UPDATE: Councillors slam proposal to use Creekmoor site as transit site for travellers

Bournemouth Echo: Councillors slam proposal to use Creekmoor site as transit site for travellers Councillors slam proposal to use Creekmoor site as transit site for travellers

THE possibility of opening a summer stopping place for travellers at Creekmoor, Poole has been branded, “ridiculous, unnecessary and damaging.”

Creekmoor ward councillor John Rampton led the charge opposing proposals which named a site at Marshes End, Creekmoor for a 27 pitch site and a second area of land north of B&Q on Broadstone Way with four pitches.

However Borough of Poole’s cabinet deferred a decision, deciding that the matter was so important it should go before an emergency meeting of full council on Monday, January 27 at 6pm.

“There would be significant capital costs and revenue costs in relation to this land,” said Cllr Rampton.

“It does tremendous and particularly material harm to residents.”

He said the site, next to the fire station, was not fit for human habitation and pointed out the council was under no obligation to provide a site.

Council leader Cllr Elaine Atkinson said: “We don’t have a duty to provide a site. But if we want the police to intervene and help us we have to have somewhere for them to move people to. That’s the law and that’s where we are.”

Ward councillor Judy Butt questioned the whole idea of a temporary stopping place. “My residents are deeply offended they are apparently to be used as an experiment in this regard,” she said.

And ward councillor Les Burden said it was an unsuitable site with no safe pedestrian access.

Supporting the proposal to take it before full council, Cllr Xena Dion, cabinet portfolio holder for transportation said: “I don’t feel we can do justice to anybody in this situation. There needs to be proper and full debate at full council.”

Around 20 residents turned out to hear the cabinet debate and frustration was voiced that they were not able to give their views, causing Cllr Atkinson to briefly suspend the meeting.

Creekmoor resident Shaun Connolly said: “The people of Millfield are really upset and peeved. Every time we fight one issue there’s another one.”

And would-be resident Rob of Hamworthy said: “I feel so strongly against this site I’m going to pull out of a house I am buying on Creekmoor if it goes ahead.”

Please note: Any reference to gypsies or any racially offensive term, or any comment inciting violence or hatred is in breach of our terms and conditions and will result in your account being suspended without notice. 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 (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:24am Wed 15 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.
Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options. Tony Trent

10:36am Wed 15 Jan 14

John T says...

Cllr Rampton said that 'the site, next to the fire station, was not fit for human habitation'....In view of the condition previous travellers have left sites in around the area, this would appear to be problem solved. Move next business!
Cllr Rampton said that 'the site, next to the fire station, was not fit for human habitation'....In view of the condition previous travellers have left sites in around the area, this would appear to be problem solved. Move next business! John T

10:41am Wed 15 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.
So you're OK with paying for all that these sites will cost to get up and running, just for them not to be used?
......
It will cost more than it did last year for eviction orders and their implementation, but that's OK even though it means cutting services and putting up council tax?
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.[/p][/quote]So you're OK with paying for all that these sites will cost to get up and running, just for them not to be used? ...... It will cost more than it did last year for eviction orders and their implementation, but that's OK even though it means cutting services and putting up council tax? Carolyn43

10:48am Wed 15 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

After leaving any article on the ludicrous proposal until the very day of the Cabinet meeting, the Echo now has two articles, saying pretty much the same thing, the day after?!?!?
After leaving any article on the ludicrous proposal until the very day of the Cabinet meeting, the Echo now has two articles, saying pretty much the same thing, the day after?!?!? Jo__Go

11:10am Wed 15 Jan 14

we-shall-see says...

So if the argument that this land has no pedestrian access, why not just use the always empty and locked up/never used park & ride car park as a temporary transit site? Put a stipulation of 7 days only to be permitted to stay there and have done with it?

My concern with both those sites being used is the very likely danger to motorists of dogs and children dashing around on or near the road, but the park & ride is sectioned from the main dual carriageway by hedging and fences, making it a much safer option for the locals who have to drive in the area.

Personally, I fail to see why the law even sees travellers as a "race" or "minority" and gives them the option to just park up where they like. The rest of us with caravans have to pay to stay on proper sites, so why the hell can't travellers do the same? It's not like any of them are too skint to afford it judging by the reality tv progs about them :o/
So if the argument that this land has no pedestrian access, why not just use the always empty and locked up/never used park & ride car park as a temporary transit site? Put a stipulation of 7 days only to be permitted to stay there and have done with it? My concern with both those sites being used is the very likely danger to motorists of dogs and children dashing around on or near the road, but the park & ride is sectioned from the main dual carriageway by hedging and fences, making it a much safer option for the locals who have to drive in the area. Personally, I fail to see why the law even sees travellers as a "race" or "minority" and gives them the option to just park up where they like. The rest of us with caravans have to pay to stay on proper sites, so why the hell can't travellers do the same? It's not like any of them are too skint to afford it judging by the reality tv progs about them :o/ we-shall-see

11:28am Wed 15 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.
So you're OK with paying for all that these sites will cost to get up and running, just for them not to be used?
......
It will cost more than it did last year for eviction orders and their implementation, but that's OK even though it means cutting services and putting up council tax?
You are not talking about a full transit site. The "temporary stopping place" requires a lot less infrastructure. The residents of Poole demanded action. This is about the least that can be done to reduce the problem, with the least cost and effect on nearby residents. Not perfect, but any other (legal) ideas?
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.[/p][/quote]So you're OK with paying for all that these sites will cost to get up and running, just for them not to be used? ...... It will cost more than it did last year for eviction orders and their implementation, but that's OK even though it means cutting services and putting up council tax?[/p][/quote]You are not talking about a full transit site. The "temporary stopping place" requires a lot less infrastructure. The residents of Poole demanded action. This is about the least that can be done to reduce the problem, with the least cost and effect on nearby residents. Not perfect, but any other (legal) ideas? Tony Trent

11:42am Wed 15 Jan 14

MarcPoole says...

It doesn't matter whether you live in Creekmoor / Broadstone or not. The council spent £200,000 of Poole residents' money cleaning up after travellers last year.

Now, the council wants to spend hundreds of thousands more of YOUR council tax creating two new sites.

Think about that the next time the grass isn't cut in your street, your bins aren't emptied and your street lights are turned off overnight to save money, leaving your car and home at the mercy of criminals.
It doesn't matter whether you live in Creekmoor / Broadstone or not. The council spent £200,000 of Poole residents' money cleaning up after travellers last year. Now, the council wants to spend hundreds of thousands more of YOUR council tax creating two new sites. Think about that the next time the grass isn't cut in your street, your bins aren't emptied and your street lights are turned off overnight to save money, leaving your car and home at the mercy of criminals. MarcPoole

11:42am Wed 15 Jan 14

we-shall-see says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.
So you're OK with paying for all that these sites will cost to get up and running, just for them not to be used?
......
It will cost more than it did last year for eviction orders and their implementation, but that's OK even though it means cutting services and putting up council tax?
You are not talking about a full transit site. The "temporary stopping place" requires a lot less infrastructure. The residents of Poole demanded action. This is about the least that can be done to reduce the problem, with the least cost and effect on nearby residents. Not perfect, but any other (legal) ideas?
Yes indeed we have demanded action - swift action to evict them when they park up ILLEGALLY on our public spaces - which we residents pay to upkeep and enjoy - not wait a week or even two before putting eviction papers into action. Stop trying to play the "being nice" game to people who clearly neither appreciate it or PAY THE COUNCILS WAGES :o//
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.[/p][/quote]So you're OK with paying for all that these sites will cost to get up and running, just for them not to be used? ...... It will cost more than it did last year for eviction orders and their implementation, but that's OK even though it means cutting services and putting up council tax?[/p][/quote]You are not talking about a full transit site. The "temporary stopping place" requires a lot less infrastructure. The residents of Poole demanded action. This is about the least that can be done to reduce the problem, with the least cost and effect on nearby residents. Not perfect, but any other (legal) ideas?[/p][/quote]Yes indeed we have demanded action - swift action to evict them when they park up ILLEGALLY on our public spaces - which we residents pay to upkeep and enjoy - not wait a week or even two before putting eviction papers into action. Stop trying to play the "being nice" game to people who clearly neither appreciate it or PAY THE COUNCILS WAGES :o// we-shall-see

12:00pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre!

The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability??
Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away?

This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.
An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre! The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability?? Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away? This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor. Jo__Go

12:09pm Wed 15 Jan 14

boblister says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.
Tony
I think you have a voice of reason.
Its either provide a temporary site or we will still get them at Whitecliff and other green Open spaces.
With this site at least we can move them on quickly from parks, not waiting 21 days as before.
Surely, its better to have a site with sanitation than having it thrown in the bushes!
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.[/p][/quote]Tony I think you have a voice of reason. Its either provide a temporary site or we will still get them at Whitecliff and other green Open spaces. With this site at least we can move them on quickly from parks, not waiting 21 days as before. Surely, its better to have a site with sanitation than having it thrown in the bushes! boblister

12:13pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

I'm not sure any would argue with the need to provide a temporary site, the issue is the shoddy job that officers and councillors have done to get to a result that suits no-one, least of all the travellers, and quite simnply fails to meet the brief in any way, shape, or form.
I'm not sure any would argue with the need to provide a temporary site, the issue is the shoddy job that officers and councillors have done to get to a result that suits no-one, least of all the travellers, and quite simnply fails to meet the brief in any way, shape, or form. Jo__Go

1:48pm Wed 15 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

Jo__Go wrote:
I'm not sure any would argue with the need to provide a temporary site, the issue is the shoddy job that officers and councillors have done to get to a result that suits no-one, least of all the travellers, and quite simnply fails to meet the brief in any way, shape, or form.
I would suggest that a huge number of people would argue very loudly about the 'need' to provide 'traveller' sites anywhere in the UK. Just because doing so helps a Council to access more robust law regarding 'traveller' eviction from illegal sites is not in itself proper justification for building something at public expense most folk do NOT actually want. The law is flawed on this subject, two wrongs don't make a right and it urgently needs fixing.

We really should follow the Irish Republic's approach and once and for all deny this unacceptable 'traveller' lifestyle it's highly questionable UK ethnic minority recognition. This would end the 'need' to provide any taxpayer funded free sites, it would also end the 'traveller's' apparent immunity from facing many criminal charges and require that they adopt the same basic standards of social responsibility which we are all expected to follow.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure any would argue with the need to provide a temporary site, the issue is the shoddy job that officers and councillors have done to get to a result that suits no-one, least of all the travellers, and quite simnply fails to meet the brief in any way, shape, or form.[/p][/quote]I would suggest that a huge number of people would argue very loudly about the 'need' to provide 'traveller' sites anywhere in the UK. Just because doing so helps a Council to access more robust law regarding 'traveller' eviction from illegal sites is not in itself proper justification for building something at public expense most folk do NOT actually want. The law is flawed on this subject, two wrongs don't make a right and it urgently needs fixing. We really should follow the Irish Republic's approach and once and for all deny this unacceptable 'traveller' lifestyle it's highly questionable UK ethnic minority recognition. This would end the 'need' to provide any taxpayer funded free sites, it would also end the 'traveller's' apparent immunity from facing many criminal charges and require that they adopt the same basic standards of social responsibility which we are all expected to follow. muscliffman

3:48pm Wed 15 Jan 14

smhinto says...

If these people are travellers, why would they somewhere to stay ?? If they require a place to stop over why don't they book into a guest house or hotel like most normal people do when they stop over.
.
Why is it that the rest of the world has to bend over for these dysfunctional lunatics.
If these people are travellers, why would they somewhere to stay ?? If they require a place to stop over why don't they book into a guest house or hotel like most normal people do when they stop over. . Why is it that the rest of the world has to bend over for these dysfunctional lunatics. smhinto

3:59pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Diesel Dog says...

Everyone panics when the vans towing caravans turn up in their neighbourhood. A national legal policy is required. Questions need answering on a once and only legalised basis to deter the legal trade from cashing in at £ 275 hour which taxpayers fund.
For the landowners. Is it legal to spray pig or chicken feicies on land you own as a deterante or incentive to leave, even whilst people are in the area?
Should the council provide waste management facilities or be legally responsible to tidy up after their departure?
Can this cost be recovered?
Will the police carry out increased checks on vehicles legality and loads on vehicles and checks on scrap metal dealers yard contents?
Could the HMRC could also be involved to help fill in tax returns with income / asset / benefit issues being thoroughly assessed ?
These simple steps would allay fears about our new neighbours and assure us that they are just like us and we should welcome them into our community.
Everyone panics when the vans towing caravans turn up in their neighbourhood. A national legal policy is required. Questions need answering on a once and only legalised basis to deter the legal trade from cashing in at £ 275 hour which taxpayers fund. For the landowners. Is it legal to spray pig or chicken feicies on land you own as a deterante or incentive to leave, even whilst people are in the area? Should the council provide waste management facilities or be legally responsible to tidy up after their departure? Can this cost be recovered? Will the police carry out increased checks on vehicles legality and loads on vehicles and checks on scrap metal dealers yard contents? Could the HMRC could also be involved to help fill in tax returns with income / asset / benefit issues being thoroughly assessed ? These simple steps would allay fears about our new neighbours and assure us that they are just like us and we should welcome them into our community. Diesel Dog

4:20pm Wed 15 Jan 14

sue2bu says...

These travellers are laughing their heads off at the trouble they are causing. They will still park where they want to, usually with a view, and no need to put their rubbish in bins or sacks but just dump it, as they know full well that it will be cleared up after them. If anyone else did what they have been doing they would be prosecuted and fined, or maybe told to clear up after themselves. One rule for one and one for the other. Move them on constantly til they get fed up with it and don't bother with all the paperwork, it wastes time, effort and money. Charge them for where they stay; charge them for the cost of clearing up and if they do not pay up send the bailiff in to remove their computers, TV's, cars and caravans.
These travellers are laughing their heads off at the trouble they are causing. They will still park where they want to, usually with a view, and no need to put their rubbish in bins or sacks but just dump it, as they know full well that it will be cleared up after them. If anyone else did what they have been doing they would be prosecuted and fined, or maybe told to clear up after themselves. One rule for one and one for the other. Move them on constantly til they get fed up with it and don't bother with all the paperwork, it wastes time, effort and money. Charge them for where they stay; charge them for the cost of clearing up and if they do not pay up send the bailiff in to remove their computers, TV's, cars and caravans. sue2bu

4:21pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Big Man 2 says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.
Mr Trent I assume you don't live in or near Creekmoor who are you to judge the affect it will have on Creekmoor residents, yourself and Phil Eades are in cahoots on this matter, so look closer to home for your unecessary transit camp for disrespecting, non tax paying scrounging travellers !!!

How about fencing off a corner of Branksome Rec for the scroungers !! Oh no, sorry can't do that because Phil Eades would lose votes in his ward !!

These people are not true Gypsies, they are Irish travellers that are not even recognised by thier own countrymen. I can say this confidence because I have many Romany friends , and my family contains true Romany stock.

Mr Trent I find your comments quite insulting to the residents of Creekmoor, let's not forget that we also all contribute to the council coffers via taxation, and are stake holders in the Borough of Poole, therefore we should at least the same respect as all other members of the community, wether we live in Sandbanks , Canford Cliffs , or Creekmoor !!
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: Members of the Cabinet are paid twice as much in allowances as ordinairy Council members because they are prepared to be held account for certain decisions. This is clearly a Cabinet type decision. Instead they seek to go to the extra expense of an extraordinary Council meeting to get them off the hook. I witnessed the performance last night and felt that most of the anxt of residents were whipped up by misleading information. Both of the proposed sites were well away from resident's homes, further away than any regularly visited sites, and would only be used (if at all) for very short periods of the year. It would appear that where there are these temporary stopping places they are seldom used, as the travellers do not want to be told where to go. They are more likely to move to neighbouring areas where they can camp down for the best part of two weeks. This is the best option available to Poole at present to control the situation, and it has virtually no affect on residents compared to other options.[/p][/quote]Mr Trent I assume you don't live in or near Creekmoor who are you to judge the affect it will have on Creekmoor residents, yourself and Phil Eades are in cahoots on this matter, so look closer to home for your unecessary transit camp for disrespecting, non tax paying scrounging travellers !!! How about fencing off a corner of Branksome Rec for the scroungers !! Oh no, sorry can't do that because Phil Eades would lose votes in his ward !! These people are not true Gypsies, they are Irish travellers that are not even recognised by thier own countrymen. I can say this confidence because I have many Romany friends , and my family contains true Romany stock. Mr Trent I find your comments quite insulting to the residents of Creekmoor, let's not forget that we also all contribute to the council coffers via taxation, and are stake holders in the Borough of Poole, therefore we should at least the same respect as all other members of the community, wether we live in Sandbanks , Canford Cliffs , or Creekmoor !! Big Man 2

4:22pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Peroni says...

MarcPoole wrote:
It doesn't matter whether you live in Creekmoor / Broadstone or not. The council spent £200,000 of Poole residents' money cleaning up after travellers last year.

Now, the council wants to spend hundreds of thousands more of YOUR council tax creating two new sites.

Think about that the next time the grass isn't cut in your street, your bins aren't emptied and your street lights are turned off overnight to save money, leaving your car and home at the mercy of criminals.
Also ,tax payers fund the site in Mannings Heath Road.So what do you call that site !
How many more sites to fund or areas to be cleaned up after them !!
[quote][p][bold]MarcPoole[/bold] wrote: It doesn't matter whether you live in Creekmoor / Broadstone or not. The council spent £200,000 of Poole residents' money cleaning up after travellers last year. Now, the council wants to spend hundreds of thousands more of YOUR council tax creating two new sites. Think about that the next time the grass isn't cut in your street, your bins aren't emptied and your street lights are turned off overnight to save money, leaving your car and home at the mercy of criminals.[/p][/quote]Also ,tax payers fund the site in Mannings Heath Road.So what do you call that site ! How many more sites to fund or areas to be cleaned up after them !! Peroni

4:25pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Big Man 2 says...

Jo__Go wrote:
An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre!

The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability??
Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away?

This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.
It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !!
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre! The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability?? Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away? This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.[/p][/quote]It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !! Big Man 2

4:37pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Big Man 2 says...

Roll on the next council elections, I think some of the current councillers are going to be very disappointed when their gravy train hits the buffers !!

I can honestly say after living in Poole for the past 30 years that I can not remember a worst Mayor the Liberal Lefty currently in the office, firstly Phil Eades tried to demean the role of the Mayor by trying to scrap the Mayoral Limo, next he try's to impose his personal aspirations on the good residents of Creekmoor. .

Well Councillor Eades we are not having it end off !!!

An angry Creekmoor resident. Grrrrrrrr
Roll on the next council elections, I think some of the current councillers are going to be very disappointed when their gravy train hits the buffers !! I can honestly say after living in Poole for the past 30 years that I can not remember a worst Mayor the Liberal Lefty currently in the office, firstly Phil Eades tried to demean the role of the Mayor by trying to scrap the Mayoral Limo, next he try's to impose his personal aspirations on the good residents of Creekmoor. . Well Councillor Eades we are not having it end off !!! An angry Creekmoor resident. Grrrrrrrr Big Man 2

4:55pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Poole__Resident says...

So by supplying them free pitches and amenities (for which anyone else would have to pay for and in fact we obviously are!), they won't go to Whitecliff, etc?

The people in charge are naive at best..

Supply them with nothing and impound their vehicles if they step out of line. That is the only message they will understand.
So by supplying them free pitches and amenities (for which anyone else would have to pay for and in fact we obviously are!), they won't go to Whitecliff, etc? The people in charge are naive at best.. Supply them with nothing and impound their vehicles if they step out of line. That is the only message they will understand. Poole__Resident

5:34pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

Big Man 2 wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre!

The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability??
Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away?

This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.
It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !!
Conversely, we now have a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet : the traditional approach of Poole Council.

A real leader not just a passive figurehead, it can be said !!. Naturally he is not the decision maker but he is reminding us all that decisions must be made - no more dithering or running about like headless chickens.

If the full Council is being asked to solve a question "too difficult" for others then he is right to ensure that it happens. What the answer will be is unknown but it must be based upon reality and fair compromise in these times : times of having to deal with a law that our MPs have had quite a long while to try to secure (for the Council) modification or special arrangements for a crowded urban area that attracts people who do not respect the needs of a crowded urban area.

No doubt the answer will be just for 2014 only : ie a temporary location of the temporary (transit) site rather than a permanent (annually recurring !!) location of the temporary (transit) site. Also measures will be taken to ensure that the use of such a site is not the source of actual crime / damage whilst pressure is increased for a suitable change to, or clarification of the law that we are advised is the source of anger and probable civil disquiet.

Our decision makers may yet flunk their responsibilities but at least available reports give the impression that our Mayor has required the matter to get urgent attention. In January it seems that summertime is a long way off but our paid officials need some time to get organized and our Mayor is aware of that fact and is acting accordingly. Well done !
[quote][p][bold]Big Man 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre! The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability?? Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away? This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.[/p][/quote]It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !![/p][/quote]Conversely, we now have a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet : the traditional approach of Poole Council. A real leader not just a passive figurehead, it can be said !!. Naturally he is not the decision maker but he is reminding us all that decisions must be made - no more dithering or running about like headless chickens. If the full Council is being asked to solve a question "too difficult" for others then he is right to ensure that it happens. What the answer will be is unknown but it must be based upon reality and fair compromise in these times : times of having to deal with a law that our MPs have had quite a long while to try to secure (for the Council) modification or special arrangements for a crowded urban area that attracts people who do not respect the needs of a crowded urban area. No doubt the answer will be just for 2014 only : ie a temporary location of the temporary (transit) site rather than a permanent (annually recurring !!) location of the temporary (transit) site. Also measures will be taken to ensure that the use of such a site is not the source of actual crime / damage whilst pressure is increased for a suitable change to, or clarification of the law that we are advised is the source of anger and probable civil disquiet. Our decision makers may yet flunk their responsibilities but at least available reports give the impression that our Mayor has required the matter to get urgent attention. In January it seems that summertime is a long way off but our paid officials need some time to get organized and our Mayor is aware of that fact and is acting accordingly. Well done ! Ebb Tide

5:44pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

Major brown-nosing there from Ebb Tide.

Shouldn't the Leader of the Council be leading the council??? The Mayor's job is to polish his chain, look pretty, and nibble canapes...
Major brown-nosing there from Ebb Tide. Shouldn't the Leader of the Council be leading the council??? The Mayor's job is to polish his chain, look pretty, and nibble canapes... Jo__Go

5:44pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

Poole__Resident wrote:
So by supplying them free pitches and amenities (for which anyone else would have to pay for and in fact we obviously are!), they won't go to Whitecliff, etc?

The people in charge are naive at best..

Supply them with nothing and impound their vehicles if they step out of line. That is the only message they will understand.
Regrettably our Council is advised that there is a law that prevents your sensible approach. How true that advice is needs to be tested.

Also, Local Bylaws (about unauthorized overnight camping) are rarely enforced. Perhaps the reason could be explained to us. We can't do it because they know where and how to find us but to find 'others' it is different and that may be the reason !!
[quote][p][bold]Poole__Resident[/bold] wrote: So by supplying them free pitches and amenities (for which anyone else would have to pay for and in fact we obviously are!), they won't go to Whitecliff, etc? The people in charge are naive at best.. Supply them with nothing and impound their vehicles if they step out of line. That is the only message they will understand.[/p][/quote]Regrettably our Council is advised that there is a law that prevents your sensible approach. How true that advice is needs to be tested. Also, Local Bylaws (about unauthorized overnight camping) are rarely enforced. Perhaps the reason could be explained to us. We can't do it because they know where and how to find us but to find 'others' it is different and that may be the reason !! Ebb Tide

6:08pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Major brown-nosing there from Ebb Tide.

Shouldn't the Leader of the Council be leading the council??? The Mayor's job is to polish his chain, look pretty, and nibble canapes...
Agreed the Leader should lead but if the Leader doesn't manage to do it (after 'n' years) then who do you suggest could have helped Poole solve the relevant problem and move into the modern world of constructive decision making.

It is noted that the Mayor (unlike so many of our other elected representatives) seems to have identified and met a need and I, for just one, am grateful : particularly if it reduces the risk of public disquiet or even unrest in a few months time.

I say "praise where praise is due" - as you will have noticed. No doubt the Leader will get similar plaudits from me when possible !!
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Major brown-nosing there from Ebb Tide. Shouldn't the Leader of the Council be leading the council??? The Mayor's job is to polish his chain, look pretty, and nibble canapes...[/p][/quote]Agreed the Leader should lead but if the Leader doesn't manage to do it (after 'n' years) then who do you suggest could have helped Poole solve the relevant problem and move into the modern world of constructive decision making. It is noted that the Mayor (unlike so many of our other elected representatives) seems to have identified and met a need and I, for just one, am grateful : particularly if it reduces the risk of public disquiet or even unrest in a few months time. I say "praise where praise is due" - as you will have noticed. No doubt the Leader will get similar plaudits from me when possible !! Ebb Tide

6:50pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

The Mayor may have identified a need, just maybe... he sure as heck hasn't met it. All we have so far is a laughably incompetent report from the officers, and a solution that is no solution at all.

I do struggle to understand why the majority party on the council appear to be taking this fiasco lying down and letting the Mayor and officers run riot with the council's money, credibility, and reputation.
The Mayor may have identified a need, just maybe... he sure as heck hasn't met it. All we have so far is a laughably incompetent report from the officers, and a solution that is no solution at all. I do struggle to understand why the majority party on the council appear to be taking this fiasco lying down and letting the Mayor and officers run riot with the council's money, credibility, and reputation. Jo__Go

6:58pm Wed 15 Jan 14

itsneverblackorwhite says...

Town hall?
Town hall? itsneverblackorwhite

7:22pm Wed 15 Jan 14

i have heard it all now says...

Ship them Back to where they have come from.A 1 way ticket
Ship them Back to where they have come from.A 1 way ticket i have heard it all now

7:49pm Wed 15 Jan 14

kalebmoledirt says...

It was eluded to in the previous comments if a site is set aside for travellers. That requires no statement of ID on their (mostly Irish passport s) what is to stop a genuine caravan owner to just take over the rent free pitch.at least they will have insurance stating they are a minority group. I guess there are more Irish travellers than Poole caravan owners.
It was eluded to in the previous comments if a site is set aside for travellers. That requires no statement of ID on their (mostly Irish passport s) what is to stop a genuine caravan owner to just take over the rent free pitch.at least they will have insurance stating they are a minority group. I guess there are more Irish travellers than Poole caravan owners. kalebmoledirt

8:19pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

Jo__Go wrote:
The Mayor may have identified a need, just maybe... he sure as heck hasn't met it. All we have so far is a laughably incompetent report from the officers, and a solution that is no solution at all.

I do struggle to understand why the majority party on the council appear to be taking this fiasco lying down and letting the Mayor and officers run riot with the council's money, credibility, and reputation.
Ah now you are talking ! Perhaps our paid officials could be encouraged to produce relevant cogent advice in time for Councillors to decide how to use it ? Such encouragement requires Councillors to police / supervise timetabling and general performance of their paid advisers.

Leadership of the 'decision-makers' requires reliable and timely advice for decision-makers within the context of the fact that so many of the electorate have much to offer. Cllr Judy Butt is keen to harness the power of 'public engagement' (to use the gobbledeegook) but clarity on how and when public opinion may be useful to our elected decision-makers remains in the doldrums. Is this a matter being left for our Mayor, I hope not !!
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: The Mayor may have identified a need, just maybe... he sure as heck hasn't met it. All we have so far is a laughably incompetent report from the officers, and a solution that is no solution at all. I do struggle to understand why the majority party on the council appear to be taking this fiasco lying down and letting the Mayor and officers run riot with the council's money, credibility, and reputation.[/p][/quote]Ah now you are talking ! Perhaps our paid officials could be encouraged to produce relevant cogent advice in time for Councillors to decide how to use it ? Such encouragement requires Councillors to police / supervise timetabling and general performance of their paid advisers. Leadership of the 'decision-makers' requires reliable and timely advice for decision-makers within the context of the fact that so many of the electorate have much to offer. Cllr Judy Butt is keen to harness the power of 'public engagement' (to use the gobbledeegook) but clarity on how and when public opinion may be useful to our elected decision-makers remains in the doldrums. Is this a matter being left for our Mayor, I hope not !! Ebb Tide

8:31pm Wed 15 Jan 14

ruprecht says...

For those rounding on Cllr Eades it appears that he is the only person that is doing anything to solve this problem. Many of us had to put up with these "travellers" (and I use that term loosely) last summer and unless a transit site is found then we will have to put up with it again this year. The law needs to be changed but we all know that is unlikely to happen soon. I would like the Council to take extra measures in July and August to ensure that we make it as difficult as possible for the travellers to get on to the sites in the first place and if that means shutting car parks etc for periods of time then it has to be done.

It is very obvious that this is our (the residents of Poole) problem and as far as I can see Cllr Eades has simply forced through a motion to get it properly debated. I very much doubt whether he wishes these travellers on anybody within the borough but we need a proper solution and debate and that is why we elect a Council to take these decisions.

I would like to see more powers given to the Police to stop them entering our Public Open space, I would like Channel 4 to stop glorifying the travellers very existence and portraying them as good, law abiding citizens when they are completely the opposite, I would like to see HMRC take a tougher stance... It is all largely out of our control but what we can do is to come up with a solution to move these people on quickly.
For those rounding on Cllr Eades it appears that he is the only person that is doing anything to solve this problem. Many of us had to put up with these "travellers" (and I use that term loosely) last summer and unless a transit site is found then we will have to put up with it again this year. The law needs to be changed but we all know that is unlikely to happen soon. I would like the Council to take extra measures in July and August to ensure that we make it as difficult as possible for the travellers to get on to the sites in the first place and if that means shutting car parks etc for periods of time then it has to be done. It is very obvious that this is our (the residents of Poole) problem and as far as I can see Cllr Eades has simply forced through a motion to get it properly debated. I very much doubt whether he wishes these travellers on anybody within the borough but we need a proper solution and debate and that is why we elect a Council to take these decisions. I would like to see more powers given to the Police to stop them entering our Public Open space, I would like Channel 4 to stop glorifying the travellers very existence and portraying them as good, law abiding citizens when they are completely the opposite, I would like to see HMRC take a tougher stance... It is all largely out of our control but what we can do is to come up with a solution to move these people on quickly. ruprecht

8:35pm Wed 15 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

Ebb Tide wrote:
Big Man 2 wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre!

The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability??
Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away?

This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.
It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !!
Conversely, we now have a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet : the traditional approach of Poole Council.

A real leader not just a passive figurehead, it can be said !!. Naturally he is not the decision maker but he is reminding us all that decisions must be made - no more dithering or running about like headless chickens.

If the full Council is being asked to solve a question "too difficult" for others then he is right to ensure that it happens. What the answer will be is unknown but it must be based upon reality and fair compromise in these times : times of having to deal with a law that our MPs have had quite a long while to try to secure (for the Council) modification or special arrangements for a crowded urban area that attracts people who do not respect the needs of a crowded urban area.

No doubt the answer will be just for 2014 only : ie a temporary location of the temporary (transit) site rather than a permanent (annually recurring !!) location of the temporary (transit) site. Also measures will be taken to ensure that the use of such a site is not the source of actual crime / damage whilst pressure is increased for a suitable change to, or clarification of the law that we are advised is the source of anger and probable civil disquiet.

Our decision makers may yet flunk their responsibilities but at least available reports give the impression that our Mayor has required the matter to get urgent attention. In January it seems that summertime is a long way off but our paid officials need some time to get organized and our Mayor is aware of that fact and is acting accordingly. Well done !
You say in seriously over cooked (wow - priceless!) praise "a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet"

So how about Poole having a Civic Leader and representative who recognises that residents would rather he/she have the courage to challenge the controversial and 'unpalatable' basic legislation/law itself in this 'traveller' site matter - rather than just make hugely unpopular decisions based upon it. Perhaps this would be preferable to one who rolls over and haplessly forces the Borough to comply with badly flawed UK rules which the majority of Poole (and UK) residents appear to regard as quite unacceptable.

The town needs strong enlightened civic leader to deal with this serious 'traveller' site problem, certainly not a liberal minded jobsworth.
[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Man 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre! The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability?? Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away? This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.[/p][/quote]It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !![/p][/quote]Conversely, we now have a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet : the traditional approach of Poole Council. A real leader not just a passive figurehead, it can be said !!. Naturally he is not the decision maker but he is reminding us all that decisions must be made - no more dithering or running about like headless chickens. If the full Council is being asked to solve a question "too difficult" for others then he is right to ensure that it happens. What the answer will be is unknown but it must be based upon reality and fair compromise in these times : times of having to deal with a law that our MPs have had quite a long while to try to secure (for the Council) modification or special arrangements for a crowded urban area that attracts people who do not respect the needs of a crowded urban area. No doubt the answer will be just for 2014 only : ie a temporary location of the temporary (transit) site rather than a permanent (annually recurring !!) location of the temporary (transit) site. Also measures will be taken to ensure that the use of such a site is not the source of actual crime / damage whilst pressure is increased for a suitable change to, or clarification of the law that we are advised is the source of anger and probable civil disquiet. Our decision makers may yet flunk their responsibilities but at least available reports give the impression that our Mayor has required the matter to get urgent attention. In January it seems that summertime is a long way off but our paid officials need some time to get organized and our Mayor is aware of that fact and is acting accordingly. Well done ![/p][/quote]You say in seriously over cooked (wow - priceless!) praise "a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet" So how about Poole having a Civic Leader and representative who recognises that residents would rather he/she have the courage to challenge the controversial and 'unpalatable' basic legislation/law itself in this 'traveller' site matter - rather than just make hugely unpopular decisions based upon it. Perhaps this would be preferable to one who rolls over and haplessly forces the Borough to comply with badly flawed UK rules which the majority of Poole (and UK) residents appear to regard as quite unacceptable. The town needs strong enlightened civic leader to deal with this serious 'traveller' site problem, certainly not a liberal minded jobsworth. muscliffman

9:26pm Wed 15 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

Big Man 2 wrote:
Roll on the next council elections, I think some of the current councillers are going to be very disappointed when their gravy train hits the buffers !!

I can honestly say after living in Poole for the past 30 years that I can not remember a worst Mayor the Liberal Lefty currently in the office, firstly Phil Eades tried to demean the role of the Mayor by trying to scrap the Mayoral Limo, next he try's to impose his personal aspirations on the good residents of Creekmoor. .

Well Councillor Eades we are not having it end off !!!

An angry Creekmoor resident. Grrrrrrrr
Trouble is as you live in Creekmoor you don't vote in councillor Eades ward so you have no say over who is or isn't elected here....
[quote][p][bold]Big Man 2[/bold] wrote: Roll on the next council elections, I think some of the current councillers are going to be very disappointed when their gravy train hits the buffers !! I can honestly say after living in Poole for the past 30 years that I can not remember a worst Mayor the Liberal Lefty currently in the office, firstly Phil Eades tried to demean the role of the Mayor by trying to scrap the Mayoral Limo, next he try's to impose his personal aspirations on the good residents of Creekmoor. . Well Councillor Eades we are not having it end off !!! An angry Creekmoor resident. Grrrrrrrr[/p][/quote]Trouble is as you live in Creekmoor you don't vote in councillor Eades ward so you have no say over who is or isn't elected here.... tbpoole

8:45am Thu 16 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Of course this proposal will solve the problem. Not!!!
.......
If the site is built and the first lot of travellers get directed there, what will the next lot to arrive do when that is full? Camp illegally, of course and it will take a week to go to court, get an eviction order and remove them. Meanwhile another group will already have arrived and the same eviction process will have to be gone through.
.......
It will solve nothing, and those who think it will are deluded.
Of course this proposal will solve the problem. Not!!! ....... If the site is built and the first lot of travellers get directed there, what will the next lot to arrive do when that is full? Camp illegally, of course and it will take a week to go to court, get an eviction order and remove them. Meanwhile another group will already have arrived and the same eviction process will have to be gone through. ....... It will solve nothing, and those who think it will are deluded. Carolyn43

10:27am Thu 16 Jan 14

moleman says...

At a time when we can't afford libraries, youth centres, care and home help for the vulnerable residents of Poole, we should not be proposing to spend council tax payers money on travellers who contribute nothing to the local economy.
It is crazy to regard this as anything more that a very costly experiment and a total waste of money
At a time when we can't afford libraries, youth centres, care and home help for the vulnerable residents of Poole, we should not be proposing to spend council tax payers money on travellers who contribute nothing to the local economy. It is crazy to regard this as anything more that a very costly experiment and a total waste of money moleman

10:37am Thu 16 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

muscliffman wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote:
Big Man 2 wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre!

The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability??
Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away?

This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.
It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !!
Conversely, we now have a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet : the traditional approach of Poole Council.

A real leader not just a passive figurehead, it can be said !!. Naturally he is not the decision maker but he is reminding us all that decisions must be made - no more dithering or running about like headless chickens.

If the full Council is being asked to solve a question "too difficult" for others then he is right to ensure that it happens. What the answer will be is unknown but it must be based upon reality and fair compromise in these times : times of having to deal with a law that our MPs have had quite a long while to try to secure (for the Council) modification or special arrangements for a crowded urban area that attracts people who do not respect the needs of a crowded urban area.

No doubt the answer will be just for 2014 only : ie a temporary location of the temporary (transit) site rather than a permanent (annually recurring !!) location of the temporary (transit) site. Also measures will be taken to ensure that the use of such a site is not the source of actual crime / damage whilst pressure is increased for a suitable change to, or clarification of the law that we are advised is the source of anger and probable civil disquiet.

Our decision makers may yet flunk their responsibilities but at least available reports give the impression that our Mayor has required the matter to get urgent attention. In January it seems that summertime is a long way off but our paid officials need some time to get organized and our Mayor is aware of that fact and is acting accordingly. Well done !
You say in seriously over cooked (wow - priceless!) praise "a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet"

So how about Poole having a Civic Leader and representative who recognises that residents would rather he/she have the courage to challenge the controversial and 'unpalatable' basic legislation/law itself in this 'traveller' site matter - rather than just make hugely unpopular decisions based upon it. Perhaps this would be preferable to one who rolls over and haplessly forces the Borough to comply with badly flawed UK rules which the majority of Poole (and UK) residents appear to regard as quite unacceptable.

The town needs strong enlightened civic leader to deal with this serious 'traveller' site problem, certainly not a liberal minded jobsworth.
Any flicker of leadership is to be encouraged. Leadership also requires 'listening ears'. and 'understanding of what is being said' before promoting relevant action. We have had massive / expensive consultations but......WHERE IS THE DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP WE NEED ? It must be encouraged, flawed as current attempts may be.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Man 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre! The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability?? Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away? This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.[/p][/quote]It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !![/p][/quote]Conversely, we now have a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet : the traditional approach of Poole Council. A real leader not just a passive figurehead, it can be said !!. Naturally he is not the decision maker but he is reminding us all that decisions must be made - no more dithering or running about like headless chickens. If the full Council is being asked to solve a question "too difficult" for others then he is right to ensure that it happens. What the answer will be is unknown but it must be based upon reality and fair compromise in these times : times of having to deal with a law that our MPs have had quite a long while to try to secure (for the Council) modification or special arrangements for a crowded urban area that attracts people who do not respect the needs of a crowded urban area. No doubt the answer will be just for 2014 only : ie a temporary location of the temporary (transit) site rather than a permanent (annually recurring !!) location of the temporary (transit) site. Also measures will be taken to ensure that the use of such a site is not the source of actual crime / damage whilst pressure is increased for a suitable change to, or clarification of the law that we are advised is the source of anger and probable civil disquiet. Our decision makers may yet flunk their responsibilities but at least available reports give the impression that our Mayor has required the matter to get urgent attention. In January it seems that summertime is a long way off but our paid officials need some time to get organized and our Mayor is aware of that fact and is acting accordingly. Well done ![/p][/quote]You say in seriously over cooked (wow - priceless!) praise "a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet" So how about Poole having a Civic Leader and representative who recognises that residents would rather he/she have the courage to challenge the controversial and 'unpalatable' basic legislation/law itself in this 'traveller' site matter - rather than just make hugely unpopular decisions based upon it. Perhaps this would be preferable to one who rolls over and haplessly forces the Borough to comply with badly flawed UK rules which the majority of Poole (and UK) residents appear to regard as quite unacceptable. The town needs strong enlightened civic leader to deal with this serious 'traveller' site problem, certainly not a liberal minded jobsworth.[/p][/quote]Any flicker of leadership is to be encouraged. Leadership also requires 'listening ears'. and 'understanding of what is being said' before promoting relevant action. We have had massive / expensive consultations but......WHERE IS THE DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP WE NEED ? It must be encouraged, flawed as current attempts may be. Ebb Tide

11:21am Thu 16 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

Ebb Tide wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote:
Big Man 2 wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre!

The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability??
Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away?

This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.
It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !!
Conversely, we now have a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet : the traditional approach of Poole Council.

A real leader not just a passive figurehead, it can be said !!. Naturally he is not the decision maker but he is reminding us all that decisions must be made - no more dithering or running about like headless chickens.

If the full Council is being asked to solve a question "too difficult" for others then he is right to ensure that it happens. What the answer will be is unknown but it must be based upon reality and fair compromise in these times : times of having to deal with a law that our MPs have had quite a long while to try to secure (for the Council) modification or special arrangements for a crowded urban area that attracts people who do not respect the needs of a crowded urban area.

No doubt the answer will be just for 2014 only : ie a temporary location of the temporary (transit) site rather than a permanent (annually recurring !!) location of the temporary (transit) site. Also measures will be taken to ensure that the use of such a site is not the source of actual crime / damage whilst pressure is increased for a suitable change to, or clarification of the law that we are advised is the source of anger and probable civil disquiet.

Our decision makers may yet flunk their responsibilities but at least available reports give the impression that our Mayor has required the matter to get urgent attention. In January it seems that summertime is a long way off but our paid officials need some time to get organized and our Mayor is aware of that fact and is acting accordingly. Well done !
You say in seriously over cooked (wow - priceless!) praise "a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet"

So how about Poole having a Civic Leader and representative who recognises that residents would rather he/she have the courage to challenge the controversial and 'unpalatable' basic legislation/law itself in this 'traveller' site matter - rather than just make hugely unpopular decisions based upon it. Perhaps this would be preferable to one who rolls over and haplessly forces the Borough to comply with badly flawed UK rules which the majority of Poole (and UK) residents appear to regard as quite unacceptable.

The town needs strong enlightened civic leader to deal with this serious 'traveller' site problem, certainly not a liberal minded jobsworth.
Any flicker of leadership is to be encouraged. Leadership also requires 'listening ears'. and 'understanding of what is being said' before promoting relevant action. We have had massive / expensive consultations but......WHERE IS THE DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP WE NEED ? It must be encouraged, flawed as current attempts may be.
I have to fully agree with the base principle of your response.

But I would prefer that such a 'dynamic' leader grasped the will of the people and did not sheepishly follow an ill conceived and very questionable bit of UK legislation patently hugely unpopular with most of the (Poole and UK) electorate.

So in this case it appears that the 'listening ears' so vital for dynamic leadership and to which you refer have perhaps been mislaid!
[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Man 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre! The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability?? Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away? This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.[/p][/quote]It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !![/p][/quote]Conversely, we now have a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet : the traditional approach of Poole Council. A real leader not just a passive figurehead, it can be said !!. Naturally he is not the decision maker but he is reminding us all that decisions must be made - no more dithering or running about like headless chickens. If the full Council is being asked to solve a question "too difficult" for others then he is right to ensure that it happens. What the answer will be is unknown but it must be based upon reality and fair compromise in these times : times of having to deal with a law that our MPs have had quite a long while to try to secure (for the Council) modification or special arrangements for a crowded urban area that attracts people who do not respect the needs of a crowded urban area. No doubt the answer will be just for 2014 only : ie a temporary location of the temporary (transit) site rather than a permanent (annually recurring !!) location of the temporary (transit) site. Also measures will be taken to ensure that the use of such a site is not the source of actual crime / damage whilst pressure is increased for a suitable change to, or clarification of the law that we are advised is the source of anger and probable civil disquiet. Our decision makers may yet flunk their responsibilities but at least available reports give the impression that our Mayor has required the matter to get urgent attention. In January it seems that summertime is a long way off but our paid officials need some time to get organized and our Mayor is aware of that fact and is acting accordingly. Well done ![/p][/quote]You say in seriously over cooked (wow - priceless!) praise "a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet" So how about Poole having a Civic Leader and representative who recognises that residents would rather he/she have the courage to challenge the controversial and 'unpalatable' basic legislation/law itself in this 'traveller' site matter - rather than just make hugely unpopular decisions based upon it. Perhaps this would be preferable to one who rolls over and haplessly forces the Borough to comply with badly flawed UK rules which the majority of Poole (and UK) residents appear to regard as quite unacceptable. The town needs strong enlightened civic leader to deal with this serious 'traveller' site problem, certainly not a liberal minded jobsworth.[/p][/quote]Any flicker of leadership is to be encouraged. Leadership also requires 'listening ears'. and 'understanding of what is being said' before promoting relevant action. We have had massive / expensive consultations but......WHERE IS THE DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP WE NEED ? It must be encouraged, flawed as current attempts may be.[/p][/quote]I have to fully agree with the base principle of your response. But I would prefer that such a 'dynamic' leader grasped the will of the people and did not sheepishly follow an ill conceived and very questionable bit of UK legislation patently hugely unpopular with most of the (Poole and UK) electorate. So in this case it appears that the 'listening ears' so vital for dynamic leadership and to which you refer have perhaps been mislaid! muscliffman

2:34pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

muscliffman wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote:
Big Man 2 wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre!

The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability??
Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away?

This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.
It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !!
Conversely, we now have a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet : the traditional approach of Poole Council.

A real leader not just a passive figurehead, it can be said !!. Naturally he is not the decision maker but he is reminding us all that decisions must be made - no more dithering or running about like headless chickens.

If the full Council is being asked to solve a question "too difficult" for others then he is right to ensure that it happens. What the answer will be is unknown but it must be based upon reality and fair compromise in these times : times of having to deal with a law that our MPs have had quite a long while to try to secure (for the Council) modification or special arrangements for a crowded urban area that attracts people who do not respect the needs of a crowded urban area.

No doubt the answer will be just for 2014 only : ie a temporary location of the temporary (transit) site rather than a permanent (annually recurring !!) location of the temporary (transit) site. Also measures will be taken to ensure that the use of such a site is not the source of actual crime / damage whilst pressure is increased for a suitable change to, or clarification of the law that we are advised is the source of anger and probable civil disquiet.

Our decision makers may yet flunk their responsibilities but at least available reports give the impression that our Mayor has required the matter to get urgent attention. In January it seems that summertime is a long way off but our paid officials need some time to get organized and our Mayor is aware of that fact and is acting accordingly. Well done !
You say in seriously over cooked (wow - priceless!) praise "a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet"

So how about Poole having a Civic Leader and representative who recognises that residents would rather he/she have the courage to challenge the controversial and 'unpalatable' basic legislation/law itself in this 'traveller' site matter - rather than just make hugely unpopular decisions based upon it. Perhaps this would be preferable to one who rolls over and haplessly forces the Borough to comply with badly flawed UK rules which the majority of Poole (and UK) residents appear to regard as quite unacceptable.

The town needs strong enlightened civic leader to deal with this serious 'traveller' site problem, certainly not a liberal minded jobsworth.
Any flicker of leadership is to be encouraged. Leadership also requires 'listening ears'. and 'understanding of what is being said' before promoting relevant action. We have had massive / expensive consultations but......WHERE IS THE DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP WE NEED ? It must be encouraged, flawed as current attempts may be.
I have to fully agree with the base principle of your response.

But I would prefer that such a 'dynamic' leader grasped the will of the people and did not sheepishly follow an ill conceived and very questionable bit of UK legislation patently hugely unpopular with most of the (Poole and UK) electorate.

So in this case it appears that the 'listening ears' so vital for dynamic leadership and to which you refer have perhaps been mislaid!
Hopefully not. Not sure what could have been forgotten, since it is understood he has forcefully requested our MPs to do something about the law. My understanding may be incorrect and time will tell whether ears were mislaid !
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Man 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre! The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability?? Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away? This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.[/p][/quote]It seems the so called Mayor of Poole has aspirations of being the Nick Clegg, yet another idiot with his own agenda !![/p][/quote]Conversely, we now have a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet : the traditional approach of Poole Council. A real leader not just a passive figurehead, it can be said !!. Naturally he is not the decision maker but he is reminding us all that decisions must be made - no more dithering or running about like headless chickens. If the full Council is being asked to solve a question "too difficult" for others then he is right to ensure that it happens. What the answer will be is unknown but it must be based upon reality and fair compromise in these times : times of having to deal with a law that our MPs have had quite a long while to try to secure (for the Council) modification or special arrangements for a crowded urban area that attracts people who do not respect the needs of a crowded urban area. No doubt the answer will be just for 2014 only : ie a temporary location of the temporary (transit) site rather than a permanent (annually recurring !!) location of the temporary (transit) site. Also measures will be taken to ensure that the use of such a site is not the source of actual crime / damage whilst pressure is increased for a suitable change to, or clarification of the law that we are advised is the source of anger and probable civil disquiet. Our decision makers may yet flunk their responsibilities but at least available reports give the impression that our Mayor has required the matter to get urgent attention. In January it seems that summertime is a long way off but our paid officials need some time to get organized and our Mayor is aware of that fact and is acting accordingly. Well done ![/p][/quote]You say in seriously over cooked (wow - priceless!) praise "a Mayor who is ensuring that undue delays should be resisted, that problems should be solved and that unpalatable decisions should not be kicked into the long grass or swept under the metaphorical carpet" So how about Poole having a Civic Leader and representative who recognises that residents would rather he/she have the courage to challenge the controversial and 'unpalatable' basic legislation/law itself in this 'traveller' site matter - rather than just make hugely unpopular decisions based upon it. Perhaps this would be preferable to one who rolls over and haplessly forces the Borough to comply with badly flawed UK rules which the majority of Poole (and UK) residents appear to regard as quite unacceptable. The town needs strong enlightened civic leader to deal with this serious 'traveller' site problem, certainly not a liberal minded jobsworth.[/p][/quote]Any flicker of leadership is to be encouraged. Leadership also requires 'listening ears'. and 'understanding of what is being said' before promoting relevant action. We have had massive / expensive consultations but......WHERE IS THE DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP WE NEED ? It must be encouraged, flawed as current attempts may be.[/p][/quote]I have to fully agree with the base principle of your response. But I would prefer that such a 'dynamic' leader grasped the will of the people and did not sheepishly follow an ill conceived and very questionable bit of UK legislation patently hugely unpopular with most of the (Poole and UK) electorate. So in this case it appears that the 'listening ears' so vital for dynamic leadership and to which you refer have perhaps been mislaid![/p][/quote]Hopefully not. Not sure what could have been forgotten, since it is understood he has forcefully requested our MPs to do something about the law. My understanding may be incorrect and time will tell whether ears were mislaid ! Ebb Tide

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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