VIDEO: Travellers turn up at Poole's Dolphin Leisure Centre car park

VIDEO: Travellers turn up at Poole's Dolphin Leisure Centre car park

Travellers relocate to car park at Poole's Dolphin Leisure Centre

Travellers relocate to car park at Poole's Dolphin Leisure Centre

Travellers relocate to car park at Poole's Dolphin Leisure Centre

First published in News
Last updated

TRAVELLERS have continued their cat-and-mouse game with council officials after occupying a car park close to Poole Park straight after being evicted from nearby Hamworthy Park.

Six caravans and one motor home are parked up at the far end of the Dolphin Swimming Pool car park, off Kingland Road, which usually only offers a maximum four hours stay.

They arrived at the 344-space car park last night, and Borough of Poole has already started gathering evidence to secure a court order.

However, no court date will be available until after the bank holiday weekend, meaning it is unlikely they will move on before next week.

This latest unauthorised encampment comes after borough officials successfully applied for an eviction order for the Hamworthy site midweek.

Residents, who voiced concerns at the ease of how Hamworthy Park was accessed, said they were worried the travellers would simply move to another site locally once the legal process to remove them came to a conclusion.

Motorist Stephen Watson, who was parking in the Swimming Pool car park yesterday to use the nearby leisure centre, said: “They’re hidden away at the back of the car park, and I’m happy to park here for the day.

“I suppose if more people try to park and cannot because of them, that will pose a problem.

“But, otherwise, they don’t seem to be causing any problems.

“To be honest, I barely noticed they were there.”

A resident of Kingland Road, who asked not to be named, said she’d not heard of any problems from a friend who lives near Hamworthy Park.

Council officers confirmed the travellers left the park clean, bagging up all their domestic refuse and leaving no commercial waste.

“I know that travellers and gypsies gets certain people’s blood boiling, but we live in a country of different cultures – which the travelling community is part of.

“Unless there are any problems, live and let live, that is what I say.”

Borough of Poole regulatory services manager Peter Haikin explained the council was legally obliged to balance interests of both the travellers and the local community when dealing with unauthorised encampments.

Expanding on this point, Mr Haikin added: “For example, if an encampment is in a designated borough park or a field in trust, we will seek a court order as a matter of urgency.

“In this instance we have already started gathering evidence required to obtain a court order, and if necessary seek a court hearing date following the bank holiday.

“The car park is still being used by visitors and will remain open.”

Comments have been opened on this story but please note: any reference to gypsies or any racially offensive term will cause them to be closed and you may find your account suspended. Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are legally recognised as ethnic groups, and protected by the Race Relations Act. Please keep your comments to this particular incident and do not generalise. Thanks for your co-operation.

Comments (96)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:04am Fri 23 May 14

Townee says...

All carparks need heavy over head barriers low enough to stop caravans and vans entering them.
All carparks need heavy over head barriers low enough to stop caravans and vans entering them. Townee
  • Score: 70

9:10am Fri 23 May 14

Dave2207 says...

This is a fee-charging car park: therefore, the traffic wardens MUST treat them as they would treat any other motorist and MAKE THEM PAY for every minute that they are there. These 'campers' demand equality - let them have it.
This is a fee-charging car park: therefore, the traffic wardens MUST treat them as they would treat any other motorist and MAKE THEM PAY for every minute that they are there. These 'campers' demand equality - let them have it. Dave2207
  • Score: 273

9:11am Fri 23 May 14

sarahinpoole says...

That'll cost a fortune in pay and display parking surely? As if they'll even get fined!!
That'll cost a fortune in pay and display parking surely? As if they'll even get fined!! sarahinpoole
  • Score: 97

9:14am Fri 23 May 14

bourne free says...

Nice to see the Echo photographer has got the balls to get close again !!
Nice to see the Echo photographer has got the balls to get close again !! bourne free
  • Score: 56

9:27am Fri 23 May 14

Melanie.Read12 says...

I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park.
Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.
I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park. Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law. Melanie.Read12
  • Score: 77

9:32am Fri 23 May 14

Lucky Rich says...

Townee wrote:
All carparks need heavy over head barriers low enough to stop caravans and vans entering them.
It probably does help in these cases ,but the rest of the year people with campers or even cars with roof box's etc cant use them .
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: All carparks need heavy over head barriers low enough to stop caravans and vans entering them.[/p][/quote]It probably does help in these cases ,but the rest of the year people with campers or even cars with roof box's etc cant use them . Lucky Rich
  • Score: 38

9:35am Fri 23 May 14

smhinto says...

Yes and if Joe Public parked his vehicles there his feet would not have touched the ground before the Council will be all over him like a tonne of bricks.
.
But these mis-fits will get away with it as usual.
Yes and if Joe Public parked his vehicles there his feet would not have touched the ground before the Council will be all over him like a tonne of bricks. . But these mis-fits will get away with it as usual. smhinto
  • Score: 76

9:36am Fri 23 May 14

we-shall-see says...

Does anyone know where the lot from Ham Park went? There were more than five in that group and I'm just wondering what play park they have taken up residence in this time :o/
Does anyone know where the lot from Ham Park went? There were more than five in that group and I'm just wondering what play park they have taken up residence in this time :o/ we-shall-see
  • Score: 22

9:37am Fri 23 May 14

hooplaa says...

Boring...
Boring... hooplaa
  • Score: -36

9:43am Fri 23 May 14

TheDistrict says...

This again is becoming ridiculous on the part of local authorities, who allow time getting court action implemented, thus giving this ethnic minority time to move on to another local location. As said above, why cant a blanket court injunction on all sites be made ready for the seasonal influx of this menace.

Why should residents have to put up this stain on our local and public locations, Why should we be stopped from using such locations in fear of the usual threat from such people. It is time our yellow backed authorities got some gumption and moved quicker and made it stick.
This again is becoming ridiculous on the part of local authorities, who allow time getting court action implemented, thus giving this ethnic minority time to move on to another local location. As said above, why cant a blanket court injunction on all sites be made ready for the seasonal influx of this menace. Why should residents have to put up this stain on our local and public locations, Why should we be stopped from using such locations in fear of the usual threat from such people. It is time our yellow backed authorities got some gumption and moved quicker and made it stick. TheDistrict
  • Score: 61

9:43am Fri 23 May 14

we-shall-see says...

Melanie.Read12 wrote:
I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park.
Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.
Eviction orders only cover the particular place - ie: Hamworthy Park and nothing to stop them moving just a mile or two down the road, as appears to be the case .....

Overhead barriers or sturdy locked gates are the only way to deter these people from using and abusing public spaces, but do we *really* want every piece of open ground or car park to be in complete lock-down with fences/gates/barrier
s all over the place?

Personally, no, but since this is not a children's play area, I think it preferable they are there than other places - plus no one will want to park their car there while caravans are in residence for fear of having their car broken into - so the council may act faster because they are losing money - any other place and they usual sit on their hands for days on end .....

I say, lock them in and don't let them leave until they pay for the eviction orders. After all, most people getting evicted for any reason from a property have to pay the court fees, so why not those people too?
[quote][p][bold]Melanie.Read12[/bold] wrote: I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park. Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.[/p][/quote]Eviction orders only cover the particular place - ie: Hamworthy Park and nothing to stop them moving just a mile or two down the road, as appears to be the case ..... Overhead barriers or sturdy locked gates are the only way to deter these people from using and abusing public spaces, but do we *really* want every piece of open ground or car park to be in complete lock-down with fences/gates/barrier s all over the place? Personally, no, but since this is not a children's play area, I think it preferable they are there than other places - plus no one will want to park their car there while caravans are in residence for fear of having their car broken into - so the council may act faster because they are losing money - any other place and they usual sit on their hands for days on end ..... I say, lock them in and don't let them leave until they pay for the eviction orders. After all, most people getting evicted for any reason from a property have to pay the court fees, so why not those people too? we-shall-see
  • Score: 68

9:43am Fri 23 May 14

Chiqqy says...

I think my friend and I are going to rock up to the park on the West Cliff in her motorhome, of course remove the obstructions and plant ourselves on the grass there for a few days...or weeks....it's obviously ok to do that ?
I think my friend and I are going to rock up to the park on the West Cliff in her motorhome, of course remove the obstructions and plant ourselves on the grass there for a few days...or weeks....it's obviously ok to do that ? Chiqqy
  • Score: 68

9:44am Fri 23 May 14

its not that bad says...

we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas its not that bad
  • Score: 33

9:55am Fri 23 May 14

poolebabe says...

A car park is fine, certainly better than a park. So charge them now. They want equality, so do I. I can't park there free.
A car park is fine, certainly better than a park. So charge them now. They want equality, so do I. I can't park there free. poolebabe
  • Score: 77

9:56am Fri 23 May 14

Minty Fresh says...

Nice of the Echo to yet again patronise it's readers at the bottom of the report with it's "please don't say anything derogatory about travellers or we will kick you off the site" garbage. Translation... we at the Echo are more scared of being sued and having to employ our expensively retained lawyers than allowing our readers to voice their opinions.

When is this publication actually going to grow a pair and get behind the local people and lobby local MP's for a law change? I am not a racist and if these people want to live a nomadic lifestyle that's fine by me, provided they abide by the same laws the rest of us do and face the same consequences if we break those laws.

Come on Mr. Editor. Stop hiding in the shadows and do something!
Nice of the Echo to yet again patronise it's readers at the bottom of the report with it's "please don't say anything derogatory about travellers or we will kick you off the site" garbage. Translation... we at the Echo are more scared of being sued and having to employ our expensively retained lawyers than allowing our readers to voice their opinions. When is this publication actually going to grow a pair and get behind the local people and lobby local MP's for a law change? I am not a racist and if these people want to live a nomadic lifestyle that's fine by me, provided they abide by the same laws the rest of us do and face the same consequences if we break those laws. Come on Mr. Editor. Stop hiding in the shadows and do something! Minty Fresh
  • Score: 84

10:05am Fri 23 May 14

master plan says...

Lock them in there make them pay fees and a fine to get out
Lock them in there make them pay fees and a fine to get out master plan
  • Score: 59

10:06am Fri 23 May 14

nickynoodah says...

take their children into care and put the adults in a shaft take the motors to a scrap yard
that's it hen you know it is.
take their children into care and put the adults in a shaft take the motors to a scrap yard that's it hen you know it is. nickynoodah
  • Score: 17

10:27am Fri 23 May 14

speedy231278 says...

I bet the local traffic warden/ticket inspector won't have the balls to clamp them for not paying the parking fee!
I bet the local traffic warden/ticket inspector won't have the balls to clamp them for not paying the parking fee! speedy231278
  • Score: 69

10:34am Fri 23 May 14

TheDistrict says...

its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
Remember Mannings Heath, when the first purpose built campsite was put in place. It was ripped out by the travellers and sold on in their quests for business.
[quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]Remember Mannings Heath, when the first purpose built campsite was put in place. It was ripped out by the travellers and sold on in their quests for business. TheDistrict
  • Score: 36

10:48am Fri 23 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.
[quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose. Carolyn43
  • Score: 10

10:50am Fri 23 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

bourne free wrote:
Nice to see the Echo photographer has got the balls to get close again !!
You don't have to get anywhere near with a telephoto lens.
[quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: Nice to see the Echo photographer has got the balls to get close again !![/p][/quote]You don't have to get anywhere near with a telephoto lens. Carolyn43
  • Score: 9

10:50am Fri 23 May 14

apm1954 says...

keep away from that car park then no wheels left when you return
keep away from that car park then no wheels left when you return apm1954
  • Score: 13

10:57am Fri 23 May 14

Tony Trent says...

Melanie.Read12 wrote:
I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park.
Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.
The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.
[quote][p][bold]Melanie.Read12[/bold] wrote: I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park. Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.[/p][/quote]The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue. Tony Trent
  • Score: -11

11:00am Fri 23 May 14

madras says...

'Following the court order the travellers moved last night. We are arranging a clear up of the area.”

In addition to above comments about making them pay regular parking charges, plus any fines for late payment, the need for 'a clear up of the area' also speaks volumes. Sorry, but it does
'Following the court order the travellers moved last night. We are arranging a clear up of the area.” In addition to above comments about making them pay regular parking charges, plus any fines for late payment, the need for 'a clear up of the area' also speaks volumes. Sorry, but it does madras
  • Score: 29

11:15am Fri 23 May 14

Tony Trent says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.
And still the local Councillors object. It is only green belt because of the P&R, which ironically prevents it being used as a TSP. It would probably have been a huge retail park by now if it wasn't for the P&R stipulation. Pity it's not used as a P&R, but any approaches end up in the long grass. I wonder why?
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.[/p][/quote]And still the local Councillors object. It is only green belt because of the P&R, which ironically prevents it being used as a TSP. It would probably have been a huge retail park by now if it wasn't for the P&R stipulation. Pity it's not used as a P&R, but any approaches end up in the long grass. I wonder why? Tony Trent
  • Score: 0

11:17am Fri 23 May 14

itsneverblackorwhite says...

Poole council moved quickly to secure it other sites then!
Poole council moved quickly to secure it other sites then! itsneverblackorwhite
  • Score: 8

11:29am Fri 23 May 14

Norman Stansfield says...

its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble
m solved!
[quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble m solved! Norman Stansfield
  • Score: -7

11:30am Fri 23 May 14

PUZZLED ONE says...

I notice that the comments about the 'swooping' of armed police after reports of a security van raid have been removed by the Echo, did the remarks hit a sensitive nerve in the newsdesk staff (:o))
I notice that the comments about the 'swooping' of armed police after reports of a security van raid have been removed by the Echo, did the remarks hit a sensitive nerve in the newsdesk staff (:o)) PUZZLED ONE
  • Score: 13

11:40am Fri 23 May 14

hamuser says...

So an ethnic group has the rights to "travel", protected and enshrined in Human Rights law..........fine. Surely that does not make them immune from the laws of the land? If they cause damage they should be prosecuted. If they pitch in a public car park they should be charged for parking and the necessary steps taken if they refuse to pay. If there are n legal transit sites in any particular borough then they should only travel to locations where they are available. What evidence is there that these people with expensive modern vehicles and caravans actually belong to a recognised ethnic group anyway? What are the criteria? The only binding characteristic appears to be any group of people who expect to be able to pitch caravans wherever they please, treat the laws of the land with impunity and be prepared to take whatever action is required to avoid making any payment. Seems easy enough to join!!
So an ethnic group has the rights to "travel", protected and enshrined in Human Rights law..........fine. Surely that does not make them immune from the laws of the land? If they cause damage they should be prosecuted. If they pitch in a public car park they should be charged for parking and the necessary steps taken if they refuse to pay. If there are n legal transit sites in any particular borough then they should only travel to locations where they are available. What evidence is there that these people with expensive modern vehicles and caravans actually belong to a recognised ethnic group anyway? What are the criteria? The only binding characteristic appears to be any group of people who expect to be able to pitch caravans wherever they please, treat the laws of the land with impunity and be prepared to take whatever action is required to avoid making any payment. Seems easy enough to join!! hamuser
  • Score: 43

11:41am Fri 23 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Melanie.Read12 wrote:
I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park.
Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.
The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.
The only two sites even remotely suitable for a TSP within the borough were deemed not to be so for sound planning reasons by the Planning Committee, but you obviously disagree with those Councillors on the committee.

The advice doesn't mean that any old piece of unsuitable/unuseable land can be called a TSP just so travellers can be moved on under the laws which apply to the situation. We probably all agree that we abhor what they get away with and don't want them here, but just calling a piece of unsuitable land a TSP to achieve that, as you seem to imply, is, in my opinion, dishonest and immoral. But that's why I have a low opinion of most politicians whether at local or national level.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Melanie.Read12[/bold] wrote: I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park. Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.[/p][/quote]The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.[/p][/quote]The only two sites even remotely suitable for a TSP within the borough were deemed not to be so for sound planning reasons by the Planning Committee, but you obviously disagree with those Councillors on the committee. The advice doesn't mean that any old piece of unsuitable/unuseable land can be called a TSP just so travellers can be moved on under the laws which apply to the situation. We probably all agree that we abhor what they get away with and don't want them here, but just calling a piece of unsuitable land a TSP to achieve that, as you seem to imply, is, in my opinion, dishonest and immoral. But that's why I have a low opinion of most politicians whether at local or national level. Carolyn43
  • Score: -9

11:43am Fri 23 May 14

MMM444 says...

Travellers my ar-e, look at the 50k Motorhome, confiscate it, go some way towards the clear up and court orders us tax payers are having to pay to rid of these idle scroungers, vandals the whole lot of them
Travellers my ar-e, look at the 50k Motorhome, confiscate it, go some way towards the clear up and court orders us tax payers are having to pay to rid of these idle scroungers, vandals the whole lot of them MMM444
  • Score: 49

11:46am Fri 23 May 14

moleman says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.
When is a Park and Ride not a park and ride? When no-one parks there and there are no buses to take you anywhere else. Why not use it for the benefit of local residents and ensure that it is useful rather than becoming a wasteland.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.[/p][/quote]When is a Park and Ride not a park and ride? When no-one parks there and there are no buses to take you anywhere else. Why not use it for the benefit of local residents and ensure that it is useful rather than becoming a wasteland. moleman
  • Score: 14

11:46am Fri 23 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

Norman Stansfield wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble

m solved!
For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site.

If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".
[quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble m solved![/p][/quote]For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site. If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride". Carolyn43
  • Score: -26

11:48am Fri 23 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

moleman wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.
When is a Park and Ride not a park and ride? When no-one parks there and there are no buses to take you anywhere else. Why not use it for the benefit of local residents and ensure that it is useful rather than becoming a wasteland.
Because the council took government money. Someone thought they'd make a name for themselves by backing it.
[quote][p][bold]moleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.[/p][/quote]When is a Park and Ride not a park and ride? When no-one parks there and there are no buses to take you anywhere else. Why not use it for the benefit of local residents and ensure that it is useful rather than becoming a wasteland.[/p][/quote]Because the council took government money. Someone thought they'd make a name for themselves by backing it. Carolyn43
  • Score: -1

11:48am Fri 23 May 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

suddenly the echo taking on a very conciliatory tone.........

They are still law breakers and should be dealt with in the same manner as everyone else would be.................
suddenly the echo taking on a very conciliatory tone......... They are still law breakers and should be dealt with in the same manner as everyone else would be................. Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 26

11:56am Fri 23 May 14

smhinto says...

Chiqqy wrote:
I think my friend and I are going to rock up to the park on the West Cliff in her motorhome, of course remove the obstructions and plant ourselves on the grass there for a few days...or weeks....it's obviously ok to do that ?
Should'nt be problem providing that you leave your own excrement behind, start being abusive to passers by, leave the place in a complete mess, brush up on your foul language, damage adjacent vehicles, start talking like a delinquent and course steal anything that does not belong to you. You will then have the added bounus of being immune from prosecution.
.
Then I think you should be ok.
[quote][p][bold]Chiqqy[/bold] wrote: I think my friend and I are going to rock up to the park on the West Cliff in her motorhome, of course remove the obstructions and plant ourselves on the grass there for a few days...or weeks....it's obviously ok to do that ?[/p][/quote]Should'nt be problem providing that you leave your own excrement behind, start being abusive to passers by, leave the place in a complete mess, brush up on your foul language, damage adjacent vehicles, start talking like a delinquent and course steal anything that does not belong to you. You will then have the added bounus of being immune from prosecution. . Then I think you should be ok. smhinto
  • Score: 39

12:00pm Fri 23 May 14

bosco1 says...

In alot of situations now in this country it is very much becoming "Not what you know its who you know" "One law for one and one law for another" "Human rights etc" There should be "ONE" law in this country for "ALL" to abide with no ifs or buts.!! If you dont want to abide by our laws there is an alternative.! But dont expect the tax payers to pay for it>!
In alot of situations now in this country it is very much becoming "Not what you know its who you know" "One law for one and one law for another" "Human rights etc" There should be "ONE" law in this country for "ALL" to abide with no ifs or buts.!! If you dont want to abide by our laws there is an alternative.! But dont expect the tax payers to pay for it>! bosco1
  • Score: 21

12:17pm Fri 23 May 14

Jo__Go says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Melanie.Read12 wrote:
I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park.
Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.
The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.
Repeating your same tired old mantra time after time is not dialogue.

Exposing the same old tired lies time after time is not trolling.

Rejecting two utterly unsuitable sites is democracy in action ... not bullying or intimidation.

Get over your sulk and move on.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Melanie.Read12[/bold] wrote: I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park. Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.[/p][/quote]The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.[/p][/quote]Repeating your same tired old mantra time after time is not dialogue. Exposing the same old tired lies time after time is not trolling. Rejecting two utterly unsuitable sites is democracy in action ... not bullying or intimidation. Get over your sulk and move on. Jo__Go
  • Score: 8

12:23pm Fri 23 May 14

Jo__Go says...

Norman Stansfield wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble

m solved!
The clue's in the name, Park and Ride, not Pitch-up and Rubbish.

The idiotic council covered over a green field just so they could grab even more taxpayers money. Having pooped on Creekmoor once doesn't make it OK to use their c**k-up as an excuse to do it again.
[quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble m solved![/p][/quote]The clue's in the name, Park and Ride, not Pitch-up and Rubbish. The idiotic council covered over a green field just so they could grab even more taxpayers money. Having pooped on Creekmoor once doesn't make it OK to use their c**k-up as an excuse to do it again. Jo__Go
  • Score: 6

12:30pm Fri 23 May 14

Jo__Go says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.
And still the local Councillors object. It is only green belt because of the P&R, which ironically prevents it being used as a TSP. It would probably have been a huge retail park by now if it wasn't for the P&R stipulation. Pity it's not used as a P&R, but any approaches end up in the long grass. I wonder why?
As I recall you were part of the idiocracy at the time, when Cloth-ears Clements and Bumbling Bright thought they could use central government money (yes, taxpayers cash as always) to make names for themselves with a P&R scheme that never made sense from any perspective, logically, traffic-wise, or financially.

I'm sure you know full well that the land used for the P&R was already Green Belt, and the LibDems only got away with tarmacing it over on the basis that it would retain its Green Belt status to prevent creeping development when the P&R failed, as we all knew it would.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.[/p][/quote]And still the local Councillors object. It is only green belt because of the P&R, which ironically prevents it being used as a TSP. It would probably have been a huge retail park by now if it wasn't for the P&R stipulation. Pity it's not used as a P&R, but any approaches end up in the long grass. I wonder why?[/p][/quote]As I recall you were part of the idiocracy at the time, when Cloth-ears Clements and Bumbling Bright thought they could use central government money (yes, taxpayers cash as always) to make names for themselves with a P&R scheme that never made sense from any perspective, logically, traffic-wise, or financially. I'm sure you know full well that the land used for the P&R was already Green Belt, and the LibDems only got away with tarmacing it over on the basis that it would retain its Green Belt status to prevent creeping development when the P&R failed, as we all knew it would. Jo__Go
  • Score: 7

12:52pm Fri 23 May 14

goatty says...

Notice that the Echo have got only 2 comments from Liberlite Do gooders. I wonder why they never published any view point from anyone who thinks these so called travellers should be dumped in the nearest cesspit.
Notice that the Echo have got only 2 comments from Liberlite Do gooders. I wonder why they never published any view point from anyone who thinks these so called travellers should be dumped in the nearest cesspit. goatty
  • Score: 13

1:02pm Fri 23 May 14

animal3 says...

Dave2207 wrote:
This is a fee-charging car park: therefore, the traffic wardens MUST treat them as they would treat any other motorist and MAKE THEM PAY for every minute that they are there. These 'campers' demand equality - let them have it.
my thoughts exactly dave
[quote][p][bold]Dave2207[/bold] wrote: This is a fee-charging car park: therefore, the traffic wardens MUST treat them as they would treat any other motorist and MAKE THEM PAY for every minute that they are there. These 'campers' demand equality - let them have it.[/p][/quote]my thoughts exactly dave animal3
  • Score: 19

1:05pm Fri 23 May 14

exocet says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
Nice of the Echo to yet again patronise it's readers at the bottom of the report with it's "please don't say anything derogatory about travellers or we will kick you off the site" garbage. Translation... we at the Echo are more scared of being sued and having to employ our expensively retained lawyers than allowing our readers to voice their opinions. When is this publication actually going to grow a pair and get behind the local people and lobby local MP's for a law change? I am not a racist and if these people want to live a nomadic lifestyle that's fine by me, provided they abide by the same laws the rest of us do and face the same consequences if we break those laws. Come on Mr. Editor. Stop hiding in the shadows and do something!
As you say.It is time for The Echo to act upon the behalf of their readers and start a possitive campaign to stop this flouting of the law.
I bet this will be deleted though!
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Nice of the Echo to yet again patronise it's readers at the bottom of the report with it's "please don't say anything derogatory about travellers or we will kick you off the site" garbage. Translation... we at the Echo are more scared of being sued and having to employ our expensively retained lawyers than allowing our readers to voice their opinions. When is this publication actually going to grow a pair and get behind the local people and lobby local MP's for a law change? I am not a racist and if these people want to live a nomadic lifestyle that's fine by me, provided they abide by the same laws the rest of us do and face the same consequences if we break those laws. Come on Mr. Editor. Stop hiding in the shadows and do something![/p][/quote]As you say.It is time for The Echo to act upon the behalf of their readers and start a possitive campaign to stop this flouting of the law. I bet this will be deleted though! exocet
  • Score: 18

1:19pm Fri 23 May 14

nickynoodah says...

exocet wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
Nice of the Echo to yet again patronise it's readers at the bottom of the report with it's "please don't say anything derogatory about travellers or we will kick you off the site" garbage. Translation... we at the Echo are more scared of being sued and having to employ our expensively retained lawyers than allowing our readers to voice their opinions. When is this publication actually going to grow a pair and get behind the local people and lobby local MP's for a law change? I am not a racist and if these people want to live a nomadic lifestyle that's fine by me, provided they abide by the same laws the rest of us do and face the same consequences if we break those laws. Come on Mr. Editor. Stop hiding in the shadows and do something!
As you say.It is time for The Echo to act upon the behalf of their readers and start a possitive campaign to stop this flouting of the law.
I bet this will be deleted though!
How much
I will bet you it don't get deleted
Signed Mr Noodah
[quote][p][bold]exocet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Nice of the Echo to yet again patronise it's readers at the bottom of the report with it's "please don't say anything derogatory about travellers or we will kick you off the site" garbage. Translation... we at the Echo are more scared of being sued and having to employ our expensively retained lawyers than allowing our readers to voice their opinions. When is this publication actually going to grow a pair and get behind the local people and lobby local MP's for a law change? I am not a racist and if these people want to live a nomadic lifestyle that's fine by me, provided they abide by the same laws the rest of us do and face the same consequences if we break those laws. Come on Mr. Editor. Stop hiding in the shadows and do something![/p][/quote]As you say.It is time for The Echo to act upon the behalf of their readers and start a possitive campaign to stop this flouting of the law. I bet this will be deleted though![/p][/quote]How much I will bet you it don't get deleted Signed Mr Noodah nickynoodah
  • Score: -8

1:25pm Fri 23 May 14

exocet says...

Oh for the dys of Mr Butterworth.An editor who could do a proper job.
Oh for the dys of Mr Butterworth.An editor who could do a proper job. exocet
  • Score: 10

1:26pm Fri 23 May 14

i have heard it all now says...

Poole Council grow some B***s & sort out this pond life,UKIP are now snapping at your Heals.

See you at the Ballot box.
Poole Council grow some B***s & sort out this pond life,UKIP are now snapping at your Heals. See you at the Ballot box. i have heard it all now
  • Score: 10

1:44pm Fri 23 May 14

kangaroo_joey says...

At least we know we can now park in this car park free of charge while they're there as if the wardens cant give you a ticket if they're not going to penalise our friends. We cant have one rule for us and another for them.... and while im at it I saw a pig fly past my window today.
At least we know we can now park in this car park free of charge while they're there as if the wardens cant give you a ticket if they're not going to penalise our friends. We cant have one rule for us and another for them.... and while im at it I saw a pig fly past my window today. kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 21

1:49pm Fri 23 May 14

Norman Stansfield says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Norman Stansfield wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble


m solved!
For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site.

If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".
Hi Carolyn, you clearly feel strongly about this, I'm assuming you are a local. In any case, the past is the past. People may have wanted it to stay a field, or even be a park and ride, but the passage of time, and decisions made have invalidated both of those policies. It's the absolutely ideal place for a Transit Camp. It's perfect. It needs some toilets, security, and it's done. Every incursion will have an instant solution, they'll get moved to the Creekmoor Transit Camp, or CTC as it should be known. It's a no-brainer. Please start living in the present. It's not a field. It's not a Park and Ride. It should be a transit camp. Where money came from, and what that money was meant for is in the past, and the past ain't coming back anytime soon, thanks to the linear and uni-directional nature of the space-time continum.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble m solved![/p][/quote]For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site. If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".[/p][/quote]Hi Carolyn, you clearly feel strongly about this, I'm assuming you are a local. In any case, the past is the past. People may have wanted it to stay a field, or even be a park and ride, but the passage of time, and decisions made have invalidated both of those policies. It's the absolutely ideal place for a Transit Camp. It's perfect. It needs some toilets, security, and it's done. Every incursion will have an instant solution, they'll get moved to the Creekmoor Transit Camp, or CTC as it should be known. It's a no-brainer. Please start living in the present. It's not a field. It's not a Park and Ride. It should be a transit camp. Where money came from, and what that money was meant for is in the past, and the past ain't coming back anytime soon, thanks to the linear and uni-directional nature of the space-time continum. Norman Stansfield
  • Score: -9

2:14pm Fri 23 May 14

Peroni says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Melanie.Read12 wrote:
I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park.
Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.
The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.
If you people spent as much time doing your job ( that you get paid to do) as you do in places like this ,then the area and problems might be a bit better ,strutting about like your in some happy clappy club all the time .
Time after time ,people ask why is it that these people can break the law and not be treated like a normal person ( like a tax payer) .
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Melanie.Read12[/bold] wrote: I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park. Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.[/p][/quote]The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.[/p][/quote]If you people spent as much time doing your job ( that you get paid to do) as you do in places like this ,then the area and problems might be a bit better ,strutting about like your in some happy clappy club all the time . Time after time ,people ask why is it that these people can break the law and not be treated like a normal person ( like a tax payer) . Peroni
  • Score: 4

2:15pm Fri 23 May 14

justsayithowitis says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Melanie.Read12 wrote:
I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park.
Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.
The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.
Why do you call anyone who disagrees with you a troll. The best option is to sign the petition and get this debated properly and hopefully get the law changed. The best way is not to let certain people do whatever they want at others peoples expense. I am obviously a troll in your opinion. Bothered
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Melanie.Read12[/bold] wrote: I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park. Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.[/p][/quote]The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.[/p][/quote]Why do you call anyone who disagrees with you a troll. The best option is to sign the petition and get this debated properly and hopefully get the law changed. The best way is not to let certain people do whatever they want at others peoples expense. I am obviously a troll in your opinion. Bothered justsayithowitis
  • Score: 5

2:18pm Fri 23 May 14

manyogie says...

Thats fine, theirs a great big camera in the middle of that car park, plus 2 others able to keep a watchfull eye over the proceedings.
Thats fine, theirs a great big camera in the middle of that car park, plus 2 others able to keep a watchfull eye over the proceedings. manyogie
  • Score: 2

3:00pm Fri 23 May 14

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
Nice of the Echo to yet again patronise it's readers at the bottom of the report with it's "please don't say anything derogatory about travellers or we will kick you off the site" garbage. Translation... we at the Echo are more scared of being sued and having to employ our expensively retained lawyers than allowing our readers to voice their opinions.

When is this publication actually going to grow a pair and get behind the local people and lobby local MP's for a law change? I am not a racist and if these people want to live a nomadic lifestyle that's fine by me, provided they abide by the same laws the rest of us do and face the same consequences if we break those laws.

Come on Mr. Editor. Stop hiding in the shadows and do something!
Have a look at their sister paper the Brighton Argus, they do not even allow comments on traveller stories. And that paper is reporting a similar story as travellers have invaded Preston Park in Brighton today also.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Nice of the Echo to yet again patronise it's readers at the bottom of the report with it's "please don't say anything derogatory about travellers or we will kick you off the site" garbage. Translation... we at the Echo are more scared of being sued and having to employ our expensively retained lawyers than allowing our readers to voice their opinions. When is this publication actually going to grow a pair and get behind the local people and lobby local MP's for a law change? I am not a racist and if these people want to live a nomadic lifestyle that's fine by me, provided they abide by the same laws the rest of us do and face the same consequences if we break those laws. Come on Mr. Editor. Stop hiding in the shadows and do something![/p][/quote]Have a look at their sister paper the Brighton Argus, they do not even allow comments on traveller stories. And that paper is reporting a similar story as travellers have invaded Preston Park in Brighton today also. Telscombe Cliffy
  • Score: 4

3:08pm Fri 23 May 14

manicrazor says...

Norman Stansfield wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Norman Stansfield wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble



m solved!
For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site.

If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".
Hi Carolyn, you clearly feel strongly about this, I'm assuming you are a local. In any case, the past is the past. People may have wanted it to stay a field, or even be a park and ride, but the passage of time, and decisions made have invalidated both of those policies. It's the absolutely ideal place for a Transit Camp. It's perfect. It needs some toilets, security, and it's done. Every incursion will have an instant solution, they'll get moved to the Creekmoor Transit Camp, or CTC as it should be known. It's a no-brainer. Please start living in the present. It's not a field. It's not a Park and Ride. It should be a transit camp. Where money came from, and what that money was meant for is in the past, and the past ain't coming back anytime soon, thanks to the linear and uni-directional nature of the space-time continum.
You're correct. It is (in my opinion) the most suitable location for a temporary site.

But that still does not change the fact that the site can NOT be used for anything other than a park and ride. Its written into the planning permission so that's just the way it is unfortunately.
[quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble m solved![/p][/quote]For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site. If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".[/p][/quote]Hi Carolyn, you clearly feel strongly about this, I'm assuming you are a local. In any case, the past is the past. People may have wanted it to stay a field, or even be a park and ride, but the passage of time, and decisions made have invalidated both of those policies. It's the absolutely ideal place for a Transit Camp. It's perfect. It needs some toilets, security, and it's done. Every incursion will have an instant solution, they'll get moved to the Creekmoor Transit Camp, or CTC as it should be known. It's a no-brainer. Please start living in the present. It's not a field. It's not a Park and Ride. It should be a transit camp. Where money came from, and what that money was meant for is in the past, and the past ain't coming back anytime soon, thanks to the linear and uni-directional nature of the space-time continum.[/p][/quote]You're correct. It is (in my opinion) the most suitable location for a temporary site. But that still does not change the fact that the site can NOT be used for anything other than a park and ride. Its written into the planning permission so that's just the way it is unfortunately. manicrazor
  • Score: 2

3:08pm Fri 23 May 14

manicrazor says...

Norman Stansfield wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Norman Stansfield wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble



m solved!
For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site.

If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".
Hi Carolyn, you clearly feel strongly about this, I'm assuming you are a local. In any case, the past is the past. People may have wanted it to stay a field, or even be a park and ride, but the passage of time, and decisions made have invalidated both of those policies. It's the absolutely ideal place for a Transit Camp. It's perfect. It needs some toilets, security, and it's done. Every incursion will have an instant solution, they'll get moved to the Creekmoor Transit Camp, or CTC as it should be known. It's a no-brainer. Please start living in the present. It's not a field. It's not a Park and Ride. It should be a transit camp. Where money came from, and what that money was meant for is in the past, and the past ain't coming back anytime soon, thanks to the linear and uni-directional nature of the space-time continum.
You're correct. It is (in my opinion) the most suitable location for a temporary site.

But that still does not change the fact that the site can NOT be used for anything other than a park and ride. Its written into the planning permission so that's just the way it is unfortunately.
[quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble m solved![/p][/quote]For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site. If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".[/p][/quote]Hi Carolyn, you clearly feel strongly about this, I'm assuming you are a local. In any case, the past is the past. People may have wanted it to stay a field, or even be a park and ride, but the passage of time, and decisions made have invalidated both of those policies. It's the absolutely ideal place for a Transit Camp. It's perfect. It needs some toilets, security, and it's done. Every incursion will have an instant solution, they'll get moved to the Creekmoor Transit Camp, or CTC as it should be known. It's a no-brainer. Please start living in the present. It's not a field. It's not a Park and Ride. It should be a transit camp. Where money came from, and what that money was meant for is in the past, and the past ain't coming back anytime soon, thanks to the linear and uni-directional nature of the space-time continum.[/p][/quote]You're correct. It is (in my opinion) the most suitable location for a temporary site. But that still does not change the fact that the site can NOT be used for anything other than a park and ride. Its written into the planning permission so that's just the way it is unfortunately. manicrazor
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Fri 23 May 14

Brimonty says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.
Government money to build a park & ride which is not in use? Maybe the council should repay this & request a grant to provide a travellers site at this location.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]For the umpteenth umpteen time, the council received government money to build the park and ride as a park and ride, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.[/p][/quote]Government money to build a park & ride which is not in use? Maybe the council should repay this & request a grant to provide a travellers site at this location. Brimonty
  • Score: -4

3:30pm Fri 23 May 14

Minty Fresh says...

Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
Nice of the Echo to yet again patronise it's readers at the bottom of the report with it's "please don't say anything derogatory about travellers or we will kick you off the site" garbage. Translation... we at the Echo are more scared of being sued and having to employ our expensively retained lawyers than allowing our readers to voice their opinions.

When is this publication actually going to grow a pair and get behind the local people and lobby local MP's for a law change? I am not a racist and if these people want to live a nomadic lifestyle that's fine by me, provided they abide by the same laws the rest of us do and face the same consequences if we break those laws.

Come on Mr. Editor. Stop hiding in the shadows and do something!
Have a look at their sister paper the Brighton Argus, they do not even allow comments on traveller stories. And that paper is reporting a similar story as travellers have invaded Preston Park in Brighton today also.
That's the problem when local papers get taken over by giant American Corporations more concerned with pleasing shareholders than actually being what it should be: a paper that listens to and backs it's local people.
[quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Nice of the Echo to yet again patronise it's readers at the bottom of the report with it's "please don't say anything derogatory about travellers or we will kick you off the site" garbage. Translation... we at the Echo are more scared of being sued and having to employ our expensively retained lawyers than allowing our readers to voice their opinions. When is this publication actually going to grow a pair and get behind the local people and lobby local MP's for a law change? I am not a racist and if these people want to live a nomadic lifestyle that's fine by me, provided they abide by the same laws the rest of us do and face the same consequences if we break those laws. Come on Mr. Editor. Stop hiding in the shadows and do something![/p][/quote]Have a look at their sister paper the Brighton Argus, they do not even allow comments on traveller stories. And that paper is reporting a similar story as travellers have invaded Preston Park in Brighton today also.[/p][/quote]That's the problem when local papers get taken over by giant American Corporations more concerned with pleasing shareholders than actually being what it should be: a paper that listens to and backs it's local people. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 7

3:32pm Fri 23 May 14

Baysider says...

The same old posters trotting out their same old rubbish...

Please note, 1. The park and ride would have been perfect but cannot be used 2. The eviction order obtained can only relate to a specific place not the whole borough, 3. The council has no control over the dates for any hearing does it and they applied they next morning for the this lot the last time they moved and the time before that and the time before that...4. Once again all this proves is that it is impossible to protect every piece of open space and pointless and expensive trying.

I'll start you off with the thumbs down.
The same old posters trotting out their same old rubbish... Please note, 1. The park and ride would have been perfect but cannot be used 2. The eviction order obtained can only relate to a specific place not the whole borough, 3. The council has no control over the dates for any hearing does it and they applied they next morning for the this lot the last time they moved and the time before that and the time before that...4. Once again all this proves is that it is impossible to protect every piece of open space and pointless and expensive trying. I'll start you off with the thumbs down. Baysider
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Fri 23 May 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

The usual summer Punch and Judy panto courtesy of Poole Council.
.
Not funny now and never has been.
.
Everyone who has received parking tickets from Poole Council should all refuse to pay as they have been victimised
The usual summer Punch and Judy panto courtesy of Poole Council. . Not funny now and never has been. . Everyone who has received parking tickets from Poole Council should all refuse to pay as they have been victimised HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 7

3:44pm Fri 23 May 14

calamity carney says...

Baysider wrote:
The same old posters trotting out their same old rubbish...

Please note, 1. The park and ride would have been perfect but cannot be used 2. The eviction order obtained can only relate to a specific place not the whole borough, 3. The council has no control over the dates for any hearing does it and they applied they next morning for the this lot the last time they moved and the time before that and the time before that...4. Once again all this proves is that it is impossible to protect every piece of open space and pointless and expensive trying.

I'll start you off with the thumbs down.
Yep and the council sold off the best piece of land at creekmoor which the new owner has already started to build on. Must have known before hand they would get the land and planning consent????
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: The same old posters trotting out their same old rubbish... Please note, 1. The park and ride would have been perfect but cannot be used 2. The eviction order obtained can only relate to a specific place not the whole borough, 3. The council has no control over the dates for any hearing does it and they applied they next morning for the this lot the last time they moved and the time before that and the time before that...4. Once again all this proves is that it is impossible to protect every piece of open space and pointless and expensive trying. I'll start you off with the thumbs down.[/p][/quote]Yep and the council sold off the best piece of land at creekmoor which the new owner has already started to build on. Must have known before hand they would get the land and planning consent???? calamity carney
  • Score: -5

3:56pm Fri 23 May 14

Peroni says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
The usual summer Punch and Judy panto courtesy of Poole Council.
.
Not funny now and never has been.
.
Everyone who has received parking tickets from Poole Council should all refuse to pay as they have been victimised
Yes got one yesterday for being 16 mins late on Ashley Road Parkstone.
Bit of a joke ,when they are all parked illegally for days on end.
Councils...Police are cowards !!!!!
If there all like our smirking jester happy clap Trent .......we got no chance .
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: The usual summer Punch and Judy panto courtesy of Poole Council. . Not funny now and never has been. . Everyone who has received parking tickets from Poole Council should all refuse to pay as they have been victimised[/p][/quote]Yes got one yesterday for being 16 mins late on Ashley Road Parkstone. Bit of a joke ,when they are all parked illegally for days on end. Councils...Police are cowards !!!!! If there all like our smirking jester happy clap Trent .......we got no chance . Peroni
  • Score: 8

4:06pm Fri 23 May 14

shaft says...

speedy231278 wrote:
I bet the local traffic warden/ticket inspector won't have the balls to clamp them for not paying the parking fee!
All the traffic wardens in that area went sick today
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: I bet the local traffic warden/ticket inspector won't have the balls to clamp them for not paying the parking fee![/p][/quote]All the traffic wardens in that area went sick today shaft
  • Score: 8

4:09pm Fri 23 May 14

DorsetFerret says...

Norman Stansfield wrote:
"its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble
"


Like Caroline 43 I too get frustrated with posters seeking to dump the proposed TST in Creek moor. Unlike her, I live there and don’t want it on my doorstep either.

More to the point and for the benefit of those who have not followed this debate from the start you may like to take on board the following.

In 2010 your council spent £250.000 of your money hrough an external consultative company asking it to make recommendations on the best place to locate a TST. The end list of twenty potential sites did not include Creekmoor at all. However, the top four choices were. 1. Turlin moor, 2. Camford Heath. 3. Branksome and (I believe) Hanworthy. The proposals were ignored and subsequently a certain councillor Eades (Branksome ward) proposed Creekmoor as the best place for travellers. This exersise cost tax payers a further £150.000 (estimated).

Now perhaps Mr Stanfield you live in one of these favoured wards, if so you should demand the site be located where it was first proposed.

Interestingly, copies of the report were quite easy to find on the BoP web-site but have since dissapeared.
Norman Stansfield wrote: "its not that bad wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble " Like Caroline 43 I too get frustrated with posters seeking to dump the proposed TST in Creek moor. Unlike her, I live there and don’t want it on my doorstep either. More to the point and for the benefit of those who have not followed this debate from the start you may like to take on board the following. In 2010 your council spent £250.000 of your money hrough an external consultative company asking it to make recommendations on the best place to locate a TST. The end list of twenty potential sites did not include Creekmoor at all. However, the top four choices were. 1. Turlin moor, 2. Camford Heath. 3. Branksome and (I believe) Hanworthy. The proposals were ignored and subsequently a certain councillor Eades (Branksome ward) proposed Creekmoor as the best place for travellers. This exersise cost tax payers a further £150.000 (estimated). Now perhaps Mr Stanfield you live in one of these favoured wards, if so you should demand the site be located where it was first proposed. Interestingly, copies of the report were quite easy to find on the BoP web-site but have since dissapeared. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 11

4:09pm Fri 23 May 14

Jo__Go says...

Norman Stansfield wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Norman Stansfield wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble



m solved!
For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site.

If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".
Hi Carolyn, you clearly feel strongly about this, I'm assuming you are a local. In any case, the past is the past. People may have wanted it to stay a field, or even be a park and ride, but the passage of time, and decisions made have invalidated both of those policies. It's the absolutely ideal place for a Transit Camp. It's perfect. It needs some toilets, security, and it's done. Every incursion will have an instant solution, they'll get moved to the Creekmoor Transit Camp, or CTC as it should be known. It's a no-brainer. Please start living in the present. It's not a field. It's not a Park and Ride. It should be a transit camp. Where money came from, and what that money was meant for is in the past, and the past ain't coming back anytime soon, thanks to the linear and uni-directional nature of the space-time continum.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong!

P&R may be an absolutely ideal place for a transit camp (I think you mean Temporary Stopping Place) from a travellers' perspective, but absolutely not from the perspective of Creekmoor residents. So who gets priority, freeloaders or the folk that pay council tax? Actually, on second thoughts, it's not that perfect from the travellers' point of view either. No water supply, and no waste water facilities; the only thing going for it is that it's tarmaced. Bit of a tourism disaster too, having a bunch of caravans, lorries, and no doubt washing lines, on a major gateway into Poole.

Every incursion will NOT have an instant solution, only those incursions that are small enough in size, and are not on private land. The poor farmer round the corner from the P&R suffered a major incursion last year, and was left to sort it out himself, against a bunch of travellers that very kindly offered to cut the legs of his cows, reportedly.

The conditions attached to both the cash the Council blagged from central government, and the planning permission, insist that the site remains a P&R. The past has a sneaky way of defining the future sometimes...

It's a no-brainer ... well OK, you're both right and wrong here. It was built and sited by an administration that thought they were very clever, but sadly couldn't raise a brain cell between them. I can see that an unused tarmaced area is superficially an attractive easy win, but a little critical reasoning will soon reveal that it is actually utterly unsuitable.
[quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble m solved![/p][/quote]For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site. If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".[/p][/quote]Hi Carolyn, you clearly feel strongly about this, I'm assuming you are a local. In any case, the past is the past. People may have wanted it to stay a field, or even be a park and ride, but the passage of time, and decisions made have invalidated both of those policies. It's the absolutely ideal place for a Transit Camp. It's perfect. It needs some toilets, security, and it's done. Every incursion will have an instant solution, they'll get moved to the Creekmoor Transit Camp, or CTC as it should be known. It's a no-brainer. Please start living in the present. It's not a field. It's not a Park and Ride. It should be a transit camp. Where money came from, and what that money was meant for is in the past, and the past ain't coming back anytime soon, thanks to the linear and uni-directional nature of the space-time continum.[/p][/quote]Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong! P&R may be an absolutely ideal place for a transit camp (I think you mean Temporary Stopping Place) from a travellers' perspective, but absolutely not from the perspective of Creekmoor residents. So who gets priority, freeloaders or the folk that pay council tax? Actually, on second thoughts, it's not that perfect from the travellers' point of view either. No water supply, and no waste water facilities; the only thing going for it is that it's tarmaced. Bit of a tourism disaster too, having a bunch of caravans, lorries, and no doubt washing lines, on a major gateway into Poole. Every incursion will NOT have an instant solution, only those incursions that are small enough in size, and are not on private land. The poor farmer round the corner from the P&R suffered a major incursion last year, and was left to sort it out himself, against a bunch of travellers that very kindly offered to cut the legs of his cows, reportedly. The conditions attached to both the cash the Council blagged from central government, and the planning permission, insist that the site remains a P&R. The past has a sneaky way of defining the future sometimes... It's a no-brainer ... well OK, you're both right and wrong here. It was built and sited by an administration that thought they were very clever, but sadly couldn't raise a brain cell between them. I can see that an unused tarmaced area is superficially an attractive easy win, but a little critical reasoning will soon reveal that it is actually utterly unsuitable. Jo__Go
  • Score: 3

4:12pm Fri 23 May 14

canfordcherry says...

The council have said the 'clean up' operation will begin, have any Hamworthy locals been near enough to see how bad it is?
Are they leaving the place a disgrace or keeping it (apart from excrement in bushes, which is done as part of their 'we need tsps. with facilities' claims ) tidy? Not heard of any trouble from their time at Hamworthy or does any one know differently?
The council have said the 'clean up' operation will begin, have any Hamworthy locals been near enough to see how bad it is? Are they leaving the place a disgrace or keeping it (apart from excrement in bushes, which is done as part of their 'we need tsps. with facilities' claims ) tidy? Not heard of any trouble from their time at Hamworthy or does any one know differently? canfordcherry
  • Score: -5

4:28pm Fri 23 May 14

shaft says...

Dave2207 wrote:
This is a fee-charging car park: therefore, the traffic wardens MUST treat them as they would treat any other motorist and MAKE THEM PAY for every minute that they are there. These 'campers' demand equality - let them have it.
Absolutely, if these people are allowed to leave without issue of a ticket if one or more was warranted then any ticket issued to Joe public in that car park from the moment they leave can be successfully challenged every time for that reason alone.
[quote][p][bold]Dave2207[/bold] wrote: This is a fee-charging car park: therefore, the traffic wardens MUST treat them as they would treat any other motorist and MAKE THEM PAY for every minute that they are there. These 'campers' demand equality - let them have it.[/p][/quote]Absolutely, if these people are allowed to leave without issue of a ticket if one or more was warranted then any ticket issued to Joe public in that car park from the moment they leave can be successfully challenged every time for that reason alone. shaft
  • Score: 14

4:30pm Fri 23 May 14

DorsetFerret says...

Oh and just an observation re my post above. The money wasted by the council on this exercise to date would (I argue) have been enough to secure all those venerable locations against these so-called travellers.
Oh and just an observation re my post above. The money wasted by the council on this exercise to date would (I argue) have been enough to secure all those venerable locations against these so-called travellers. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 9

4:37pm Fri 23 May 14

Hawkstone says...

Chiqqy wrote:
I think my friend and I are going to rock up to the park on the West Cliff in her motorhome, of course remove the obstructions and plant ourselves on the grass there for a few days...or weeks....it's obviously ok to do that ?
I will happily join you :)
[quote][p][bold]Chiqqy[/bold] wrote: I think my friend and I are going to rock up to the park on the West Cliff in her motorhome, of course remove the obstructions and plant ourselves on the grass there for a few days...or weeks....it's obviously ok to do that ?[/p][/quote]I will happily join you :) Hawkstone
  • Score: 6

4:47pm Fri 23 May 14

canfordcherry says...

Hawkstone wrote:
Chiqqy wrote:
I think my friend and I are going to rock up to the park on the West Cliff in her motorhome, of course remove the obstructions and plant ourselves on the grass there for a few days...or weeks....it's obviously ok to do that ?
I will happily join you :)
Do it for the air show and I am sure the numbers joining in will be massive!
[quote][p][bold]Hawkstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chiqqy[/bold] wrote: I think my friend and I are going to rock up to the park on the West Cliff in her motorhome, of course remove the obstructions and plant ourselves on the grass there for a few days...or weeks....it's obviously ok to do that ?[/p][/quote]I will happily join you :)[/p][/quote]Do it for the air show and I am sure the numbers joining in will be massive! canfordcherry
  • Score: 9

5:31pm Fri 23 May 14

Cathyrose23 says...

They should definitely be charged the usual fee for all the hours they are parked here.
They should definitely be charged the usual fee for all the hours they are parked here. Cathyrose23
  • Score: 6

5:40pm Fri 23 May 14

fireflier says...

These are NOT travellers or gypsies ......they have vehicles and caravans which cost an absolute fortune ..yet they hide behind this nonsense that they are a particular ethnic group.

Yes they are! ...... The ethnic group they belong to is that of 'freeloading scrounging rsole's'

Daleks have challenge whenever they see this type of vermin .....'EXTERMINATE!'

It is worth repeating that this event should be remembered by all who aprk here. Anyone who gets a ticket MUST challenge with the question 'What charge was levied against these freeloaders?'
These are NOT travellers or gypsies ......they have vehicles and caravans which cost an absolute fortune ..yet they hide behind this nonsense that they are a particular ethnic group. Yes they are! ...... The ethnic group they belong to is that of 'freeloading scrounging rsole's' Daleks have challenge whenever they see this type of vermin .....'EXTERMINATE!' It is worth repeating that this event should be remembered by all who aprk here. Anyone who gets a ticket MUST challenge with the question 'What charge was levied against these freeloaders?' fireflier
  • Score: 14

6:06pm Fri 23 May 14

sunnybournemouth says...

Out of interest who is the best party to vote for in the next election who will at least make an attempt to do something about this.
The government petition at http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/61822 doesn't seem to be attracting enough people to get to even get to a hearing.
Out of interest who is the best party to vote for in the next election who will at least make an attempt to do something about this. The government petition at http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/61822 doesn't seem to be attracting enough people to get to even get to a hearing. sunnybournemouth
  • Score: 5

6:11pm Fri 23 May 14

corozin says...

Tow them and dump them in the harbour if they don't move - tonight.
Tow them and dump them in the harbour if they don't move - tonight. corozin
  • Score: 6

6:19pm Fri 23 May 14

Yankee1 says...

I have a simple solution.

Invite Bovington to carry out tank training manouevers in that parking lot.

Give the 'travelers' 10 minutes to shift.

Then start action in 5 minutes.
I have a simple solution. Invite Bovington to carry out tank training manouevers in that parking lot. Give the 'travelers' 10 minutes to shift. Then start action in 5 minutes. Yankee1
  • Score: 12

6:30pm Fri 23 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

Norman Stansfield wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Norman Stansfield wrote:
its not that bad wrote:
we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas
Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble



m solved!
For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site.

If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".
Hi Carolyn, you clearly feel strongly about this, I'm assuming you are a local. In any case, the past is the past. People may have wanted it to stay a field, or even be a park and ride, but the passage of time, and decisions made have invalidated both of those policies. It's the absolutely ideal place for a Transit Camp. It's perfect. It needs some toilets, security, and it's done. Every incursion will have an instant solution, they'll get moved to the Creekmoor Transit Camp, or CTC as it should be known. It's a no-brainer. Please start living in the present. It's not a field. It's not a Park and Ride. It should be a transit camp. Where money came from, and what that money was meant for is in the past, and the past ain't coming back anytime soon, thanks to the linear and uni-directional nature of the space-time continum.
I live in Poole, but not in Creekmoor.

Feeling strongly has nothing to do with it - I just face facts. Try telling the government you want to use what they part funded as a park and ride as a transit site and see where that gets you - they'll demand some of the millions back. We've already paid as taxpayers and as council tax payers, now you want to see council tax go up again to pay the government back? There are always conditions for anything the government helps fund. You can't bury your head in the sand over this.

I've said before, we moved here not long before the park and ride happened from somewhere that already had a park and ride that failed because it was in the wrong place as this one is. During the so-called consultation here, we gave the evidence we had from that, but of course the council knew better and built a white elephant anyway as predicted. Their financial calculations on the income from it were quite a work of fiction. They were wrong about that too. The park and ride fiasco lost the Lib/Dems Creekmoor.

The proposed TSP sites were both on fast roads. There was bound to be a serious, if not fatal accident, then there would have been an outcry from the public with the council saying it was "unfortunate".

As for Tony Trent saying it would have solved the problem because they could have moved some, the travellers probably know their rights better than the council does and wouldn't have hesitated to go to court to prove the sites were unsuitable and even more money would have been wasted. Not only that, but they'd already said they wouldn't use the sites because they were unsuitable and would have just moved to PRIVATE land, which would have solved the council's problems but not those of residents.

The council's OK for cutting grass, collecting refuse and other such services, but they're absolutely useless at solving large problems like this.
[quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Norman Stansfield[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its not that bad[/bold] wrote: we have got park and ride sites that have never been used costing loads to build sat all year round doing nothing let them use one of those put in a toilet and water job done at lease the police will have powers to move them on the same day if there not using the park and ride site this is the only way poole will stop them saying for days in unwanted areas[/p][/quote]Creekmoor park and ride, fences, security......proble m solved![/p][/quote]For the umpteenth, umpteenth, umpteenth time, government money was used to build the park and ride, which has to be a park and ride and nothing else. You obviously haven' bothered to read anything posted previously or bothered to find out why it's not being used as a traveller site. If I only had a pound for everyone who has said "park and ride".[/p][/quote]Hi Carolyn, you clearly feel strongly about this, I'm assuming you are a local. In any case, the past is the past. People may have wanted it to stay a field, or even be a park and ride, but the passage of time, and decisions made have invalidated both of those policies. It's the absolutely ideal place for a Transit Camp. It's perfect. It needs some toilets, security, and it's done. Every incursion will have an instant solution, they'll get moved to the Creekmoor Transit Camp, or CTC as it should be known. It's a no-brainer. Please start living in the present. It's not a field. It's not a Park and Ride. It should be a transit camp. Where money came from, and what that money was meant for is in the past, and the past ain't coming back anytime soon, thanks to the linear and uni-directional nature of the space-time continum.[/p][/quote]I live in Poole, but not in Creekmoor. Feeling strongly has nothing to do with it - I just face facts. Try telling the government you want to use what they part funded as a park and ride as a transit site and see where that gets you - they'll demand some of the millions back. We've already paid as taxpayers and as council tax payers, now you want to see council tax go up again to pay the government back? There are always conditions for anything the government helps fund. You can't bury your head in the sand over this. I've said before, we moved here not long before the park and ride happened from somewhere that already had a park and ride that failed because it was in the wrong place as this one is. During the so-called consultation here, we gave the evidence we had from that, but of course the council knew better and built a white elephant anyway as predicted. Their financial calculations on the income from it were quite a work of fiction. They were wrong about that too. The park and ride fiasco lost the Lib/Dems Creekmoor. The proposed TSP sites were both on fast roads. There was bound to be a serious, if not fatal accident, then there would have been an outcry from the public with the council saying it was "unfortunate". As for Tony Trent saying it would have solved the problem because they could have moved some, the travellers probably know their rights better than the council does and wouldn't have hesitated to go to court to prove the sites were unsuitable and even more money would have been wasted. Not only that, but they'd already said they wouldn't use the sites because they were unsuitable and would have just moved to PRIVATE land, which would have solved the council's problems but not those of residents. The council's OK for cutting grass, collecting refuse and other such services, but they're absolutely useless at solving large problems like this. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

6:43pm Fri 23 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

Of course, the councillors will not solve this problem because each of them wants to have a site anywhere but in their wards so they can dump the problem on others but not on themselves. Self interest comes before anything else. Just look at the "impartial" Eades thoughts on the subject.

The only answer is a change in the law and that will probably mean coming out of Europe. Which party do you think is likely to do that? Answer: none. Even UKIP would be like turkeys voting for Christmas and they just wouldn't do that.
Of course, the councillors will not solve this problem because each of them wants to have a site anywhere but in their wards so they can dump the problem on others but not on themselves. Self interest comes before anything else. Just look at the "impartial" Eades thoughts on the subject. The only answer is a change in the law and that will probably mean coming out of Europe. Which party do you think is likely to do that? Answer: none. Even UKIP would be like turkeys voting for Christmas and they just wouldn't do that. Carolyn43
  • Score: 1

6:51pm Fri 23 May 14

Not A Local says...

I've moved down here from up north after living abroad for 3 years, I guess that makes me a traveller? If so then I demand the same rights as these travellers which include free parking in any area I deem suitable.

But no, I pay tax and NI and council tax on a property so of course I'm not entitled to anything! Instead I have to pay for these people to enjoy their lifestyle while my lifestyle suffers.

When will the local council and the local/national government grow some balls and deal with this issue properly? These travellers can have all the EQUAL rights they like, so long as they abide by the same rules and laws that the rest of us have to live by. At the moment it's the majority law abiding local citizens being treated like lesser members of society while the minority of foreign people are abusing their status.
I've moved down here from up north after living abroad for 3 years, I guess that makes me a traveller? If so then I demand the same rights as these travellers which include free parking in any area I deem suitable. But no, I pay tax and NI and council tax on a property so of course I'm not entitled to anything! Instead I have to pay for these people to enjoy their lifestyle while my lifestyle suffers. When will the local council and the local/national government grow some balls and deal with this issue properly? These travellers can have all the EQUAL rights they like, so long as they abide by the same rules and laws that the rest of us have to live by. At the moment it's the majority law abiding local citizens being treated like lesser members of society while the minority of foreign people are abusing their status. Not A Local
  • Score: 11

7:05pm Fri 23 May 14

justsayithowitis says...

sunnybournemouth wrote:
Out of interest who is the best party to vote for in the next election who will at least make an attempt to do something about this.
The government petition at http://epetitions.di

rect.gov.uk/petition

s/61822 doesn't seem to be attracting enough people to get to even get to a hearing.
Lots of people complaining but not many people signing
[quote][p][bold]sunnybournemouth[/bold] wrote: Out of interest who is the best party to vote for in the next election who will at least make an attempt to do something about this. The government petition at http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/61822 doesn't seem to be attracting enough people to get to even get to a hearing.[/p][/quote]Lots of people complaining but not many people signing justsayithowitis
  • Score: 6

7:37pm Fri 23 May 14

nickynoodah says...

The travellers are true to their word
yesterday they promised to go back home
they are halfway there already
they have only got to get to Runnymede Avenue
also known as 'Little Tipperary'
and that's it you know it is
the jobs a gudn
The travellers are true to their word yesterday they promised to go back home they are halfway there already they have only got to get to Runnymede Avenue also known as 'Little Tipperary' and that's it you know it is the jobs a gudn nickynoodah
  • Score: -3

12:04am Sat 24 May 14

loftusrod says...

Tell these **** to **** off and be done with it.
Tell these **** to **** off and be done with it. loftusrod
  • Score: 5

6:17am Sat 24 May 14

BIGTONE says...

Bournemouth Council on lockdown....happy result.
POOLE Council.....ohhhh...
.ummmmm...errrrrrr..
..gotcha!!!
Bournemouth Council on lockdown....happy result. POOLE Council.....ohhhh... .ummmmm...errrrrrr.. ..gotcha!!! BIGTONE
  • Score: 3

7:28am Sat 24 May 14

Simesen says...

It seems that these freeloader 'Travellers' cannot be brought to book for unpaid parking fees as they do not have a fixed address to which notice of Fines Court action can be sent and actioned. However they do have traceable vehicles! With so many ANPR police cameras around they could be found and tracked very easily. The names of the owners must be on the Police Database, so why can't notice of Fines or Court Action be delivered direct to the vehicle, wherever it is? Again ANPR can spot these vehicles when in motion, and since they will be suspected of failing to pay for parking, they should be pulled over, one at a time, and given a thorough check for legality. If they are not legal they can be seized and taken off the road.
It seems that these freeloader 'Travellers' cannot be brought to book for unpaid parking fees as they do not have a fixed address to which notice of Fines Court action can be sent and actioned. However they do have traceable vehicles! With so many ANPR police cameras around they could be found and tracked very easily. The names of the owners must be on the Police Database, so why can't notice of Fines or Court Action be delivered direct to the vehicle, wherever it is? Again ANPR can spot these vehicles when in motion, and since they will be suspected of failing to pay for parking, they should be pulled over, one at a time, and given a thorough check for legality. If they are not legal they can be seized and taken off the road. Simesen
  • Score: 10

8:20am Sat 24 May 14

Solentcherry says...

kangaroo_joey wrote:
At least we know we can now park in this car park free of charge while they're there as if the wardens cant give you a ticket if they're not going to penalise our friends. We cant have one rule for us and another for them.... and while im at it I saw a pig fly past my window today.
Just say your with them over there. That should be be enough. After all everyone is equal under the law whatever your ethnicity or religion. Are we not? It must be illegal for a warden to charge some and not others? Would it stand up in court?
If you turn up in a motor home, how do you prove your a 'traveller' or not?
[quote][p][bold]kangaroo_joey[/bold] wrote: At least we know we can now park in this car park free of charge while they're there as if the wardens cant give you a ticket if they're not going to penalise our friends. We cant have one rule for us and another for them.... and while im at it I saw a pig fly past my window today.[/p][/quote]Just say your with them over there. That should be be enough. After all everyone is equal under the law whatever your ethnicity or religion. Are we not? It must be illegal for a warden to charge some and not others? Would it stand up in court? If you turn up in a motor home, how do you prove your a 'traveller' or not? Solentcherry
  • Score: 6

9:09am Sat 24 May 14

RM says...

Melanie.Read12 wrote:
I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park.
Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.
After last year's failures I thought both Poole Council & Dorset Police promised they would be closely monitoring any travellers' encampments & their movements? Instead, we're getting the same old sit on the hands attitudes & reaction after the event instead of any proactive approach.
[quote][p][bold]Melanie.Read12[/bold] wrote: I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park. Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.[/p][/quote]After last year's failures I thought both Poole Council & Dorset Police promised they would be closely monitoring any travellers' encampments & their movements? Instead, we're getting the same old sit on the hands attitudes & reaction after the event instead of any proactive approach. RM
  • Score: 6

9:09am Sat 24 May 14

justsayithowitis says...

Simesen wrote:
It seems that these freeloader 'Travellers' cannot be brought to book for unpaid parking fees as they do not have a fixed address to which notice of Fines Court action can be sent and actioned. However they do have traceable vehicles! With so many ANPR police cameras around they could be found and tracked very easily. The names of the owners must be on the Police Database, so why can't notice of Fines or Court Action be delivered direct to the vehicle, wherever it is? Again ANPR can spot these vehicles when in motion, and since they will be suspected of failing to pay for parking, they should be pulled over, one at a time, and given a thorough check for legality. If they are not legal they can be seized and taken off the road.
They do have fixed addresses. They own a whole town in Ireland
[quote][p][bold]Simesen[/bold] wrote: It seems that these freeloader 'Travellers' cannot be brought to book for unpaid parking fees as they do not have a fixed address to which notice of Fines Court action can be sent and actioned. However they do have traceable vehicles! With so many ANPR police cameras around they could be found and tracked very easily. The names of the owners must be on the Police Database, so why can't notice of Fines or Court Action be delivered direct to the vehicle, wherever it is? Again ANPR can spot these vehicles when in motion, and since they will be suspected of failing to pay for parking, they should be pulled over, one at a time, and given a thorough check for legality. If they are not legal they can be seized and taken off the road.[/p][/quote]They do have fixed addresses. They own a whole town in Ireland justsayithowitis
  • Score: 4

9:14am Sat 24 May 14

muscliffman says...

"fireflier says...

These are NOT travellers or gypsies ......they have vehicles and caravans which cost an absolute fortune ..yet they hide behind this nonsense that they are a particular ethnic group."

A point reinforced by the very expensive 'Irish traveller' motorhome shown in the Echo photo, it's British registration plate confirms it is less than twelve months old and was registered in Exeter, Devon.

Why would a genuine ethnic 'Irish traveller' be driving around in a new UK West Country vehicle - is anyone asking?.
"fireflier says... These are NOT travellers or gypsies ......they have vehicles and caravans which cost an absolute fortune ..yet they hide behind this nonsense that they are a particular ethnic group." A point reinforced by the very expensive 'Irish traveller' motorhome shown in the Echo photo, it's British registration plate confirms it is less than twelve months old and was registered in Exeter, Devon. Why would a genuine ethnic 'Irish traveller' be driving around in a new UK West Country vehicle - is anyone asking?. muscliffman
  • Score: 13

10:08am Sat 24 May 14

MMM444 says...

muscliffman wrote:
"fireflier says...

These are NOT travellers or gypsies ......they have vehicles and caravans which cost an absolute fortune ..yet they hide behind this nonsense that they are a particular ethnic group."

A point reinforced by the very expensive 'Irish traveller' motorhome shown in the Echo photo, it's British registration plate confirms it is less than twelve months old and was registered in Exeter, Devon.

Why would a genuine ethnic 'Irish traveller' be driving around in a new UK West Country vehicle - is anyone asking?.
Exactly, perfectly put, confiscate the lot off these lawless vandalising thugs, travellers my ar-e, When are they going to start to check these people out ??, these vehicles must be registered to an address somewhere for them to be insured, one big scam this is.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: "fireflier says... These are NOT travellers or gypsies ......they have vehicles and caravans which cost an absolute fortune ..yet they hide behind this nonsense that they are a particular ethnic group." A point reinforced by the very expensive 'Irish traveller' motorhome shown in the Echo photo, it's British registration plate confirms it is less than twelve months old and was registered in Exeter, Devon. Why would a genuine ethnic 'Irish traveller' be driving around in a new UK West Country vehicle - is anyone asking?.[/p][/quote]Exactly, perfectly put, confiscate the lot off these lawless vandalising thugs, travellers my ar-e, When are they going to start to check these people out ??, these vehicles must be registered to an address somewhere for them to be insured, one big scam this is. MMM444
  • Score: 9

10:34am Sat 24 May 14

loftusrod says...

Why can't they just be clamped and not released until they pay the requisite fine?
Why can't they just be clamped and not released until they pay the requisite fine? loftusrod
  • Score: 5

3:47pm Sat 24 May 14

mimi55 says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Melanie.Read12 wrote:
I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park.
Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.
The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.
Once again, you and all the other overly PC Councillors and Police know very well that section 61 of the Criminal Justice act 1994 could be invoked, you
just haven't got the will to do it - you'd much rather see services scrapped, while spending hundreds of thousands of tax payers money on
cosseting these so called 'travellers'
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Melanie.Read12[/bold] wrote: I don't understand how they can move from one place to another less than two miles away, and within the same borough. First Baiter, then Hamworthy Park, now next to Poole Park. Does the evicition notice only cover the specific location, or can one be issued with a radius restriction. They have these for other legal orders, so why cannot one be issued for traveller evictions? Genuine question, as I am not sure of the law.[/p][/quote]The answer to the eviction question is yes! - hence the advice to Councillors to go for the TSP option. I know the trolls disagree, but they seem unwilling to share thier superior "expertise" in an open dialogue.[/p][/quote]Once again, you and all the other overly PC Councillors and Police know very well that section 61 of the Criminal Justice act 1994 could be invoked, you just haven't got the will to do it - you'd much rather see services scrapped, while spending hundreds of thousands of tax payers money on cosseting these so called 'travellers' mimi55
  • Score: 6

5:08pm Sat 24 May 14

RM says...

Lucky Rich wrote:
Townee wrote:
All carparks need heavy over head barriers low enough to stop caravans and vans entering them.
It probably does help in these cases ,but the rest of the year people with campers or even cars with roof box's etc cant use them .
Corfe Mullen have erected adjustable height barriers & had a lockdown on their green spaces during last summer's traveller incursions - no incursions at Corfe Mullen - just needs a bit of lateral thinking by Poole Council - and the will to actually act to protect residents.
[quote][p][bold]Lucky Rich[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: All carparks need heavy over head barriers low enough to stop caravans and vans entering them.[/p][/quote]It probably does help in these cases ,but the rest of the year people with campers or even cars with roof box's etc cant use them .[/p][/quote]Corfe Mullen have erected adjustable height barriers & had a lockdown on their green spaces during last summer's traveller incursions - no incursions at Corfe Mullen - just needs a bit of lateral thinking by Poole Council - and the will to actually act to protect residents. RM
  • Score: 5

5:25pm Sat 24 May 14

poolebabe says...

Just a question. Why do the travellers need running water and toilet blocks at any tsp? A couple of portaloos should do. After all, where was the running water and toilets at Rossmore and the Dolphin car park? They aren't fussed, and they don't seem to care, so why should anyone else?
Just a question. Why do the travellers need running water and toilet blocks at any tsp? A couple of portaloos should do. After all, where was the running water and toilets at Rossmore and the Dolphin car park? They aren't fussed, and they don't seem to care, so why should anyone else? poolebabe
  • Score: -1

7:53pm Sat 24 May 14

Baysider says...

muscliffman wrote:
"fireflier says...

These are NOT travellers or gypsies ......they have vehicles and caravans which cost an absolute fortune ..yet they hide behind this nonsense that they are a particular ethnic group."

A point reinforced by the very expensive 'Irish traveller' motorhome shown in the Echo photo, it's British registration plate confirms it is less than twelve months old and was registered in Exeter, Devon.

Why would a genuine ethnic 'Irish traveller' be driving around in a new UK West Country vehicle - is anyone asking?.
For heavens sake are you STILL trotting this out??? The fact they have UK registered vehicles has ZERO relevance to their ethnicity doesn't it? Otherwise all your fellow retirees on the Costas would suddenly become Spanish on delivery of their new car. It is nonsense amd you know it.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: "fireflier says... These are NOT travellers or gypsies ......they have vehicles and caravans which cost an absolute fortune ..yet they hide behind this nonsense that they are a particular ethnic group." A point reinforced by the very expensive 'Irish traveller' motorhome shown in the Echo photo, it's British registration plate confirms it is less than twelve months old and was registered in Exeter, Devon. Why would a genuine ethnic 'Irish traveller' be driving around in a new UK West Country vehicle - is anyone asking?.[/p][/quote]For heavens sake are you STILL trotting this out??? The fact they have UK registered vehicles has ZERO relevance to their ethnicity doesn't it? Otherwise all your fellow retirees on the Costas would suddenly become Spanish on delivery of their new car. It is nonsense amd you know it. Baysider
  • Score: -9

5:24pm Sun 25 May 14

60plus says...

Does that mean when I go swimming I don't have to pay?and will I get my money back because I was ten minutes over and got a ticket so my swim cost me a extra £25
Does that mean when I go swimming I don't have to pay?and will I get my money back because I was ten minutes over and got a ticket so my swim cost me a extra £25 60plus
  • Score: 3

7:14pm Sun 25 May 14

DorsetFerret says...

60plus wrote:
Does that mean when I go swimming I don't have to pay?and will I get my money back because I was ten minutes over and got a ticket so my swim cost me a extra £25
Not if you're a law abiding citizen, one not covered by EU ethnic minority law. Sorry, you have to pay. Try slipping your car between some caravans on the Dolphin Leisure Centre car park next time ad pretend your from somewhere that is covered
[quote][p][bold]60plus[/bold] wrote: Does that mean when I go swimming I don't have to pay?and will I get my money back because I was ten minutes over and got a ticket so my swim cost me a extra £25[/p][/quote]Not if you're a law abiding citizen, one not covered by EU ethnic minority law. Sorry, you have to pay. Try slipping your car between some caravans on the Dolphin Leisure Centre car park next time ad pretend your from somewhere that is covered DorsetFerret
  • Score: 4

2:37pm Mon 26 May 14

staffylover84 says...

I'm not going to bother paying for parking anymore. When the council try to fine me, I'll just tell them I'm a 'traveller'. That seems to be a perfectly good excuse to not pay car park fees.
I'm not going to bother paying for parking anymore. When the council try to fine me, I'll just tell them I'm a 'traveller'. That seems to be a perfectly good excuse to not pay car park fees. staffylover84
  • Score: 5

1:51pm Tue 27 May 14

Cordite says...

First test for UKIP to sort this shambles out in Brussels?

Think it was them the EU commissioners that imposed these ludicrous laws on us, could be wrong, if so stand corrected.
First test for UKIP to sort this shambles out in Brussels? Think it was them the EU commissioners that imposed these ludicrous laws on us, could be wrong, if so stand corrected. Cordite
  • Score: 1

1:14pm Wed 28 May 14

AustinMark says...

Direct quote from the article:
“I know that travellers and gypsies gets certain people’s blood boiling, but we live in a country of different cultures – which the travelling community is part of.


And a quote from the comment rules:
any reference to gypsies or any racially offensive term will cause them to be closed and you may find your account suspended.


Well done Echo, telling us that the term ''Gypsies'' is racist, I don't think so.
Direct quote from the article:[quote]“I know that travellers and gypsies gets certain people’s blood boiling, but we live in a country of different cultures – which the travelling community is part of.[/quote] And a quote from the comment rules: [quote]any reference to gypsies or any racially offensive term will cause them to be closed and you may find your account suspended.[/quote] Well done Echo, telling us that the term ''Gypsies'' is racist, I don't think so. AustinMark
  • Score: 3

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