“I must put needs of whole borough first” – Poole council leader defends shock sacking of councillor Judy Butt

Judy Butt

Judy Butt

First published in News by

POOLE’S council leader has defended her actions in dismissing Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet.

Cllr Elaine Atkinson said she had to put the needs of the whole borough first and a cabinet position was one of “collective responsibility”.

Creekmoor Conservative Cllr Butt, who remains a ward councillor, stood up for her residents who are campaigning against Borough of Poole proposals for a summer traveller site at Marshes End.

Cllr Atkinson said that as portfolio holder Cllr Butt heard the views of many residents about illegal gypsy and traveller encampments last summer and organised a multi-agency meeting with police, fire, NHS, residents associations and the council.

Held last October, clear recommendations emerged that a solution, even temporary, be sought within the borough for this summer.

“Cllr Judy Butt moved these recommendations forward at cabinet in November and reiterated them again at council in December,” she said.

“Until one of the sites for further exploration was found within her ward she fully supported the recommendations that had been made.

“At cabinet in January Cllr Judy Butt is minuted as having said, ‘she realised she had a duty as a cabinet member but she was a ward councillor and the ward issues came first in her view’.”

Cllr Atkinson said Cllr Butt had a choice and had she not been as vocal in the beginning, she could have chosen to oppose the application on planning grounds when it goes to committee.

“I hold Judy in high esteem personally and professionally but I must put the needs of the whole borough first,” she said.

“I would question those challenging my leadership decision to remember that I have been the first leader of the council to create the position of public engagement and participation portfolio in Poole’s cabinet and I’m delighted it’s worked so well and is so highly valued.”

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:22am Tue 18 Feb 14

manyogie says...

She was doing her job, the one she was elected too, then, because it was`nt seen in the `Enclave` as toeing the party line, she was expelled!
From the write up, even though she was under pressure from her electorate to say no, she acted professionally in going through the process of arranging all the meetings beforehand, without prejudice.
The mistake Judy made was going against the queen Bee on the council.
She was doing her job, the one she was elected too, then, because it was`nt seen in the `Enclave` as toeing the party line, she was expelled! From the write up, even though she was under pressure from her electorate to say no, she acted professionally in going through the process of arranging all the meetings beforehand, without prejudice. The mistake Judy made was going against the queen Bee on the council. manyogie
  • Score: 16

7:12am Tue 18 Feb 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Show how weak the leader is when she allows not tax paying travellers to compromise a democratically elected councillor.
Show how weak the leader is when she allows not tax paying travellers to compromise a democratically elected councillor. kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 19

7:14am Tue 18 Feb 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

You mean your needs...............
...................
You mean your needs............... ................... Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 7

7:56am Tue 18 Feb 14

anothercodger says...

Interestingly the site at marshes end is one of those which had been previously rejected prior to the 2011 consultation paper in which an integrated initiative for Dorset, Poole, Bournemouth is still being worked upon.

Poole seems to have suffered a knee jerk reaction, both in endeavouring to push through the proposed site and in sacking Judy Butt. Still we have an opportunity to change all that in our elections next May. If you don't like what the council is doing, get out and vote.
Interestingly the site at marshes end is one of those which had been previously rejected prior to the 2011 consultation paper in which an integrated initiative for Dorset, Poole, Bournemouth is still being worked upon. Poole seems to have suffered a knee jerk reaction, both in endeavouring to push through the proposed site and in sacking Judy Butt. Still we have an opportunity to change all that in our elections next May. If you don't like what the council is doing, get out and vote. anothercodger
  • Score: 16

8:07am Tue 18 Feb 14

anothercodger says...

My apologies for typos and errors as the draft version of the above was posted before I had edited and added a further comment.

“I would question those challenging my leadership decision to remember that I have been the first leader of the council to create the position of public engagement and participation portfolio in Poole’s cabinet and I’m delighted it’s worked so well and is so highly valued.”

So much for "Collective Responsibility"
My apologies for typos and errors as the draft version of the above was posted before I had edited and added a further comment. “I would question those challenging my leadership decision to remember that I have been the first leader of the council to create the position of public engagement and participation portfolio in Poole’s cabinet and I’m delighted it’s worked so well and is so highly valued.” So much for "Collective Responsibility" anothercodger
  • Score: 7

8:25am Tue 18 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

Well if Atkjnson bothers to look at the very valid reasons objectors have put forward regarding the unsuitability of the site - not NIMBY opinions, but real serious reasons - she'll see that Judy Butt was not only right to represent her ward residents but also the residents in the whole of Poole. If the council bulldozer this through, they''ll be doing a disservice to all residents when the travellers pitch up on private land and the council has no responsibility to move them on.
.......
The whole panning process for this site is flawed. Go to the Poole web site and read the objections to see how wrong it is. Missing from the planning page is the two letters written to the council by the representative of the Gypsy Council. Why? They obviously don't want us to see that they will not use the site and the reasons why they won't. And don't kid yourselves that they won't occupy land in Poole. Residents will be landed with another white elephant next to the existing one (Park and Ride), which will have cost thousands for no purpose, and could have been used for services for residents.
..........
Atkinson should resign as leader and let Judy Butt take over the role - she actually engages with residents and seeks their views. Judy's remit was Community Engagement and that's just what she was doing - her job.
Well if Atkjnson bothers to look at the very valid reasons objectors have put forward regarding the unsuitability of the site - not NIMBY opinions, but real serious reasons - she'll see that Judy Butt was not only right to represent her ward residents but also the residents in the whole of Poole. If the council bulldozer this through, they''ll be doing a disservice to all residents when the travellers pitch up on private land and the council has no responsibility to move them on. ....... The whole panning process for this site is flawed. Go to the Poole web site and read the objections to see how wrong it is. Missing from the planning page is the two letters written to the council by the representative of the Gypsy Council. Why? They obviously don't want us to see that they will not use the site and the reasons why they won't. And don't kid yourselves that they won't occupy land in Poole. Residents will be landed with another white elephant next to the existing one (Park and Ride), which will have cost thousands for no purpose, and could have been used for services for residents. .......... Atkinson should resign as leader and let Judy Butt take over the role - she actually engages with residents and seeks their views. Judy's remit was Community Engagement and that's just what she was doing - her job. Carolyn43
  • Score: 14

8:27am Tue 18 Feb 14

N Smith says...

Atkinson your opinions don't represent the local viewpoint, it's you who should resign .
Atkinson your opinions don't represent the local viewpoint, it's you who should resign . N Smith
  • Score: 20

8:28am Tue 18 Feb 14

moleman says...

If Judy Butt was proposing to push through a plan for a temporary stopping site and actively pursued the proposal, then she must have been party to the decision to spend a large amount of council tax payers money on a project that she knew Creekmoor residents would be unlikely to back and in fact actively oppose.
Just who's interests she was acting on seems unclear.
Now the plan is to put the site in Creekmoor and she is clearly trying to make the best of the mess that she seems to have instigated.
If Judy Butt was proposing to push through a plan for a temporary stopping site and actively pursued the proposal, then she must have been party to the decision to spend a large amount of council tax payers money on a project that she knew Creekmoor residents would be unlikely to back and in fact actively oppose. Just who's interests she was acting on seems unclear. Now the plan is to put the site in Creekmoor and she is clearly trying to make the best of the mess that she seems to have instigated. moleman
  • Score: 4

8:28am Tue 18 Feb 14

N Smith says...

N Smith wrote:
Atkinson your opinions don't represent the local viewpoint, it's you who should resign .
Just like to add take that moron Eades with you as well.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: Atkinson your opinions don't represent the local viewpoint, it's you who should resign .[/p][/quote]Just like to add take that moron Eades with you as well. N Smith
  • Score: 16

8:32am Tue 18 Feb 14

Chris@Bmouth says...

Schmuck.
Schmuck. Chris@Bmouth
  • Score: 0

8:50am Tue 18 Feb 14

Wackerone says...

Isn't it strange how suddenly the residents of Creekmoor have a grave concern for the health, safety and general welfare of the travellers when prior to the intended temporary site being selected, they wanted them burnt at the stake! Judy Butt was one of the main movers to find a site somewhere in Poole, now we realise that she was happy for it to be anywhere but Creekmoor! That is why she had to go. As for people to get out and vote in the next election to change the council, most people in the other wards are quite happy that their cllr's voted as they did and will probably return them with bigger majorities, including Elaine Atkinson.
Isn't it strange how suddenly the residents of Creekmoor have a grave concern for the health, safety and general welfare of the travellers when prior to the intended temporary site being selected, they wanted them burnt at the stake! Judy Butt was one of the main movers to find a site somewhere in Poole, now we realise that she was happy for it to be anywhere but Creekmoor! That is why she had to go. As for people to get out and vote in the next election to change the council, most people in the other wards are quite happy that their cllr's voted as they did and will probably return them with bigger majorities, including Elaine Atkinson. Wackerone
  • Score: -3

8:51am Tue 18 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

moleman wrote:
If Judy Butt was proposing to push through a plan for a temporary stopping site and actively pursued the proposal, then she must have been party to the decision to spend a large amount of council tax payers money on a project that she knew Creekmoor residents would be unlikely to back and in fact actively oppose.
Just who's interests she was acting on seems unclear.
Now the plan is to put the site in Creekmoor and she is clearly trying to make the best of the mess that she seems to have instigated.
None of the councillors knew of the existence of the list of 9 prospective sites, let alone the two that had been selected until just before the council meeting that announced them.
......
Yes she was in the group pursuing a, repeat A, temporary site, but not one which is totally unsuitable.
.......
I repeat, before posting, read the objections on the planning application to see that valid REASONS (not opinions) why that site is wrong, wherever it was.
......
APP/14/00123/F
......
It wasn't until this site was announced that Judy and everyone else in the area with local knowledge, could say that the site was unsuitable FOR VERY VALID REASONS, not just for the residents of Creekmoor, but for ALL residents of Poole. It won't solve anything - in fact it could produce even more problems. The fact that the site is in her ward and she is representing her ward residents is coincidental. She would have agreed that any site identical to this wherever it was was unsuitable and would not have supported it. She has total integrity.
......
She didn't instigate anything. So stop accusing her of something she didn't do. READ THE OBJECTIONS and then say they're not good reasons for not going ahead with it.
[quote][p][bold]moleman[/bold] wrote: If Judy Butt was proposing to push through a plan for a temporary stopping site and actively pursued the proposal, then she must have been party to the decision to spend a large amount of council tax payers money on a project that she knew Creekmoor residents would be unlikely to back and in fact actively oppose. Just who's interests she was acting on seems unclear. Now the plan is to put the site in Creekmoor and she is clearly trying to make the best of the mess that she seems to have instigated.[/p][/quote]None of the councillors knew of the existence of the list of 9 prospective sites, let alone the two that had been selected until just before the council meeting that announced them. ...... Yes she was in the group pursuing a, repeat A, temporary site, but not one which is totally unsuitable. ....... I repeat, before posting, read the objections on the planning application to see that valid REASONS (not opinions) why that site is wrong, wherever it was. ...... APP/14/00123/F ...... It wasn't until this site was announced that Judy and everyone else in the area with local knowledge, could say that the site was unsuitable FOR VERY VALID REASONS, not just for the residents of Creekmoor, but for ALL residents of Poole. It won't solve anything - in fact it could produce even more problems. The fact that the site is in her ward and she is representing her ward residents is coincidental. She would have agreed that any site identical to this wherever it was was unsuitable and would not have supported it. She has total integrity. ...... She didn't instigate anything. So stop accusing her of something she didn't do. READ THE OBJECTIONS and then say they're not good reasons for not going ahead with it. Carolyn43
  • Score: 8

8:56am Tue 18 Feb 14

Benagain says...

Judy Butt should stand for Poole People in the next election. She should romp home.
Judy Butt should stand for Poole People in the next election. She should romp home. Benagain
  • Score: 11

9:23am Tue 18 Feb 14

sea poole says...

The problem with the Leader of the Council is that she's trying to pretend to be on a similar stature as national leaders-playing at being 'big' but in reality she's in a very 'small' pond! She was a non-descript when a mere councillor and now thinks she's the bees' knees, but her knowledge and intellectual capacity within politics have remained in a huge chasm
The problem with the Leader of the Council is that she's trying to pretend to be on a similar stature as national leaders-playing at being 'big' but in reality she's in a very 'small' pond! She was a non-descript when a mere councillor and now thinks she's the bees' knees, but her knowledge and intellectual capacity within politics have remained in a huge chasm sea poole
  • Score: 7

9:46am Tue 18 Feb 14

joeinpoole says...

Wackerone wrote:
Isn't it strange how suddenly the residents of Creekmoor have a grave concern for the health, safety and general welfare of the travellers when prior to the intended temporary site being selected, they wanted them burnt at the stake! Judy Butt was one of the main movers to find a site somewhere in Poole, now we realise that she was happy for it to be anywhere but Creekmoor! That is why she had to go. As for people to get out and vote in the next election to change the council, most people in the other wards are quite happy that their cllr's voted as they did and will probably return them with bigger majorities, including Elaine Atkinson.
Well said! Butt had compromised herself and should have resigned from the cabinet before the vote (if she wanted to vote against what were effectively her own recommendations).

Good strong leadership from Atkinson.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: Isn't it strange how suddenly the residents of Creekmoor have a grave concern for the health, safety and general welfare of the travellers when prior to the intended temporary site being selected, they wanted them burnt at the stake! Judy Butt was one of the main movers to find a site somewhere in Poole, now we realise that she was happy for it to be anywhere but Creekmoor! That is why she had to go. As for people to get out and vote in the next election to change the council, most people in the other wards are quite happy that their cllr's voted as they did and will probably return them with bigger majorities, including Elaine Atkinson.[/p][/quote]Well said! Butt had compromised herself and should have resigned from the cabinet before the vote (if she wanted to vote against what were effectively her own recommendations). Good strong leadership from Atkinson. joeinpoole
  • Score: -11

9:59am Tue 18 Feb 14

TheDistrict says...

Regardless of whether Cllr Butt was part of the proposal for a site, is in fact nothing to do with her backing her electorate. She was in agreement to a Temp Site for the summer months, however, it was obviously brought to her attention by the electorate that the site at Marsh Ends is not an appropriate site. I am surprised that Dorset Fire Service has not put in their votes against this proposed site, or is it because they are owned by the Councils so to speak. Cllr Atkinson may have thought Judy Butt was in the wrong, but obviously did not look into the fact that she represents the electorate of Creekmoor. I am sure had she supported the Marsh Ends site she would have lost out next year at the elections. Cllr Atkinson should be the one losing her position on the council. Just like Charon and Beesley.
Regardless of whether Cllr Butt was part of the proposal for a site, is in fact nothing to do with her backing her electorate. She was in agreement to a Temp Site for the summer months, however, it was obviously brought to her attention by the electorate that the site at Marsh Ends is not an appropriate site. I am surprised that Dorset Fire Service has not put in their votes against this proposed site, or is it because they are owned by the Councils so to speak. Cllr Atkinson may have thought Judy Butt was in the wrong, but obviously did not look into the fact that she represents the electorate of Creekmoor. I am sure had she supported the Marsh Ends site she would have lost out next year at the elections. Cllr Atkinson should be the one losing her position on the council. Just like Charon and Beesley. TheDistrict
  • Score: 4

10:00am Tue 18 Feb 14

John T says...

sea poole wrote:
The problem with the Leader of the Council is that she's trying to pretend to be on a similar stature as national leaders-playing at being 'big' but in reality she's in a very 'small' pond! She was a non-descript when a mere councillor and now thinks she's the bees' knees, but her knowledge and intellectual capacity within politics have remained in a huge chasm
And the other real problem is that there is no one among the other sycophantic Poole Conservatives who could do a better job as Leader than Cllr Atkinson, especially now that Judy Butt has been sacked.
[quote][p][bold]sea poole[/bold] wrote: The problem with the Leader of the Council is that she's trying to pretend to be on a similar stature as national leaders-playing at being 'big' but in reality she's in a very 'small' pond! She was a non-descript when a mere councillor and now thinks she's the bees' knees, but her knowledge and intellectual capacity within politics have remained in a huge chasm[/p][/quote]And the other real problem is that there is no one among the other sycophantic Poole Conservatives who could do a better job as Leader than Cllr Atkinson, especially now that Judy Butt has been sacked. John T
  • Score: -3

10:02am Tue 18 Feb 14

Old Colonial says...

joeinpoole wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
Isn't it strange how suddenly the residents of Creekmoor have a grave concern for the health, safety and general welfare of the travellers when prior to the intended temporary site being selected, they wanted them burnt at the stake! Judy Butt was one of the main movers to find a site somewhere in Poole, now we realise that she was happy for it to be anywhere but Creekmoor! That is why she had to go. As for people to get out and vote in the next election to change the council, most people in the other wards are quite happy that their cllr's voted as they did and will probably return them with bigger majorities, including Elaine Atkinson.
Well said! Butt had compromised herself and should have resigned from the cabinet before the vote (if she wanted to vote against what were effectively her own recommendations).

Good strong leadership from Atkinson.
That's not 'leadership' it's dictatorship.
[quote][p][bold]joeinpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: Isn't it strange how suddenly the residents of Creekmoor have a grave concern for the health, safety and general welfare of the travellers when prior to the intended temporary site being selected, they wanted them burnt at the stake! Judy Butt was one of the main movers to find a site somewhere in Poole, now we realise that she was happy for it to be anywhere but Creekmoor! That is why she had to go. As for people to get out and vote in the next election to change the council, most people in the other wards are quite happy that their cllr's voted as they did and will probably return them with bigger majorities, including Elaine Atkinson.[/p][/quote]Well said! Butt had compromised herself and should have resigned from the cabinet before the vote (if she wanted to vote against what were effectively her own recommendations). Good strong leadership from Atkinson.[/p][/quote]That's not 'leadership' it's dictatorship. Old Colonial
  • Score: 16

10:12am Tue 18 Feb 14

Major Futtock says...

Atkinson Must GO! and GO NOW!
She is risking turning Poole into a dictatorship.
Her behaviour is inexcusable. Butt was only doing what a Councillor Should do, which is represent those who elected her.
These bully boy tactics in Poole Council must stop, before any more damage is done to Poole. Let's face it the Poole Council don't have that a brilliant reputation. How many times have the been investigated now? Is it four or five.
Pyramid farce. Spying on Parents taking kids to the 'wrong' school.
'Miss Whiplash' found working in the Council. Central Government investigation into general running of the Council. It goes on and on.
Time for a mega shake up! Starting with the resignation of Atkinson.
Atkinson Must GO! and GO NOW! She is risking turning Poole into a dictatorship. Her behaviour is inexcusable. Butt was only doing what a Councillor Should do, which is represent those who elected her. These bully boy tactics in Poole Council must stop, before any more damage is done to Poole. Let's face it the Poole Council don't have that a brilliant reputation. How many times have the been investigated now? Is it four or five. Pyramid farce. Spying on Parents taking kids to the 'wrong' school. 'Miss Whiplash' found working in the Council. Central Government investigation into general running of the Council. It goes on and on. Time for a mega shake up! Starting with the resignation of Atkinson. Major Futtock
  • Score: 8

10:19am Tue 18 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

The boroughs needs for a transit site have been well aired and I for one understand them more fully, it makes sense. What I don't understand is how none of the recommended locations proposed in the (expensive) consultative document were considered or thought viable and the Creekmoor site suddenly appeared as the favoured option. Some underhand arm-twisting must have taken place which left Councillor Butt in an untenable position. Councillor Atkinson as council leader should ask an independent group to explore the process that applied and report upon it before dismissing councillors for doing their job.
The boroughs needs for a transit site have been well aired and I for one understand them more fully, it makes sense. What I don't understand is how none of the recommended locations proposed in the (expensive) consultative document were considered or thought viable and the Creekmoor site suddenly appeared as the favoured option. Some underhand arm-twisting must have taken place which left Councillor Butt in an untenable position. Councillor Atkinson as council leader should ask an independent group to explore the process that applied and report upon it before dismissing councillors for doing their job. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 16

10:27am Tue 18 Feb 14

anothercodger says...

Can I recommend that any one who wishes to take a detailed and informed view should study the following documents published by Dorset County Council following the consultation "Have your say: finding sites in Dorset for Gypsies and Travellers Consultation – November 2011"

http://www.dorsetfor
you.com/media.jsp?me
diaid=167724&filetyp
e=pdf

and

"Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment " September 2013

http://www.dorsetfor
you.com/media.jsp?me
diaid=190545&filetyp
e=pdf

Before anyone jumps on my back let me state clearly that I am not fully informed on the matter, but have discovered these important resources.
Can I recommend that any one who wishes to take a detailed and informed view should study the following documents published by Dorset County Council following the consultation "Have your say: finding sites in Dorset for Gypsies and Travellers Consultation – November 2011" http://www.dorsetfor you.com/media.jsp?me diaid=167724&filetyp e=pdf and "Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment " September 2013 http://www.dorsetfor you.com/media.jsp?me diaid=190545&filetyp e=pdf Before anyone jumps on my back let me state clearly that I am not fully informed on the matter, but have discovered these important resources. anothercodger
  • Score: 1

10:33am Tue 18 Feb 14

Wackerone says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
moleman wrote:
If Judy Butt was proposing to push through a plan for a temporary stopping site and actively pursued the proposal, then she must have been party to the decision to spend a large amount of council tax payers money on a project that she knew Creekmoor residents would be unlikely to back and in fact actively oppose.
Just who's interests she was acting on seems unclear.
Now the plan is to put the site in Creekmoor and she is clearly trying to make the best of the mess that she seems to have instigated.
None of the councillors knew of the existence of the list of 9 prospective sites, let alone the two that had been selected until just before the council meeting that announced them.
......
Yes she was in the group pursuing a, repeat A, temporary site, but not one which is totally unsuitable.
.......
I repeat, before posting, read the objections on the planning application to see that valid REASONS (not opinions) why that site is wrong, wherever it was.
......
APP/14/00123/F
......
It wasn't until this site was announced that Judy and everyone else in the area with local knowledge, could say that the site was unsuitable FOR VERY VALID REASONS, not just for the residents of Creekmoor, but for ALL residents of Poole. It won't solve anything - in fact it could produce even more problems. The fact that the site is in her ward and she is representing her ward residents is coincidental. She would have agreed that any site identical to this wherever it was was unsuitable and would not have supported it. She has total integrity.
......
She didn't instigate anything. So stop accusing her of something she didn't do. READ THE OBJECTIONS and then say they're not good reasons for not going ahead with it.
I have now read the objections after following your link. What I find strange is that all the people making objections and extremely concerned for the travellers health and welfare all have Creekmoor addresses. Just wondering why there dosn't seem to be any concern from other residents in Poole? Maybe you have the answer to that one especially as comments on these pages a few months ago were eg. 'put them down by the sewerage plant at the end of the spur road!'
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]moleman[/bold] wrote: If Judy Butt was proposing to push through a plan for a temporary stopping site and actively pursued the proposal, then she must have been party to the decision to spend a large amount of council tax payers money on a project that she knew Creekmoor residents would be unlikely to back and in fact actively oppose. Just who's interests she was acting on seems unclear. Now the plan is to put the site in Creekmoor and she is clearly trying to make the best of the mess that she seems to have instigated.[/p][/quote]None of the councillors knew of the existence of the list of 9 prospective sites, let alone the two that had been selected until just before the council meeting that announced them. ...... Yes she was in the group pursuing a, repeat A, temporary site, but not one which is totally unsuitable. ....... I repeat, before posting, read the objections on the planning application to see that valid REASONS (not opinions) why that site is wrong, wherever it was. ...... APP/14/00123/F ...... It wasn't until this site was announced that Judy and everyone else in the area with local knowledge, could say that the site was unsuitable FOR VERY VALID REASONS, not just for the residents of Creekmoor, but for ALL residents of Poole. It won't solve anything - in fact it could produce even more problems. The fact that the site is in her ward and she is representing her ward residents is coincidental. She would have agreed that any site identical to this wherever it was was unsuitable and would not have supported it. She has total integrity. ...... She didn't instigate anything. So stop accusing her of something she didn't do. READ THE OBJECTIONS and then say they're not good reasons for not going ahead with it.[/p][/quote]I have now read the objections after following your link. What I find strange is that all the people making objections and extremely concerned for the travellers health and welfare all have Creekmoor addresses. Just wondering why there dosn't seem to be any concern from other residents in Poole? Maybe you have the answer to that one especially as comments on these pages a few months ago were eg. 'put them down by the sewerage plant at the end of the spur road!' Wackerone
  • Score: 2

10:37am Tue 18 Feb 14

jinglebell says...

If Councillors don't put forward objections raised by the residents in their Ward, there is no point in having Councillors; their entire purpose to represent the residents. What the Leader of the Council - Elaine Atkinson - has enforced is a diktat that no other Councillors are required as her decision is the law.
That being the case, the dictatorship at Poole does not require any Councillors whatsoever.
If Councillors don't put forward objections raised by the residents in their Ward, there is no point in having Councillors; their entire purpose to represent the residents. What the Leader of the Council - Elaine Atkinson - has enforced is a diktat that no other Councillors are required as her decision is the law. That being the case, the dictatorship at Poole does not require any Councillors whatsoever. jinglebell
  • Score: 5

10:46am Tue 18 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

At what point does 'collective responsibility' with one individual leading become a dictatorship? E.G. Could it be said that somewhere like North Korea governed by 'collective responsibility' - where being sacked is the least of your problems if you don't toe the Leaders line!

But whilst I cannot differ with the Council Leader when she says " I must put the needs of the whole borough first", I have to ask how this aspiration fits with the Borough building a 'traveller' camp at all. Because with a few exceptions I am sure most residents don't want there to be a 'traveller' site anywhere in Poole, so it seems she is really putting the 'travellers' needs well ahead of the Borough's own people.
At what point does 'collective responsibility' with one individual leading become a dictatorship? E.G. Could it be said that somewhere like North Korea governed by 'collective responsibility' - where being sacked is the least of your problems if you don't toe the Leaders line! But whilst I cannot differ with the Council Leader when she says " I must put the needs of the whole borough first", I have to ask how this aspiration fits with the Borough building a 'traveller' camp at all. Because with a few exceptions I am sure most residents don't want there to be a 'traveller' site anywhere in Poole, so it seems she is really putting the 'travellers' needs well ahead of the Borough's own people. muscliffman
  • Score: 9

12:14pm Tue 18 Feb 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Who actually decides who is a traveller?.Is there a dedicated office that decides who can roam the country and enjoy the benefits? .Do they have some I'D that they produce when asked why they have chosen to rest up in on a site rent free then leave leaving rubbish all over the site without question.?how long do they need to stay before they get to vote for somebody that is sympathetic to their needs regardless of it meaning that the good people who fund this lifestyle do now loose their voice on this issue . Bit naive I know
Who actually decides who is a traveller?.Is there a dedicated office that decides who can roam the country and enjoy the benefits? .Do they have some I'D that they produce when asked why they have chosen to rest up in on a site rent free then leave leaving rubbish all over the site without question.?how long do they need to stay before they get to vote for somebody that is sympathetic to their needs regardless of it meaning that the good people who fund this lifestyle do now loose their voice on this issue . Bit naive I know kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 10

12:58pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
moleman wrote:
If Judy Butt was proposing to push through a plan for a temporary stopping site and actively pursued the proposal, then she must have been party to the decision to spend a large amount of council tax payers money on a project that she knew Creekmoor residents would be unlikely to back and in fact actively oppose.
Just who's interests she was acting on seems unclear.
Now the plan is to put the site in Creekmoor and she is clearly trying to make the best of the mess that she seems to have instigated.
None of the councillors knew of the existence of the list of 9 prospective sites, let alone the two that had been selected until just before the council meeting that announced them.
......
Yes she was in the group pursuing a, repeat A, temporary site, but not one which is totally unsuitable.
.......
I repeat, before posting, read the objections on the planning application to see that valid REASONS (not opinions) why that site is wrong, wherever it was.
......
APP/14/00123/F
......
It wasn't until this site was announced that Judy and everyone else in the area with local knowledge, could say that the site was unsuitable FOR VERY VALID REASONS, not just for the residents of Creekmoor, but for ALL residents of Poole. It won't solve anything - in fact it could produce even more problems. The fact that the site is in her ward and she is representing her ward residents is coincidental. She would have agreed that any site identical to this wherever it was was unsuitable and would not have supported it. She has total integrity.
......
She didn't instigate anything. So stop accusing her of something she didn't do. READ THE OBJECTIONS and then say they're not good reasons for not going ahead with it.
"None of the councillors knew of the existence of the list of 9 prospective sites" - Ha Ha Ha!!! Who are you trying to kid????
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]moleman[/bold] wrote: If Judy Butt was proposing to push through a plan for a temporary stopping site and actively pursued the proposal, then she must have been party to the decision to spend a large amount of council tax payers money on a project that she knew Creekmoor residents would be unlikely to back and in fact actively oppose. Just who's interests she was acting on seems unclear. Now the plan is to put the site in Creekmoor and she is clearly trying to make the best of the mess that she seems to have instigated.[/p][/quote]None of the councillors knew of the existence of the list of 9 prospective sites, let alone the two that had been selected until just before the council meeting that announced them. ...... Yes she was in the group pursuing a, repeat A, temporary site, but not one which is totally unsuitable. ....... I repeat, before posting, read the objections on the planning application to see that valid REASONS (not opinions) why that site is wrong, wherever it was. ...... APP/14/00123/F ...... It wasn't until this site was announced that Judy and everyone else in the area with local knowledge, could say that the site was unsuitable FOR VERY VALID REASONS, not just for the residents of Creekmoor, but for ALL residents of Poole. It won't solve anything - in fact it could produce even more problems. The fact that the site is in her ward and she is representing her ward residents is coincidental. She would have agreed that any site identical to this wherever it was was unsuitable and would not have supported it. She has total integrity. ...... She didn't instigate anything. So stop accusing her of something she didn't do. READ THE OBJECTIONS and then say they're not good reasons for not going ahead with it.[/p][/quote]"None of the councillors knew of the existence of the list of 9 prospective sites" - Ha Ha Ha!!! Who are you trying to kid???? Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 6

3:29pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Desperado says...

Reinstate Judy Butt .
Reinstate Judy Butt . Desperado
  • Score: -1

3:58pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Getridofthetories says...

The government is a dictatorship, Ms Atkinson is following the leader. Get rid of the Tories in the next election, under labour we had no strikes and companies folding as they are now, our national health service was becoming great again after thatcher and John Major, both of which left an enormous debt which labour done a good job of reducing.

Resign Elaine before your kicked out
The government is a dictatorship, Ms Atkinson is following the leader. Get rid of the Tories in the next election, under labour we had no strikes and companies folding as they are now, our national health service was becoming great again after thatcher and John Major, both of which left an enormous debt which labour done a good job of reducing. Resign Elaine before your kicked out Getridofthetories
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Tue 18 Feb 14

manyogie says...

S'funney, If I were Cllr A, I would actively join in on this debate, bringing my point of view out in the open to balance the tables, however, by the lack of input, it is left to the debate to
A. Assume she knows she is wrong.
B. Assume that the high and mighty Cllr A is above all this nonsense
S'funney, If I were Cllr A, I would actively join in on this debate, bringing my point of view out in the open to balance the tables, however, by the lack of input, it is left to the debate to A. Assume she knows she is wrong. B. Assume that the high and mighty Cllr A is above all this nonsense manyogie
  • Score: 1

6:15pm Tue 18 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

“I must put needs of whole borough first” Excellent, you've come to your senses, when are you leaving?
“I must put needs of whole borough first” Excellent, you've come to your senses, when are you leaving? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

6:29pm Tue 18 Feb 14

LoulouBlue says...

Councillor Atkins said :“I hold Judy in high esteem personally and professionally but I must put the needs of the whole borough first,”
Judy put the needs of the people who voted her in first
She then says
“I would question those challenging my leadership decision to remember that I have been the first leader of the council to create the position of public engagement and participation portfolio in Poole’s cabinet and I’m delighted it’s worked so well and is so highly valued.”

But are you highly valued Councillor Atkins ? highly valued as Judy is ?
Councillor Atkins said :“I hold Judy in high esteem personally and professionally but I must put the needs of the whole borough first,” Judy put the needs of the people who voted her in first She then says “I would question those challenging my leadership decision to remember that I have been the first leader of the council to create the position of public engagement and participation portfolio in Poole’s cabinet and I’m delighted it’s worked so well and is so highly valued.” But are you highly valued Councillor Atkins ? highly valued as Judy is ? LoulouBlue
  • Score: 3

6:44pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

Wackerone wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
moleman wrote:
If Judy Butt was proposing to push through a plan for a temporary stopping site and actively pursued the proposal, then she must have been party to the decision to spend a large amount of council tax payers money on a project that she knew Creekmoor residents would be unlikely to back and in fact actively oppose.
Just who's interests she was acting on seems unclear.
Now the plan is to put the site in Creekmoor and she is clearly trying to make the best of the mess that she seems to have instigated.
None of the councillors knew of the existence of the list of 9 prospective sites, let alone the two that had been selected until just before the council meeting that announced them.
......
Yes she was in the group pursuing a, repeat A, temporary site, but not one which is totally unsuitable.
.......
I repeat, before posting, read the objections on the planning application to see that valid REASONS (not opinions) why that site is wrong, wherever it was.
......
APP/14/00123/F
......
It wasn't until this site was announced that Judy and everyone else in the area with local knowledge, could say that the site was unsuitable FOR VERY VALID REASONS, not just for the residents of Creekmoor, but for ALL residents of Poole. It won't solve anything - in fact it could produce even more problems. The fact that the site is in her ward and she is representing her ward residents is coincidental. She would have agreed that any site identical to this wherever it was was unsuitable and would not have supported it. She has total integrity.
......
She didn't instigate anything. So stop accusing her of something she didn't do. READ THE OBJECTIONS and then say they're not good reasons for not going ahead with it.
I have now read the objections after following your link. What I find strange is that all the people making objections and extremely concerned for the travellers health and welfare all have Creekmoor addresses. Just wondering why there dosn't seem to be any concern from other residents in Poole? Maybe you have the answer to that one especially as comments on these pages a few months ago were eg. 'put them down by the sewerage plant at the end of the spur road!'
The people "showing concern for the travellers health and wellbeing" are reiterating what is laid down in the conditions which should be applied to any site chosen. If the council does not adhere to those conditions they will be in breach and the travellers/gypsies will be within their right not to use it and will pitch up elsewhere. That's what you want is it?.
.....
You have conveniently not bothered to mention the other objections which would have an affect on residents in general , to mention just five: (1) the business park occupants have said they will erect a fence around their premises so that fire engines will no longer be able to continue with the voluntary arrangement to cut through their car park when attending incidents to the north, increasing response time and therefore risking life; (2) fire engines possibly trying to get to an incident while travellers are entering the site sharing the same entrance slip road; (3) danger to road users on the dual carriageway if animals/children wander from the site on to the road; (4) the site of a “prison compound” and travellers’ caravans as the first site visitors Poole will get on this “gateway” to the town; (5) danger and inconvenience to motorists queueing while a convey of travellers is guided into the site by a council official, having been moved on from their first pitch. Remember the gate will be locked until a council officer unlocks it to let them in.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]moleman[/bold] wrote: If Judy Butt was proposing to push through a plan for a temporary stopping site and actively pursued the proposal, then she must have been party to the decision to spend a large amount of council tax payers money on a project that she knew Creekmoor residents would be unlikely to back and in fact actively oppose. Just who's interests she was acting on seems unclear. Now the plan is to put the site in Creekmoor and she is clearly trying to make the best of the mess that she seems to have instigated.[/p][/quote]None of the councillors knew of the existence of the list of 9 prospective sites, let alone the two that had been selected until just before the council meeting that announced them. ...... Yes she was in the group pursuing a, repeat A, temporary site, but not one which is totally unsuitable. ....... I repeat, before posting, read the objections on the planning application to see that valid REASONS (not opinions) why that site is wrong, wherever it was. ...... APP/14/00123/F ...... It wasn't until this site was announced that Judy and everyone else in the area with local knowledge, could say that the site was unsuitable FOR VERY VALID REASONS, not just for the residents of Creekmoor, but for ALL residents of Poole. It won't solve anything - in fact it could produce even more problems. The fact that the site is in her ward and she is representing her ward residents is coincidental. She would have agreed that any site identical to this wherever it was was unsuitable and would not have supported it. She has total integrity. ...... She didn't instigate anything. So stop accusing her of something she didn't do. READ THE OBJECTIONS and then say they're not good reasons for not going ahead with it.[/p][/quote]I have now read the objections after following your link. What I find strange is that all the people making objections and extremely concerned for the travellers health and welfare all have Creekmoor addresses. Just wondering why there dosn't seem to be any concern from other residents in Poole? Maybe you have the answer to that one especially as comments on these pages a few months ago were eg. 'put them down by the sewerage plant at the end of the spur road!'[/p][/quote]The people "showing concern for the travellers health and wellbeing" are reiterating what is laid down in the conditions which should be applied to any site chosen. If the council does not adhere to those conditions they will be in breach and the travellers/gypsies will be within their right not to use it and will pitch up elsewhere. That's what you want is it?. ..... You have conveniently not bothered to mention the other objections which would have an affect on residents in general , to mention just five: (1) the business park occupants have said they will erect a fence around their premises so that fire engines will no longer be able to continue with the voluntary arrangement to cut through their car park when attending incidents to the north, increasing response time and therefore risking life; (2) fire engines possibly trying to get to an incident while travellers are entering the site sharing the same entrance slip road; (3) danger to road users on the dual carriageway if animals/children wander from the site on to the road; (4) the site of a “prison compound” and travellers’ caravans as the first site visitors Poole will get on this “gateway” to the town; (5) danger and inconvenience to motorists queueing while a convey of travellers is guided into the site by a council official, having been moved on from their first pitch. Remember the gate will be locked until a council officer unlocks it to let them in. Carolyn43
  • Score: 1

9:56pm Tue 18 Feb 14

cromwell9 says...

Its obvious the traveling comunity are not welcome in the UK,because of their nomadic life stile ETC,
They dont fit in the 21st century way of life,and are strugling to hold on to their way of life.
Unfortunatly the situation for them will get worse as the years go by,
Judy Butt was very brave standing up Atkinson.
Stand as a Indipendant Judy ,YOU will be Okay,
Its obvious the traveling comunity are not welcome in the UK,because of their nomadic life stile ETC, They dont fit in the 21st century way of life,and are strugling to hold on to their way of life. Unfortunatly the situation for them will get worse as the years go by, Judy Butt was very brave standing up Atkinson. Stand as a Indipendant Judy ,YOU will be Okay, cromwell9
  • Score: 0

8:21am Wed 19 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

Government guidelines on travellers' sites basically say that if you wouldn't want to live there, then it's not suitable for travellers either. So Atkinson and Eades are saying that they'd happily live on the Marshes End site?
.......
If someone dies as a result of a dog straying from the site onto the dual carriageway, or in a fire because a fire engine had to go the long way round, they'll both say "Tough luck. We had to consider all the residents except you?"
......
Whether we like it or not, the government has signed up to EU Human Rights and we have equality laws, and that's why travellers are recognised as an ethnic group. I obviously don't know who the land belongs to, but if they just cross the dual carriageway, there's a site which fits all the criteria and will interfere with no-one. But if it's council land then they probably don't want to use that because they've got someone in mind to develop it and give a "nice little earner."
Government guidelines on travellers' sites basically say that if you wouldn't want to live there, then it's not suitable for travellers either. So Atkinson and Eades are saying that they'd happily live on the Marshes End site? ....... If someone dies as a result of a dog straying from the site onto the dual carriageway, or in a fire because a fire engine had to go the long way round, they'll both say "Tough luck. We had to consider all the residents except you?" ...... Whether we like it or not, the government has signed up to EU Human Rights and we have equality laws, and that's why travellers are recognised as an ethnic group. I obviously don't know who the land belongs to, but if they just cross the dual carriageway, there's a site which fits all the criteria and will interfere with no-one. But if it's council land then they probably don't want to use that because they've got someone in mind to develop it and give a "nice little earner." Carolyn43
  • Score: 5

3:12pm Wed 19 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

Not welcome or not, I note more ground clearance has taken place and marker post installed, If there were any species worth saving they've had it now. Thanks a lot Councillors Eades and Atkinson.
Not welcome or not, I note more ground clearance has taken place and marker post installed, If there were any species worth saving they've had it now. Thanks a lot Councillors Eades and Atkinson. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 6

5:27pm Wed 19 Feb 14

mimi55 says...

cromwell9 wrote:
Its obvious the traveling comunity are not welcome in the UK,because of their nomadic life stile ETC,
They dont fit in the 21st century way of life,and are strugling to hold on to their way of life.
Unfortunatly the situation for them will get worse as the years go by,
Judy Butt was very brave standing up Atkinson.
Stand as a Indipendant Judy ,YOU will be Okay,
They would be welcome, if they didn't park up on public spaces,
and leave the most disgusting mess behind them. My friends who go
on caravan rallies pay to go to recognized sites - why can't Travellers?
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Its obvious the traveling comunity are not welcome in the UK,because of their nomadic life stile ETC, They dont fit in the 21st century way of life,and are strugling to hold on to their way of life. Unfortunatly the situation for them will get worse as the years go by, Judy Butt was very brave standing up Atkinson. Stand as a Indipendant Judy ,YOU will be Okay,[/p][/quote]They would be welcome, if they didn't park up on public spaces, and leave the most disgusting mess behind them. My friends who go on caravan rallies pay to go to recognized sites - why can't Travellers? mimi55
  • Score: 1

6:12pm Thu 20 Feb 14

mimi55 says...

For anyone who hasn't accessed Poole Council's web site - the Planning
Meeting to discuss the Travellers' sites is on 20th March, at 1 p.m
For anyone who hasn't accessed Poole Council's web site - the Planning Meeting to discuss the Travellers' sites is on 20th March, at 1 p.m mimi55
  • Score: 1

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