't care.
But everyone can see how stupid Judy Butt has been and I can't believe we are still paying her. I pay tax, not sure if you do but if you do then I assume you are OK with it going in her pocket as she sits at home
Bur for Judy, this would probably have been nodded through - note they
were clearing the site well in advance. It was going to cost about £250,000
plus £35,000 a year maintenance - are you o.k. with that for a site that was
so dangerous the travellers could have made a good case for not using it?
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: Oh dear sounds like a few idiots on here are trying to be super detectives, i don't need anyone to put me up to do anything, I didn't want this gypsy site, I have always been against it, and always will be when someone tries to plan another one somewhere else. Don't know who Mike White is, and don't care. But everyone can see how stupid Judy Butt has been and I can't believe we are still paying her. I pay tax, not sure if you do but if you do then I assume you are OK with it going in her pocket as she sits at home[/p][/quote]Bur for Judy, this would probably have been nodded through - note they were clearing the site well in advance. It was going to cost about £250,000 plus £35,000 a year maintenance - are you o.k. with that for a site that was so dangerous the travellers could have made a good case for not using it? mimi55
  • Score: 3

8:30am Sat 22 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

KDMALE wrote:
I need to add a PS to the above - some comments have been made regarding working being done to prepare the Marsh end site for the TSP prior to the application being approved. The appearance of people on this site was pointed out to me & I raised it with BOP and have assurances that the work was routine work to maintain the site and some surveying which was required to gather information for the planning process. I can assure you that the source of this was really well placed & provided me with a full explanation which reassured me that the events were coincidental.
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?
[quote][p][bold]KDMALE[/bold] wrote: I need to add a PS to the above - some comments have been made regarding working being done to prepare the Marsh end site for the TSP prior to the application being approved. The appearance of people on this site was pointed out to me & I raised it with BOP and have assurances that the work was routine work to maintain the site and some surveying which was required to gather information for the planning process. I can assure you that the source of this was really well placed & provided me with a full explanation which reassured me that the events were coincidental.[/p][/quote]Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? mimi55
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree