Angry scenes as travellers' sites get Poole Council backing

Travellers' sites get Poole Council backing

Travellers' sites get Poole Council backing

First published in News
Last updated
by

THERE were angry scenes at the Civic Centre on Monday night as around 200 people attempted to access an emergency Borough of Poole meeting, which ended with the council backing proposals for two controversial traveller sites.

Security guards were forced to shepherd some people from the main chamber before the meeting had even started, amid safety concerns about the numbers trying to attend.

When the meeting finally got underway, Poole Mayor Phil Eades threatened to adjourn it on several occasions, as councillors endured sporadic barracking by some of the 150 residents who packed-out the chamber.

See which way the councillors voted at the meeting last night

See how the meeting unfolded in our live coverage here

It was clear, from the loud applause when any councillor spoke against the plans, that the overwhelming number of people gathered were opposed to the idea of the two temporary stopping sites for gypsies and travellers.

But after the motion was voted through, Borough of Poole deputy leader Cllr Mike White, said: "Poole experiences a number of unauthorised encampments each year which do cause public concern.

"Therefore, we need to effectively manage the situation and meet the needs of both our local communities and the travellers."

The proposal was carried with 23 members voting in favour, 12 against and two abstentions. The extraordinary meeting was called after it emerged, last year, that by having a designated temporary stopping site for gypsies and travellers, the council could find it quicker and easier to disperse unauthorised encampments from Poole's public places.

This followed a summer of escalating traveller activity across Poole, which caused heightened tensions locally and left the borough facing a legal and clean-up bill topping thousands of pounds.

Last night, councillors were asked to approve the two sites, at Marshes End, Creekmoor, and land north of the B&Q car park, Broadstone Way, and to authorise a planning application to enable the borough to introduce temporary stopping places by this summer.

There was even an amendment, tabled by councillor John Rampton, calling for the 'status quo' of gypsy and traveller provision in Poole to be maintained. This amendment was not fully backed by council.

Cllr Judy Butt, ward member for Creekmoor, said the people she represents were uneasy about three issues - the lack of consultation, the lack of proper consideration about the costs, and that the land at Creekmoor is unfit for habitation.

She added: "The funds could be better used. There are no NIMBYs in Creekmoor, that is what we are being accused of."

Meanwhile, Cllr Xena Dion said: "To say we haven't gone through public consultation is wrong. We are here today because of public opinion."

Council leader Elaine Atkinson said the borough needed somewhere to be used as a stopping site.

"Last summer we had many representations calling for something to be done about it," she added.

And Cllr White said: "Doing nothing is ducking the issue, we need to press ahead."

Poole's cabinet had deferred the contentious decision to full council earlier this month.

The council estimates it will cost £175,000 to construct the site at Marshes End, and up to £70,000 at Broadstone Way.

An additional £35,000 has been set aside to meet the transit camps' projected annual running costs.

Tonight's Civic Centre meeting came after a delegation from Poole travelled to Whitehall to lobby Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis over the transit site issue.

Cllr White said the borough was keen to share a site with its neighbouring authorities, Bournemouth and Dorset County Council. However, it is understood any shared site would require a change in current legislation.

The Creekmoor site will have 27 pitches, while the Broadstone Way site will have an additional four.

Police say if the council provides a transit site, any travellers moving onto Poole's public open spaces could be evicted within 24-hours or have their cars and caravans impounded if they fail to comply with the eviction notice.

Last October Borough of Poole held an impromptu summit to try to find solutions to the perceived traveller problem, when it was agreed to explore the transit site option.

Comments (218)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:41pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Hobad1 says...

Poole's councillors are a pathetic bunch of weasels and inverterbrates. They are `elected' to look after the interests of the public, but yet again cr@p on us all. In my dreams I see a place where all the councillors live, and a traveller site right next door. Poole councillors...all of you....do the honourable thing and resign and leave running the town to people who actually care about it.
Poole's councillors are a pathetic bunch of weasels and inverterbrates. They are `elected' to look after the interests of the public, but yet again cr@p on us all. In my dreams I see a place where all the councillors live, and a traveller site right next door. Poole councillors...all of you....do the honourable thing and resign and leave running the town to people who actually care about it. Hobad1
  • Score: 88

8:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

mrstanner says...

Surprise, surprise - not one but TWO sites right on my door step. I have already been told the lack of municipal grass cutting outside my house is NOTHING to do with cuts - it's to 'grow a meadow', and my street lighting going off at midnight is because I live in a 'safe area'...how come I pay the same council tax as everyone else in Poole yet Creekmoor gets the **** end of the stick time and time again. Hasn't even got its own school and I have to trail to Waterloo to vote - Creekmoor Councillors are letting us down big time!
Surprise, surprise - not one but TWO sites right on my door step. I have already been told the lack of municipal grass cutting outside my house is NOTHING to do with cuts - it's to 'grow a meadow', and my street lighting going off at midnight is because I live in a 'safe area'...how come I pay the same council tax as everyone else in Poole yet Creekmoor gets the **** end of the stick time and time again. Hasn't even got its own school and I have to trail to Waterloo to vote - Creekmoor Councillors are letting us down big time! mrstanner
  • Score: 91

8:54pm Mon 27 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

Cllr Eades wins.
Cllr Eades wins. pete woodley
  • Score: -21

9:01pm Mon 27 Jan 14

BluebirdDorset says...

Disgraceful poole borough council, all of you should hang your heads in shame. You have a responsibility to your residents not the travellers.
Disgraceful poole borough council, all of you should hang your heads in shame. You have a responsibility to your residents not the travellers. BluebirdDorset
  • Score: 93

9:10pm Mon 27 Jan 14

daveweb says...

Tonights decision was the wrong one! Last time the gypsies came to Creekmoor, crime rose by 78%. My sister, a single mother in the area, was scared for her safety as each evening she heard gunshots from the illegal camp. Furniture and other items were stolen from neighbours gardens and the local farmers field was left in a mess. This will not benefit anyone in Poole - this proposed site is on the main thoroughfare into the town from the west - what does that say to tourists when they see travellers as they come into the town? Let me also make it clear that this is not a 'temporary' site. This is permanent and ongoing. We have been told by our local councillors that phase one will include 12 pitches, and the next phase more than 20 (something they omitted from this evenings meeting.) This will cost Poole tax payers more than 250,000, with further money being required to maintain the site in the coming years, a crazy move when we have just been told that our bus service is being cut by 100,000 as Poole Council have insufficient funds!!! Poole already has a permanent traveller facility at Mannings Heath - which was smashed and ruined. Poole is already doing more for the gypsy community than others. This site will prevent the fire service from further expansion, local businesses will block their car park access for their protection and will subsequently close the agreed access for the fire brigade to cut across to Creekmoor and Broadstone, increasing callout times by 3 minutes. This evening was a perfect display of scared councillors passing the buck, with the attitude of "it's not in my ward, so we'll vote for it to ensure it never is". The most insulting thing of all, is that the local residents were never consulted, despite telling the press to the contrary. Is it legal to press ahead with proposals like this without consultation? We live in an era of democracy, but have fallen far from that tonight!
Tonights decision was the wrong one! Last time the gypsies came to Creekmoor, crime rose by 78%. My sister, a single mother in the area, was scared for her safety as each evening she heard gunshots from the illegal camp. Furniture and other items were stolen from neighbours gardens and the local farmers field was left in a mess. This will not benefit anyone in Poole - this proposed site is on the main thoroughfare into the town from the west - what does that say to tourists when they see travellers as they come into the town? Let me also make it clear that this is not a 'temporary' site. This is permanent and ongoing. We have been told by our local councillors that phase one will include 12 pitches, and the next phase more than 20 (something they omitted from this evenings meeting.) This will cost Poole tax payers more than 250,000, with further money being required to maintain the site in the coming years, a crazy move when we have just been told that our bus service is being cut by 100,000 as Poole Council have insufficient funds!!! Poole already has a permanent traveller facility at Mannings Heath - which was smashed and ruined. Poole is already doing more for the gypsy community than others. This site will prevent the fire service from further expansion, local businesses will block their car park access for their protection and will subsequently close the agreed access for the fire brigade to cut across to Creekmoor and Broadstone, increasing callout times by 3 minutes. This evening was a perfect display of scared councillors passing the buck, with the attitude of "it's not in my ward, so we'll vote for it to ensure it never is". The most insulting thing of all, is that the local residents were never consulted, despite telling the press to the contrary. Is it legal to press ahead with proposals like this without consultation? We live in an era of democracy, but have fallen far from that tonight! daveweb
  • Score: 135

9:18pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

We were right over the Park and Ride being a useless waste of space, but they went ahead.
.......
We were right in wanting a proper bridge over Holes Bay ad has been shown by a pretty bridge which took a year to get it working somewhat normally.
......
And we will be right about not having a transit site anywhere in Poole.
.......
Will these dictatorial councillors ever admit to be wrong - of course they won't. Hope, if they believe in an afterlife, they like heat.
We were right over the Park and Ride being a useless waste of space, but they went ahead. ....... We were right in wanting a proper bridge over Holes Bay ad has been shown by a pretty bridge which took a year to get it working somewhat normally. ...... And we will be right about not having a transit site anywhere in Poole. ....... Will these dictatorial councillors ever admit to be wrong - of course they won't. Hope, if they believe in an afterlife, they like heat. Carolyn43
  • Score: 80

9:19pm Mon 27 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

Just as well they have just opened a nearby Office, because this incredible Poole decision sounds like a gift wrapped stack of Council votes heading in UKIP's direction.
Just as well they have just opened a nearby Office, because this incredible Poole decision sounds like a gift wrapped stack of Council votes heading in UKIP's direction. muscliffman
  • Score: 58

9:24pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Priesty_UK says...

Time to invest in some quality CCTV, Poole's councillors provide for everyone other than its residents. Why should gyspy be given all these luxuries, they should be made to respect and abide by the law like everyone else. You dont feed the hand that bites you, do you? I feel not to pay my council tax when they all start turning up and putting it to protecting my home and my area.
Time to invest in some quality CCTV, Poole's councillors provide for everyone other than its residents. Why should gyspy be given all these luxuries, they should be made to respect and abide by the law like everyone else. You dont feed the hand that bites you, do you? I feel not to pay my council tax when they all start turning up and putting it to protecting my home and my area. Priesty_UK
  • Score: 57

9:28pm Mon 27 Jan 14

alyce says...

Well I'm sure B&Q must be overjoyed to learn a Travellers Site will be right next to their store, especially as they have just spent £££ making it into a Superstore.
Poole Council is a joke.
Well I'm sure B&Q must be overjoyed to learn a Travellers Site will be right next to their store, especially as they have just spent £££ making it into a Superstore. Poole Council is a joke. alyce
  • Score: 63

9:33pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

£280,000 can be found by Poole council to fund this rubbish but £172,000 cant be found to repair all the potholes in Dorset, councils need to get their priorities in order.
£280,000 can be found by Poole council to fund this rubbish but £172,000 cant be found to repair all the potholes in Dorset, councils need to get their priorities in order. Hessenford
  • Score: 98

9:33pm Mon 27 Jan 14

i have heard it all now says...

Vicky Slade kiss goodbye any thought of becoming an MP after Mike Brookes peformance tonight.

Judy Butt will be unseated as well.
You need to look after your own first.
Vicky Slade kiss goodbye any thought of becoming an MP after Mike Brookes peformance tonight. Judy Butt will be unseated as well. You need to look after your own first. i have heard it all now
  • Score: 53

9:41pm Mon 27 Jan 14

DiggerRuss says...

I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state.

Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?
I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose? DiggerRuss
  • Score: 65

9:43pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

i have heard it all now wrote:
Vicky Slade kiss goodbye any thought of becoming an MP after Mike Brookes peformance tonight.

Judy Butt will be unseated as well.
You need to look after your own first.
I read the running commentary as Cllr Butt was supporting Cllr Rampton's move:
.....
6:26pm - Cllr Rampton has called for meaningful consultation with Poole residents
........
6.27pm - He also has called for a full cost analysis of the site to be implemented.
........
6:29pm - Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue.
......
6:30pm - She also says he cost to the council tax payer has not been properly scrutinised.
.......
6:33pm - Cllr Butt also says if the temporary stoping site was ever full to capacity, the police would not be able to move on any more travellers. She said: 'The funds could be better used.' This was met with loud applause.
.......
Unless it's bad reporting.
[quote][p][bold]i have heard it all now[/bold] wrote: Vicky Slade kiss goodbye any thought of becoming an MP after Mike Brookes peformance tonight. Judy Butt will be unseated as well. You need to look after your own first.[/p][/quote]I read the running commentary as Cllr Butt was supporting Cllr Rampton's move: ..... 6:26pm - Cllr Rampton has called for meaningful consultation with Poole residents ........ 6.27pm - He also has called for a full cost analysis of the site to be implemented. ........ 6:29pm - Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue. ...... 6:30pm - She also says he cost to the council tax payer has not been properly scrutinised. ....... 6:33pm - Cllr Butt also says if the temporary stoping site was ever full to capacity, the police would not be able to move on any more travellers. She said: 'The funds could be better used.' This was met with loud applause. ....... Unless it's bad reporting. Carolyn43
  • Score: -7

9:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

fireflier says...

He who pays the piper.....Don't ever forget that you Councillors ......Oh you might as well because it won't apply to you lot after the next election.

Representatives of the people of Poole????? Total Bull Sheet !

Serving the interests of groups of people in caravans who have no respect for any law, don't vote for Poole Council and who pay absolutely nowt towards the town's upkeep.
He who pays the piper.....Don't ever forget that you Councillors ......Oh you might as well because it won't apply to you lot after the next election. Representatives of the people of Poole????? Total Bull Sheet ! Serving the interests of groups of people in caravans who have no respect for any law, don't vote for Poole Council and who pay absolutely nowt towards the town's upkeep. fireflier
  • Score: 45

9:47pm Mon 27 Jan 14

snowflakes says...

Pray tell why they did not decide on having a site for them in Canford Cliffs or Sandbanks,???. well I think the good people of Creekmoor know the answer.
We'll let me tell these brave Council members if any of these Travellers invade my property,then I will make sure that I reverse any problems right back back to the homes of each and every council member who made this decision.First we will want a drastic reduction in our council tax.
Pray tell why they did not decide on having a site for them in Canford Cliffs or Sandbanks,???. well I think the good people of Creekmoor know the answer. We'll let me tell these brave Council members if any of these Travellers invade my property,then I will make sure that I reverse any problems right back back to the homes of each and every council member who made this decision.First we will want a drastic reduction in our council tax. snowflakes
  • Score: 54

9:48pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Kevin_123 says...

Not good at all! I wish the site wasn't backed by the council and all the members... however if it was or wasn't the travellers would have just used the site... I give-up!
Not good at all! I wish the site wasn't backed by the council and all the members... however if it was or wasn't the travellers would have just used the site... I give-up! Kevin_123
  • Score: 11

9:56pm Mon 27 Jan 14

snowflakes says...

daveweb wrote:
Tonights decision was the wrong one! Last time the gypsies came to Creekmoor, crime rose by 78%. My sister, a single mother in the area, was scared for her safety as each evening she heard gunshots from the illegal camp. Furniture and other items were stolen from neighbours gardens and the local farmers field was left in a mess. This will not benefit anyone in Poole - this proposed site is on the main thoroughfare into the town from the west - what does that say to tourists when they see travellers as they come into the town? Let me also make it clear that this is not a 'temporary' site. This is permanent and ongoing. We have been told by our local councillors that phase one will include 12 pitches, and the next phase more than 20 (something they omitted from this evenings meeting.) This will cost Poole tax payers more than 250,000, with further money being required to maintain the site in the coming years, a crazy move when we have just been told that our bus service is being cut by 100,000 as Poole Council have insufficient funds!!! Poole already has a permanent traveller facility at Mannings Heath - which was smashed and ruined. Poole is already doing more for the gypsy community than others. This site will prevent the fire service from further expansion, local businesses will block their car park access for their protection and will subsequently close the agreed access for the fire brigade to cut across to Creekmoor and Broadstone, increasing callout times by 3 minutes. This evening was a perfect display of scared councillors passing the buck, with the attitude of "it's not in my ward, so we'll vote for it to ensure it never is". The most insulting thing of all, is that the local residents were never consulted, despite telling the press to the contrary. Is it legal to press ahead with proposals like this without consultation? We live in an era of democracy, but have fallen far from that tonight!
Well said, this is not going ahead, they have to understand that they are WRONG and Mannings Heath has to be to be the best option now.The Council are in for a shock this time because the good people of Creekmoor are going to make sure it doesn't go ahead.We will stop this, they are not going to be allowed to manipulate decent Creekmoor residents like this.
[quote][p][bold]daveweb[/bold] wrote: Tonights decision was the wrong one! Last time the gypsies came to Creekmoor, crime rose by 78%. My sister, a single mother in the area, was scared for her safety as each evening she heard gunshots from the illegal camp. Furniture and other items were stolen from neighbours gardens and the local farmers field was left in a mess. This will not benefit anyone in Poole - this proposed site is on the main thoroughfare into the town from the west - what does that say to tourists when they see travellers as they come into the town? Let me also make it clear that this is not a 'temporary' site. This is permanent and ongoing. We have been told by our local councillors that phase one will include 12 pitches, and the next phase more than 20 (something they omitted from this evenings meeting.) This will cost Poole tax payers more than 250,000, with further money being required to maintain the site in the coming years, a crazy move when we have just been told that our bus service is being cut by 100,000 as Poole Council have insufficient funds!!! Poole already has a permanent traveller facility at Mannings Heath - which was smashed and ruined. Poole is already doing more for the gypsy community than others. This site will prevent the fire service from further expansion, local businesses will block their car park access for their protection and will subsequently close the agreed access for the fire brigade to cut across to Creekmoor and Broadstone, increasing callout times by 3 minutes. This evening was a perfect display of scared councillors passing the buck, with the attitude of "it's not in my ward, so we'll vote for it to ensure it never is". The most insulting thing of all, is that the local residents were never consulted, despite telling the press to the contrary. Is it legal to press ahead with proposals like this without consultation? We live in an era of democracy, but have fallen far from that tonight![/p][/quote]Well said, this is not going ahead, they have to understand that they are WRONG and Mannings Heath has to be to be the best option now.The Council are in for a shock this time because the good people of Creekmoor are going to make sure it doesn't go ahead.We will stop this, they are not going to be allowed to manipulate decent Creekmoor residents like this. snowflakes
  • Score: 55

10:01pm Mon 27 Jan 14

lorrai1011 says...

Totally disgraced with the way some of those counsellorz carries on total shambles so they don't care and as for the mayor with the smug look on his face how would he like it on his doorstep. Also crime was increased and I bet none of those counsellors put up with what I put up with last year. The lot need sacking its left the council in complete disgrace and value for money I don't think so.
Totally disgraced with the way some of those counsellorz carries on total shambles so they don't care and as for the mayor with the smug look on his face how would he like it on his doorstep. Also crime was increased and I bet none of those counsellors put up with what I put up with last year. The lot need sacking its left the council in complete disgrace and value for money I don't think so. lorrai1011
  • Score: 14

10:03pm Mon 27 Jan 14

snowflakes says...

Priesty_UK wrote:
Time to invest in some quality CCTV, Poole's councillors provide for everyone other than its residents. Why should gyspy be given all these luxuries, they should be made to respect and abide by the law like everyone else. You dont feed the hand that bites you, do you? I feel not to pay my council tax when they all start turning up and putting it to protecting my home and my area.
How many residents are there in Creekmoor, If we all stop paying our council tax, they simply cannot put us all in prison can they...wink wink.
[quote][p][bold]Priesty_UK[/bold] wrote: Time to invest in some quality CCTV, Poole's councillors provide for everyone other than its residents. Why should gyspy be given all these luxuries, they should be made to respect and abide by the law like everyone else. You dont feed the hand that bites you, do you? I feel not to pay my council tax when they all start turning up and putting it to protecting my home and my area.[/p][/quote]How many residents are there in Creekmoor, If we all stop paying our council tax, they simply cannot put us all in prison can they...wink wink. snowflakes
  • Score: 38

10:08pm Mon 27 Jan 14

itsneverblackorwhite says...

Will the people be charged to use the site to recoup the expenditure?
Will the people be charged to use the site to recoup the expenditure? itsneverblackorwhite
  • Score: 38

10:15pm Mon 27 Jan 14

mpo1967 says...

If these councillors cared about their council tax paying ex voters they would organise a public demonstration when everyone could have their say.Cant have that big turnout big police bill and democracy.Whatever next ! PATHETIC NOT IN THEIR BACKYARD
If these councillors cared about their council tax paying ex voters they would organise a public demonstration when everyone could have their say.Cant have that big turnout big police bill and democracy.Whatever next ! PATHETIC NOT IN THEIR BACKYARD mpo1967
  • Score: 20

10:33pm Mon 27 Jan 14

goatty says...

Suggest at the next local elections, all residents from the wards affected by this total garbage tonight boycott voting. If enough people refuse to vote it will dump the council into chaos.
Suggest at the next local elections, all residents from the wards affected by this total garbage tonight boycott voting. If enough people refuse to vote it will dump the council into chaos. goatty
  • Score: -8

10:34pm Mon 27 Jan 14

alyce says...

House prices near these sites will fall in value. For council tax reduction contact the Valuation Office Agency in Bournemouth.
House prices near these sites will fall in value. For council tax reduction contact the Valuation Office Agency in Bournemouth. alyce
  • Score: 24

10:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

carrrob says...

Feel really sorry for the householders and businesses that are sure to be affected by this decision disgraceful that we have to pander to the scroungers.
Feel really sorry for the householders and businesses that are sure to be affected by this decision disgraceful that we have to pander to the scroungers. carrrob
  • Score: 30

10:49pm Mon 27 Jan 14

kipapig says...

Just out of interest can anyone who owns a caravan park there on a temporary basis? How do you define a traveller? Could local people travel to the sites and park their caravans there for 28 days and avoid storage charges for a month and deprive other travellers of the space at the same time???
Just out of interest can anyone who owns a caravan park there on a temporary basis? How do you define a traveller? Could local people travel to the sites and park their caravans there for 28 days and avoid storage charges for a month and deprive other travellers of the space at the same time??? kipapig
  • Score: 71

10:54pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Yankee1 says...

I may be missing something. I admit I am not an expert on this issue.

But...and I ask this with all humility....why should one segment of society be afforded facilities at the expense of the public purse that are not afforded to others....especially when this segment is transient and has no roots in the borough?

If you or I (who do pay local property taxes) role up with our caravans to camp for free on a public amenity, we would be moved on - at best.

Are 'travelers' a favoured group? If so, why? Why cannot any group demand the same 'amentities' at the expense of the public purse?

Where is the legislation that affords them rights over those of law abiding, tax paying residents? I have no issue with them personally; it is the unequal status that I question.
I may be missing something. I admit I am not an expert on this issue. But...and I ask this with all humility....why should one segment of society be afforded facilities at the expense of the public purse that are not afforded to others....especially when this segment is transient and has no roots in the borough? If you or I (who do pay local property taxes) role up with our caravans to camp for free on a public amenity, we would be moved on - at best. Are 'travelers' a favoured group? If so, why? Why cannot any group demand the same 'amentities' at the expense of the public purse? Where is the legislation that affords them rights over those of law abiding, tax paying residents? I have no issue with them personally; it is the unequal status that I question. Yankee1
  • Score: 73

10:56pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Dave2609 says...

Do Poole council still own what is left of the travellers site at Mannimgs Heath? If so why leave that derelict! Spend the money there and make that the temporary site! Leave the Poole Gateway roundabout for a more 'attractive' entrance to our town! Lets keep 'Poole - a beautiful place'
Do Poole council still own what is left of the travellers site at Mannimgs Heath? If so why leave that derelict! Spend the money there and make that the temporary site! Leave the Poole Gateway roundabout for a more 'attractive' entrance to our town! Lets keep 'Poole - a beautiful place' Dave2609
  • Score: 23

10:56pm Mon 27 Jan 14

fivespoke says...

Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole.

Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.
Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole. Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come. fivespoke
  • Score: -42

10:58pm Mon 27 Jan 14

JACIE01 says...

South Today showed the site by B&Q tonight. Also, they most 'helpfully' pointed out that it was next to an electricity substation!!! Do they get free electricity aswell??! Nothing was said about the location of the skate park just located under the bridge...which is considered a 'safe place' for local kids to use...!
South Today showed the site by B&Q tonight. Also, they most 'helpfully' pointed out that it was next to an electricity substation!!! Do they get free electricity aswell??! Nothing was said about the location of the skate park just located under the bridge...which is considered a 'safe place' for local kids to use...! JACIE01
  • Score: 42

11:01pm Mon 27 Jan 14

N Smith says...

fivespoke wrote:
Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole.

Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.
And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick
[quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole. Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.[/p][/quote]And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick N Smith
  • Score: -6

11:01pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Dave2609 says...

I take it fivespoke doesn't live anywhere nearby to the proposed sites!
I take it fivespoke doesn't live anywhere nearby to the proposed sites! Dave2609
  • Score: 25

11:05pm Mon 27 Jan 14

canfordcherry says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state.

Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?
Travellers already live there, mostly good honest people. I doubt they would want these trouble makers any where near their property either!
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?[/p][/quote]Travellers already live there, mostly good honest people. I doubt they would want these trouble makers any where near their property either! canfordcherry
  • Score: 10

11:05pm Mon 27 Jan 14

DansAFCB says...

How about we all refuse to pay our council tax. The travellers have land given to them and don't pay, well maybe it is time for us. Equal rights and all that!

Another thought is that once the sites are opened we all put caravans on them so the gypsies cant then they will have to be moved out of the borough?
How about we all refuse to pay our council tax. The travellers have land given to them and don't pay, well maybe it is time for us. Equal rights and all that! Another thought is that once the sites are opened we all put caravans on them so the gypsies cant then they will have to be moved out of the borough? DansAFCB
  • Score: 30

11:06pm Mon 27 Jan 14

N Smith says...

Very much looking forward to councillor Eades coming around to get votes, don't expect a nice welcome Eades
Very much looking forward to councillor Eades coming around to get votes, don't expect a nice welcome Eades N Smith
  • Score: 27

11:09pm Mon 27 Jan 14

fivespoke says...

N Smith wrote:
fivespoke wrote:
Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole.

Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.
And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick
I am a lifelong resident of Poole who has seen the situation with illegal encampments repeat over the last couple of decades.

Like it or not , the only way to effectively stop those encampments is to provide transit sites, and there's only so much land available in the town.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole. Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.[/p][/quote]And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick[/p][/quote]I am a lifelong resident of Poole who has seen the situation with illegal encampments repeat over the last couple of decades. Like it or not , the only way to effectively stop those encampments is to provide transit sites, and there's only so much land available in the town. fivespoke
  • Score: -9

11:19pm Mon 27 Jan 14

JACIE01 says...

fivespoke wrote:
N Smith wrote:
fivespoke wrote:
Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole.

Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.
And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick
I am a lifelong resident of Poole who has seen the situation with illegal encampments repeat over the last couple of decades.

Like it or not , the only way to effectively stop those encampments is to provide transit sites, and there's only so much land available in the town.
Where's the Bournemouth one?
[quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole. Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.[/p][/quote]And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick[/p][/quote]I am a lifelong resident of Poole who has seen the situation with illegal encampments repeat over the last couple of decades. Like it or not , the only way to effectively stop those encampments is to provide transit sites, and there's only so much land available in the town.[/p][/quote]Where's the Bournemouth one? JACIE01
  • Score: 18

11:29pm Mon 27 Jan 14

N Smith says...

fivespoke wrote:
N Smith wrote:
fivespoke wrote:
Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole.

Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.
And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick
I am a lifelong resident of Poole who has seen the situation with illegal encampments repeat over the last couple of decades.

Like it or not , the only way to effectively stop those encampments is to provide transit sites, and there's only so much land available in the town.
Poole is a big place how about being a bit more specific ,let me guess whitecliff
[quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole. Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.[/p][/quote]And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick[/p][/quote]I am a lifelong resident of Poole who has seen the situation with illegal encampments repeat over the last couple of decades. Like it or not , the only way to effectively stop those encampments is to provide transit sites, and there's only so much land available in the town.[/p][/quote]Poole is a big place how about being a bit more specific ,let me guess whitecliff N Smith
  • Score: 3

11:44pm Mon 27 Jan 14

chrisii1991 says...

Hessenford wrote:
£280,000 can be found by Poole council to fund this rubbish but £172,000 cant be found to repair all the potholes in Dorset, councils need to get their priorities in order.
And clearing blocked drains
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: £280,000 can be found by Poole council to fund this rubbish but £172,000 cant be found to repair all the potholes in Dorset, councils need to get their priorities in order.[/p][/quote]And clearing blocked drains chrisii1991
  • Score: 22

11:53pm Mon 27 Jan 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

mrstanner wrote:
Surprise, surprise - not one but TWO sites right on my door step. I have already been told the lack of municipal grass cutting outside my house is NOTHING to do with cuts - it's to 'grow a meadow', and my street lighting going off at midnight is because I live in a 'safe area'...how come I pay the same council tax as everyone else in Poole yet Creekmoor gets the **** end of the stick time and time again. Hasn't even got its own school and I have to trail to Waterloo to vote - Creekmoor Councillors are letting us down big time!
Get together and make a real stand!
.
If every household near the sites refuse their Council tax they will have to listen and I expect the rebellion would grow.
.
It's your doorstep so it's your problem.
[quote][p][bold]mrstanner[/bold] wrote: Surprise, surprise - not one but TWO sites right on my door step. I have already been told the lack of municipal grass cutting outside my house is NOTHING to do with cuts - it's to 'grow a meadow', and my street lighting going off at midnight is because I live in a 'safe area'...how come I pay the same council tax as everyone else in Poole yet Creekmoor gets the **** end of the stick time and time again. Hasn't even got its own school and I have to trail to Waterloo to vote - Creekmoor Councillors are letting us down big time![/p][/quote]Get together and make a real stand! . If every household near the sites refuse their Council tax they will have to listen and I expect the rebellion would grow. . It's your doorstep so it's your problem. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: -5

12:09am Tue 28 Jan 14

pacamar says...

These misguided Councillors may have won this battle, but they have not yet won the war.
This is just the beginning, do not expect the residents of Creekmoor to take this lying down!
(Unless of course you include lying down in the road at the entrance to the site when the Council are trying to implement their little scheme!)
Yes I AM serious.
These misguided Councillors may have won this battle, but they have not yet won the war. This is just the beginning, do not expect the residents of Creekmoor to take this lying down! (Unless of course you include lying down in the road at the entrance to the site when the Council are trying to implement their little scheme!) Yes I AM serious. pacamar
  • Score: 19

12:13am Tue 28 Jan 14

pacamar says...

daveweb wrote:
Tonights decision was the wrong one! Last time the gypsies came to Creekmoor, crime rose by 78%. My sister, a single mother in the area, was scared for her safety as each evening she heard gunshots from the illegal camp. Furniture and other items were stolen from neighbours gardens and the local farmers field was left in a mess. This will not benefit anyone in Poole - this proposed site is on the main thoroughfare into the town from the west - what does that say to tourists when they see travellers as they come into the town? Let me also make it clear that this is not a 'temporary' site. This is permanent and ongoing. We have been told by our local councillors that phase one will include 12 pitches, and the next phase more than 20 (something they omitted from this evenings meeting.) This will cost Poole tax payers more than 250,000, with further money being required to maintain the site in the coming years, a crazy move when we have just been told that our bus service is being cut by 100,000 as Poole Council have insufficient funds!!! Poole already has a permanent traveller facility at Mannings Heath - which was smashed and ruined. Poole is already doing more for the gypsy community than others. This site will prevent the fire service from further expansion, local businesses will block their car park access for their protection and will subsequently close the agreed access for the fire brigade to cut across to Creekmoor and Broadstone, increasing callout times by 3 minutes. This evening was a perfect display of scared councillors passing the buck, with the attitude of "it's not in my ward, so we'll vote for it to ensure it never is". The most insulting thing of all, is that the local residents were never consulted, despite telling the press to the contrary. Is it legal to press ahead with proposals like this without consultation? We live in an era of democracy, but have fallen far from that tonight!
I totally agree with every word. Everything you say is correct, true, well thought out, and makes total sense!
You'll obviously never become a Councillor! :-)
[quote][p][bold]daveweb[/bold] wrote: Tonights decision was the wrong one! Last time the gypsies came to Creekmoor, crime rose by 78%. My sister, a single mother in the area, was scared for her safety as each evening she heard gunshots from the illegal camp. Furniture and other items were stolen from neighbours gardens and the local farmers field was left in a mess. This will not benefit anyone in Poole - this proposed site is on the main thoroughfare into the town from the west - what does that say to tourists when they see travellers as they come into the town? Let me also make it clear that this is not a 'temporary' site. This is permanent and ongoing. We have been told by our local councillors that phase one will include 12 pitches, and the next phase more than 20 (something they omitted from this evenings meeting.) This will cost Poole tax payers more than 250,000, with further money being required to maintain the site in the coming years, a crazy move when we have just been told that our bus service is being cut by 100,000 as Poole Council have insufficient funds!!! Poole already has a permanent traveller facility at Mannings Heath - which was smashed and ruined. Poole is already doing more for the gypsy community than others. This site will prevent the fire service from further expansion, local businesses will block their car park access for their protection and will subsequently close the agreed access for the fire brigade to cut across to Creekmoor and Broadstone, increasing callout times by 3 minutes. This evening was a perfect display of scared councillors passing the buck, with the attitude of "it's not in my ward, so we'll vote for it to ensure it never is". The most insulting thing of all, is that the local residents were never consulted, despite telling the press to the contrary. Is it legal to press ahead with proposals like this without consultation? We live in an era of democracy, but have fallen far from that tonight![/p][/quote]I totally agree with every word. Everything you say is correct, true, well thought out, and makes total sense! You'll obviously never become a Councillor! :-) pacamar
  • Score: 17

12:21am Tue 28 Jan 14

pacamar says...

fivespoke wrote:
Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole.

Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.
You are clearly a very misguided and very selfish individual without a care for anyone other than yourself!
Are you a Councillor by any chance?
You have all the right qualifications!
[quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole. Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.[/p][/quote]You are clearly a very misguided and very selfish individual without a care for anyone other than yourself! Are you a Councillor by any chance? You have all the right qualifications! pacamar
  • Score: -13

12:39am Tue 28 Jan 14

JACIE01 says...

It has to go to planning now, apparently... Just the right side of all new council tax bills, me thinks...to say "NO"...
It has to go to planning now, apparently... Just the right side of all new council tax bills, me thinks...to say "NO"... JACIE01
  • Score: -4

2:55am Tue 28 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state.

Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?
It is open and fully operational except for the transit pitches, the two together didn't work and led to huge bills. The nearby bussinesses seem quite happy to continue trading and even expand. The proposed sites are just as remote to homes, if not more remote. There is a planning process yet to go through which ought to be used constructively to ensure no access to Upton Road, thus overcoming one fear (and making it more remote from homes than the existing Mannings Heath site). The negatives have been hyped up big time, and if provided people will likely end up wondering what all the fuss was about. With a bit of luck it will barely be used - and that will be a measure of it's success!
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?[/p][/quote]It is open and fully operational except for the transit pitches, the two together didn't work and led to huge bills. The nearby bussinesses seem quite happy to continue trading and even expand. The proposed sites are just as remote to homes, if not more remote. There is a planning process yet to go through which ought to be used constructively to ensure no access to Upton Road, thus overcoming one fear (and making it more remote from homes than the existing Mannings Heath site). The negatives have been hyped up big time, and if provided people will likely end up wondering what all the fuss was about. With a bit of luck it will barely be used - and that will be a measure of it's success! Tony Trent
  • Score: 16

7:50am Tue 28 Jan 14

Chris the plumber says...

After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk
instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??
After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ?? Chris the plumber
  • Score: -42

7:57am Tue 28 Jan 14

ben111 says...

Has anyone ever thought why the council have voted for such sites, when the majority of the public would reject such plans, Its either pressure, money or both. I would go with money myself, from central government to put these areas in place. my opinion is that all cllrs are corrupt or to gain personally at some point in their career how ever small.
Has anyone ever thought why the council have voted for such sites, when the majority of the public would reject such plans, Its either pressure, money or both. I would go with money myself, from central government to put these areas in place. my opinion is that all cllrs are corrupt or to gain personally at some point in their career how ever small. ben111
  • Score: 9

8:05am Tue 28 Jan 14

davecook says...

Ignoring the fact that the two sites are just down the road from where we live, the real stupidity has been missed. Why does it cost so much to construct a site, when the travellers always do it themselves for free. Secondly, why is it going to cost ratepayers money to clean up after them. Why are they not charged a deposit on entry like anyone else coming for a caravan holiday in Dorset.
Ignoring the fact that the two sites are just down the road from where we live, the real stupidity has been missed. Why does it cost so much to construct a site, when the travellers always do it themselves for free. Secondly, why is it going to cost ratepayers money to clean up after them. Why are they not charged a deposit on entry like anyone else coming for a caravan holiday in Dorset. davecook
  • Score: 40

8:12am Tue 28 Jan 14

boby says...

Deal with the council everyday, get rid of councils stick in private enterprise. None of this would happen
Deal with the council everyday, get rid of councils stick in private enterprise. None of this would happen boby
  • Score: -2

8:17am Tue 28 Jan 14

fivespoke says...

pacamar wrote:
fivespoke wrote:
Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole.

Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.
You are clearly a very misguided and very selfish individual without a care for anyone other than yourself!
Are you a Councillor by any chance?
You have all the right qualifications!
There clearly must have been a redefinition of the word selfish that I wasn't aware of.

You have given me an idea for something to next May though.
[quote][p][bold]pacamar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole. Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.[/p][/quote]You are clearly a very misguided and very selfish individual without a care for anyone other than yourself! Are you a Councillor by any chance? You have all the right qualifications![/p][/quote]There clearly must have been a redefinition of the word selfish that I wasn't aware of. You have given me an idea for something to next May though. fivespoke
  • Score: 11

8:19am Tue 28 Jan 14

High Treason says...

As long as you vote Con, Lib & Lab nothing will change. All part of the EU gravy train. These travellers ? use the human rights act to their advantage. As such they can do as they please and the legal system is slow to act whilst we all foot the bill. Your only hope is to do a mass demonstration outside the civic offices at the planning stage.
As long as you vote Con, Lib & Lab nothing will change. All part of the EU gravy train. These travellers ? use the human rights act to their advantage. As such they can do as they please and the legal system is slow to act whilst we all foot the bill. Your only hope is to do a mass demonstration outside the civic offices at the planning stage. High Treason
  • Score: 9

8:20am Tue 28 Jan 14

MCAME1989 says...

Police say if the council provides a transit site, any travellers moving onto Poole's public open spaces could be evicted within 24-hours or have their cars and caravans impounded if they fail to comply with the eviction notice.

Ha ha ha yeah rite!
They don't have the guts!
They wouldn't even give parking tickets out when they were at baiter!
Police say if the council provides a transit site, any travellers moving onto Poole's public open spaces could be evicted within 24-hours or have their cars and caravans impounded if they fail to comply with the eviction notice. Ha ha ha yeah rite! They don't have the guts! They wouldn't even give parking tickets out when they were at baiter! MCAME1989
  • Score: 23

8:32am Tue 28 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk
instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??
They are not British - they are Irish. They come from Ireland - not part of Great Britain and is a totally separate country which has its own membership of the EU.
.........
They contribute nothing and get away with parking overnight in car parks, when local council tax paying residents would be prosecuted. They don't pay to park, when local council tax paying residents would be fined. They break into and occupy other people's land, when local council tax paying residents would be prosecuted. They do not have their vehicles inspected for road tax, MOT or insurance when British people would have done and be prosecuted if they didn't have current documentation for such.
.......
If "white middle class people" did the same and got away with it, no-one would want them on the proposed sites either.
...........
Wonder what the Chairman of the Gypsy Council thinks of the intention to provide his people with places to live on land considered too contaminated for even a car park?
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??[/p][/quote]They are not British - they are Irish. They come from Ireland - not part of Great Britain and is a totally separate country which has its own membership of the EU. ......... They contribute nothing and get away with parking overnight in car parks, when local council tax paying residents would be prosecuted. They don't pay to park, when local council tax paying residents would be fined. They break into and occupy other people's land, when local council tax paying residents would be prosecuted. They do not have their vehicles inspected for road tax, MOT or insurance when British people would have done and be prosecuted if they didn't have current documentation for such. ....... If "white middle class people" did the same and got away with it, no-one would want them on the proposed sites either. ........... Wonder what the Chairman of the Gypsy Council thinks of the intention to provide his people with places to live on land considered too contaminated for even a car park? Carolyn43
  • Score: 26

8:38am Tue 28 Jan 14

John T says...

boby wrote:
Deal with the council everyday, get rid of councils stick in private enterprise. None of this would happen
It is precisely because of the private enterprise of these travellers that this problem has arisen!
[quote][p][bold]boby[/bold] wrote: Deal with the council everyday, get rid of councils stick in private enterprise. None of this would happen[/p][/quote]It is precisely because of the private enterprise of these travellers that this problem has arisen! John T
  • Score: 16

8:38am Tue 28 Jan 14

moleman says...

I believe that the threats by three local businesses close to the proposed site, to shut their offices and leave the area is not an idle threat, so you can add in the loss of jobs for local people to the cost analysis.
The first phase of this proposal is for 12 pitches costing £250,000 plus additional annual running cost of £30,000. As the land is contaminated with methane and asbestos according to council reports ,there is no costing for decontamination. If the travellers arrive and there are more than 12 caravans then they cannot be forced to move to the Creekmoor site. So we spend around £300,000 on something that doesn't even resolve the situation for Poole. Well done councillors what is your next bright idea for spending our council tax. The Park and Ride was a waste of money and now rather than providing your voters with services. you want to provide some people who pay nothing and contribute little of benefit to Poole with a new caravan park.
I believe that the threats by three local businesses close to the proposed site, to shut their offices and leave the area is not an idle threat, so you can add in the loss of jobs for local people to the cost analysis. The first phase of this proposal is for 12 pitches costing £250,000 plus additional annual running cost of £30,000. As the land is contaminated with methane and asbestos according to council reports ,there is no costing for decontamination. If the travellers arrive and there are more than 12 caravans then they cannot be forced to move to the Creekmoor site. So we spend around £300,000 on something that doesn't even resolve the situation for Poole. Well done councillors what is your next bright idea for spending our council tax. The Park and Ride was a waste of money and now rather than providing your voters with services. you want to provide some people who pay nothing and contribute little of benefit to Poole with a new caravan park. moleman
  • Score: 17

8:57am Tue 28 Jan 14

Wackerone says...

I raise a point worth making to all the residents of Poole, not just Creekmoor, how many of you actually got of your backsides to vote at the last local election and of the small minority that did, how many of them gave a vote to anybody else apart from the same old 3 party system. One day, peoplle will realise that local politics should be totally different to national politics and and independent candidates that are going to represent the views of the people that vote for them. Sorry, you get what you vote or don't vote for.
I raise a point worth making to all the residents of Poole, not just Creekmoor, how many of you actually got of your backsides to vote at the last local election and of the small minority that did, how many of them gave a vote to anybody else apart from the same old 3 party system. One day, peoplle will realise that local politics should be totally different to national politics and and independent candidates that are going to represent the views of the people that vote for them. Sorry, you get what you vote or don't vote for. Wackerone
  • Score: 22

9:00am Tue 28 Jan 14

Townee says...

Remember Poole residents to use your vote at the next election and make your vote count.
Councillors remember the decision that cost you your job
Remember Poole residents to use your vote at the next election and make your vote count. Councillors remember the decision that cost you your job Townee
  • Score: 19

9:12am Tue 28 Jan 14

Baysider says...

I see a lot of people unhappy with the decision, threatening this, that or the other, plenty of rhetoric and some people trying to drum up support for UKIP off the back of this. But what I don't see on here is any sensible, practical and legal alternatives being proposed to the issue.

Given that Bournemouth doesn't have a transit site in place I suppose we will get a very clear indication of which approach was right in a month or two won't we?
I see a lot of people unhappy with the decision, threatening this, that or the other, plenty of rhetoric and some people trying to drum up support for UKIP off the back of this. But what I don't see on here is any sensible, practical and legal alternatives being proposed to the issue. Given that Bournemouth doesn't have a transit site in place I suppose we will get a very clear indication of which approach was right in a month or two won't we? Baysider
  • Score: 7

9:15am Tue 28 Jan 14

kangman2012 says...

goatty wrote:
Suggest at the next local elections, all residents from the wards affected by this total garbage tonight boycott voting. If enough people refuse to vote it will dump the council into chaos.
No - don't boycott, get in there and VOTE THEM OUT, making sure of course that we don't fall out of the pan and into the fire by voting in more of the same "spineless bile" that seems to be the pre-requiset for an upcoming councillor!
[quote][p][bold]goatty[/bold] wrote: Suggest at the next local elections, all residents from the wards affected by this total garbage tonight boycott voting. If enough people refuse to vote it will dump the council into chaos.[/p][/quote]No - don't boycott, get in there and VOTE THEM OUT, making sure of course that we don't fall out of the pan and into the fire by voting in more of the same "spineless bile" that seems to be the pre-requiset for an upcoming councillor! kangman2012
  • Score: 16

9:20am Tue 28 Jan 14

susi.m says...

i have heard it all now wrote:
Vicky Slade kiss goodbye any thought of becoming an MP after Mike Brookes peformance tonight.

Judy Butt will be unseated as well.
You need to look after your own first.
Judy Butt voted against it didn't she?
[quote][p][bold]i have heard it all now[/bold] wrote: Vicky Slade kiss goodbye any thought of becoming an MP after Mike Brookes peformance tonight. Judy Butt will be unseated as well. You need to look after your own first.[/p][/quote]Judy Butt voted against it didn't she? susi.m
  • Score: 5

9:21am Tue 28 Jan 14

susi.m says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state.

Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?
I thought Mannings Heath was open - its a permanent site I believe.
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?[/p][/quote]I thought Mannings Heath was open - its a permanent site I believe. susi.m
  • Score: 4

9:24am Tue 28 Jan 14

The Liberal says...

If there are 31 pitches, what happens if more traveller vehicles than that try to camp illegally somewhere else? How many were there doing so last year?
If there are 31 pitches, what happens if more traveller vehicles than that try to camp illegally somewhere else? How many were there doing so last year? The Liberal
  • Score: 11

9:25am Tue 28 Jan 14

Old Colonial says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk
instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??
"white middle class people" already use and pay for caravan parks, and I dare say would be expected to pay for these also.
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??[/p][/quote]"white middle class people" already use and pay for caravan parks, and I dare say would be expected to pay for these also. Old Colonial
  • Score: 16

9:25am Tue 28 Jan 14

susi.m says...

itsneverblackorwhite wrote:
Will the people be charged to use the site to recoup the expenditure?
But will they pay and what will happen if they don't pay?
[quote][p][bold]itsneverblackorwhite[/bold] wrote: Will the people be charged to use the site to recoup the expenditure?[/p][/quote]But will they pay and what will happen if they don't pay? susi.m
  • Score: 10

9:26am Tue 28 Jan 14

skydriver says...

It may appear a daft question, but why do these travellers not have to pay anything , after all they are not poor, they drive new vans and cars and some have very nice camper vans , and I doubt if they pay tax. Why is it always up I to the local taxpayers to fund these people, if they don't pay , impound their vehicles,simple. It's about time council and police took a stand, let the south coast of England be the leaders in a decision such as mine, then they will get the message they are not welcome in this area.
These travellers are a drain on the taxpayers funds which is not sustainable .
It may appear a daft question, but why do these travellers not have to pay anything , after all they are not poor, they drive new vans and cars and some have very nice camper vans , and I doubt if they pay tax. Why is it always up I to the local taxpayers to fund these people, if they don't pay , impound their vehicles,simple. It's about time council and police took a stand, let the south coast of England be the leaders in a decision such as mine, then they will get the message they are not welcome in this area. These travellers are a drain on the taxpayers funds which is not sustainable . skydriver
  • Score: 28

9:30am Tue 28 Jan 14

susi.m says...

Yankee1 wrote:
I may be missing something. I admit I am not an expert on this issue.

But...and I ask this with all humility....why should one segment of society be afforded facilities at the expense of the public purse that are not afforded to others....especially when this segment is transient and has no roots in the borough?

If you or I (who do pay local property taxes) role up with our caravans to camp for free on a public amenity, we would be moved on - at best.

Are 'travelers' a favoured group? If so, why? Why cannot any group demand the same 'amentities' at the expense of the public purse?

Where is the legislation that affords them rights over those of law abiding, tax paying residents? I have no issue with them personally; it is the unequal status that I question.
The last Government (Labour) brought in a silly law that over protects the rights of these so called Travellers. Until this law is changed, unfortunately, Councils have to provide sites for these non tax paying people.
I suggest that anyone against this site DOES NOT vote labour in the next elections and in addition DOES NOT vote for any of the councillors who voted in favour or abstained in last nights vote
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: I may be missing something. I admit I am not an expert on this issue. But...and I ask this with all humility....why should one segment of society be afforded facilities at the expense of the public purse that are not afforded to others....especially when this segment is transient and has no roots in the borough? If you or I (who do pay local property taxes) role up with our caravans to camp for free on a public amenity, we would be moved on - at best. Are 'travelers' a favoured group? If so, why? Why cannot any group demand the same 'amentities' at the expense of the public purse? Where is the legislation that affords them rights over those of law abiding, tax paying residents? I have no issue with them personally; it is the unequal status that I question.[/p][/quote]The last Government (Labour) brought in a silly law that over protects the rights of these so called Travellers. Until this law is changed, unfortunately, Councils have to provide sites for these non tax paying people. I suggest that anyone against this site DOES NOT vote labour in the next elections and in addition DOES NOT vote for any of the councillors who voted in favour or abstained in last nights vote susi.m
  • Score: 18

9:35am Tue 28 Jan 14

susi.m says...

Going to be a busy day for the Coms Team in Borough of Poole today.
Going to be a busy day for the Coms Team in Borough of Poole today. susi.m
  • Score: 3

9:40am Tue 28 Jan 14

loftusrod says...

kipapig wrote:
Just out of interest can anyone who owns a caravan park there on a temporary basis? How do you define a traveller? Could local people travel to the sites and park their caravans there for 28 days and avoid storage charges for a month and deprive other travellers of the space at the same time???
I've been asking this question for the last few years on stories like this.
How is a traveller defined, and how do the council make sure the definition is adhered to when they bend over backwards to assist illegally camped people with caravans?
[quote][p][bold]kipapig[/bold] wrote: Just out of interest can anyone who owns a caravan park there on a temporary basis? How do you define a traveller? Could local people travel to the sites and park their caravans there for 28 days and avoid storage charges for a month and deprive other travellers of the space at the same time???[/p][/quote]I've been asking this question for the last few years on stories like this. How is a traveller defined, and how do the council make sure the definition is adhered to when they bend over backwards to assist illegally camped people with caravans? loftusrod
  • Score: 11

9:40am Tue 28 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere?
.......
Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.
Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere? ....... Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug. Carolyn43
  • Score: 8

9:44am Tue 28 Jan 14

playitbyear says...

Why dont we all just move in when the sites open. Then there won't be any room. Simples
Why dont we all just move in when the sites open. Then there won't be any room. Simples playitbyear
  • Score: 13

9:45am Tue 28 Jan 14

Chris the plumber says...

there are comments on here that suggest that the people who will be using this new sites do not pay there taxes, are ripping folk off and are not law abiding.
they is strong words with no proof !!!
there are comments on here that suggest that the people who will be using this new sites do not pay there taxes, are ripping folk off and are not law abiding. they is strong words with no proof !!! Chris the plumber
  • Score: -26

9:57am Tue 28 Jan 14

sue2bu says...

Does the council honestly think these travellers will even want to stay on this site. They will choose where they want to go knowing they will not be moved and enjoy the disruption to all like they did last year. They need to ensure the police can move them on or give them hefty fines or take away their cars, caravans etc to pay for their fines.
Does the council honestly think these travellers will even want to stay on this site. They will choose where they want to go knowing they will not be moved and enjoy the disruption to all like they did last year. They need to ensure the police can move them on or give them hefty fines or take away their cars, caravans etc to pay for their fines. sue2bu
  • Score: 17

10:09am Tue 28 Jan 14

palmertree says...

I was always under the impression that the TSP was to be provided for the SUMMER months only, however, I have just read an update on last night's vote on the Borough of Poole website and they have stated it will be available from Easter until 1st September. Easter can sometimes fall as early as the month of March, therefore this could mean it's potentially occupied for 7 months of the year! The whole vote has been based on a lie an incorrect information, surely this is illegal and there is something that can be done??
I was always under the impression that the TSP was to be provided for the SUMMER months only, however, I have just read an update on last night's vote on the Borough of Poole website and they have stated it will be available from Easter until 1st September. Easter can sometimes fall as early as the month of March, therefore this could mean it's potentially occupied for 7 months of the year! The whole vote has been based on a lie an incorrect information, surely this is illegal and there is something that can be done?? palmertree
  • Score: 14

10:22am Tue 28 Jan 14

Chris the plumber says...

Old Colonial wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk
instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??
"white middle class people" already use and pay for caravan parks, and I dare say would be expected to pay for these also.
these travelers will also have to pay for this site, I know not what rate has been set at but it will reflect present day costs... so you see Old Colonial
we all pay even travellers..
[quote][p][bold]Old Colonial[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??[/p][/quote]"white middle class people" already use and pay for caravan parks, and I dare say would be expected to pay for these also.[/p][/quote]these travelers will also have to pay for this site, I know not what rate has been set at but it will reflect present day costs... so you see Old Colonial we all pay even travellers.. Chris the plumber
  • Score: -8

10:25am Tue 28 Jan 14

skydriver says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
there are comments on here that suggest that the people who will be using this new sites do not pay there taxes, are ripping folk off and are not law abiding.
they is strong words with no proof !!!
So what taxes do these travellers pay, it's not council tax I doubt income tax emmm maybe road tax, shall I continue.?
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: there are comments on here that suggest that the people who will be using this new sites do not pay there taxes, are ripping folk off and are not law abiding. they is strong words with no proof !!![/p][/quote]So what taxes do these travellers pay, it's not council tax I doubt income tax emmm maybe road tax, shall I continue.? skydriver
  • Score: 27

10:26am Tue 28 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

It would be good to know not only how our Council is trying to comply with the Law by involving itself in the mandatory "Lose Lose" decision making, but also it would be good to know what steps they are taking to change (or modify) the Law that bites so hard on desirable coastal resorts such as Poole.

Having consulted with the police on the 'Lose Lose' decision are their consultations with our MPs producing any results : an exemption for desirable coastal resorts from full compliance with the Law would be very helpful in reducing the risk of crime and/or civil unrest !!
It would be good to know not only how our Council is trying to comply with the Law by involving itself in the mandatory "Lose Lose" decision making, but also it would be good to know what steps they are taking to change (or modify) the Law that bites so hard on desirable coastal resorts such as Poole. Having consulted with the police on the 'Lose Lose' decision are their consultations with our MPs producing any results : an exemption for desirable coastal resorts from full compliance with the Law would be very helpful in reducing the risk of crime and/or civil unrest !! Ebb Tide
  • Score: 1

10:30am Tue 28 Jan 14

roguetrader666 says...

People have a right to be called NIMBYs. They pay council tax to be spent on their services, not others that pay no council or income tax at all.
People have a right to be called NIMBYs. They pay council tax to be spent on their services, not others that pay no council or income tax at all. roguetrader666
  • Score: 16

10:34am Tue 28 Jan 14

CGpoole says...

Um just to point out that it's not just Creekmoor that will be affected, it's also Oakdale, especially if the B&Q site goes ahead.

I bet Tesco Fleetsbridge is also looking forward to having the Travellers in. I see some of the children from the Mannings Heath site go into Tower Park Tesco and the behaviour makes me sick. These are 7-12 years old who should be at school!

Believe me I am trying really hard to be diplomatic on this post. I am really going to have to rethink who I vote for in future.
Um just to point out that it's not just Creekmoor that will be affected, it's also Oakdale, especially if the B&Q site goes ahead. I bet Tesco Fleetsbridge is also looking forward to having the Travellers in. I see some of the children from the Mannings Heath site go into Tower Park Tesco and the behaviour makes me sick. These are 7-12 years old who should be at school! Believe me I am trying really hard to be diplomatic on this post. I am really going to have to rethink who I vote for in future. CGpoole
  • Score: 17

10:52am Tue 28 Jan 14

smhinto says...

I wonder why the authorities cannot utilise the local Council recycling or refuse tip as a transit area for these undesirables. They could not make any more mess than is already there.
.
There again perhaps they could.
I wonder why the authorities cannot utilise the local Council recycling or refuse tip as a transit area for these undesirables. They could not make any more mess than is already there. . There again perhaps they could. smhinto
  • Score: 4

10:55am Tue 28 Jan 14

nickynoodah says...

CGpoole wrote:
Um just to point out that it's not just Creekmoor that will be affected, it's also Oakdale, especially if the B&Q site goes ahead.

I bet Tesco Fleetsbridge is also looking forward to having the Travellers in. I see some of the children from the Mannings Heath site go into Tower Park Tesco and the behaviour makes me sick. These are 7-12 years old who should be at school!

Believe me I am trying really hard to be diplomatic on this post. I am really going to have to rethink who I vote for in future.
Leave the travelling children alone
anyone who starts a sentence with UM should be at kindergarten
What colour is your face with envy
[quote][p][bold]CGpoole[/bold] wrote: Um just to point out that it's not just Creekmoor that will be affected, it's also Oakdale, especially if the B&Q site goes ahead. I bet Tesco Fleetsbridge is also looking forward to having the Travellers in. I see some of the children from the Mannings Heath site go into Tower Park Tesco and the behaviour makes me sick. These are 7-12 years old who should be at school! Believe me I am trying really hard to be diplomatic on this post. I am really going to have to rethink who I vote for in future.[/p][/quote]Leave the travelling children alone anyone who starts a sentence with UM should be at kindergarten What colour is your face with envy nickynoodah
  • Score: -23

10:58am Tue 28 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

I was at the meeting last night, well actually I was outside it because for some strange reason the Council had decided to hold this emergency meeting in The Council Chambers instead of the room downstairs where public council meetings are normally held, that room happens to be twice the size and would have accommodated everyone who was there. Needless to say that room remained empty all night, maybe our good Mayor Phil Eades didn't want too many people opposing his plan, well even though there were plenty there against it, the idea was passed regardless and now it goes to the planning committee, will anyone on there stop this madness idea, of course not because Mayor Philip Eades is on the planning committee. So the council will waste a quarter of a million pounds on this project that once completed the travelers probably will refuse to use anyway, much like the failed site in Exeter some time back. Has there been any real research into this plan other than how much it will cost ? Phil Eades just like all other LibDems cannot seem to realise that the money the council receives from the people should be spent on those people and not on those who do not contribute a single penny to the community. It seems to be a LieDem policy throughout the country, look after anyone other than the British public who pay your wages and who you were elected to serve. I sincerely hope that people remember to thank them for their efforts at the ballot boxes in next years local council elections. That whole meeting last night was a farce!
I was at the meeting last night, well actually I was outside it because for some strange reason the Council had decided to hold this emergency meeting in The Council Chambers instead of the room downstairs where public council meetings are normally held, that room happens to be twice the size and would have accommodated everyone who was there. Needless to say that room remained empty all night, maybe our good Mayor Phil Eades didn't want too many people opposing his plan, well even though there were plenty there against it, the idea was passed regardless and now it goes to the planning committee, will anyone on there stop this madness idea, of course not because Mayor Philip Eades is on the planning committee. So the council will waste a quarter of a million pounds on this project that once completed the travelers probably will refuse to use anyway, much like the failed site in Exeter some time back. Has there been any real research into this plan other than how much it will cost ? Phil Eades just like all other LibDems cannot seem to realise that the money the council receives from the people should be spent on those people and not on those who do not contribute a single penny to the community. It seems to be a LieDem policy throughout the country, look after anyone other than the British public who pay your wages and who you were elected to serve. I sincerely hope that people remember to thank them for their efforts at the ballot boxes in next years local council elections. That whole meeting last night was a farce! Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 22

11:03am Tue 28 Jan 14

ronlin says...

Motorhome organisations have been trying to get the council to let them use the creekmoor park and ride as a night stop over possibly at weekends for years , this of course would be paid for by the motorhome owners , by buying a ticket for the time they were there , this wouldnt cause any problems because the park and ride is deserted most of the time , that idea would have been self financing , and would have brought money into the town and local buisnesses , now the council are making space for travellers who dont pay a cent for anything , and are financing the sites . DURRRRR .
Motorhome organisations have been trying to get the council to let them use the creekmoor park and ride as a night stop over possibly at weekends for years , this of course would be paid for by the motorhome owners , by buying a ticket for the time they were there , this wouldnt cause any problems because the park and ride is deserted most of the time , that idea would have been self financing , and would have brought money into the town and local buisnesses , now the council are making space for travellers who dont pay a cent for anything , and are financing the sites . DURRRRR . ronlin
  • Score: 21

11:11am Tue 28 Jan 14

Rabbitman64 says...

Hobad1 wrote:
Poole's councillors are a pathetic bunch of weasels and inverterbrates. They are `elected' to look after the interests of the public, but yet again cr@p on us all. In my dreams I see a place where all the councillors live, and a traveller site right next door. Poole councillors...all of you....do the honourable thing and resign and leave running the town to people who actually care about it.
There are a lot of comments that show prejudice & crassness. The council has to deal with the problem and manage it the best they can, if it is not managed then travelers will turn up at sites that are not suitable? This will result in pressure on the emergency services. I do not have much time for Tory run Poole, but they are right on this issue and should be respected for that.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Poole's councillors are a pathetic bunch of weasels and inverterbrates. They are `elected' to look after the interests of the public, but yet again cr@p on us all. In my dreams I see a place where all the councillors live, and a traveller site right next door. Poole councillors...all of you....do the honourable thing and resign and leave running the town to people who actually care about it.[/p][/quote]There are a lot of comments that show prejudice & crassness. The council has to deal with the problem and manage it the best they can, if it is not managed then travelers will turn up at sites that are not suitable? This will result in pressure on the emergency services. I do not have much time for Tory run Poole, but they are right on this issue and should be respected for that. Rabbitman64
  • Score: -5

11:27am Tue 28 Jan 14

static kill says...

Going by the state of some of the people at that meeting, I wouldn't be surprised if the travelers thought themselves too upmarket for Creekmore.
Going by the state of some of the people at that meeting, I wouldn't be surprised if the travelers thought themselves too upmarket for Creekmore. static kill
  • Score: -16

11:28am Tue 28 Jan 14

ASM says...

disgusting news! I can't believe lack of care from the council, who clearly aren't interested in what the residents of the community think. I feel so sorry for the hard working people of creekmore who have bought their home or paying a mortgage in that area.
A certain landlord is responsible for the decline of Boscombe and now the council have ruined creekmore, which was a nice little area.
disgusting news! I can't believe lack of care from the council, who clearly aren't interested in what the residents of the community think. I feel so sorry for the hard working people of creekmore who have bought their home or paying a mortgage in that area. A certain landlord is responsible for the decline of Boscombe and now the council have ruined creekmore, which was a nice little area. ASM
  • Score: 5

11:31am Tue 28 Jan 14

skydriver says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
Old Colonial wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk
instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??
"white middle class people" already use and pay for caravan parks, and I dare say would be expected to pay for these also.
these travelers will also have to pay for this site, I know not what rate has been set at but it will reflect present day costs... so you see Old Colonial
we all pay even travellers..
Are but will they pay, that is the question, answer, I. doubt it, have they paid in the past to clear up all their mess, a resounding NO! I rest my case.
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old Colonial[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??[/p][/quote]"white middle class people" already use and pay for caravan parks, and I dare say would be expected to pay for these also.[/p][/quote]these travelers will also have to pay for this site, I know not what rate has been set at but it will reflect present day costs... so you see Old Colonial we all pay even travellers..[/p][/quote]Are but will they pay, that is the question, answer, I. doubt it, have they paid in the past to clear up all their mess, a resounding NO! I rest my case. skydriver
  • Score: 16

11:38am Tue 28 Jan 14

AKKA45 says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere?
.......
Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.
When did he NOT look superior & smug?
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere? ....... Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.[/p][/quote]When did he NOT look superior & smug? AKKA45
  • Score: 5

12:25pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dave2609 says...

Can I raise a couple of other issues. All the talk has been about evicting them from 'Council Land'. Well if it becomes easier and quicker for the travellers to be moved on I wonder where they will decide to go - maybe private land????
We in Creekmoor have experienced these incursions into fields and the council (even though they are the landlords) could do nothing but let the farmer go through due process! This will be the inevitable result because I believe they will not pay to go to a transit site! The council win and local businesses and landowners will get the problem instead. I have to admit I do not know what the answer is except protect your community, act together and make sure that access is as difficult as possible.
One point I would like to make is that the piles of vegetation still visible in the field on Longmeadow Lane left by the travellers last year for the farmer to clear up at his expense (which cannot be burned because its against environmental rules) did not appear from nowhere. Every person who let the travellers trim their trees and hedges for cash and on the cheap is responsible. It is your rubbish in that field so remember that during the summer when they come round!!! A cheap job costs others - use local 'professional' people and maybe we can make it so they can't earn any money and move on elsewhere!
On that last point will the travellers site have free waste disposal and recycling facilities or a 'pass' to recycle at the Nuffield tip or will the council be clearing the vegetation they will dump after they leave. Maybe we should use them after all that way I wouldn't have to pay for a green recycling bin!!!! - That was sarcasm by the way!!! or was it??
Can I raise a couple of other issues. All the talk has been about evicting them from 'Council Land'. Well if it becomes easier and quicker for the travellers to be moved on I wonder where they will decide to go - maybe private land???? We in Creekmoor have experienced these incursions into fields and the council (even though they are the landlords) could do nothing but let the farmer go through due process! This will be the inevitable result because I believe they will not pay to go to a transit site! The council win and local businesses and landowners will get the problem instead. I have to admit I do not know what the answer is except protect your community, act together and make sure that access is as difficult as possible. One point I would like to make is that the piles of vegetation still visible in the field on Longmeadow Lane left by the travellers last year for the farmer to clear up at his expense (which cannot be burned because its against environmental rules) did not appear from nowhere. Every person who let the travellers trim their trees and hedges for cash and on the cheap is responsible. It is your rubbish in that field so remember that during the summer when they come round!!! A cheap job costs others - use local 'professional' people and maybe we can make it so they can't earn any money and move on elsewhere! On that last point will the travellers site have free waste disposal and recycling facilities or a 'pass' to recycle at the Nuffield tip or will the council be clearing the vegetation they will dump after they leave. Maybe we should use them after all that way I wouldn't have to pay for a green recycling bin!!!! - That was sarcasm by the way!!! or was it?? Dave2609
  • Score: 23

12:33pm Tue 28 Jan 14

suzigirl says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?
The travellers wrecked the Mannings Heath site!
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?[/p][/quote]The travellers wrecked the Mannings Heath site! suzigirl
  • Score: 11

12:49pm Tue 28 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

AKKA45 wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere?
.......
Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.
When did he NOT look superior & smug?
Great reply,EADES OUT.
[quote][p][bold]AKKA45[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere? ....... Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.[/p][/quote]When did he NOT look superior & smug?[/p][/quote]Great reply,EADES OUT. pete woodley
  • Score: 8

1:00pm Tue 28 Jan 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

JACIE01 wrote:
fivespoke wrote:
N Smith wrote:
fivespoke wrote:
Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole.

Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.
And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick
I am a lifelong resident of Poole who has seen the situation with illegal encampments repeat over the last couple of decades.

Like it or not , the only way to effectively stop those encampments is to provide transit sites, and there's only so much land available in the town.
Where's the Bournemouth one?
We don't want one!
[quote][p][bold]JACIE01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole. Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.[/p][/quote]And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick[/p][/quote]I am a lifelong resident of Poole who has seen the situation with illegal encampments repeat over the last couple of decades. Like it or not , the only way to effectively stop those encampments is to provide transit sites, and there's only so much land available in the town.[/p][/quote]Where's the Bournemouth one?[/p][/quote]We don't want one! fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 1

1:02pm Tue 28 Jan 14

seaviews says...

The Chief Constable of Dorset the one who just got an award, is the one that will not prosecute the travellers. Her police ignore missing tax disc's, this is fact after travellers were aloud to park next to a playground during the summer driving vehicles with no tax which when pointed out to the police they choose to ignore. This presumably at their bosses bidding.
Not having a tax disc usually means no Insurance or MOT so can we vote the police chief out as well.
The Chief Constable of Dorset the one who just got an award, is the one that will not prosecute the travellers. Her police ignore missing tax disc's, this is fact after travellers were aloud to park next to a playground during the summer driving vehicles with no tax which when pointed out to the police they choose to ignore. This presumably at their bosses bidding. Not having a tax disc usually means no Insurance or MOT so can we vote the police chief out as well. seaviews
  • Score: 22

1:11pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

pete woodley wrote:
AKKA45 wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere?
.......
Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.
When did he NOT look superior & smug?
Great reply,EADES OUT.
After years of avoiding any decision and ensuring more and more public unrest we now have a decision to reflect the consequences of the relevant Law : a Law that bites unfairly on a desirable crowded coastal resort that has little space to deal with the requirements of the Law concerned. Our MPs should be (and probably are) pressed to secure an exemption for Poole. After all when a hotel puts up the "no vacancies" sign we know what that means - even if our law makers don't !! I expect the MPs for places like Rotherham don't have quite the same level of public disquiet (on this issue) as our local MPs should be experiencing.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AKKA45[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere? ....... Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.[/p][/quote]When did he NOT look superior & smug?[/p][/quote]Great reply,EADES OUT.[/p][/quote]After years of avoiding any decision and ensuring more and more public unrest we now have a decision to reflect the consequences of the relevant Law : a Law that bites unfairly on a desirable crowded coastal resort that has little space to deal with the requirements of the Law concerned. Our MPs should be (and probably are) pressed to secure an exemption for Poole. After all when a hotel puts up the "no vacancies" sign we know what that means - even if our law makers don't !! I expect the MPs for places like Rotherham don't have quite the same level of public disquiet (on this issue) as our local MPs should be experiencing. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 12

1:24pm Tue 28 Jan 14

kalebmoledirt says...

suzigirl wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?
The travellers wrecked the Mannings Heath site!
They just made themselves at home ,it,s how they like to live
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?[/p][/quote]The travellers wrecked the Mannings Heath site![/p][/quote]They just made themselves at home ,it,s how they like to live kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 8

1:30pm Tue 28 Jan 14

DorsetFerret says...

Good folk of Creekmoor, the mayor and his (elected) friends got his way in the end and the proposal now moves on to the planning stage. No good crying into spilt milk but time to consider alternative strategies if we wish to put an end to our area becoming the dumping ground for ill considered schemes by the Borough of Poole. With the exception of claiming independence, what else can be done? Well, has anybody examined the importance to wildlife of this proposed site? It is one of the last remaining areas of salt marsh in the area. Although it may have been deemed unfit for human habitation in the consultants report there may be species there that are endangered. For example the whirlpool ramshorn snail, a rare salt marsh inhabitant, or the ladybird spider and large marsh grasshopper, again endangered species and that’s without getting going on amphibians and reptiles. After all, a few sand lizards stopped the building of a link road through from Bournemouth to Poole at Bourne valley!

Just food for thought, any other ideas would be welcome.
Good folk of Creekmoor, the mayor and his (elected) friends got his way in the end and the proposal now moves on to the planning stage. No good crying into spilt milk but time to consider alternative strategies if we wish to put an end to our area becoming the dumping ground for ill considered schemes by the Borough of Poole. With the exception of claiming independence, what else can be done? Well, has anybody examined the importance to wildlife of this proposed site? It is one of the last remaining areas of salt marsh in the area. Although it may have been deemed unfit for human habitation in the consultants report there may be species there that are endangered. For example the whirlpool ramshorn snail, a rare salt marsh inhabitant, or the ladybird spider and large marsh grasshopper, again endangered species and that’s without getting going on amphibians and reptiles. After all, a few sand lizards stopped the building of a link road through from Bournemouth to Poole at Bourne valley! Just food for thought, any other ideas would be welcome. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 21

1:45pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dorset Logic says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Good folk of Creekmoor, the mayor and his (elected) friends got his way in the end and the proposal now moves on to the planning stage. No good crying into spilt milk but time to consider alternative strategies if we wish to put an end to our area becoming the dumping ground for ill considered schemes by the Borough of Poole. With the exception of claiming independence, what else can be done? Well, has anybody examined the importance to wildlife of this proposed site? It is one of the last remaining areas of salt marsh in the area. Although it may have been deemed unfit for human habitation in the consultants report there may be species there that are endangered. For example the whirlpool ramshorn snail, a rare salt marsh inhabitant, or the ladybird spider and large marsh grasshopper, again endangered species and that’s without getting going on amphibians and reptiles. After all, a few sand lizards stopped the building of a link road through from Bournemouth to Poole at Bourne valley!

Just food for thought, any other ideas would be welcome.
I would think as an impartial observer that your option. Bet some wading birds use it for nesting as well.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: Good folk of Creekmoor, the mayor and his (elected) friends got his way in the end and the proposal now moves on to the planning stage. No good crying into spilt milk but time to consider alternative strategies if we wish to put an end to our area becoming the dumping ground for ill considered schemes by the Borough of Poole. With the exception of claiming independence, what else can be done? Well, has anybody examined the importance to wildlife of this proposed site? It is one of the last remaining areas of salt marsh in the area. Although it may have been deemed unfit for human habitation in the consultants report there may be species there that are endangered. For example the whirlpool ramshorn snail, a rare salt marsh inhabitant, or the ladybird spider and large marsh grasshopper, again endangered species and that’s without getting going on amphibians and reptiles. After all, a few sand lizards stopped the building of a link road through from Bournemouth to Poole at Bourne valley! Just food for thought, any other ideas would be welcome.[/p][/quote]I would think as an impartial observer that your option. Bet some wading birds use it for nesting as well. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 6

1:48pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dorset Logic says...

fivespoke wrote:
Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole.

Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.
Why does any camp have to be in town. A field a few miles further down the road would do. Its a borough isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole. Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.[/p][/quote]Why does any camp have to be in town. A field a few miles further down the road would do. Its a borough isn't it? Dorset Logic
  • Score: 8

2:20pm Tue 28 Jan 14

craigyshere says...

That money surley could go towards better things. If they have that spare to make something people don't want, why dont they put the money towards Julia's House, im sure there would be more of a positive responce, giving it to children who need it, as apposed to putting it towards a money pit of a hellish future for local residents!!??
That money surley could go towards better things. If they have that spare to make something people don't want, why dont they put the money towards Julia's House, im sure there would be more of a positive responce, giving it to children who need it, as apposed to putting it towards a money pit of a hellish future for local residents!!?? craigyshere
  • Score: 8

2:52pm Tue 28 Jan 14

nickynoodah says...

Why does any camp have to be in town. A field a few miles further down the road would do. Its a borough isn't it?

Do you mean here at Bere
Idont think so
the locals have got enough to put up with
with me thank you very much
Why does any camp have to be in town. A field a few miles further down the road would do. Its a borough isn't it? Do you mean here at Bere Idont think so the locals have got enough to put up with with me thank you very much nickynoodah
  • Score: -6

3:08pm Tue 28 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

What a shame this site has turned into a joke,with very stupid childish comments from nickynoodah,they are not funny,and it makes the Echo out to be a cheap comic rag.
What a shame this site has turned into a joke,with very stupid childish comments from nickynoodah,they are not funny,and it makes the Echo out to be a cheap comic rag. pete woodley
  • Score: -1

3:09pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Mille67 says...

How much will the travellers be charged to use the site and does this mean that anyone with a caravan can use it?
How much will the travellers be charged to use the site and does this mean that anyone with a caravan can use it? Mille67
  • Score: 11

3:40pm Tue 28 Jan 14

susi.m says...

seaviews wrote:
The Chief Constable of Dorset the one who just got an award, is the one that will not prosecute the travellers. Her police ignore missing tax disc's, this is fact after travellers were aloud to park next to a playground during the summer driving vehicles with no tax which when pointed out to the police they choose to ignore. This presumably at their bosses bidding.
Not having a tax disc usually means no Insurance or MOT so can we vote the police chief out as well.
Unfortunately not. But you can lobby the Dorset Crime Commissioner about this matter.
[quote][p][bold]seaviews[/bold] wrote: The Chief Constable of Dorset the one who just got an award, is the one that will not prosecute the travellers. Her police ignore missing tax disc's, this is fact after travellers were aloud to park next to a playground during the summer driving vehicles with no tax which when pointed out to the police they choose to ignore. This presumably at their bosses bidding. Not having a tax disc usually means no Insurance or MOT so can we vote the police chief out as well.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately not. But you can lobby the Dorset Crime Commissioner about this matter. susi.m
  • Score: 7

3:44pm Tue 28 Jan 14

susi.m says...

craigyshere wrote:
That money surley could go towards better things. If they have that spare to make something people don't want, why dont they put the money towards Julia's House, im sure there would be more of a positive responce, giving it to children who need it, as apposed to putting it towards a money pit of a hellish future for local residents!!??
I agree. There are decent people who cant get the best cancer treatment available and are told that there isn't enough funding for them.
Imagine how someone in this circumstance must feel when reading about all this money that is going to be spent on these non tax paying people.
[quote][p][bold]craigyshere[/bold] wrote: That money surley could go towards better things. If they have that spare to make something people don't want, why dont they put the money towards Julia's House, im sure there would be more of a positive responce, giving it to children who need it, as apposed to putting it towards a money pit of a hellish future for local residents!!??[/p][/quote]I agree. There are decent people who cant get the best cancer treatment available and are told that there isn't enough funding for them. Imagine how someone in this circumstance must feel when reading about all this money that is going to be spent on these non tax paying people. susi.m
  • Score: 15

4:17pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

Good to see Poole being the first to drag itself out of the middle ages in Dorset and start taking some notice of the law. Parks, play areas and football pitches where my kids play are no places for temporary camps. Good to get this formalised at last.
Good to see Poole being the first to drag itself out of the middle ages in Dorset and start taking some notice of the law. Parks, play areas and football pitches where my kids play are no places for temporary camps. Good to get this formalised at last. ashleycross
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Kevin_123 says...

I feel the house prices in Poole will be reduce very soon then?
I feel the house prices in Poole will be reduce very soon then? Kevin_123
  • Score: 7

5:17pm Tue 28 Jan 14

kangman2012 says...

Here's an idea! Why not convert the abandoned former Police Station at Darby's Corner. Knock the old building down and turn the site into a transit camp. Now there's poetic justice!
Here's an idea! Why not convert the abandoned former Police Station at Darby's Corner. Knock the old building down and turn the site into a transit camp. Now there's poetic justice! kangman2012
  • Score: 6

5:41pm Tue 28 Jan 14

nickynoodah says...

It makes me rofl when little old bed sit dwellers in their 90s have a feeble pop at me you know
stay behind yo curtain George
don't be obnoxious
be a nice george
It makes me rofl when little old bed sit dwellers in their 90s have a feeble pop at me you know stay behind yo curtain George don't be obnoxious be a nice george nickynoodah
  • Score: -5

6:24pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

So who does look for endangered flora and fauna on a site and have that site declared off limits because of it? Has the Poole Residents' Association contacted whoever does it?
.........
But if contamination with methane and asbestos isn't sufficient to make the site unsuitable, what will be?
So who does look for endangered flora and fauna on a site and have that site declared off limits because of it? Has the Poole Residents' Association contacted whoever does it? ......... But if contamination with methane and asbestos isn't sufficient to make the site unsuitable, what will be? Carolyn43
  • Score: 1

6:38pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Desperado says...

We don't want them in our county, let alone Creekmoor ,
As a lot of the more enlightened already know this is another white elephant , it is doomed to fail before it starts .
These councillors are going to look stupid once again .
It is not a case of if it fails , it will fail !!!
We don't want them in our county, let alone Creekmoor , As a lot of the more enlightened already know this is another white elephant , it is doomed to fail before it starts . These councillors are going to look stupid once again . It is not a case of if it fails , it will fail !!! Desperado
  • Score: 10

6:41pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Just seen the breakdown of votes which is shown on the next news item. Basically all the the Lib-dems plus Conservatives Atkinson, Dion, Parker, Sorton, Stribley, White and Woodcock all voted for the two sites. All the rest of the Conservatives (with the exception of Evans and John Rampton's wife who both abstained) and the four Peoples' Party voted against.
........
Now we know who toed the Conservative party line.
Just seen the breakdown of votes which is shown on the next news item. Basically all the the Lib-dems plus Conservatives Atkinson, Dion, Parker, Sorton, Stribley, White and Woodcock all voted for the two sites. All the rest of the Conservatives (with the exception of Evans and John Rampton's wife who both abstained) and the four Peoples' Party voted against. ........ Now we know who toed the Conservative party line. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

6:43pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Just seen the breakdown of votes which is shown on the next news item. Basically all the the Lib-dems plus Conservatives Atkinson, Dion, Parker, Sorton, Stribley, White and Woodcock all voted for the two sites. All the rest of the Conservatives (with the exception of Evans and John Rampton's wife who both abstained) and the four Peoples' Party voted against.
........
Correction if my inaccurate post was accepted: Now we know who toed the LIB_DEM party line plus the Conservatives who looked after their jobs.
Just seen the breakdown of votes which is shown on the next news item. Basically all the the Lib-dems plus Conservatives Atkinson, Dion, Parker, Sorton, Stribley, White and Woodcock all voted for the two sites. All the rest of the Conservatives (with the exception of Evans and John Rampton's wife who both abstained) and the four Peoples' Party voted against. ........ Correction if my inaccurate post was accepted: Now we know who toed the LIB_DEM party line plus the Conservatives who looked after their jobs. Carolyn43
  • Score: 6

6:45pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Desperado says...

I am now going to have a look for a cheap caravan on ebay .
How do you prove you are a p***ky sorry Traveller ?
I am now going to have a look for a cheap caravan on ebay . How do you prove you are a p***ky sorry Traveller ? Desperado
  • Score: 5

6:51pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

Baysider wrote:
I see a lot of people unhappy with the decision, threatening this, that or the other, plenty of rhetoric and some people trying to drum up support for UKIP off the back of this. But what I don't see on here is any sensible, practical and legal alternatives being proposed to the issue.

Given that Bournemouth doesn't have a transit site in place I suppose we will get a very clear indication of which approach was right in a month or two won't we?
So in the absence of a "sensible, practical and legal alternative" we should go with the idiotic, utterly impractical, and barely legal proposal?
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: I see a lot of people unhappy with the decision, threatening this, that or the other, plenty of rhetoric and some people trying to drum up support for UKIP off the back of this. But what I don't see on here is any sensible, practical and legal alternatives being proposed to the issue. Given that Bournemouth doesn't have a transit site in place I suppose we will get a very clear indication of which approach was right in a month or two won't we?[/p][/quote]So in the absence of a "sensible, practical and legal alternative" we should go with the idiotic, utterly impractical, and barely legal proposal? Jo__Go
  • Score: 3

6:58pm Tue 28 Jan 14

moorite says...

What a joke ! TURN OUR LIGHTS BACK ON NOW !!! Got money to waste on travellers who pay nothing into the system !

Im sure ALL CREEKMOOR RESIDENTS WILL AGREE ! LIGHTS BACK ON PLEASE ASAP - NO EXCUSES !
What a joke ! TURN OUR LIGHTS BACK ON NOW !!! Got money to waste on travellers who pay nothing into the system ! Im sure ALL CREEKMOOR RESIDENTS WILL AGREE ! LIGHTS BACK ON PLEASE ASAP - NO EXCUSES ! moorite
  • Score: 7

7:00pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

ashleycross wrote:
Good to see Poole being the first to drag itself out of the middle ages in Dorset and start taking some notice of the law. Parks, play areas and football pitches where my kids play are no places for temporary camps. Good to get this formalised at last.
So we'll put the site next to a skate park...
Sensible!
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: Good to see Poole being the first to drag itself out of the middle ages in Dorset and start taking some notice of the law. Parks, play areas and football pitches where my kids play are no places for temporary camps. Good to get this formalised at last.[/p][/quote]So we'll put the site next to a skate park... Sensible! Jo__Go
  • Score: 3

7:06pm Tue 28 Jan 14

O'Reilly says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk
instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??
They are not British - they are Irish. They come from Ireland - not part of Great Britain and is a totally separate country which has its own membership of the EU.
.........
They contribute nothing and get away with parking overnight in car parks, when local council tax paying residents would be prosecuted. They don't pay to park, when local council tax paying residents would be fined. They break into and occupy other people's land, when local council tax paying residents would be prosecuted. They do not have their vehicles inspected for road tax, MOT or insurance when British people would have done and be prosecuted if they didn't have current documentation for such.
.......
If "white middle class people" did the same and got away with it, no-one would want them on the proposed sites either.
...........
Wonder what the Chairman of the Gypsy Council thinks of the intention to provide his people with places to live on land considered too contaminated for even a car park?
The Irish Goverment had the good sense to deal with this problem some time ago. Our Goverment and Local Councils seem enthralled to Politically Correct Europe Legislation.......wh
ich by the way the Irish Goverment - with obviously more backbone than ours - chose to ignore.......
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: After reading all the comments on here, if I didn't know better , I would think that the proposed site is for vagabonds, thieves, criminals and unsavoury folk instead of British people who don't want to live in a house.. if this site was to house white middle class people would the same opposition be vented ??[/p][/quote]They are not British - they are Irish. They come from Ireland - not part of Great Britain and is a totally separate country which has its own membership of the EU. ......... They contribute nothing and get away with parking overnight in car parks, when local council tax paying residents would be prosecuted. They don't pay to park, when local council tax paying residents would be fined. They break into and occupy other people's land, when local council tax paying residents would be prosecuted. They do not have their vehicles inspected for road tax, MOT or insurance when British people would have done and be prosecuted if they didn't have current documentation for such. ....... If "white middle class people" did the same and got away with it, no-one would want them on the proposed sites either. ........... Wonder what the Chairman of the Gypsy Council thinks of the intention to provide his people with places to live on land considered too contaminated for even a car park?[/p][/quote]The Irish Goverment had the good sense to deal with this problem some time ago. Our Goverment and Local Councils seem enthralled to Politically Correct Europe Legislation.......wh ich by the way the Irish Goverment - with obviously more backbone than ours - chose to ignore....... O'Reilly
  • Score: 8

7:18pm Tue 28 Jan 14

nickynoodah says...

There's tons of space there for a couple of mobile classrooms you know.
and plenty of teachers looking for jobs.
There's tons of space there for a couple of mobile classrooms you know. and plenty of teachers looking for jobs. nickynoodah
  • Score: -4

7:40pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Pile123 says...

Councillors, when reviewing this "planning application" please can you remember you are representing your constituents, the ones that will be funding the work and not those from other areas, here on holiday or for 'work'.
We do not want this - is this not clear?
We do not approve of providing free accommodation (actually it is paid for, by residents)
We do not appreciate the increased in ongoing costs of clearing rubbish from the sites if and when they start to be used
It is appalling that this is specifically a problem in the summer holidays
What was the review of proposed sites last year for if all that was intended was a proposed ambush in the heart of a local residential area?
I don't live in Creekmoor but feel the residents have been treated in a disgraceful way.
And the proposed site near the skate park, on a road used by holiday makers is a terrible decision for the image of the town.
When do we get the chance to vote out these councillors?
Councillors, when reviewing this "planning application" please can you remember you are representing your constituents, the ones that will be funding the work and not those from other areas, here on holiday or for 'work'. We do not want this - is this not clear? We do not approve of providing free accommodation (actually it is paid for, by residents) We do not appreciate the increased in ongoing costs of clearing rubbish from the sites if and when they start to be used It is appalling that this is specifically a problem in the summer holidays What was the review of proposed sites last year for if all that was intended was a proposed ambush in the heart of a local residential area? I don't live in Creekmoor but feel the residents have been treated in a disgraceful way. And the proposed site near the skate park, on a road used by holiday makers is a terrible decision for the image of the town. When do we get the chance to vote out these councillors? Pile123
  • Score: 8

7:44pm Tue 28 Jan 14

portia6 says...

Integrate and infiltrate become part of the establishment and toe the line.
Poole is now a diverse community are there any locals left?
The houses are being bought by Northerners Scots and Londoners not to
mention the Welsh! If you go to Rockley they all live in caravans there and
they are not bad!
Integrate and infiltrate become part of the establishment and toe the line. Poole is now a diverse community are there any locals left? The houses are being bought by Northerners Scots and Londoners not to mention the Welsh! If you go to Rockley they all live in caravans there and they are not bad! portia6
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Pile123 says...

Desperado wrote:
I am now going to have a look for a cheap caravan on ebay .
How do you prove you are a p***ky sorry Traveller ?
This is the whole point and problem. Political correctness has combined the true Romany Gypsies with others, usually from Ireland who is closer to an economic migrant. They can then abuse the system designed to protect others and no one seems to have made the distinction.
Interestingly, Ireland itself had the gumption to change the law so the problem then becomes an export.
[quote][p][bold]Desperado[/bold] wrote: I am now going to have a look for a cheap caravan on ebay . How do you prove you are a p***ky sorry Traveller ?[/p][/quote]This is the whole point and problem. Political correctness has combined the true Romany Gypsies with others, usually from Ireland who is closer to an economic migrant. They can then abuse the system designed to protect others and no one seems to have made the distinction. Interestingly, Ireland itself had the gumption to change the law so the problem then becomes an export. Pile123
  • Score: 9

8:15pm Tue 28 Jan 14

pacamar says...

Tony Trent wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state.

Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?
It is open and fully operational except for the transit pitches, the two together didn't work and led to huge bills. The nearby bussinesses seem quite happy to continue trading and even expand. The proposed sites are just as remote to homes, if not more remote. There is a planning process yet to go through which ought to be used constructively to ensure no access to Upton Road, thus overcoming one fear (and making it more remote from homes than the existing Mannings Heath site). The negatives have been hyped up big time, and if provided people will likely end up wondering what all the fuss was about. With a bit of luck it will barely be used - and that will be a measure of it's success!
How can spending £250,000 on something you say will barely be used possibly be described as "a success"?
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?[/p][/quote]It is open and fully operational except for the transit pitches, the two together didn't work and led to huge bills. The nearby bussinesses seem quite happy to continue trading and even expand. The proposed sites are just as remote to homes, if not more remote. There is a planning process yet to go through which ought to be used constructively to ensure no access to Upton Road, thus overcoming one fear (and making it more remote from homes than the existing Mannings Heath site). The negatives have been hyped up big time, and if provided people will likely end up wondering what all the fuss was about. With a bit of luck it will barely be used - and that will be a measure of it's success![/p][/quote]How can spending £250,000 on something you say will barely be used possibly be described as "a success"? pacamar
  • Score: 4

8:17pm Tue 28 Jan 14

fireflier says...

kangman2012 wrote:
Here's an idea! Why not convert the abandoned former Police Station at Darby's Corner. Knock the old building down and turn the site into a transit camp. Now there's poetic justice!
Nice stretch of good, flat, soft surface on Holes Bay, next to Carphone Warehouse, DFS Furnishings, etc.

Excellent caravan parking area, at low tide, for over 100 vans!
[quote][p][bold]kangman2012[/bold] wrote: Here's an idea! Why not convert the abandoned former Police Station at Darby's Corner. Knock the old building down and turn the site into a transit camp. Now there's poetic justice![/p][/quote]Nice stretch of good, flat, soft surface on Holes Bay, next to Carphone Warehouse, DFS Furnishings, etc. Excellent caravan parking area, at low tide, for over 100 vans! fireflier
  • Score: 2

8:35pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dave2609 says...

I think I feel a caravan and camper van rally coming on in the near future! wonder if anyone else gets a similar vibe!
I think I feel a caravan and camper van rally coming on in the near future! wonder if anyone else gets a similar vibe! Dave2609
  • Score: 1

8:37pm Tue 28 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

I wonder how many of those complaining bothered to vote last elections.
I wonder how many of those complaining bothered to vote last elections. pete woodley
  • Score: 1

8:55pm Tue 28 Jan 14

pacamar says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere?
.......
Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.
Yes, the voting details can be found on the BBC web site under "South Today"
By the way, I was actually right there in front of Councillor Eades and believe me, he looked even more smug in real life.
Let's see if together we can wipe that smug grin off his face!
I'm sure we can. :-) Then we can be the ones with the grin.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere? ....... Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.[/p][/quote]Yes, the voting details can be found on the BBC web site under "South Today" By the way, I was actually right there in front of Councillor Eades and believe me, he looked even more smug in real life. Let's see if together we can wipe that smug grin off his face! I'm sure we can. :-) Then we can be the ones with the grin. pacamar
  • Score: 7

9:13pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

pete woodley wrote:
I wonder how many of those complaining bothered to vote last elections.
I wonder how many of those complaining pay council tax which the council seem only too willing to waste on building a site that probably will not get used anyway, I think they have a right to complain regardless if they voted last year or not, though on a brighter note I bet a lot of them will be voting in 2015 to ensure we get some common sense back into Poole council and that is about the only thing I will ever be thankful of our Mayor Phil Eades for.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many of those complaining bothered to vote last elections.[/p][/quote]I wonder how many of those complaining pay council tax which the council seem only too willing to waste on building a site that probably will not get used anyway, I think they have a right to complain regardless if they voted last year or not, though on a brighter note I bet a lot of them will be voting in 2015 to ensure we get some common sense back into Poole council and that is about the only thing I will ever be thankful of our Mayor Phil Eades for. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

9:34pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

daveweb wrote:
Tonights decision was the wrong one! Last time the gypsies came to Creekmoor, crime rose by 78%. My sister, a single mother in the area, was scared for her safety as each evening she heard gunshots from the illegal camp. Furniture and other items were stolen from neighbours gardens and the local farmers field was left in a mess. This will not benefit anyone in Poole - this proposed site is on the main thoroughfare into the town from the west - what does that say to tourists when they see travellers as they come into the town? Let me also make it clear that this is not a 'temporary' site. This is permanent and ongoing. We have been told by our local councillors that phase one will include 12 pitches, and the next phase more than 20 (something they omitted from this evenings meeting.) This will cost Poole tax payers more than 250,000, with further money being required to maintain the site in the coming years, a crazy move when we have just been told that our bus service is being cut by 100,000 as Poole Council have insufficient funds!!! Poole already has a permanent traveller facility at Mannings Heath - which was smashed and ruined. Poole is already doing more for the gypsy community than others. This site will prevent the fire service from further expansion, local businesses will block their car park access for their protection and will subsequently close the agreed access for the fire brigade to cut across to Creekmoor and Broadstone, increasing callout times by 3 minutes. This evening was a perfect display of scared councillors passing the buck, with the attitude of "it's not in my ward, so we'll vote for it to ensure it never is". The most insulting thing of all, is that the local residents were never consulted, despite telling the press to the contrary. Is it legal to press ahead with proposals like this without consultation? We live in an era of democracy, but have fallen far from that tonight!
This is highly responsible towards permanent residents as we will be able to use the play areas, football pitches and other open spaces all year round instead of having them used for much of the summer as travellers' sites. Illegal eviction without a court order of anyone, including travellers, is a very expensive business and could cost the council hundreds of thousands of pounds every time. That's why temporary sites are needed, because the council can't get eviction orders at the moment without them. These sites exist all over the country and it's about time Poole stopped carrying on as if it's on another planet and fitted in with this way of doing things-for everyone's benefit.
[quote][p][bold]daveweb[/bold] wrote: Tonights decision was the wrong one! Last time the gypsies came to Creekmoor, crime rose by 78%. My sister, a single mother in the area, was scared for her safety as each evening she heard gunshots from the illegal camp. Furniture and other items were stolen from neighbours gardens and the local farmers field was left in a mess. This will not benefit anyone in Poole - this proposed site is on the main thoroughfare into the town from the west - what does that say to tourists when they see travellers as they come into the town? Let me also make it clear that this is not a 'temporary' site. This is permanent and ongoing. We have been told by our local councillors that phase one will include 12 pitches, and the next phase more than 20 (something they omitted from this evenings meeting.) This will cost Poole tax payers more than 250,000, with further money being required to maintain the site in the coming years, a crazy move when we have just been told that our bus service is being cut by 100,000 as Poole Council have insufficient funds!!! Poole already has a permanent traveller facility at Mannings Heath - which was smashed and ruined. Poole is already doing more for the gypsy community than others. This site will prevent the fire service from further expansion, local businesses will block their car park access for their protection and will subsequently close the agreed access for the fire brigade to cut across to Creekmoor and Broadstone, increasing callout times by 3 minutes. This evening was a perfect display of scared councillors passing the buck, with the attitude of "it's not in my ward, so we'll vote for it to ensure it never is". The most insulting thing of all, is that the local residents were never consulted, despite telling the press to the contrary. Is it legal to press ahead with proposals like this without consultation? We live in an era of democracy, but have fallen far from that tonight![/p][/quote]This is highly responsible towards permanent residents as we will be able to use the play areas, football pitches and other open spaces all year round instead of having them used for much of the summer as travellers' sites. Illegal eviction without a court order of anyone, including travellers, is a very expensive business and could cost the council hundreds of thousands of pounds every time. That's why temporary sites are needed, because the council can't get eviction orders at the moment without them. These sites exist all over the country and it's about time Poole stopped carrying on as if it's on another planet and fitted in with this way of doing things-for everyone's benefit. ashleycross
  • Score: 0

9:37pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

JACIE01 wrote:
fivespoke wrote:
N Smith wrote:
fivespoke wrote:
Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole.

Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.
And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick
I am a lifelong resident of Poole who has seen the situation with illegal encampments repeat over the last couple of decades.

Like it or not , the only way to effectively stop those encampments is to provide transit sites, and there's only so much land available in the town.
Where's the Bournemouth one?
KIngs Park is used as a traveller's site because the council haven't built a proper site.
[quote][p][bold]JACIE01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fivespoke[/bold] wrote: Good on the councillors for making a tough decision which they knew would not be popular but which is ultimately necessary, and which is made for the good of the town as a whole. Having transit pitches in the town will give the council greater power to control the unauthorised encampments which have repeatedly caused problems in the town for years and years. I'm sure that everyone who is so angry at this decision would be happy to have that situation continue for years to come.[/p][/quote]And I bet you live no where near Creekmoor,people like you make me sick[/p][/quote]I am a lifelong resident of Poole who has seen the situation with illegal encampments repeat over the last couple of decades. Like it or not , the only way to effectively stop those encampments is to provide transit sites, and there's only so much land available in the town.[/p][/quote]Where's the Bournemouth one?[/p][/quote]KIngs Park is used as a traveller's site because the council haven't built a proper site. ashleycross
  • Score: 2

9:41pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

MCAME1989 wrote:
Police say if the council provides a transit site, any travellers moving onto Poole's public open spaces could be evicted within 24-hours or have their cars and caravans impounded if they fail to comply with the eviction notice.

Ha ha ha yeah rite!
They don't have the guts!
They wouldn't even give parking tickets out when they were at baiter!
It's not about guts-its about having to let them camp there if you don't have a site available. If they were to evict them without a court order it would be the same as any illegal eviction, like from a house-and could cost the council and police thousands in compensation per person, so multiplied by the number of people in a camp, quite a lot of money from the public purse.
[quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: Police say if the council provides a transit site, any travellers moving onto Poole's public open spaces could be evicted within 24-hours or have their cars and caravans impounded if they fail to comply with the eviction notice. Ha ha ha yeah rite! They don't have the guts! They wouldn't even give parking tickets out when they were at baiter![/p][/quote]It's not about guts-its about having to let them camp there if you don't have a site available. If they were to evict them without a court order it would be the same as any illegal eviction, like from a house-and could cost the council and police thousands in compensation per person, so multiplied by the number of people in a camp, quite a lot of money from the public purse. ashleycross
  • Score: -5

9:43pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

But when the transit sites are fully occupied exactly the same procedure as last year will have to be gone through to move on any additional ones who arrive and park illegally as they did. You can't direct them to a site which is already full. It might cut down the number of court actions but it won't get rid of them. We will still be paying to evict them as well as for the site on which a few can be accommodated.
.......
Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand.
But when the transit sites are fully occupied exactly the same procedure as last year will have to be gone through to move on any additional ones who arrive and park illegally as they did. You can't direct them to a site which is already full. It might cut down the number of court actions but it won't get rid of them. We will still be paying to evict them as well as for the site on which a few can be accommodated. ....... Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand. Carolyn43
  • Score: 2

9:44pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

sue2bu wrote:
Does the council honestly think these travellers will even want to stay on this site. They will choose where they want to go knowing they will not be moved and enjoy the disruption to all like they did last year. They need to ensure the police can move them on or give them hefty fines or take away their cars, caravans etc to pay for their fines.
Its not about whether they want to stay on the site-its about being able to get a court order and move travellers on from the play areas and recreation grounds they use at the moment. The council can't get the court orders to move them at the moment because there are no temporary sites available. They don't have to like them, just the fact they are there makes it possible to get eviction orders. No order, no right for the council and police to move travellers on.
[quote][p][bold]sue2bu[/bold] wrote: Does the council honestly think these travellers will even want to stay on this site. They will choose where they want to go knowing they will not be moved and enjoy the disruption to all like they did last year. They need to ensure the police can move them on or give them hefty fines or take away their cars, caravans etc to pay for their fines.[/p][/quote]Its not about whether they want to stay on the site-its about being able to get a court order and move travellers on from the play areas and recreation grounds they use at the moment. The council can't get the court orders to move them at the moment because there are no temporary sites available. They don't have to like them, just the fact they are there makes it possible to get eviction orders. No order, no right for the council and police to move travellers on. ashleycross
  • Score: 3

9:48pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

Townee wrote:
Remember Poole residents to use your vote at the next election and make your vote count.
Councillors remember the decision that cost you your job
Compared to the number at the meeting last night, there at least a hundred times the number of people who couldn't use the play areas, recreation grounds and open spaces taken over as travellers sites last year who will be delighted that a temporary site is being opened this year and will turn out to vote for their councillors in gratitude.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Remember Poole residents to use your vote at the next election and make your vote count. Councillors remember the decision that cost you your job[/p][/quote]Compared to the number at the meeting last night, there at least a hundred times the number of people who couldn't use the play areas, recreation grounds and open spaces taken over as travellers sites last year who will be delighted that a temporary site is being opened this year and will turn out to vote for their councillors in gratitude. ashleycross
  • Score: 1

9:51pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
But when the transit sites are fully occupied exactly the same procedure as last year will have to be gone through to move on any additional ones who arrive and park illegally as they did. You can't direct them to a site which is already full. It might cut down the number of court actions but it won't get rid of them. We will still be paying to evict them as well as for the site on which a few can be accommodated.
.......
Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand.
You might have a point, but its better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
Also Poole currently attracts travellers who don't want to stay on an official site, They will be deterred from coming here by the prospect of not being able to stay in the open spaces anonymously but having to give formal ID for the official site.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: But when the transit sites are fully occupied exactly the same procedure as last year will have to be gone through to move on any additional ones who arrive and park illegally as they did. You can't direct them to a site which is already full. It might cut down the number of court actions but it won't get rid of them. We will still be paying to evict them as well as for the site on which a few can be accommodated. ....... Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand.[/p][/quote]You might have a point, but its better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness. Also Poole currently attracts travellers who don't want to stay on an official site, They will be deterred from coming here by the prospect of not being able to stay in the open spaces anonymously but having to give formal ID for the official site. ashleycross
  • Score: 1

10:50pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Yankee1 says...

susi.m wrote:
Yankee1 wrote:
I may be missing something. I admit I am not an expert on this issue.

But...and I ask this with all humility....why should one segment of society be afforded facilities at the expense of the public purse that are not afforded to others....especially when this segment is transient and has no roots in the borough?

If you or I (who do pay local property taxes) role up with our caravans to camp for free on a public amenity, we would be moved on - at best.

Are 'travelers' a favoured group? If so, why? Why cannot any group demand the same 'amentities' at the expense of the public purse?

Where is the legislation that affords them rights over those of law abiding, tax paying residents? I have no issue with them personally; it is the unequal status that I question.
The last Government (Labour) brought in a silly law that over protects the rights of these so called Travellers. Until this law is changed, unfortunately, Councils have to provide sites for these non tax paying people.
I suggest that anyone against this site DOES NOT vote labour in the next elections and in addition DOES NOT vote for any of the councillors who voted in favour or abstained in last nights vote
It sounds to me that this law is discriminatory, and the resident ratepayers are the losers. It is nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: I may be missing something. I admit I am not an expert on this issue. But...and I ask this with all humility....why should one segment of society be afforded facilities at the expense of the public purse that are not afforded to others....especially when this segment is transient and has no roots in the borough? If you or I (who do pay local property taxes) role up with our caravans to camp for free on a public amenity, we would be moved on - at best. Are 'travelers' a favoured group? If so, why? Why cannot any group demand the same 'amentities' at the expense of the public purse? Where is the legislation that affords them rights over those of law abiding, tax paying residents? I have no issue with them personally; it is the unequal status that I question.[/p][/quote]The last Government (Labour) brought in a silly law that over protects the rights of these so called Travellers. Until this law is changed, unfortunately, Councils have to provide sites for these non tax paying people. I suggest that anyone against this site DOES NOT vote labour in the next elections and in addition DOES NOT vote for any of the councillors who voted in favour or abstained in last nights vote[/p][/quote]It sounds to me that this law is discriminatory, and the resident ratepayers are the losers. It is nonsense. Yankee1
  • Score: 5

11:08pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

ashleycross wrote:
daveweb wrote:
Tonights decision was the wrong one! Last time the gypsies came to Creekmoor, crime rose by 78%. My sister, a single mother in the area, was scared for her safety as each evening she heard gunshots from the illegal camp. Furniture and other items were stolen from neighbours gardens and the local farmers field was left in a mess. This will not benefit anyone in Poole - this proposed site is on the main thoroughfare into the town from the west - what does that say to tourists when they see travellers as they come into the town? Let me also make it clear that this is not a 'temporary' site. This is permanent and ongoing. We have been told by our local councillors that phase one will include 12 pitches, and the next phase more than 20 (something they omitted from this evenings meeting.) This will cost Poole tax payers more than 250,000, with further money being required to maintain the site in the coming years, a crazy move when we have just been told that our bus service is being cut by 100,000 as Poole Council have insufficient funds!!! Poole already has a permanent traveller facility at Mannings Heath - which was smashed and ruined. Poole is already doing more for the gypsy community than others. This site will prevent the fire service from further expansion, local businesses will block their car park access for their protection and will subsequently close the agreed access for the fire brigade to cut across to Creekmoor and Broadstone, increasing callout times by 3 minutes. This evening was a perfect display of scared councillors passing the buck, with the attitude of "it's not in my ward, so we'll vote for it to ensure it never is". The most insulting thing of all, is that the local residents were never consulted, despite telling the press to the contrary. Is it legal to press ahead with proposals like this without consultation? We live in an era of democracy, but have fallen far from that tonight!
This is highly responsible towards permanent residents as we will be able to use the play areas, football pitches and other open spaces all year round instead of having them used for much of the summer as travellers' sites. Illegal eviction without a court order of anyone, including travellers, is a very expensive business and could cost the council hundreds of thousands of pounds every time. That's why temporary sites are needed, because the council can't get eviction orders at the moment without them. These sites exist all over the country and it's about time Poole stopped carrying on as if it's on another planet and fitted in with this way of doing things-for everyone's benefit.
So let's build a transit site in Ashley Cross then, eh?
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]daveweb[/bold] wrote: Tonights decision was the wrong one! Last time the gypsies came to Creekmoor, crime rose by 78%. My sister, a single mother in the area, was scared for her safety as each evening she heard gunshots from the illegal camp. Furniture and other items were stolen from neighbours gardens and the local farmers field was left in a mess. This will not benefit anyone in Poole - this proposed site is on the main thoroughfare into the town from the west - what does that say to tourists when they see travellers as they come into the town? Let me also make it clear that this is not a 'temporary' site. This is permanent and ongoing. We have been told by our local councillors that phase one will include 12 pitches, and the next phase more than 20 (something they omitted from this evenings meeting.) This will cost Poole tax payers more than 250,000, with further money being required to maintain the site in the coming years, a crazy move when we have just been told that our bus service is being cut by 100,000 as Poole Council have insufficient funds!!! Poole already has a permanent traveller facility at Mannings Heath - which was smashed and ruined. Poole is already doing more for the gypsy community than others. This site will prevent the fire service from further expansion, local businesses will block their car park access for their protection and will subsequently close the agreed access for the fire brigade to cut across to Creekmoor and Broadstone, increasing callout times by 3 minutes. This evening was a perfect display of scared councillors passing the buck, with the attitude of "it's not in my ward, so we'll vote for it to ensure it never is". The most insulting thing of all, is that the local residents were never consulted, despite telling the press to the contrary. Is it legal to press ahead with proposals like this without consultation? We live in an era of democracy, but have fallen far from that tonight![/p][/quote]This is highly responsible towards permanent residents as we will be able to use the play areas, football pitches and other open spaces all year round instead of having them used for much of the summer as travellers' sites. Illegal eviction without a court order of anyone, including travellers, is a very expensive business and could cost the council hundreds of thousands of pounds every time. That's why temporary sites are needed, because the council can't get eviction orders at the moment without them. These sites exist all over the country and it's about time Poole stopped carrying on as if it's on another planet and fitted in with this way of doing things-for everyone's benefit.[/p][/quote]So let's build a transit site in Ashley Cross then, eh? Jo__Go
  • Score: 1

11:21pm Tue 28 Jan 14

John T says...

Yankee1 wrote:
susi.m wrote:
Yankee1 wrote:
I may be missing something. I admit I am not an expert on this issue.

But...and I ask this with all humility....why should one segment of society be afforded facilities at the expense of the public purse that are not afforded to others....especially when this segment is transient and has no roots in the borough?

If you or I (who do pay local property taxes) role up with our caravans to camp for free on a public amenity, we would be moved on - at best.

Are 'travelers' a favoured group? If so, why? Why cannot any group demand the same 'amentities' at the expense of the public purse?

Where is the legislation that affords them rights over those of law abiding, tax paying residents? I have no issue with them personally; it is the unequal status that I question.
The last Government (Labour) brought in a silly law that over protects the rights of these so called Travellers. Until this law is changed, unfortunately, Councils have to provide sites for these non tax paying people.
I suggest that anyone against this site DOES NOT vote labour in the next elections and in addition DOES NOT vote for any of the councillors who voted in favour or abstained in last nights vote
It sounds to me that this law is discriminatory, and the resident ratepayers are the losers. It is nonsense.
Yes, it stinks a bit like your Yankee Companies, Starbucks, Amazon and Google doing sharp business in Britain and not paying any taxes here.
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: I may be missing something. I admit I am not an expert on this issue. But...and I ask this with all humility....why should one segment of society be afforded facilities at the expense of the public purse that are not afforded to others....especially when this segment is transient and has no roots in the borough? If you or I (who do pay local property taxes) role up with our caravans to camp for free on a public amenity, we would be moved on - at best. Are 'travelers' a favoured group? If so, why? Why cannot any group demand the same 'amentities' at the expense of the public purse? Where is the legislation that affords them rights over those of law abiding, tax paying residents? I have no issue with them personally; it is the unequal status that I question.[/p][/quote]The last Government (Labour) brought in a silly law that over protects the rights of these so called Travellers. Until this law is changed, unfortunately, Councils have to provide sites for these non tax paying people. I suggest that anyone against this site DOES NOT vote labour in the next elections and in addition DOES NOT vote for any of the councillors who voted in favour or abstained in last nights vote[/p][/quote]It sounds to me that this law is discriminatory, and the resident ratepayers are the losers. It is nonsense.[/p][/quote]Yes, it stinks a bit like your Yankee Companies, Starbucks, Amazon and Google doing sharp business in Britain and not paying any taxes here. John T
  • Score: 6

7:35am Wed 29 Jan 14

kazza98765 says...

I have a great idea why don't we round them up and send them to Europe there are a couple of good places like auschwiz. We can also send the poor the disabled and anyone else that do not fit into your wonderful lives and that way everyone left will be the same. Oh sorry hitler already did that!!! the world is made up of many different people but it seems u lot want us all to fit in the boxes u want us to fit into well grow up this is the real world and its life
I have a great idea why don't we round them up and send them to Europe there are a couple of good places like auschwiz. We can also send the poor the disabled and anyone else that do not fit into your wonderful lives and that way everyone left will be the same. Oh sorry hitler already did that!!! the world is made up of many different people but it seems u lot want us all to fit in the boxes u want us to fit into well grow up this is the real world and its life kazza98765
  • Score: 2

8:27am Wed 29 Jan 14

moleman says...

pacamar wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state.

Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?
It is open and fully operational except for the transit pitches, the two together didn't work and led to huge bills. The nearby bussinesses seem quite happy to continue trading and even expand. The proposed sites are just as remote to homes, if not more remote. There is a planning process yet to go through which ought to be used constructively to ensure no access to Upton Road, thus overcoming one fear (and making it more remote from homes than the existing Mannings Heath site). The negatives have been hyped up big time, and if provided people will likely end up wondering what all the fuss was about. With a bit of luck it will barely be used - and that will be a measure of it's success!
How can spending £250,000 on something you say will barely be used possibly be described as "a success"?
If I spend a large amount of money on something I never use it is called a disaster, not a success.
[quote][p][bold]pacamar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?[/p][/quote]It is open and fully operational except for the transit pitches, the two together didn't work and led to huge bills. The nearby bussinesses seem quite happy to continue trading and even expand. The proposed sites are just as remote to homes, if not more remote. There is a planning process yet to go through which ought to be used constructively to ensure no access to Upton Road, thus overcoming one fear (and making it more remote from homes than the existing Mannings Heath site). The negatives have been hyped up big time, and if provided people will likely end up wondering what all the fuss was about. With a bit of luck it will barely be used - and that will be a measure of it's success![/p][/quote]How can spending £250,000 on something you say will barely be used possibly be described as "a success"?[/p][/quote]If I spend a large amount of money on something I never use it is called a disaster, not a success. moleman
  • Score: 3

8:36am Wed 29 Jan 14

Ferret24 says...

Dog walker

The Liberal Counsellors who believe that the travellers are going to arrive on these sites and stay put 24/7 until they leave are very misguided. Poole has its flagship Grammer School within walking distance of these sites and there is still a term left after these sites open. Parents from all over the borough send their children here but obviously not any related to Liberal Counsellors. This school will be affected by travellers hanging around the area but perhaps another school in Poole run by a Liberal Counsellor is ready to take over? Parents should be worried if this goes ahead, as should the school its self, The Fleetsbridge, Tesco, B&Q and any other business in the area.
Dog walker The Liberal Counsellors who believe that the travellers are going to arrive on these sites and stay put 24/7 until they leave are very misguided. Poole has its flagship Grammer School within walking distance of these sites and there is still a term left after these sites open. Parents from all over the borough send their children here but obviously not any related to Liberal Counsellors. This school will be affected by travellers hanging around the area but perhaps another school in Poole run by a Liberal Counsellor is ready to take over? Parents should be worried if this goes ahead, as should the school its self, The Fleetsbridge, Tesco, B&Q and any other business in the area. Ferret24
  • Score: 0

8:41am Wed 29 Jan 14

Trophy1980 says...

I think that this decision is the lesser of two evils. Something has to be done about this issue and I hope B&Q have a good security system.
I feel sorry for anyone that has will be affected by any permanent site, but am glad it's not in my back yard down in Sandbanks.
I think that this decision is the lesser of two evils. Something has to be done about this issue and I hope B&Q have a good security system. I feel sorry for anyone that has will be affected by any permanent site, but am glad it's not in my back yard down in Sandbanks. Trophy1980
  • Score: -1

9:34am Wed 29 Jan 14

DorsetFerret says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
So who does look for endangered flora and fauna on a site and have that site declared off limits because of it? Has the Poole Residents' Association contacted whoever does it?
.........
But if contamination with methane and asbestos isn't sufficient to make the site unsuitable, what will be?
Have a look at http://www.naturalen
gland.org.uk/ourwork
/conservation/design
ations/sssi/
It provides some advice. Also write (email) your planning officer and ask to ensure a survey is undertaken before any building work is undertaken.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: So who does look for endangered flora and fauna on a site and have that site declared off limits because of it? Has the Poole Residents' Association contacted whoever does it? ......... But if contamination with methane and asbestos isn't sufficient to make the site unsuitable, what will be?[/p][/quote]Have a look at http://www.naturalen gland.org.uk/ourwork /conservation/design ations/sssi/ It provides some advice. Also write (email) your planning officer and ask to ensure a survey is undertaken before any building work is undertaken. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 3

10:31am Wed 29 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
I was at the meeting last night, well actually I was outside it because for some strange reason the Council had decided to hold this emergency meeting in The Council Chambers instead of the room downstairs where public council meetings are normally held, that room happens to be twice the size and would have accommodated everyone who was there. Needless to say that room remained empty all night, maybe our good Mayor Phil Eades didn't want too many people opposing his plan, well even though there were plenty there against it, the idea was passed regardless and now it goes to the planning committee, will anyone on there stop this madness idea, of course not because Mayor Philip Eades is on the planning committee. So the council will waste a quarter of a million pounds on this project that once completed the travelers probably will refuse to use anyway, much like the failed site in Exeter some time back. Has there been any real research into this plan other than how much it will cost ? Phil Eades just like all other LibDems cannot seem to realise that the money the council receives from the people should be spent on those people and not on those who do not contribute a single penny to the community. It seems to be a LieDem policy throughout the country, look after anyone other than the British public who pay your wages and who you were elected to serve. I sincerely hope that people remember to thank them for their efforts at the ballot boxes in next years local council elections. That whole meeting last night was a farce!
So the residents of Branksome, Newtown, Whitecliff, Broadstone, Canford Heath and the Old Town are not residents of the UK then?
And just before you try to make a UKIP point, Southern Ireland is a fully integrated EU member, and has been held up by many as the Government that has done most to tackle the traveller issue.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: I was at the meeting last night, well actually I was outside it because for some strange reason the Council had decided to hold this emergency meeting in The Council Chambers instead of the room downstairs where public council meetings are normally held, that room happens to be twice the size and would have accommodated everyone who was there. Needless to say that room remained empty all night, maybe our good Mayor Phil Eades didn't want too many people opposing his plan, well even though there were plenty there against it, the idea was passed regardless and now it goes to the planning committee, will anyone on there stop this madness idea, of course not because Mayor Philip Eades is on the planning committee. So the council will waste a quarter of a million pounds on this project that once completed the travelers probably will refuse to use anyway, much like the failed site in Exeter some time back. Has there been any real research into this plan other than how much it will cost ? Phil Eades just like all other LibDems cannot seem to realise that the money the council receives from the people should be spent on those people and not on those who do not contribute a single penny to the community. It seems to be a LieDem policy throughout the country, look after anyone other than the British public who pay your wages and who you were elected to serve. I sincerely hope that people remember to thank them for their efforts at the ballot boxes in next years local council elections. That whole meeting last night was a farce![/p][/quote]So the residents of Branksome, Newtown, Whitecliff, Broadstone, Canford Heath and the Old Town are not residents of the UK then? And just before you try to make a UKIP point, Southern Ireland is a fully integrated EU member, and has been held up by many as the Government that has done most to tackle the traveller issue. Tony Trent
  • Score: -4

10:34am Wed 29 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

ashleycross wrote:
sue2bu wrote:
Does the council honestly think these travellers will even want to stay on this site. They will choose where they want to go knowing they will not be moved and enjoy the disruption to all like they did last year. They need to ensure the police can move them on or give them hefty fines or take away their cars, caravans etc to pay for their fines.
Its not about whether they want to stay on the site-its about being able to get a court order and move travellers on from the play areas and recreation grounds they use at the moment. The council can't get the court orders to move them at the moment because there are no temporary sites available. They don't have to like them, just the fact they are there makes it possible to get eviction orders. No order, no right for the council and police to move travellers on.
Are you really saying that the travelers are above the laws that we taxpayers must abide by, so that means the taxpayers have to pay even more to accommodate them? Anyone else see a problem with that scenario?
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sue2bu[/bold] wrote: Does the council honestly think these travellers will even want to stay on this site. They will choose where they want to go knowing they will not be moved and enjoy the disruption to all like they did last year. They need to ensure the police can move them on or give them hefty fines or take away their cars, caravans etc to pay for their fines.[/p][/quote]Its not about whether they want to stay on the site-its about being able to get a court order and move travellers on from the play areas and recreation grounds they use at the moment. The council can't get the court orders to move them at the moment because there are no temporary sites available. They don't have to like them, just the fact they are there makes it possible to get eviction orders. No order, no right for the council and police to move travellers on.[/p][/quote]Are you really saying that the travelers are above the laws that we taxpayers must abide by, so that means the taxpayers have to pay even more to accommodate them? Anyone else see a problem with that scenario? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 3

10:42am Wed 29 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

ashleycross wrote:
Townee wrote:
Remember Poole residents to use your vote at the next election and make your vote count.
Councillors remember the decision that cost you your job
Compared to the number at the meeting last night, there at least a hundred times the number of people who couldn't use the play areas, recreation grounds and open spaces taken over as travellers sites last year who will be delighted that a temporary site is being opened this year and will turn out to vote for their councillors in gratitude.
I know not a lot on here want to hear it but ashleycross makes a good point, and if he lives in Ashley Cross then he can hardly be described as a NIMBY as Whitecliff was probably the nearest encampment. There was a problem to which residents were crying out "do something". This was the best solution, based on advice sought, currently available within the law. The alternative was to carry on doing nothing new. I wonder whether the vitriolic posters on here would be singing a different song if the travellers took over their green area or play park on their doorstep and couldn't be moved on for 14 days.
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Remember Poole residents to use your vote at the next election and make your vote count. Councillors remember the decision that cost you your job[/p][/quote]Compared to the number at the meeting last night, there at least a hundred times the number of people who couldn't use the play areas, recreation grounds and open spaces taken over as travellers sites last year who will be delighted that a temporary site is being opened this year and will turn out to vote for their councillors in gratitude.[/p][/quote]I know not a lot on here want to hear it but ashleycross makes a good point, and if he lives in Ashley Cross then he can hardly be described as a NIMBY as Whitecliff was probably the nearest encampment. There was a problem to which residents were crying out "do something". This was the best solution, based on advice sought, currently available within the law. The alternative was to carry on doing nothing new. I wonder whether the vitriolic posters on here would be singing a different song if the travellers took over their green area or play park on their doorstep and couldn't be moved on for 14 days. Tony Trent
  • Score: 1

10:43am Wed 29 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
I was at the meeting last night, well actually I was outside it because for some strange reason the Council had decided to hold this emergency meeting in The Council Chambers instead of the room downstairs where public council meetings are normally held, that room happens to be twice the size and would have accommodated everyone who was there. Needless to say that room remained empty all night, maybe our good Mayor Phil Eades didn't want too many people opposing his plan, well even though there were plenty there against it, the idea was passed regardless and now it goes to the planning committee, will anyone on there stop this madness idea, of course not because Mayor Philip Eades is on the planning committee. So the council will waste a quarter of a million pounds on this project that once completed the travelers probably will refuse to use anyway, much like the failed site in Exeter some time back. Has there been any real research into this plan other than how much it will cost ? Phil Eades just like all other LibDems cannot seem to realise that the money the council receives from the people should be spent on those people and not on those who do not contribute a single penny to the community. It seems to be a LieDem policy throughout the country, look after anyone other than the British public who pay your wages and who you were elected to serve. I sincerely hope that people remember to thank them for their efforts at the ballot boxes in next years local council elections. That whole meeting last night was a farce!
So the residents of Branksome, Newtown, Whitecliff, Broadstone, Canford Heath and the Old Town are not residents of the UK then?
And just before you try to make a UKIP point, Southern Ireland is a fully integrated EU member, and has been held up by many as the Government that has done most to tackle the traveller issue.
You have me at a loss there Tony, where in my comment did I imply that people of Branksome, Newtown etc are not residents of the UK. I happen to live in the Branksome West ward and my main concern about all of this is not the locality but the sheer waste of £250,000 of taxpayers money on something that will not be used or if it does get used will most certainly wrecked in the same way that the Mannings Heath site did and will then end up costing the taxpayers a far lot more. That by the way is not a UKIP point it happens to be a common sense point, but I can see your confusion as UKIP does make a lot of common sense judgements.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: I was at the meeting last night, well actually I was outside it because for some strange reason the Council had decided to hold this emergency meeting in The Council Chambers instead of the room downstairs where public council meetings are normally held, that room happens to be twice the size and would have accommodated everyone who was there. Needless to say that room remained empty all night, maybe our good Mayor Phil Eades didn't want too many people opposing his plan, well even though there were plenty there against it, the idea was passed regardless and now it goes to the planning committee, will anyone on there stop this madness idea, of course not because Mayor Philip Eades is on the planning committee. So the council will waste a quarter of a million pounds on this project that once completed the travelers probably will refuse to use anyway, much like the failed site in Exeter some time back. Has there been any real research into this plan other than how much it will cost ? Phil Eades just like all other LibDems cannot seem to realise that the money the council receives from the people should be spent on those people and not on those who do not contribute a single penny to the community. It seems to be a LieDem policy throughout the country, look after anyone other than the British public who pay your wages and who you were elected to serve. I sincerely hope that people remember to thank them for their efforts at the ballot boxes in next years local council elections. That whole meeting last night was a farce![/p][/quote]So the residents of Branksome, Newtown, Whitecliff, Broadstone, Canford Heath and the Old Town are not residents of the UK then? And just before you try to make a UKIP point, Southern Ireland is a fully integrated EU member, and has been held up by many as the Government that has done most to tackle the traveller issue.[/p][/quote]You have me at a loss there Tony, where in my comment did I imply that people of Branksome, Newtown etc are not residents of the UK. I happen to live in the Branksome West ward and my main concern about all of this is not the locality but the sheer waste of £250,000 of taxpayers money on something that will not be used or if it does get used will most certainly wrecked in the same way that the Mannings Heath site did and will then end up costing the taxpayers a far lot more. That by the way is not a UKIP point it happens to be a common sense point, but I can see your confusion as UKIP does make a lot of common sense judgements. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

11:12am Wed 29 Jan 14

John T says...

moleman wrote:
pacamar wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state.

Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?
It is open and fully operational except for the transit pitches, the two together didn't work and led to huge bills. The nearby bussinesses seem quite happy to continue trading and even expand. The proposed sites are just as remote to homes, if not more remote. There is a planning process yet to go through which ought to be used constructively to ensure no access to Upton Road, thus overcoming one fear (and making it more remote from homes than the existing Mannings Heath site). The negatives have been hyped up big time, and if provided people will likely end up wondering what all the fuss was about. With a bit of luck it will barely be used - and that will be a measure of it's success!
How can spending £250,000 on something you say will barely be used possibly be described as "a success"?
If I spend a large amount of money on something I never use it is called a disaster, not a success.
pacamac
You mean a bit like Trident missiles, for example?
[quote][p][bold]moleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pacamar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?[/p][/quote]It is open and fully operational except for the transit pitches, the two together didn't work and led to huge bills. The nearby bussinesses seem quite happy to continue trading and even expand. The proposed sites are just as remote to homes, if not more remote. There is a planning process yet to go through which ought to be used constructively to ensure no access to Upton Road, thus overcoming one fear (and making it more remote from homes than the existing Mannings Heath site). The negatives have been hyped up big time, and if provided people will likely end up wondering what all the fuss was about. With a bit of luck it will barely be used - and that will be a measure of it's success![/p][/quote]How can spending £250,000 on something you say will barely be used possibly be described as "a success"?[/p][/quote]If I spend a large amount of money on something I never use it is called a disaster, not a success.[/p][/quote]pacamac You mean a bit like Trident missiles, for example? John T
  • Score: 4

12:06pm Wed 29 Jan 14

DorsetFerret says...

John T wrote:
moleman wrote:
pacamar wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state.

Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?
It is open and fully operational except for the transit pitches, the two together didn't work and led to huge bills. The nearby bussinesses seem quite happy to continue trading and even expand. The proposed sites are just as remote to homes, if not more remote. There is a planning process yet to go through which ought to be used constructively to ensure no access to Upton Road, thus overcoming one fear (and making it more remote from homes than the existing Mannings Heath site). The negatives have been hyped up big time, and if provided people will likely end up wondering what all the fuss was about. With a bit of luck it will barely be used - and that will be a measure of it's success!
How can spending £250,000 on something you say will barely be used possibly be described as "a success"?
If I spend a large amount of money on something I never use it is called a disaster, not a success.
pacamac
You mean a bit like Trident missiles, for example?
Gentlemen, you both make some interesting comments here but if I may say so are digressing from the main issues. May I just add a couple of points. (a) It's apparent that residents of Poole do not want travellers visiting the area and certainly not the privilege of having to fund them anywhere in the town. And (b) The council have already spent in excess of £300.00 so far on this exercise. By the time they have finished cost will exceed £750.000. This is why some residents of Creekmoor are a little peeved. Unless Bournemouth and Christchurch follow suit the project will be doomed to failure and a huge waste of ratepayers money.
[quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]moleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pacamar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: I really don't understand why the mannings heath site isn't re-opened. It's still there! This would cost less than £17500 to get back into a fit state. Why build something new when something old already exists for the same purpose?[/p][/quote]It is open and fully operational except for the transit pitches, the two together didn't work and led to huge bills. The nearby bussinesses seem quite happy to continue trading and even expand. The proposed sites are just as remote to homes, if not more remote. There is a planning process yet to go through which ought to be used constructively to ensure no access to Upton Road, thus overcoming one fear (and making it more remote from homes than the existing Mannings Heath site). The negatives have been hyped up big time, and if provided people will likely end up wondering what all the fuss was about. With a bit of luck it will barely be used - and that will be a measure of it's success![/p][/quote]How can spending £250,000 on something you say will barely be used possibly be described as "a success"?[/p][/quote]If I spend a large amount of money on something I never use it is called a disaster, not a success.[/p][/quote]pacamac You mean a bit like Trident missiles, for example?[/p][/quote]Gentlemen, you both make some interesting comments here but if I may say so are digressing from the main issues. May I just add a couple of points. (a) It's apparent that residents of Poole do not want travellers visiting the area and certainly not the privilege of having to fund them anywhere in the town. And (b) The council have already spent in excess of £300.00 so far on this exercise. By the time they have finished cost will exceed £750.000. This is why some residents of Creekmoor are a little peeved. Unless Bournemouth and Christchurch follow suit the project will be doomed to failure and a huge waste of ratepayers money. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 8

3:52pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

Cllr Trent comments "This was the best solution, based on advice sought, currently available within the law. The alternative was to carry on doing nothing new. I wonder whether the vitriolic posters on here would be singing a different song if the travellers took over their green area or play park on their doorstep and couldn't be moved on for 14 days."
The facts of the case point very clearly to the advice given being utterly impractical, uncosted, and sadly lacking in any meaningful detail. Is that 'best advice' he expects from highly paid officers? The alternative is not 'nothing new' but something thought through and likely to be effective.
He lays great stress on play parks, does he not realise that one of the sites is literally right next door to, up close and personal with, a heavily used skate park?
He is defending the indefensible, having voted, along with his colleagues, not on the issues, not on the facts, but on the capricious whim of his petulant party leader. I had thought Tony Trent a bigger man than that...
Cllr Trent comments "This was the best solution, based on advice sought, currently available within the law. The alternative was to carry on doing nothing new. I wonder whether the vitriolic posters on here would be singing a different song if the travellers took over their green area or play park on their doorstep and couldn't be moved on for 14 days." The facts of the case point very clearly to the advice given being utterly impractical, uncosted, and sadly lacking in any meaningful detail. Is that 'best advice' he expects from highly paid officers? The alternative is not 'nothing new' but something thought through and likely to be effective. He lays great stress on play parks, does he not realise that one of the sites is literally right next door to, up close and personal with, a heavily used skate park? He is defending the indefensible, having voted, along with his colleagues, not on the issues, not on the facts, but on the capricious whim of his petulant party leader. I had thought Tony Trent a bigger man than that... Jo__Go
  • Score: 6

5:11pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Good folk of Creekmoor, the mayor and his (elected) friends got his way in the end and the proposal now moves on to the planning stage. No good crying into spilt milk but time to consider alternative strategies if we wish to put an end to our area becoming the dumping ground for ill considered schemes by the Borough of Poole. With the exception of claiming independence, what else can be done? Well, has anybody examined the importance to wildlife of this proposed site? It is one of the last remaining areas of salt marsh in the area. Although it may have been deemed unfit for human habitation in the consultants report there may be species there that are endangered. For example the whirlpool ramshorn snail, a rare salt marsh inhabitant, or the ladybird spider and large marsh grasshopper, again endangered species and that’s without getting going on amphibians and reptiles. After all, a few sand lizards stopped the building of a link road through from Bournemouth to Poole at Bourne valley!

Just food for thought, any other ideas would be welcome.
Yes our Mayor Phil Eades got his way and now it goes to the planning committee, no prizes for guessing who is on the planning committee, our Mayor Phil Eades. I wonder, if he is so confident in the success of this idea will he be willing to reimburse the council when it fails, maybe if it was his own money he was gambling with, he would take the time to investigate other sites where this same idea have failed already, try looking at Exeter for a good example. Obviously not enough thought or research has gone into this plan and the only losers will be the people of Poole.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: Good folk of Creekmoor, the mayor and his (elected) friends got his way in the end and the proposal now moves on to the planning stage. No good crying into spilt milk but time to consider alternative strategies if we wish to put an end to our area becoming the dumping ground for ill considered schemes by the Borough of Poole. With the exception of claiming independence, what else can be done? Well, has anybody examined the importance to wildlife of this proposed site? It is one of the last remaining areas of salt marsh in the area. Although it may have been deemed unfit for human habitation in the consultants report there may be species there that are endangered. For example the whirlpool ramshorn snail, a rare salt marsh inhabitant, or the ladybird spider and large marsh grasshopper, again endangered species and that’s without getting going on amphibians and reptiles. After all, a few sand lizards stopped the building of a link road through from Bournemouth to Poole at Bourne valley! Just food for thought, any other ideas would be welcome.[/p][/quote]Yes our Mayor Phil Eades got his way and now it goes to the planning committee, no prizes for guessing who is on the planning committee, our Mayor Phil Eades. I wonder, if he is so confident in the success of this idea will he be willing to reimburse the council when it fails, maybe if it was his own money he was gambling with, he would take the time to investigate other sites where this same idea have failed already, try looking at Exeter for a good example. Obviously not enough thought or research has gone into this plan and the only losers will be the people of Poole. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

5:38pm Wed 29 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

At the moment Poole is known internationally in the travelling community as a soft touch, in fact a complete pushover, as far as temporary encampments are concerned. It is so well known that Poole Council can't get eviction orders because there are no official sites available that word has spread and if something isn't done soon we'll have no open spaces left in Poole for most of the summer. I hope Dorset police get the resources they need to stop the disruption to the building and maintenance of these sites that has been threatened and in the case of the Mannings Heath site, actually carried out.
At the moment Poole is known internationally in the travelling community as a soft touch, in fact a complete pushover, as far as temporary encampments are concerned. It is so well known that Poole Council can't get eviction orders because there are no official sites available that word has spread and if something isn't done soon we'll have no open spaces left in Poole for most of the summer. I hope Dorset police get the resources they need to stop the disruption to the building and maintenance of these sites that has been threatened and in the case of the Mannings Heath site, actually carried out. ashleycross
  • Score: 4

6:14pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Tony Trent said: "And just before you try to make a UKIP point, Southern Ireland is a fully integrated EU member, and has been held up by many as the Government that has done most to tackle the traveller issue."
......
Yes they refuse to acknowledge travellers as an ethnic group, unlike Poole Council.
.......
Would be nice if Lib Dem councillors didn't act as sheep and follow their leader off the cliff edge.
Tony Trent said: "And just before you try to make a UKIP point, Southern Ireland is a fully integrated EU member, and has been held up by many as the Government that has done most to tackle the traveller issue." ...... Yes they refuse to acknowledge travellers as an ethnic group, unlike Poole Council. ....... Would be nice if Lib Dem councillors didn't act as sheep and follow their leader off the cliff edge. Carolyn43
  • Score: 5

6:26pm Wed 29 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

By all means have a go at Eades,and other parties,but remember UKIP are just using this for extra publicity.
By all means have a go at Eades,and other parties,but remember UKIP are just using this for extra publicity. pete woodley
  • Score: -5

6:41pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

pete woodley wrote:
By all means have a go at Eades,and other parties,but remember UKIP are just using this for extra publicity.
Of course any UKIP member/supporter would not be alarmed in seeing the council waste money in this way and pointing out that similar schemes have been tried and failed elsewhere is purely done for extra publicity. Maybe you should really be wondering why it is that I know about the failed Exeter project and yet those elected to serve our best interests couldn't be bothered to find out! I certainly wasn't waving the UKIP flag when I attended the meeting, did you go?
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: By all means have a go at Eades,and other parties,but remember UKIP are just using this for extra publicity.[/p][/quote]Of course any UKIP member/supporter would not be alarmed in seeing the council waste money in this way and pointing out that similar schemes have been tried and failed elsewhere is purely done for extra publicity. Maybe you should really be wondering why it is that I know about the failed Exeter project and yet those elected to serve our best interests couldn't be bothered to find out! I certainly wasn't waving the UKIP flag when I attended the meeting, did you go? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

pete woodley wrote:
By all means have a go at Eades,and other parties,but remember UKIP are just using this for extra publicity.
I'm not a member or a supporter of any political party.
......
If I had my way no member of a political party would be allowed to stand as a councillor. Councils would be run as a business by people who can run successful businesses so any project would be carefully and properly thought through so it could be, as near as possible, be the best project to deliver the best outcome for the people of an area.
......
At the moment councillors are members of political parties and toe the party line regardless of whether or not something is good for the area or how much it costs and whether or not it will fail - Park and Ride being a good example. Some of them will be business people, with their own businesses. You can't tell me that any of them can be impartial if a proposal would affect their own business. They will naturally make sure that neither they nor their business will suffer regardless of what's in the best interests of the people of the area.
.....
Obviously I have a very low opinion of politicians both local and national and wouldn't expect any of them to successfully arrange a "party" in a brewery.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: By all means have a go at Eades,and other parties,but remember UKIP are just using this for extra publicity.[/p][/quote]I'm not a member or a supporter of any political party. ...... If I had my way no member of a political party would be allowed to stand as a councillor. Councils would be run as a business by people who can run successful businesses so any project would be carefully and properly thought through so it could be, as near as possible, be the best project to deliver the best outcome for the people of an area. ...... At the moment councillors are members of political parties and toe the party line regardless of whether or not something is good for the area or how much it costs and whether or not it will fail - Park and Ride being a good example. Some of them will be business people, with their own businesses. You can't tell me that any of them can be impartial if a proposal would affect their own business. They will naturally make sure that neither they nor their business will suffer regardless of what's in the best interests of the people of the area. ..... Obviously I have a very low opinion of politicians both local and national and wouldn't expect any of them to successfully arrange a "party" in a brewery. Carolyn43
  • Score: -2

6:47pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

ashleycross wrote:
At the moment Poole is known internationally in the travelling community as a soft touch, in fact a complete pushover, as far as temporary encampments are concerned. It is so well known that Poole Council can't get eviction orders because there are no official sites available that word has spread and if something isn't done soon we'll have no open spaces left in Poole for most of the summer. I hope Dorset police get the resources they need to stop the disruption to the building and maintenance of these sites that has been threatened and in the case of the Mannings Heath site, actually carried out.
I hope that Dorset Police get the backbone to actually uphold the laws that the rest of us have to abide by, I am sure if they started doing that we wouldn't need a traveler site at all anyway.
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: At the moment Poole is known internationally in the travelling community as a soft touch, in fact a complete pushover, as far as temporary encampments are concerned. It is so well known that Poole Council can't get eviction orders because there are no official sites available that word has spread and if something isn't done soon we'll have no open spaces left in Poole for most of the summer. I hope Dorset police get the resources they need to stop the disruption to the building and maintenance of these sites that has been threatened and in the case of the Mannings Heath site, actually carried out.[/p][/quote]I hope that Dorset Police get the backbone to actually uphold the laws that the rest of us have to abide by, I am sure if they started doing that we wouldn't need a traveler site at all anyway. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 4

7:09pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
By all means have a go at Eades,and other parties,but remember UKIP are just using this for extra publicity.
I'm not a member or a supporter of any political party.
......
If I had my way no member of a political party would be allowed to stand as a councillor. Councils would be run as a business by people who can run successful businesses so any project would be carefully and properly thought through so it could be, as near as possible, be the best project to deliver the best outcome for the people of an area.
......
At the moment councillors are members of political parties and toe the party line regardless of whether or not something is good for the area or how much it costs and whether or not it will fail - Park and Ride being a good example. Some of them will be business people, with their own businesses. You can't tell me that any of them can be impartial if a proposal would affect their own business. They will naturally make sure that neither they nor their business will suffer regardless of what's in the best interests of the people of the area.
.....
Obviously I have a very low opinion of politicians both local and national and wouldn't expect any of them to successfully arrange a "party" in a brewery.
Well actually UKIP and I believe Poole People are the same in the sense there is no party line they have to stick to, Councillors are free to work in the best interest of their constituents
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: By all means have a go at Eades,and other parties,but remember UKIP are just using this for extra publicity.[/p][/quote]I'm not a member or a supporter of any political party. ...... If I had my way no member of a political party would be allowed to stand as a councillor. Councils would be run as a business by people who can run successful businesses so any project would be carefully and properly thought through so it could be, as near as possible, be the best project to deliver the best outcome for the people of an area. ...... At the moment councillors are members of political parties and toe the party line regardless of whether or not something is good for the area or how much it costs and whether or not it will fail - Park and Ride being a good example. Some of them will be business people, with their own businesses. You can't tell me that any of them can be impartial if a proposal would affect their own business. They will naturally make sure that neither they nor their business will suffer regardless of what's in the best interests of the people of the area. ..... Obviously I have a very low opinion of politicians both local and national and wouldn't expect any of them to successfully arrange a "party" in a brewery.[/p][/quote]Well actually UKIP and I believe Poole People are the same in the sense there is no party line they have to stick to, Councillors are free to work in the best interest of their constituents Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

7:48pm Wed 29 Jan 14

shedevil says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
I was at the meeting last night, well actually I was outside it because for some strange reason the Council had decided to hold this emergency meeting in The Council Chambers instead of the room downstairs where public council meetings are normally held, that room happens to be twice the size and would have accommodated everyone who was there. Needless to say that room remained empty all night, maybe our good Mayor Phil Eades didn't want too many people opposing his plan, well even though there were plenty there against it, the idea was passed regardless and now it goes to the planning committee, will anyone on there stop this madness idea, of course not because Mayor Philip Eades is on the planning committee. So the council will waste a quarter of a million pounds on this project that once completed the travelers probably will refuse to use anyway, much like the failed site in Exeter some time back. Has there been any real research into this plan other than how much it will cost ? Phil Eades just like all other LibDems cannot seem to realise that the money the council receives from the people should be spent on those people and not on those who do not contribute a single penny to the community. It seems to be a LieDem policy throughout the country, look after anyone other than the British public who pay your wages and who you were elected to serve. I sincerely hope that people remember to thank them for their efforts at the ballot boxes in next years local council elections. That whole meeting last night was a farce!
So the residents of Branksome, Newtown, Whitecliff, Broadstone, Canford Heath and the Old Town are not residents of the UK then?
And just before you try to make a UKIP point, Southern Ireland is a fully integrated EU member, and has been held up by many as the Government that has done most to tackle the traveller issue.
Going by the state of some of the people at the meeting. I wouldnt be surprised if the travellers thought themselves to upmarket for Creekmore! How insulting,and imature! Who are you to judge people by their appearances? Actually we are good,honest hardworking people,who care about their homes and the area the live in! Many have experienced on several occasions what it is like to have gypsies living on their doorstep. And believe me it was not a pleasant one! I was just wondering how the firestation feel its going to affect their abilities to attend fires when called out on emergencies?
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: I was at the meeting last night, well actually I was outside it because for some strange reason the Council had decided to hold this emergency meeting in The Council Chambers instead of the room downstairs where public council meetings are normally held, that room happens to be twice the size and would have accommodated everyone who was there. Needless to say that room remained empty all night, maybe our good Mayor Phil Eades didn't want too many people opposing his plan, well even though there were plenty there against it, the idea was passed regardless and now it goes to the planning committee, will anyone on there stop this madness idea, of course not because Mayor Philip Eades is on the planning committee. So the council will waste a quarter of a million pounds on this project that once completed the travelers probably will refuse to use anyway, much like the failed site in Exeter some time back. Has there been any real research into this plan other than how much it will cost ? Phil Eades just like all other LibDems cannot seem to realise that the money the council receives from the people should be spent on those people and not on those who do not contribute a single penny to the community. It seems to be a LieDem policy throughout the country, look after anyone other than the British public who pay your wages and who you were elected to serve. I sincerely hope that people remember to thank them for their efforts at the ballot boxes in next years local council elections. That whole meeting last night was a farce![/p][/quote]So the residents of Branksome, Newtown, Whitecliff, Broadstone, Canford Heath and the Old Town are not residents of the UK then? And just before you try to make a UKIP point, Southern Ireland is a fully integrated EU member, and has been held up by many as the Government that has done most to tackle the traveller issue.[/p][/quote]Going by the state of some of the people at the meeting. I wouldnt be surprised if the travellers thought themselves to upmarket for Creekmore! How insulting,and imature! Who are you to judge people by their appearances? Actually we are good,honest hardworking people,who care about their homes and the area the live in! Many have experienced on several occasions what it is like to have gypsies living on their doorstep. And believe me it was not a pleasant one! I was just wondering how the firestation feel its going to affect their abilities to attend fires when called out on emergencies? shedevil
  • Score: 3

8:23pm Wed 29 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

U.K.I.P. and Poole People,not a lot of difference between the two,both ready to jump on the band wagon,with a lot of youngsters with little or no experience.Marty Caine,i believe is a party worker from devon.Why if he/she is so interested,they will not honestly give their real name.Who will trust the words of someone like that.I trust the creekmoor residents are not fooled by this UKIP political exercise.
U.K.I.P. and Poole People,not a lot of difference between the two,both ready to jump on the band wagon,with a lot of youngsters with little or no experience.Marty Caine,i believe is a party worker from devon.Why if he/she is so interested,they will not honestly give their real name.Who will trust the words of someone like that.I trust the creekmoor residents are not fooled by this UKIP political exercise. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

pete woodley wrote:
U.K.I.P. and Poole People,not a lot of difference between the two,both ready to jump on the band wagon,with a lot of youngsters with little or no experience.Marty Caine,i believe is a party worker from devon.Why if he/she is so interested,they will not honestly give their real name.Who will trust the words of someone like that.I trust the creekmoor residents are not fooled by this UKIP political exercise.
Pete please stop with your nonsense and try to get your facts right, I went to Seldown & then Kemp Welch (left 1976) and I have never lived in Devon, The UKIP Branch chairman & his wife both live in Creekmoor and were also at this farce of a meeting which left people who were also against this decision standing outside even though there was a much larger room available downstairs. I drank in the Seaview when Charlie Cook was the Landlord and The Retreat when that was there so trust me I am a local. As for this not being my real name, it was on my birth certificate way before Lynne Sheppard started to use it as her stage name (Marti Caine). Now if you have anything sensible to contribute to this particular subject I look forward to seeing it, but do try to stop with your silly Anti UKIP campaign, cheers.

The plan has not been fully researched and will undoubtedly be a waste of time and money, the argument that it is needed so that the police can move them on his pure nonsense, Mannings Heath was a transit & temporary site so the laws they quote now were already in place before, without the need to waste £250,000. Whatever the reason for pushing this nonsense plan through, it was certainly done without any regard whatsoever to public opinion or benefit to the community. That is said as a Poole resident not as a member of UKIP!
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: U.K.I.P. and Poole People,not a lot of difference between the two,both ready to jump on the band wagon,with a lot of youngsters with little or no experience.Marty Caine,i believe is a party worker from devon.Why if he/she is so interested,they will not honestly give their real name.Who will trust the words of someone like that.I trust the creekmoor residents are not fooled by this UKIP political exercise.[/p][/quote]Pete please stop with your nonsense and try to get your facts right, I went to Seldown & then Kemp Welch (left 1976) and I have never lived in Devon, The UKIP Branch chairman & his wife both live in Creekmoor and were also at this farce of a meeting which left people who were also against this decision standing outside even though there was a much larger room available downstairs. I drank in the Seaview when Charlie Cook was the Landlord and The Retreat when that was there so trust me I am a local. As for this not being my real name, it was on my birth certificate way before Lynne Sheppard started to use it as her stage name (Marti Caine). Now if you have anything sensible to contribute to this particular subject I look forward to seeing it, but do try to stop with your silly Anti UKIP campaign, cheers. The plan has not been fully researched and will undoubtedly be a waste of time and money, the argument that it is needed so that the police can move them on his pure nonsense, Mannings Heath was a transit & temporary site so the laws they quote now were already in place before, without the need to waste £250,000. Whatever the reason for pushing this nonsense plan through, it was certainly done without any regard whatsoever to public opinion or benefit to the community. That is said as a Poole resident not as a member of UKIP! Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

8:13am Thu 30 Jan 14

kln041287 says...

Struggling to see why such a huge fuss has been made!! Everyone needs somewhere to live. What would you rather they turn up on ur local rec where your child plays sat morn football or you take your dog for a walk? Without the authorised sites this is what will happen for years to come, and before its said that you would rather they didn't come at all we all know that's not going happen!
If you stopped the outrage for 5 minutes you'd realise travellers are people with feelings too!! The more people say they are not wanted on their doorstep the more hell the travellers will make! If someone hated me as much as people on here are making out they hate travellers id be sure to create trouble aswell, why wouldn't i?
I could rant for ages but to be honest I have better things to do. Get on with my own life instead of trying to ruin others!!
Struggling to see why such a huge fuss has been made!! Everyone needs somewhere to live. What would you rather they turn up on ur local rec where your child plays sat morn football or you take your dog for a walk? Without the authorised sites this is what will happen for years to come, and before its said that you would rather they didn't come at all we all know that's not going happen! If you stopped the outrage for 5 minutes you'd realise travellers are people with feelings too!! The more people say they are not wanted on their doorstep the more hell the travellers will make! If someone hated me as much as people on here are making out they hate travellers id be sure to create trouble aswell, why wouldn't i? I could rant for ages but to be honest I have better things to do. Get on with my own life instead of trying to ruin others!! kln041287
  • Score: -2

8:24am Thu 30 Jan 14

palmertree says...

As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here?
As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.
As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here? As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you. palmertree
  • Score: 1

8:42am Thu 30 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

palmertree wrote:
As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here?
As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.
There is a comment on this thread in regards to the protection of endangered species, this is probably about the only way you will stop them wasting £250,000, because there is zero chance anyone will be able to talk any real sense to the LibDems & Tories who are all for this plan. I seriously cannot understand the logic being used here as it must be easier and cheaper to revamp the existing Mannings heath site. Maybe Mayor Philip Eades would like to comment on that idea?
[quote][p][bold]palmertree[/bold] wrote: As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here? As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.[/p][/quote]There is a comment on this thread in regards to the protection of endangered species, this is probably about the only way you will stop them wasting £250,000, because there is zero chance anyone will be able to talk any real sense to the LibDems & Tories who are all for this plan. I seriously cannot understand the logic being used here as it must be easier and cheaper to revamp the existing Mannings heath site. Maybe Mayor Philip Eades would like to comment on that idea? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -1

9:56am Thu 30 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
U.K.I.P. and Poole People,not a lot of difference between the two,both ready to jump on the band wagon,with a lot of youngsters with little or no experience.Marty Caine,i believe is a party worker from devon.Why if he/she is so interested,they will not honestly give their real name.Who will trust the words of someone like that.I trust the creekmoor residents are not fooled by this UKIP political exercise.
Pete please stop with your nonsense and try to get your facts right, I went to Seldown & then Kemp Welch (left 1976) and I have never lived in Devon, The UKIP Branch chairman & his wife both live in Creekmoor and were also at this farce of a meeting which left people who were also against this decision standing outside even though there was a much larger room available downstairs. I drank in the Seaview when Charlie Cook was the Landlord and The Retreat when that was there so trust me I am a local. As for this not being my real name, it was on my birth certificate way before Lynne Sheppard started to use it as her stage name (Marti Caine). Now if you have anything sensible to contribute to this particular subject I look forward to seeing it, but do try to stop with your silly Anti UKIP campaign, cheers.

The plan has not been fully researched and will undoubtedly be a waste of time and money, the argument that it is needed so that the police can move them on his pure nonsense, Mannings Heath was a transit & temporary site so the laws they quote now were already in place before, without the need to waste £250,000. Whatever the reason for pushing this nonsense plan through, it was certainly done without any regard whatsoever to public opinion or benefit to the community. That is said as a Poole resident not as a member of UKIP!
We now know who you are,so i apoligise ,but it was done to draw you out,too many come on this site,and argue,who have vested interests.The siting of a travellers site affects not just Creekmoor but a much wider area.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: U.K.I.P. and Poole People,not a lot of difference between the two,both ready to jump on the band wagon,with a lot of youngsters with little or no experience.Marty Caine,i believe is a party worker from devon.Why if he/she is so interested,they will not honestly give their real name.Who will trust the words of someone like that.I trust the creekmoor residents are not fooled by this UKIP political exercise.[/p][/quote]Pete please stop with your nonsense and try to get your facts right, I went to Seldown & then Kemp Welch (left 1976) and I have never lived in Devon, The UKIP Branch chairman & his wife both live in Creekmoor and were also at this farce of a meeting which left people who were also against this decision standing outside even though there was a much larger room available downstairs. I drank in the Seaview when Charlie Cook was the Landlord and The Retreat when that was there so trust me I am a local. As for this not being my real name, it was on my birth certificate way before Lynne Sheppard started to use it as her stage name (Marti Caine). Now if you have anything sensible to contribute to this particular subject I look forward to seeing it, but do try to stop with your silly Anti UKIP campaign, cheers. The plan has not been fully researched and will undoubtedly be a waste of time and money, the argument that it is needed so that the police can move them on his pure nonsense, Mannings Heath was a transit & temporary site so the laws they quote now were already in place before, without the need to waste £250,000. Whatever the reason for pushing this nonsense plan through, it was certainly done without any regard whatsoever to public opinion or benefit to the community. That is said as a Poole resident not as a member of UKIP![/p][/quote]We now know who you are,so i apoligise ,but it was done to draw you out,too many come on this site,and argue,who have vested interests.The siting of a travellers site affects not just Creekmoor but a much wider area. pete woodley
  • Score: -1

10:20am Thu 30 Jan 14

DorsetFerret says...

palmertree wrote:
As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here?
As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.
As I have suggested, it is worth contacting organisations like English Nature and The Dorset Wildlife Trust to make them aware of the proposal to turn one of the last remaining patches of salt march into tarmac. These have rare fauna, insects and other wildlife dependant upon them. Any agency with an interest in wildlife is worth approaching. You can also ask your ward councillors to ensure this habitat is assessed before work takes place.

You are correct in that councillor Eades sits on the planning panel as do others who voted in favour of the scheme. I'm not sure who makes up the rest of the committee but I would be interested to learn.

On a different topic, I note that Twitter has a subscriber under 'The Creekmoor Link' set up. Those with an interest in this subject may find it easier to discuss through the medium.
[quote][p][bold]palmertree[/bold] wrote: As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here? As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.[/p][/quote]As I have suggested, it is worth contacting organisations like English Nature and The Dorset Wildlife Trust to make them aware of the proposal to turn one of the last remaining patches of salt march into tarmac. These have rare fauna, insects and other wildlife dependant upon them. Any agency with an interest in wildlife is worth approaching. You can also ask your ward councillors to ensure this habitat is assessed before work takes place. You are correct in that councillor Eades sits on the planning panel as do others who voted in favour of the scheme. I'm not sure who makes up the rest of the committee but I would be interested to learn. On a different topic, I note that Twitter has a subscriber under 'The Creekmoor Link' set up. Those with an interest in this subject may find it easier to discuss through the medium. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 1

10:20am Thu 30 Jan 14

DorsetFerret says...

palmertree wrote:
As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here?
As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.
As I have suggested, it is worth contacting organisations like English Nature and The Dorset Wildlife Trust to make them aware of the proposal to turn one of the last remaining patches of salt march into tarmac. These have rare fauna, insects and other wildlife dependant upon them. Any agency with an interest in wildlife is worth approaching. You can also ask your ward councillors to ensure this habitat is assessed before work takes place.

You are correct in that councillor Eades sits on the planning panel as do others who voted in favour of the scheme. I'm not sure who makes up the rest of the committee but I would be interested to learn.

On a different topic, I note that Twitter has a subscriber under 'The Creekmoor Link' set up. Those with an interest in this subject may find it easier to discuss through the medium.
[quote][p][bold]palmertree[/bold] wrote: As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here? As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.[/p][/quote]As I have suggested, it is worth contacting organisations like English Nature and The Dorset Wildlife Trust to make them aware of the proposal to turn one of the last remaining patches of salt march into tarmac. These have rare fauna, insects and other wildlife dependant upon them. Any agency with an interest in wildlife is worth approaching. You can also ask your ward councillors to ensure this habitat is assessed before work takes place. You are correct in that councillor Eades sits on the planning panel as do others who voted in favour of the scheme. I'm not sure who makes up the rest of the committee but I would be interested to learn. On a different topic, I note that Twitter has a subscriber under 'The Creekmoor Link' set up. Those with an interest in this subject may find it easier to discuss through the medium. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 0

10:43am Thu 30 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

pete woodley wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
U.K.I.P. and Poole People,not a lot of difference between the two,both ready to jump on the band wagon,with a lot of youngsters with little or no experience.Marty Caine,i believe is a party worker from devon.Why if he/she is so interested,they will not honestly give their real name.Who will trust the words of someone like that.I trust the creekmoor residents are not fooled by this UKIP political exercise.
Pete please stop with your nonsense and try to get your facts right, I went to Seldown & then Kemp Welch (left 1976) and I have never lived in Devon, The UKIP Branch chairman & his wife both live in Creekmoor and were also at this farce of a meeting which left people who were also against this decision standing outside even though there was a much larger room available downstairs. I drank in the Seaview when Charlie Cook was the Landlord and The Retreat when that was there so trust me I am a local. As for this not being my real name, it was on my birth certificate way before Lynne Sheppard started to use it as her stage name (Marti Caine). Now if you have anything sensible to contribute to this particular subject I look forward to seeing it, but do try to stop with your silly Anti UKIP campaign, cheers.

The plan has not been fully researched and will undoubtedly be a waste of time and money, the argument that it is needed so that the police can move them on his pure nonsense, Mannings Heath was a transit & temporary site so the laws they quote now were already in place before, without the need to waste £250,000. Whatever the reason for pushing this nonsense plan through, it was certainly done without any regard whatsoever to public opinion or benefit to the community. That is said as a Poole resident not as a member of UKIP!
We now know who you are,so i apoligise ,but it was done to draw you out,too many come on this site,and argue,who have vested interests.The siting of a travellers site affects not just Creekmoor but a much wider area.
Is that the Royal we, who knows who I am then? Thanks for the apology but quite unnecessary really, I was simply amused at the fact you thought I was from Devon and only here on some covert mission to convince the good people of Poole that they were being shafted by the very people who they elected to serve them.

Having been in business at Tower Park and seriously hit hard with business rates I have a tendency to dislike seeing money wasted by the council, which is the core reason for my interest. Unless someone can convince that revamping Mannings Heath site is not a cheaper option that will more than cover the excuses given for this wastage I will continue to point the obvious and that is not enough thought has gone into this plan and there has been a complete disregard to the feelings of not only those who live in Creekmoor and Broadstone but also the rest of the people of Poole who are against this idea. I do wonder how many concrete posts and removable barriers the council could buy for £250,000.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: U.K.I.P. and Poole People,not a lot of difference between the two,both ready to jump on the band wagon,with a lot of youngsters with little or no experience.Marty Caine,i believe is a party worker from devon.Why if he/she is so interested,they will not honestly give their real name.Who will trust the words of someone like that.I trust the creekmoor residents are not fooled by this UKIP political exercise.[/p][/quote]Pete please stop with your nonsense and try to get your facts right, I went to Seldown & then Kemp Welch (left 1976) and I have never lived in Devon, The UKIP Branch chairman & his wife both live in Creekmoor and were also at this farce of a meeting which left people who were also against this decision standing outside even though there was a much larger room available downstairs. I drank in the Seaview when Charlie Cook was the Landlord and The Retreat when that was there so trust me I am a local. As for this not being my real name, it was on my birth certificate way before Lynne Sheppard started to use it as her stage name (Marti Caine). Now if you have anything sensible to contribute to this particular subject I look forward to seeing it, but do try to stop with your silly Anti UKIP campaign, cheers. The plan has not been fully researched and will undoubtedly be a waste of time and money, the argument that it is needed so that the police can move them on his pure nonsense, Mannings Heath was a transit & temporary site so the laws they quote now were already in place before, without the need to waste £250,000. Whatever the reason for pushing this nonsense plan through, it was certainly done without any regard whatsoever to public opinion or benefit to the community. That is said as a Poole resident not as a member of UKIP![/p][/quote]We now know who you are,so i apoligise ,but it was done to draw you out,too many come on this site,and argue,who have vested interests.The siting of a travellers site affects not just Creekmoor but a much wider area.[/p][/quote]Is that the Royal we, who knows who I am then? Thanks for the apology but quite unnecessary really, I was simply amused at the fact you thought I was from Devon and only here on some covert mission to convince the good people of Poole that they were being shafted by the very people who they elected to serve them. Having been in business at Tower Park and seriously hit hard with business rates I have a tendency to dislike seeing money wasted by the council, which is the core reason for my interest. Unless someone can convince that revamping Mannings Heath site is not a cheaper option that will more than cover the excuses given for this wastage I will continue to point the obvious and that is not enough thought has gone into this plan and there has been a complete disregard to the feelings of not only those who live in Creekmoor and Broadstone but also the rest of the people of Poole who are against this idea. I do wonder how many concrete posts and removable barriers the council could buy for £250,000. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

10:47am Thu 30 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
palmertree wrote:
As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here?
As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.
As I have suggested, it is worth contacting organisations like English Nature and The Dorset Wildlife Trust to make them aware of the proposal to turn one of the last remaining patches of salt march into tarmac. These have rare fauna, insects and other wildlife dependant upon them. Any agency with an interest in wildlife is worth approaching. You can also ask your ward councillors to ensure this habitat is assessed before work takes place.

You are correct in that councillor Eades sits on the planning panel as do others who voted in favour of the scheme. I'm not sure who makes up the rest of the committee but I would be interested to learn.

On a different topic, I note that Twitter has a subscriber under 'The Creekmoor Link' set up. Those with an interest in this subject may find it easier to discuss through the medium.
Get the relevant law modified. The Council should have been pressing for this to happen for a year or two now - so the modification can't be far away !!

If not then scrap the latest idea and loose civil unrest across the Borough, depending upon the nature and location of the catalysts for such unrest / disorder - a matter that will be infinitely more difficult / expensive to police in terms of crime prevention because, no doubt, the areas having the authorised sites will be benefiting from increased protection / surveillance ! ??

Obviously the Borough is between a rock and a hard place and the dilly-dallying has to stop and the nettle grasped to mix metaphors over the need for a decision : a decision created by law-makers that need educating about the significance of the sign that appears in our town at busy times : "no vacancies" !!
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]palmertree[/bold] wrote: As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here? As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.[/p][/quote]As I have suggested, it is worth contacting organisations like English Nature and The Dorset Wildlife Trust to make them aware of the proposal to turn one of the last remaining patches of salt march into tarmac. These have rare fauna, insects and other wildlife dependant upon them. Any agency with an interest in wildlife is worth approaching. You can also ask your ward councillors to ensure this habitat is assessed before work takes place. You are correct in that councillor Eades sits on the planning panel as do others who voted in favour of the scheme. I'm not sure who makes up the rest of the committee but I would be interested to learn. On a different topic, I note that Twitter has a subscriber under 'The Creekmoor Link' set up. Those with an interest in this subject may find it easier to discuss through the medium.[/p][/quote]Get the relevant law modified. The Council should have been pressing for this to happen for a year or two now - so the modification can't be far away !! If not then scrap the latest idea and loose civil unrest across the Borough, depending upon the nature and location of the catalysts for such unrest / disorder - a matter that will be infinitely more difficult / expensive to police in terms of crime prevention because, no doubt, the areas having the authorised sites will be benefiting from increased protection / surveillance ! ?? Obviously the Borough is between a rock and a hard place and the dilly-dallying has to stop and the nettle grasped to mix metaphors over the need for a decision : a decision created by law-makers that need educating about the significance of the sign that appears in our town at busy times : "no vacancies" !! Ebb Tide
  • Score: 1

11:22am Thu 30 Jan 14

speedy231278 says...

pete woodley wrote:
What a shame this site has turned into a joke,with very stupid childish comments from nickynoodah,they are not funny,and it makes the Echo out to be a cheap comic rag.
So does most of their copy!
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: What a shame this site has turned into a joke,with very stupid childish comments from nickynoodah,they are not funny,and it makes the Echo out to be a cheap comic rag.[/p][/quote]So does most of their copy! speedy231278
  • Score: 1

12:26pm Thu 30 Jan 14

DorsetFerret says...

palmertree wrote:
As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here?
As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.
A quick exploration of the councils web site will tell you who makes up the core planning committee, as far as I can see most councillors on it voted for the Creekmoor location. Interestingly under ;-

http://ha2.boroughof
poole.com/elps/

There may be an opportunity to set up an e-petition against this decision, unfortunately, I haven't had time to explore this yet.
[quote][p][bold]palmertree[/bold] wrote: As a Creekmoor resident I would like to know where do we go from here? As Cllr Eades is also on the Planning Committee, is it a given that this will be passed? Are there any guidelines or any type of passage we can take to object? A petition perhaps, or do we all have to put our objections in writing directly to the Borough of Poole? If so, what type of constructive comments would be necessary to make them reconsider planning? Some suggestions or help is really needed to show us what we can do to try and make a change. Thank you.[/p][/quote]A quick exploration of the councils web site will tell you who makes up the core planning committee, as far as I can see most councillors on it voted for the Creekmoor location. Interestingly under ;- http://ha2.boroughof poole.com/elps/ There may be an opportunity to set up an e-petition against this decision, unfortunately, I haven't had time to explore this yet. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 1

12:42pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Getridofthetories says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
i have heard it all now wrote:
Vicky Slade kiss goodbye any thought of becoming an MP after Mike Brookes peformance tonight.

Judy Butt will be unseated as well.
You need to look after your own first.
I read the running commentary as Cllr Butt was supporting Cllr Rampton's move:
.....
6:26pm - Cllr Rampton has called for meaningful consultation with Poole residents
........
6.27pm - He also has called for a full cost analysis of the site to be implemented.
........
6:29pm - Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue.
......
6:30pm - She also says he cost to the council tax payer has not been properly scrutinised.
.......
6:33pm - Cllr Butt also says if the temporary stoping site was ever full to capacity, the police would not be able to move on any more travellers. She said: 'The funds could be better used.' This was met with loud applause.
.......
Unless it's bad reporting.
Judy Butt is the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Public Engagement!

She said "Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue"

She is the one responsible for proper consultation, she didnt do it, get rid of her
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i have heard it all now[/bold] wrote: Vicky Slade kiss goodbye any thought of becoming an MP after Mike Brookes peformance tonight. Judy Butt will be unseated as well. You need to look after your own first.[/p][/quote]I read the running commentary as Cllr Butt was supporting Cllr Rampton's move: ..... 6:26pm - Cllr Rampton has called for meaningful consultation with Poole residents ........ 6.27pm - He also has called for a full cost analysis of the site to be implemented. ........ 6:29pm - Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue. ...... 6:30pm - She also says he cost to the council tax payer has not been properly scrutinised. ....... 6:33pm - Cllr Butt also says if the temporary stoping site was ever full to capacity, the police would not be able to move on any more travellers. She said: 'The funds could be better used.' This was met with loud applause. ....... Unless it's bad reporting.[/p][/quote]Judy Butt is the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Public Engagement! She said "Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue" She is the one responsible for proper consultation, she didnt do it, get rid of her Getridofthetories
  • Score: 1

12:42pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Getridofthetories says...

Judy Butt is the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Public Engagement!

She said "Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue"

She is the one responsible for proper consultation, she didnt do it, get rid of her
Judy Butt is the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Public Engagement! She said "Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue" She is the one responsible for proper consultation, she didnt do it, get rid of her Getridofthetories
  • Score: 2

1:00pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
Judy Butt is the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Public Engagement!

She said "Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue"

She is the one responsible for proper consultation, she didnt do it, get rid of her
Not only did they vote to push the lunacy idea through, the councillors who voted in favour of it also voted against further against a “meaningful” consultation with Poole residents and businesses; a full social impact assessment of the social/environmental
/economic impact of the Creekmoor site. Full list of who voted for or against are in this Echo article.

http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/10
968314.UPDATE__Poole
_traveller_transit_s
ites__see_how_the_co
uncillors_voted_at_l
ast_night_s_meeting/
?action=success
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: Judy Butt is the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Public Engagement! She said "Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue" She is the one responsible for proper consultation, she didnt do it, get rid of her[/p][/quote]Not only did they vote to push the lunacy idea through, the councillors who voted in favour of it also voted against further against a “meaningful” consultation with Poole residents and businesses; a full social impact assessment of the social/environmental /economic impact of the Creekmoor site. Full list of who voted for or against are in this Echo article. http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/10 968314.UPDATE__Poole _traveller_transit_s ites__see_how_the_co uncillors_voted_at_l ast_night_s_meeting/ ?action=success Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

1:00pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
Judy Butt is the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Public Engagement!

She said "Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue"

She is the one responsible for proper consultation, she didnt do it, get rid of her
Not only did they vote to push the lunacy idea through, the councillors who voted in favour of it also voted against further against a “meaningful” consultation with Poole residents and businesses; a full social impact assessment of the social/environmental
/economic impact of the Creekmoor site. Full list of who voted for or against are in this Echo article.

http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/10
968314.UPDATE__Poole
_traveller_transit_s
ites__see_how_the_co
uncillors_voted_at_l
ast_night_s_meeting/
?action=success
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: Judy Butt is the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Public Engagement! She said "Cllr Butt says she wishes to support the move, but residents she represents says there has been no real consultation on the issue" She is the one responsible for proper consultation, she didnt do it, get rid of her[/p][/quote]Not only did they vote to push the lunacy idea through, the councillors who voted in favour of it also voted against further against a “meaningful” consultation with Poole residents and businesses; a full social impact assessment of the social/environmental /economic impact of the Creekmoor site. Full list of who voted for or against are in this Echo article. http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/10 968314.UPDATE__Poole _traveller_transit_s ites__see_how_the_co uncillors_voted_at_l ast_night_s_meeting/ ?action=success Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

3:05pm Thu 30 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

Marty Caine,a previous comment from you, said you speak as a resident NOT as a member of UKIP.So why do you always put UKIP behind your name ?.Are you another future candidate,and getting in with the plugs for them.How many have heard of you before ?.The traveller problem affects the whole area,NOT just Creekmoor,which you seem to insinuate.Are you saying that the travellers will not venture into Bournemouth.More like you are getting support for your branch chairman and his wife because they live in Creekmoor.
Marty Caine,a previous comment from you, said you speak as a resident NOT as a member of UKIP.So why do you always put UKIP behind your name ?.Are you another future candidate,and getting in with the plugs for them.How many have heard of you before ?.The traveller problem affects the whole area,NOT just Creekmoor,which you seem to insinuate.Are you saying that the travellers will not venture into Bournemouth.More like you are getting support for your branch chairman and his wife because they live in Creekmoor. pete woodley
  • Score: -2

4:20pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

pete woodley wrote:
Marty Caine,a previous comment from you, said you speak as a resident NOT as a member of UKIP.So why do you always put UKIP behind your name ?.Are you another future candidate,and getting in with the plugs for them.How many have heard of you before ?.The traveller problem affects the whole area,NOT just Creekmoor,which you seem to insinuate.Are you saying that the travellers will not venture into Bournemouth.More like you are getting support for your branch chairman and his wife because they live in Creekmoor.
As a UKIP activist who comments on articles both locally and nationally I always add the UKIP tag to my name whenever I register on any site because I happen to be proud of being a member and I personally believe it lets others know that. This issue with the traveller site is far more personal to me because it is in my home town, I have already clearly stated that it involves all of Poole residents not just Creekmoor, so you have me at a bit of a loss on your comment there about me insinuating otherwise, I happen to live very close to Branksome Rec so I have first hand knowledge of the problems but I simply do not swallow this idea of a new traveler transit site has to built to enable the police to have powers to move them, not when there is a site that could easily be revamped at mannings heath. I recall Cllr Eades trying to push a similar plan forward before with the old park and ride site near creekmore, I am sure some will remember that fiasco. The reason I mentioned the Chairman living on Creekmore was purely in response to your ludicrous comment that I was some kind of infiltrator from Devon and as for being another future candidate, that is actually not a bad idea, I certainly have the time nowadays, I will look into that before the next local elections in 2015, especially as my favourite Mayor happens to be my ward councillor. If you have any further personal questions that you wish to ask me then do feel free to drop me an email at m.caine@ukip-poole.o
rg or I am easily found on Facebook, it will save boring the others having to see comments that are totally irrelevant to the actual issue.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Marty Caine,a previous comment from you, said you speak as a resident NOT as a member of UKIP.So why do you always put UKIP behind your name ?.Are you another future candidate,and getting in with the plugs for them.How many have heard of you before ?.The traveller problem affects the whole area,NOT just Creekmoor,which you seem to insinuate.Are you saying that the travellers will not venture into Bournemouth.More like you are getting support for your branch chairman and his wife because they live in Creekmoor.[/p][/quote]As a UKIP activist who comments on articles both locally and nationally I always add the UKIP tag to my name whenever I register on any site because I happen to be proud of being a member and I personally believe it lets others know that. This issue with the traveller site is far more personal to me because it is in my home town, I have already clearly stated that it involves all of Poole residents not just Creekmoor, so you have me at a bit of a loss on your comment there about me insinuating otherwise, I happen to live very close to Branksome Rec so I have first hand knowledge of the problems but I simply do not swallow this idea of a new traveler transit site has to built to enable the police to have powers to move them, not when there is a site that could easily be revamped at mannings heath. I recall Cllr Eades trying to push a similar plan forward before with the old park and ride site near creekmore, I am sure some will remember that fiasco. The reason I mentioned the Chairman living on Creekmore was purely in response to your ludicrous comment that I was some kind of infiltrator from Devon and as for being another future candidate, that is actually not a bad idea, I certainly have the time nowadays, I will look into that before the next local elections in 2015, especially as my favourite Mayor happens to be my ward councillor. If you have any further personal questions that you wish to ask me then do feel free to drop me an email at m.caine@ukip-poole.o rg or I am easily found on Facebook, it will save boring the others having to see comments that are totally irrelevant to the actual issue. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

6:06pm Thu 30 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

So now we know more,you are an UKIP activist,You live close to branksome rec,so that makes you an expert on travellers,if thats so then those living near kings park,are more than experts.As it happens i lived close to the rec for 40 years.You have time on your hands and could consider becoming a candidate.Thats what its all about is it not ,very sanctimonious,and smug,you certainly want the readers to think you are better than them.You still do not think it will affect Bournemouth residents,(read my post properly next time).Its a wonder you do not blame the travellers for your business having problems.Were you one of the nimbys who objected to Poole Town F.C.I would not be a bit surprised,with your very snobbish attitude.I cant stand Eades but you make seem like saint.
So now we know more,you are an UKIP activist,You live close to branksome rec,so that makes you an expert on travellers,if thats so then those living near kings park,are more than experts.As it happens i lived close to the rec for 40 years.You have time on your hands and could consider becoming a candidate.Thats what its all about is it not ,very sanctimonious,and smug,you certainly want the readers to think you are better than them.You still do not think it will affect Bournemouth residents,(read my post properly next time).Its a wonder you do not blame the travellers for your business having problems.Were you one of the nimbys who objected to Poole Town F.C.I would not be a bit surprised,with your very snobbish attitude.I cant stand Eades but you make seem like saint. pete woodley
  • Score: -3

6:53pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

If Poole Council was a business it would have gone into liquidation long ago.
......
There was no proper investigation of the park and ride to determine just who would actually use it and the income was based on creative figures for occupancy.
......
The proposers of the ludicrous pyramid were taken out to dine at council tax payers' expense instead of the proposers wining and dining councillors, which would be normal business practice.
.......
The lifting bridge which is cut on the diagonal instead of straight across to make it look pretty and wasn't designed by a bridge engineer.
.......
Now they propose to put traveller on a site considered too contaminated for a car park without a pro[er clean up.
.......
Don't think anything more needs to be said about their ability to deliver sensible and financially viable projects.
.......
Can councillors and particularly planning committee members such as Eades be held personally financially liable if one of their projects ends up putting a burden on council tax payers?
If Poole Council was a business it would have gone into liquidation long ago. ...... There was no proper investigation of the park and ride to determine just who would actually use it and the income was based on creative figures for occupancy. ...... The proposers of the ludicrous pyramid were taken out to dine at council tax payers' expense instead of the proposers wining and dining councillors, which would be normal business practice. ....... The lifting bridge which is cut on the diagonal instead of straight across to make it look pretty and wasn't designed by a bridge engineer. ....... Now they propose to put traveller on a site considered too contaminated for a car park without a pro[er clean up. ....... Don't think anything more needs to be said about their ability to deliver sensible and financially viable projects. ....... Can councillors and particularly planning committee members such as Eades be held personally financially liable if one of their projects ends up putting a burden on council tax payers? Carolyn43
  • Score: 2

7:12pm Thu 30 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
If Poole Council was a business it would have gone into liquidation long ago.
......
There was no proper investigation of the park and ride to determine just who would actually use it and the income was based on creative figures for occupancy.
......
The proposers of the ludicrous pyramid were taken out to dine at council tax payers' expense instead of the proposers wining and dining councillors, which would be normal business practice.
.......
The lifting bridge which is cut on the diagonal instead of straight across to make it look pretty and wasn't designed by a bridge engineer.
.......
Now they propose to put traveller on a site considered too contaminated for a car park without a pro
I suppose you think that UKIP,are trying to help,and NOT just vote catching.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: If Poole Council was a business it would have gone into liquidation long ago. ...... There was no proper investigation of the park and ride to determine just who would actually use it and the income was based on creative figures for occupancy. ...... The proposers of the ludicrous pyramid were taken out to dine at council tax payers' expense instead of the proposers wining and dining councillors, which would be normal business practice. ....... The lifting bridge which is cut on the diagonal instead of straight across to make it look pretty and wasn't designed by a bridge engineer. ....... Now they propose to put traveller on a site considered too contaminated for a car park without a pro[er clean up. ....... Don't think anything more needs to be said about their ability to deliver sensible and financially viable projects. ....... Can councillors and particularly planning committee members such as Eades be held personally financially liable if one of their projects ends up putting a burden on council tax payers?[/p][/quote]I suppose you think that UKIP,are trying to help,and NOT just vote catching. pete woodley
  • Score: -1

7:46pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

pete woodley wrote:
So now we know more,you are an UKIP activist,You live close to branksome rec,so that makes you an expert on travellers,if thats so then those living near kings park,are more than experts.As it happens i lived close to the rec for 40 years.You have time on your hands and could consider becoming a candidate.Thats what its all about is it not ,very sanctimonious,and smug,you certainly want the readers to think you are better than them.You still do not think it will affect Bournemouth residents,(read my post properly next time).Its a wonder you do not blame the travellers for your business having problems.Were you one of the nimbys who objected to Poole Town F.C.I would not be a bit surprised,with your very snobbish attitude.I cant stand Eades but you make seem like saint.
Look if you want to get personal about it you have my email address, all I have done so far is answered your comments politely and added my own personal opinions to this thread because I am concerned about the way this particular project is being pushed through, disagree with what I say by all means but actually misquoting me only makes you look the fool not me, I have said this is something that concerns all the people of Poole because the wasted money will raise our rates not Bournemouths. As it happens I was all for the Poole Town FC plan and felt it was a shame it got blocked but on decisions like that you go with the majority and more people were against it than were for it. Where you think that I having time on my hands is being sanctimonious and smug, I tend to think it has far more to do with my disability but hey you think what you like, it's a free world! Do feel free to continue embarrassing yourself on here.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: So now we know more,you are an UKIP activist,You live close to branksome rec,so that makes you an expert on travellers,if thats so then those living near kings park,are more than experts.As it happens i lived close to the rec for 40 years.You have time on your hands and could consider becoming a candidate.Thats what its all about is it not ,very sanctimonious,and smug,you certainly want the readers to think you are better than them.You still do not think it will affect Bournemouth residents,(read my post properly next time).Its a wonder you do not blame the travellers for your business having problems.Were you one of the nimbys who objected to Poole Town F.C.I would not be a bit surprised,with your very snobbish attitude.I cant stand Eades but you make seem like saint.[/p][/quote]Look if you want to get personal about it you have my email address, all I have done so far is answered your comments politely and added my own personal opinions to this thread because I am concerned about the way this particular project is being pushed through, disagree with what I say by all means but actually misquoting me only makes you look the fool not me, I have said this is something that concerns all the people of Poole because the wasted money will raise our rates not Bournemouths. As it happens I was all for the Poole Town FC plan and felt it was a shame it got blocked but on decisions like that you go with the majority and more people were against it than were for it. Where you think that I having time on my hands is being sanctimonious and smug, I tend to think it has far more to do with my disability but hey you think what you like, it's a free world! Do feel free to continue embarrassing yourself on here. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 5

8:16pm Thu 30 Jan 14

DorsetFerret says...

I have to say Mr Woodley does appear to be trying to divert attention from the main issues here and it's getting boring. I'm not taking political sides but I'd rather both of you got in touch with Robert Syms to ask him to ensure PBC undertakes an environmental study on the proposed site before the bulldozers move in. That would be far more productive.
I have to say Mr Woodley does appear to be trying to divert attention from the main issues here and it's getting boring. I'm not taking political sides but I'd rather both of you got in touch with Robert Syms to ask him to ensure PBC undertakes an environmental study on the proposed site before the bulldozers move in. That would be far more productive. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 5

8:38pm Thu 30 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
I have to say Mr Woodley does appear to be trying to divert attention from the main issues here and it's getting boring. I'm not taking political sides but I'd rather both of you got in touch with Robert Syms to ask him to ensure PBC undertakes an environmental study on the proposed site before the bulldozers move in. That would be far more productive.
I do not like to see UKIP or any group,trying to make cheap publicity out of any issue.As for environmental study on the site,can you remember what happened when Baiter was built on.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: I have to say Mr Woodley does appear to be trying to divert attention from the main issues here and it's getting boring. I'm not taking political sides but I'd rather both of you got in touch with Robert Syms to ask him to ensure PBC undertakes an environmental study on the proposed site before the bulldozers move in. That would be far more productive.[/p][/quote]I do not like to see UKIP or any group,trying to make cheap publicity out of any issue.As for environmental study on the site,can you remember what happened when Baiter was built on. pete woodley
  • Score: -6

9:19pm Thu 30 Jan 14

DorsetFerret says...

pete woodley wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
I have to say Mr Woodley does appear to be trying to divert attention from the main issues here and it's getting boring. I'm not taking political sides but I'd rather both of you got in touch with Robert Syms to ask him to ensure PBC undertakes an environmental study on the proposed site before the bulldozers move in. That would be far more productive.
I do not like to see UKIP or any group,trying to make cheap publicity out of any issue.As for environmental study on the site,can you remember what happened when Baiter was built on.
That' fine. My point is you have made your point, now give it a rest. If you want to take issue with someone do it with one of the councillors that voted this daft project in!
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: I have to say Mr Woodley does appear to be trying to divert attention from the main issues here and it's getting boring. I'm not taking political sides but I'd rather both of you got in touch with Robert Syms to ask him to ensure PBC undertakes an environmental study on the proposed site before the bulldozers move in. That would be far more productive.[/p][/quote]I do not like to see UKIP or any group,trying to make cheap publicity out of any issue.As for environmental study on the site,can you remember what happened when Baiter was built on.[/p][/quote]That' fine. My point is you have made your point, now give it a rest. If you want to take issue with someone do it with one of the councillors that voted this daft project in! DorsetFerret
  • Score: 8

9:34pm Thu 30 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

What a bullying lot,just because they lost the battle,Shows the mentality of the oppisition doesnt it.
What a bullying lot,just because they lost the battle,Shows the mentality of the oppisition doesnt it. pete woodley
  • Score: -11

8:15am Fri 31 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

pete woodley wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
If Poole Council was a business it would have gone into liquidation long ago.
......
There was no proper investigation of the park and ride to determine just who would actually use it and the income was based on creative figures for occupancy.
......
The proposers of the ludicrous pyramid were taken out to dine at council tax payers' expense instead of the proposers wining and dining councillors, which would be normal business practice.
.......
The lifting bridge which is cut on the diagonal instead of straight across to make it look pretty and wasn't designed by a bridge engineer.
.......
Now they propose to put traveller on a site considered too contaminated for a car park without a pro
I suppose you think that UKIP,are trying to help,and NOT just vote catching.
Would be good if you read previous posts.
........
I have said I am not a member or interested in ANY political party. I have a very low opinion of all politicians both local and national. Is that clear?
.....
I think those in business or those with personal ambition, who are also on the council will not be able to separate their own interests from those of the town.
.......
I do not think anything about UKIP. I do not think they are trying to help. I am not interested in them or any political party. I am concerned that things are not researched properly and cost the council tax payers money that could either have been saved or spent in a better way.
.......
I think one person gets an idea and then the rest of the party concerned, or those wanting what they see as prestigious jobs on the council, follow blindly like sheep or lemmings, or are too scared to express an opinion of their own.
......
Got it?
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: If Poole Council was a business it would have gone into liquidation long ago. ...... There was no proper investigation of the park and ride to determine just who would actually use it and the income was based on creative figures for occupancy. ...... The proposers of the ludicrous pyramid were taken out to dine at council tax payers' expense instead of the proposers wining and dining councillors, which would be normal business practice. ....... The lifting bridge which is cut on the diagonal instead of straight across to make it look pretty and wasn't designed by a bridge engineer. ....... Now they propose to put traveller on a site considered too contaminated for a car park without a pro[er clean up. ....... Don't think anything more needs to be said about their ability to deliver sensible and financially viable projects. ....... Can councillors and particularly planning committee members such as Eades be held personally financially liable if one of their projects ends up putting a burden on council tax payers?[/p][/quote]I suppose you think that UKIP,are trying to help,and NOT just vote catching.[/p][/quote]Would be good if you read previous posts. ........ I have said I am not a member or interested in ANY political party. I have a very low opinion of all politicians both local and national. Is that clear? ..... I think those in business or those with personal ambition, who are also on the council will not be able to separate their own interests from those of the town. ....... I do not think anything about UKIP. I do not think they are trying to help. I am not interested in them or any political party. I am concerned that things are not researched properly and cost the council tax payers money that could either have been saved or spent in a better way. ....... I think one person gets an idea and then the rest of the party concerned, or those wanting what they see as prestigious jobs on the council, follow blindly like sheep or lemmings, or are too scared to express an opinion of their own. ...... Got it? Carolyn43
  • Score: 6

10:24am Fri 31 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

Your rudeness,clearly shows you have a very high opinion of yourself.Using expressions like "is that clear" and "got it"are the signs of a bully.,who wants their own way.
Your rudeness,clearly shows you have a very high opinion of yourself.Using expressions like "is that clear" and "got it"are the signs of a bully.,who wants their own way. pete woodley
  • Score: -10

10:45am Fri 31 Jan 14

disquiet says...

Is this fait accompli or is there genuinely anything we can do to oppose this? What are our options?
Is this fait accompli or is there genuinely anything we can do to oppose this? What are our options? disquiet
  • Score: 0

11:00am Fri 31 Jan 14

DorsetFerret says...

I am reliably informed that the Creekmoor councillors have called a meeting on the 1st of March at 17.00 prior to the main council meeting. This will be held at the community centre. They are currently exploring what actions they can take, including appeals based on environmental issues. If interested put a note in your diary.
I am reliably informed that the Creekmoor councillors have called a meeting on the 1st of March at 17.00 prior to the main council meeting. This will be held at the community centre. They are currently exploring what actions they can take, including appeals based on environmental issues. If interested put a note in your diary. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 3

11:49am Fri 31 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
I am reliably informed that the Creekmoor councillors have called a meeting on the 1st of March at 17.00 prior to the main council meeting. This will be held at the community centre. They are currently exploring what actions they can take, including appeals based on environmental issues. If interested put a note in your diary.
I have created an online petition to demand that Poole Council do a full investigation into the plan and consultation with Poole residents before it goes to the planning committee. This was put forward at the meeting of Mon 27th but was also rejected. I do feel the revamp of the Mannings Heath site would be a cheaper and more amicable solution for all.

Please share the petition with everyone and get as many signatures on it as possible. You can access it by copy and pasting this link to your address bar.

http://www.thepetiti
onsite.com/910/393/6
24/demand-an-investi
gation-and-consultat
ion-in-regards-to-po
ole-travelers-sites/
?cid=headerClick#sig
n
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: I am reliably informed that the Creekmoor councillors have called a meeting on the 1st of March at 17.00 prior to the main council meeting. This will be held at the community centre. They are currently exploring what actions they can take, including appeals based on environmental issues. If interested put a note in your diary.[/p][/quote]I have created an online petition to demand that Poole Council do a full investigation into the plan and consultation with Poole residents before it goes to the planning committee. This was put forward at the meeting of Mon 27th but was also rejected. I do feel the revamp of the Mannings Heath site would be a cheaper and more amicable solution for all. Please share the petition with everyone and get as many signatures on it as possible. You can access it by copy and pasting this link to your address bar. http://www.thepetiti onsite.com/910/393/6 24/demand-an-investi gation-and-consultat ion-in-regards-to-po ole-travelers-sites/ ?cid=headerClick#sig n Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 3

12:05pm Fri 31 Jan 14

disquiet says...

I'm a complete novice when it comes to online petitions but would it not make sense to use the 'HM Goverment e-petions' at the following link?

https://submissions.
epetitions.direct.go
v.uk/petitions/new
I'm a complete novice when it comes to online petitions but would it not make sense to use the 'HM Goverment e-petions' at the following link? https://submissions. epetitions.direct.go v.uk/petitions/new disquiet
  • Score: 2

12:28pm Fri 31 Jan 14

DorsetFerret says...

disquiet wrote:
I'm a complete novice when it comes to online petitions but would it not make sense to use the 'HM Goverment e-petions' at the following link?

https://submissions.

epetitions.direct.go

v.uk/petitions/new
I think I'm right in saying you will need a substantial number of signatures for this to succeed but it's a thought.

An alternative might be to complain directly to the council on grounds of mismanaging the project. For example,
(a) Ignoring the findings of an expensive independent consultative report (wasting rate payers money.
(b) the lack of consultation with local residence.
(c) The bias make-up of the planning committee and whatever else might help.

Once you have a response from the council you may contact the local government ombudsman and take the matter up with them.
[quote][p][bold]disquiet[/bold] wrote: I'm a complete novice when it comes to online petitions but would it not make sense to use the 'HM Goverment e-petions' at the following link? https://submissions. epetitions.direct.go v.uk/petitions/new[/p][/quote]I think I'm right in saying you will need a substantial number of signatures for this to succeed but it's a thought. An alternative might be to complain directly to the council on grounds of mismanaging the project. For example, (a) Ignoring the findings of an expensive independent consultative report (wasting rate payers money. (b) the lack of consultation with local residence. (c) The bias make-up of the planning committee and whatever else might help. Once you have a response from the council you may contact the local government ombudsman and take the matter up with them. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 6

12:59pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

disquiet wrote:
I'm a complete novice when it comes to online petitions but would it not make sense to use the 'HM Goverment e-petions' at the following link?

https://submissions.

epetitions.direct.go

v.uk/petitions/new
The Gov site is extremely difficult to get a petition running on there as it has to do with matter thats affect central government as this is a local issue it would no doubt get rejected on that site. The site that I have used is the same one that has been used for the Bournemouth Ice Rink petition so I presumed that was probably best for local issue, hopefully Bournemouth Echo will help promote this petition as they did with the Ice Rink one.
[quote][p][bold]disquiet[/bold] wrote: I'm a complete novice when it comes to online petitions but would it not make sense to use the 'HM Goverment e-petions' at the following link? https://submissions. epetitions.direct.go v.uk/petitions/new[/p][/quote]The Gov site is extremely difficult to get a petition running on there as it has to do with matter thats affect central government as this is a local issue it would no doubt get rejected on that site. The site that I have used is the same one that has been used for the Bournemouth Ice Rink petition so I presumed that was probably best for local issue, hopefully Bournemouth Echo will help promote this petition as they did with the Ice Rink one. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

1:53pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
disquiet wrote:
I'm a complete novice when it comes to online petitions but would it not make sense to use the 'HM Goverment e-petions' at the following link?

https://submissions.


epetitions.direct.go


v.uk/petitions/new
The Gov site is extremely difficult to get a petition running on there as it has to do with matter thats affect central government as this is a local issue it would no doubt get rejected on that site. The site that I have used is the same one that has been used for the Bournemouth Ice Rink petition so I presumed that was probably best for local issue, hopefully Bournemouth Echo will help promote this petition as they did with the Ice Rink one.
The National Issue is the insensitive law that does not recognize the impossibility of providing space (to the requisite standards) that does not exist.

"Asking for blood from a stone" doesn't become more feasible just because Parliament says that it must be done and passes a law to that effect !!

It would be good if the law included a provision that requires local people to find the relevant space so far as may be reasonable - subject to ministerial adjudication. Then we might see some responsible behaviour from government at all levels. I am not holding my breath !!.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disquiet[/bold] wrote: I'm a complete novice when it comes to online petitions but would it not make sense to use the 'HM Goverment e-petions' at the following link? https://submissions. epetitions.direct.go v.uk/petitions/new[/p][/quote]The Gov site is extremely difficult to get a petition running on there as it has to do with matter thats affect central government as this is a local issue it would no doubt get rejected on that site. The site that I have used is the same one that has been used for the Bournemouth Ice Rink petition so I presumed that was probably best for local issue, hopefully Bournemouth Echo will help promote this petition as they did with the Ice Rink one.[/p][/quote]The National Issue is the insensitive law that does not recognize the impossibility of providing space (to the requisite standards) that does not exist. "Asking for blood from a stone" doesn't become more feasible just because Parliament says that it must be done and passes a law to that effect !! It would be good if the law included a provision that requires local people to find the relevant space so far as may be reasonable - subject to ministerial adjudication. Then we might see some responsible behaviour from government at all levels. I am not holding my breath !!. Ebb Tide
  • Score: -2

2:10pm Fri 31 Jan 14

spooki says...

I am trying to teach my 3yr old to treat people with respect, to look after her belongings, to have good manners, basically be a nice person.
How is it that groups of people who drive and park wherever they like, break down fences or barriers to get there, dig up fields, trash the place, leave rubbish and human excrement around and be downright rude (from little kids to adults) gets a lovely site to live on? How are they being given something when they don't deserve it? How exactly is that fair? And how is that setting example to honest people who work hard for what they get?
On the matter of vehicles, I'm sure they pay car insurance, MOTs and whatnot like most folk do (that's sarcasm by the way).
It doesn't matter whether they park illegally (which they seem to be able to do) or have a site, if they don't look after it the faculties should be withdrawn.
I am trying to teach my 3yr old to treat people with respect, to look after her belongings, to have good manners, basically be a nice person. How is it that groups of people who drive and park wherever they like, break down fences or barriers to get there, dig up fields, trash the place, leave rubbish and human excrement around and be downright rude (from little kids to adults) gets a lovely site to live on? How are they being given something when they don't deserve it? How exactly is that fair? And how is that setting example to honest people who work hard for what they get? On the matter of vehicles, I'm sure they pay car insurance, MOTs and whatnot like most folk do (that's sarcasm by the way). It doesn't matter whether they park illegally (which they seem to be able to do) or have a site, if they don't look after it the faculties should be withdrawn. spooki
  • Score: 4

4:09pm Fri 31 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

You will not win if you collude with any political group,or come on here and make personal attacks,and show rudeness to others,,No one in authority is going to be at all interested in what is said on here,especially the backbiting and immature name calling.The political groups including the smaller ones are out to win votes and will use any tactic to try and convince you they are working for you,when they are just vote catching and getting publicity.As for the anonymous contributors having a lot to say on here why dont they come out in the open ?,have they got a vested interest ?.The councillors who voted for the site,know the ropes and stay quiet.
You will not win if you collude with any political group,or come on here and make personal attacks,and show rudeness to others,,No one in authority is going to be at all interested in what is said on here,especially the backbiting and immature name calling.The political groups including the smaller ones are out to win votes and will use any tactic to try and convince you they are working for you,when they are just vote catching and getting publicity.As for the anonymous contributors having a lot to say on here why dont they come out in the open ?,have they got a vested interest ?.The councillors who voted for the site,know the ropes and stay quiet. pete woodley
  • Score: -6

6:38pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

pete woodley wrote:
Your rudeness,clearly shows you have a very high opinion of yourself.Using expressions like "is that clear" and "got it"are the signs of a bully.,who wants their own way.
I can't see how I'm being rude or bullying or wanting my own way when you clearly haven't read what's previously been said. Having said I have no time for and do not belong to any party, you replied with "I suppose you think that UKIP,are trying to help,and NOT just vote catching." I never mentioned UKIP or any other party. I repeat I have no time for politicians either local or central and do not support or belong to any political party.

Is that now clear?
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Your rudeness,clearly shows you have a very high opinion of yourself.Using expressions like "is that clear" and "got it"are the signs of a bully.,who wants their own way.[/p][/quote]I can't see how I'm being rude or bullying or wanting my own way when you clearly haven't read what's previously been said. Having said I have no time for and do not belong to any party, you replied with "I suppose you think that UKIP,are trying to help,and NOT just vote catching." I never mentioned UKIP or any other party. I repeat I have no time for politicians either local or central and do not support or belong to any political party. Is that now clear? Carolyn43
  • Score: 5

6:48pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

The Creekmoor Councillors are organising investigations by those bodies who can do proper research, including environmental and social investigations, and collecting historical data, and will let residents who wishes to be put on their email list have the results in case they want to use factual information in any objections they wish to lodge when the planning proposal is submitted.
.......
Of course, they might not find anything detrimental with which to lodge an objection.
The Creekmoor Councillors are organising investigations by those bodies who can do proper research, including environmental and social investigations, and collecting historical data, and will let residents who wishes to be put on their email list have the results in case they want to use factual information in any objections they wish to lodge when the planning proposal is submitted. ....... Of course, they might not find anything detrimental with which to lodge an objection. Carolyn43
  • Score: 1

8:03pm Fri 31 Jan 14

peterm8264 says...

pacamar wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere?
.......
Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.
Yes, the voting details can be found on the BBC web site under "South Today"
By the way, I was actually right there in front of Councillor Eades and believe me, he looked even more smug in real life.
Let's see if together we can wipe that smug grin off his face!
I'm sure we can. :-) Then we can be the ones with the grin.
I was there 2nd row , I agree he looked like the cat that got the milk I bet he gets a kickback if the site goes ahead ,and the lady mare looked like thunder and then abstained .to those people that are critising the creekmoor councillors , think again they are doing a sterling job keeping us informed and doing something about getting the troops rallied .
eads hasn't won yet NIMBY
[quote][p][bold]pacamar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Is a list of which councillors voted for, against and abstained published anywhere? ....... Just seen a clip on TV of Eades walking through the council chamber - looks very superior and smug.[/p][/quote]Yes, the voting details can be found on the BBC web site under "South Today" By the way, I was actually right there in front of Councillor Eades and believe me, he looked even more smug in real life. Let's see if together we can wipe that smug grin off his face! I'm sure we can. :-) Then we can be the ones with the grin.[/p][/quote]I was there 2nd row , I agree he looked like the cat that got the milk I bet he gets a kickback if the site goes ahead ,and the lady mare looked like thunder and then abstained .to those people that are critising the creekmoor councillors , think again they are doing a sterling job keeping us informed and doing something about getting the troops rallied . eads hasn't won yet NIMBY peterm8264
  • Score: -1

8:11pm Fri 31 Jan 14

peterm8264 says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
Your rudeness,clearly shows you have a very high opinion of yourself.Using expressions like "is that clear" and "got it"are the signs of a bully.,who wants their own way.
I can't see how I'm being rude or bullying or wanting my own way when you clearly haven't read what's previously been said. Having said I have no time for and do not belong to any party, you replied with "I suppose you think that UKIP,are trying to help,and NOT just vote catching." I never mentioned UKIP or any other party. I repeat I have no time for politicians either local or central and do not support or belong to any political party.

Is that now clear?
good for you Carolyn , don't know why u kip are being so abusive and telling the working people of creekmoor that they are scruffy and look like travellers perhaps they didn't realise that people had come straight from work to attend the meeting . keep politics out of this fight .apart from getting eads out of the seat
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Your rudeness,clearly shows you have a very high opinion of yourself.Using expressions like "is that clear" and "got it"are the signs of a bully.,who wants their own way.[/p][/quote]I can't see how I'm being rude or bullying or wanting my own way when you clearly haven't read what's previously been said. Having said I have no time for and do not belong to any party, you replied with "I suppose you think that UKIP,are trying to help,and NOT just vote catching." I never mentioned UKIP or any other party. I repeat I have no time for politicians either local or central and do not support or belong to any political party. Is that now clear?[/p][/quote]good for you Carolyn , don't know why u kip are being so abusive and telling the working people of creekmoor that they are scruffy and look like travellers perhaps they didn't realise that people had come straight from work to attend the meeting . keep politics out of this fight .apart from getting eads out of the seat peterm8264
  • Score: -5

10:20am Sat 1 Feb 14

The Happy Chatterer says...

Planning application now on BoP web site


https://boppa.boroug
hofpoole.com
/online-applications
/applicationDetails.
do?active
Tab=documents&keyVal
=_POOLE_DCAPR_226725
Planning application now on BoP web site https://boppa.boroug hofpoole.com /online-applications /applicationDetails. do?active Tab=documents&keyVal =_POOLE_DCAPR_226725 The Happy Chatterer
  • Score: 1

10:31am Sat 1 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

Thanks echo
Thanks echo pete woodley
  • Score: -5

3:59pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Jo__Go says...

There is now a Facebook group at
www.facebook.com/gro
ups/1439775626256115
/
called Poole Residents Protest! which is intended to be an area to find and post information about the idiotic and incompetent decision by BoP last week. Open to all, feel free to sign up, but be aware it is moderated and irrelevant or abusive posts will be removed.
There is now a Facebook group at www.facebook.com/gro ups/1439775626256115 / called Poole Residents Protest! which is intended to be an area to find and post information about the idiotic and incompetent decision by BoP last week. Open to all, feel free to sign up, but be aware it is moderated and irrelevant or abusive posts will be removed. Jo__Go
  • Score: 1

5:07pm Sat 1 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo.
I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Sat 1 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

marty caine.I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo.
marty caine.I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo. pete woodley
  • Score: -1

5:10pm Sat 1 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo.
I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

pete woodley wrote:
marty caine.I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo.
Look forward to meeting you there.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: marty caine.I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo.[/p][/quote]Look forward to meeting you there. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -2

7:20pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

The planning application has been submitted, but don't expect to find it under Creekmoor, Marshes End, Travellers or any other obvious word if you search for it on Poole Council web site. It's:
.........
APR/14/00123/F Land at Safety Drive Poole Dorset
........
Presumably that's to make it difficult to find. If you don't want to search, the address is:
........
https://boppa.boroug

hofpoole.com/online-

applications/simpleS

earchResults.do?acti

on=firstPage
.........
From the amount of detail, it's obvious that these documents were prepared long before the proposal went before the council last Monday. It's amazing that land that was considered too contaminated for a car park is now certified as OK for human habitation without any work having been done on it.
......
Objections must be received by the council by 21st February. There seems to be a lot of research and quite a few reasons against it being collected for residents (contact one of the Creekmoor councillors), and the businesses next to the site are also getting involved from a different perspective.
The planning application has been submitted, but don't expect to find it under Creekmoor, Marshes End, Travellers or any other obvious word if you search for it on Poole Council web site. It's: ......... APR/14/00123/F Land at Safety Drive Poole Dorset ........ Presumably that's to make it difficult to find. If you don't want to search, the address is: ........ https://boppa.boroug hofpoole.com/online- applications/simpleS earchResults.do?acti on=firstPage ......... From the amount of detail, it's obvious that these documents were prepared long before the proposal went before the council last Monday. It's amazing that land that was considered too contaminated for a car park is now certified as OK for human habitation without any work having been done on it. ...... Objections must be received by the council by 21st February. There seems to be a lot of research and quite a few reasons against it being collected for residents (contact one of the Creekmoor councillors), and the businesses next to the site are also getting involved from a different perspective. Carolyn43
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

peterm8264 wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
Your rudeness,clearly shows you have a very high opinion of yourself.Using expressions like "is that clear" and "got it"are the signs of a bully.,who wants their own way.
I can't see how I'm being rude or bullying or wanting my own way when you clearly haven't read what's previously been said. Having said I have no time for and do not belong to any party, you replied with "I suppose you think that UKIP,are trying to help,and NOT just vote catching." I never mentioned UKIP or any other party. I repeat I have no time for politicians either local or central and do not support or belong to any political party.

Is that now clear?
good for you Carolyn , don't know why u kip are being so abusive and telling the working people of creekmoor that they are scruffy and look like travellers perhaps they didn't realise that people had come straight from work to attend the meeting . keep politics out of this fight .apart from getting eads out of the seat
As The Echo have strangely decided to delete the correction made by DorsetFerret that you had got the wrong end of the stick I should point out that at no time whatsoever have I nor anyone else from UKIP referred to people of Creekmoor in that manner. The UKIP branch chairman and his wife are both Creekmoor residents and both attended that fiasco of a meeting on the 27th Jan.
[quote][p][bold]peterm8264[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Your rudeness,clearly shows you have a very high opinion of yourself.Using expressions like "is that clear" and "got it"are the signs of a bully.,who wants their own way.[/p][/quote]I can't see how I'm being rude or bullying or wanting my own way when you clearly haven't read what's previously been said. Having said I have no time for and do not belong to any party, you replied with "I suppose you think that UKIP,are trying to help,and NOT just vote catching." I never mentioned UKIP or any other party. I repeat I have no time for politicians either local or central and do not support or belong to any political party. Is that now clear?[/p][/quote]good for you Carolyn , don't know why u kip are being so abusive and telling the working people of creekmoor that they are scruffy and look like travellers perhaps they didn't realise that people had come straight from work to attend the meeting . keep politics out of this fight .apart from getting eads out of the seat[/p][/quote]As The Echo have strangely decided to delete the correction made by DorsetFerret that you had got the wrong end of the stick I should point out that at no time whatsoever have I nor anyone else from UKIP referred to people of Creekmoor in that manner. The UKIP branch chairman and his wife are both Creekmoor residents and both attended that fiasco of a meeting on the 27th Jan. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

8:38pm Sat 1 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

I had decided not to comment further given the personal issues this was causing one individual. To be honest all that was important to say, had been said.

I didn't find the registering process to registrar a complaint too difficult as long as you have the case number.

It seems to me that it is now in the hands of the planning authorities, my main concern now is the make up of the planning committee which appears too 'pro' the Creekmoor site decision. Consideration also needs to be given to any contingency plans. Apparently one of our local MP's will be at the Creekmoor meeting on the 1st of March . This is likely to be more interesting than a coffee in Kings Park.
I had decided not to comment further given the personal issues this was causing one individual. To be honest all that was important to say, had been said. I didn't find the registering process to registrar a complaint too difficult as long as you have the case number. It seems to me that it is now in the hands of the planning authorities, my main concern now is the make up of the planning committee which appears too 'pro' the Creekmoor site decision. Consideration also needs to be given to any contingency plans. Apparently one of our local MP's will be at the Creekmoor meeting on the 1st of March . This is likely to be more interesting than a coffee in Kings Park. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 3

9:19pm Sat 1 Feb 14

peterm8264 says...

i agree put this petty wrangling away and concentrate on the matter in hand see you at the meeting , could be interesting to see how much wriggling goes on
i agree put this petty wrangling away and concentrate on the matter in hand see you at the meeting , could be interesting to see how much wriggling goes on peterm8264
  • Score: -1

9:27pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
I had decided not to comment further given the personal issues this was causing one individual. To be honest all that was important to say, had been said.

I didn't find the registering process to registrar a complaint too difficult as long as you have the case number.

It seems to me that it is now in the hands of the planning authorities, my main concern now is the make up of the planning committee which appears too 'pro' the Creekmoor site decision. Consideration also needs to be given to any contingency plans. Apparently one of our local MP's will be at the Creekmoor meeting on the 1st of March . This is likely to be more interesting than a coffee in Kings Park.
I think you are right on the March the 1st Meeting being more interesting though probably a tad late, the plans are on the Poole Council website and I think you only have until 21st Feb to register your objections. There is a new group on Facebook that has just been started 'Poole Residents Protest' They have made it an open group where people can share ideas on how best to deal with this wrong decision made by Poole Council.

https://www.facebook
.com/groups/14397756
26256115/
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: I had decided not to comment further given the personal issues this was causing one individual. To be honest all that was important to say, had been said. I didn't find the registering process to registrar a complaint too difficult as long as you have the case number. It seems to me that it is now in the hands of the planning authorities, my main concern now is the make up of the planning committee which appears too 'pro' the Creekmoor site decision. Consideration also needs to be given to any contingency plans. Apparently one of our local MP's will be at the Creekmoor meeting on the 1st of March . This is likely to be more interesting than a coffee in Kings Park.[/p][/quote]I think you are right on the March the 1st Meeting being more interesting though probably a tad late, the plans are on the Poole Council website and I think you only have until 21st Feb to register your objections. There is a new group on Facebook that has just been started 'Poole Residents Protest' They have made it an open group where people can share ideas on how best to deal with this wrong decision made by Poole Council. https://www.facebook .com/groups/14397756 26256115/ Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

10:30pm Sat 1 Feb 14

mw2010 says...

Jo__Go wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
Good to see Poole being the first to drag itself out of the middle ages in Dorset and start taking some notice of the law. Parks, play areas and football pitches where my kids play are no places for temporary camps. Good to get this formalised at last.
So we'll put the site next to a skate park...
Sensible!
the travellers can have a skate and a s**t in the same place
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: Good to see Poole being the first to drag itself out of the middle ages in Dorset and start taking some notice of the law. Parks, play areas and football pitches where my kids play are no places for temporary camps. Good to get this formalised at last.[/p][/quote]So we'll put the site next to a skate park... Sensible![/p][/quote]the travellers can have a skate and a s**t in the same place mw2010
  • Score: -2

10:39pm Sat 1 Feb 14

mw2010 says...

If the traveller kids get bored they can always borrow a fire engine for a ride to stop the boredom. Poole council never have any balls when it come to travellers, Camp where they want leave their s**t all about but lets not say to much as it might hurt their feelings. Lets shut more council facilities so we have more money to put to one side so we can roll out the red carpet. Bournemouth no temporary sites - guess poole residence will have to bent over and take one for the council
If the traveller kids get bored they can always borrow a fire engine for a ride to stop the boredom. Poole council never have any balls when it come to travellers, Camp where they want leave their s**t all about but lets not say to much as it might hurt their feelings. Lets shut more council facilities so we have more money to put to one side so we can roll out the red carpet. Bournemouth no temporary sites - guess poole residence will have to bent over and take one for the council mw2010
  • Score: 1

9:48am Sun 2 Feb 14

The Happy Chatterer says...

after looking at the plans on the BoP website it would appear that while the BoP owns the proposed site it appears not to own the area marked as 'access'
Perhaps the owner of this 'ransom strip' , possibly the fire brigade or the local businesses should bring that to the BoP attention......
I also hear that the fire station may lose access through the automatic barriers which give the fire engines quick access to Creekmoor, and saves around 4 minute on the longer route.......

...4 extra minutes in a burning building sounds a good enough reason to reject the plans to me !!!!!!
after looking at the plans on the BoP website it would appear that while the BoP owns the proposed site it appears not to own the area marked as 'access' Perhaps the owner of this 'ransom strip' , possibly the fire brigade or the local businesses should bring that to the BoP attention...... I also hear that the fire station may lose access through the automatic barriers which give the fire engines quick access to Creekmoor, and saves around 4 minute on the longer route....... ...4 extra minutes in a burning building sounds a good enough reason to reject the plans to me !!!!!! The Happy Chatterer
  • Score: 6

4:00pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

pete woodley wrote:
I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo.
Well nice to meet you today at Kings park, even if I did have to buy my own coffee ;)
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo.[/p][/quote]Well nice to meet you today at Kings park, even if I did have to buy my own coffee ;) Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

3:50pm Mon 3 Feb 14

keith milton says...

Townee wrote:
Remember Poole residents to use your vote at the next election and make your vote count.
Councillors remember the decision that cost you your job
unfortunately your vote does not count,
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Remember Poole residents to use your vote at the next election and make your vote count. Councillors remember the decision that cost you your job[/p][/quote]unfortunately your vote does not count, keith milton
  • Score: 3

12:32am Tue 4 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

keith milton wrote:
Townee wrote:
Remember Poole residents to use your vote at the next election and make your vote count.
Councillors remember the decision that cost you your job
unfortunately your vote does not count,
That is an indoctrinated idea because the government realised it is far easier to gain the votes to win from a majority of a minority. Your vote actually does count very much.
[quote][p][bold]keith milton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Remember Poole residents to use your vote at the next election and make your vote count. Councillors remember the decision that cost you your job[/p][/quote]unfortunately your vote does not count,[/p][/quote]That is an indoctrinated idea because the government realised it is far easier to gain the votes to win from a majority of a minority. Your vote actually does count very much. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Tue 4 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo.
Well nice to meet you today at Kings park, even if I did have to buy my own coffee ;)
I owe you the coffees,but shouldnt you give them up if its keeping you awake at 12.32am making comments.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: I will be at kings park cafe sunday 1.15 and will buy the coffee,I will be the nearly 80year old scruffball with the skinhead hairdo.[/p][/quote]Well nice to meet you today at Kings park, even if I did have to buy my own coffee ;)[/p][/quote]I owe you the coffees,but shouldnt you give them up if its keeping you awake at 12.32am making comments. pete woodley
  • Score: 1

2:45pm Wed 5 Feb 14

cromwell9 says...

Exeter city council spent 250 grand on a simuler site ,in 2013.
When the sixty travellers found out they had to register ;and pay council tax.
They all left and moved here .
It will be a waste of money .
THEY WONT USE IT
Exeter city council spent 250 grand on a simuler site ,in 2013. When the sixty travellers found out they had to register ;and pay council tax. They all left and moved here . It will be a waste of money . THEY WONT USE IT cromwell9
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Thu 6 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

And its all gone quiet on here.
And its all gone quiet on here. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree