Poole council turns down £250k offer to buy land at Marshes End and stop it being used for travellers

Bournemouth Echo: STOPPING PLACE: The planned site. STOPPING PLACE: The planned site.

A POOLE commercial property company has offered £¼million to buy land at Marshes End and prevent it being used as a summer transit site for travellers.

However Borough of Poole, which owns the land, has turned down flat the £250,000 offer from Forelle Estates for the site at Safety Drive.

The company says it could develop a landmark office building, creating up to 200 jobs – but fears jobs may be lost if the controversial plans for the 12-plot site goes ahead.

Forelle owns the office buildings WDS House and Phoenix House that adjoin the site at Creekmoor. They are occupied by WDS Xerox and Deverill, who employ more than 100 people.

In a letter to chief executive John McBride, Forelle’s managing director Michael Price said they had immediate cash resources to make the purchase and were fully aware of the ecological, contamination and flood risk issues of the site. The council has said it would cost £175,000 to provide the temporary stopping place (TSP).

“Our offer to purchase the site ... should therefore provide the council with more than enough funds to develop the TSP in an alternative location and not require use of council tax payer funds. We do, of course, object most strongly to the current planning application which will have an extremely negative impact on the companies that occupy our adjoining office buildings and will inevitably drive jobs away from the location,” he said.

The company has employed planning consultants Terence O’Rourke to make a formal planning objection.

“It seems unbelievable to us that the council should even consider the use of the Marshes End site for a TSP as it should be obvious that the site is significant as an extremely prominent piece of land at the western gateway into Poole,” he said.

A landmark office building of around 20,000 sq ft could provide up to 200 jobs, he said.

 

Borough of Poole chief executive John McBride confirmed that an offer had been received from Forelle to buy the land.
He said: “The council has no plans to sell the site and does
not consider that it would be in the best interests of local taxpayers to accept an offer for an important council asset without full and proper assessment of its market value.
“Establishing a temporary stopping place would help the council to manage this issue more effectively and enable the police to use their powers to move unauthorised encampments.
“Such action will enable us to minimise the impact that unauthorised encampments can have on our local communities.”

Comments (54)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:53am Thu 27 Feb 14

we-shall-see says...

A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!!

How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!!

Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?
A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!! How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!! Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead? we-shall-see
  • Score: 72

7:29am Thu 27 Feb 14

Baysider says...

we-shall-see wrote:
A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!!

How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!!

Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?
...and if they accept the offer, where does the site go instead? It kicks it into the long grass for the time being but that £250k will only pay for so much cleaning up of illegal sites, securing of other open spaces and legal costs getting them evicted.

I'd also suggest a site that size next door to its existing building, with Planning Permission is worth a little more and this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to scaremonger the council into selling off the land cheap and defering dealing with the issue properly.
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!! How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!! Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?[/p][/quote]...and if they accept the offer, where does the site go instead? It kicks it into the long grass for the time being but that £250k will only pay for so much cleaning up of illegal sites, securing of other open spaces and legal costs getting them evicted. I'd also suggest a site that size next door to its existing building, with Planning Permission is worth a little more and this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to scaremonger the council into selling off the land cheap and defering dealing with the issue properly. Baysider
  • Score: -28

8:27am Thu 27 Feb 14

Far Corfe says...

Why would you want an office building and the possiblity of creating jobs, it will be a much more welcoming sight for the tourists to see a transit sight and all the mess that goes with it. Perhaps even the odd dog or horse wandering onto the Holes Bay road will help cement Marshes End as a Poole landmark.
The NIMBY councillors are set on this and nothing will change their mind. I do hope people will use their vote wisely at the next election.
Why would you want an office building and the possiblity of creating jobs, it will be a much more welcoming sight for the tourists to see a transit sight and all the mess that goes with it. Perhaps even the odd dog or horse wandering onto the Holes Bay road will help cement Marshes End as a Poole landmark. The NIMBY councillors are set on this and nothing will change their mind. I do hope people will use their vote wisely at the next election. Far Corfe
  • Score: 35

8:28am Thu 27 Feb 14

TheDistrict says...

The point is, regardless if the TSP goes ahead (12 places), Poole Council says this will give the powers to move on other illegal sites. But where will they go. The illegal site in Baiter Park last summer had more than 12 occupants (caravans), so if there already occupants at Marshes End, where will they go. Secondly, no traveller is going to pitch up on a site that is made for them, with a possible charge. Think back to Mannings Heath, it became a derelict site within weeks of opening with flushing toilets, washrooms and other facilities. All taken. I wish people would stop using that expression, "where will they go", "they will end up in our back yard". It makes no difference where Poole build a TSP or how many. The traveller will not use them if they can help it. Poole will be better off taking the money offered, and call it a day.
The point is, regardless if the TSP goes ahead (12 places), Poole Council says this will give the powers to move on other illegal sites. But where will they go. The illegal site in Baiter Park last summer had more than 12 occupants (caravans), so if there already occupants at Marshes End, where will they go. Secondly, no traveller is going to pitch up on a site that is made for them, with a possible charge. Think back to Mannings Heath, it became a derelict site within weeks of opening with flushing toilets, washrooms and other facilities. All taken. I wish people would stop using that expression, "where will they go", "they will end up in our back yard". It makes no difference where Poole build a TSP or how many. The traveller will not use them if they can help it. Poole will be better off taking the money offered, and call it a day. TheDistrict
  • Score: 32

8:37am Thu 27 Feb 14

honestreader says...

It's disgusting that the council think it's ok to usr taxpayers money to build somewhere for the travellers to live if they want to live there they should pay there way like everyone else does and not skate by other people's hard earnedmoney! I uunderstand they will set up camp anywhere as they don't care but why don't authorities move them on as soon as they get somewhere!its outrageous! They won't just stay there for a few weeks they will be there for ages chucking there mess around all over the place and costing the taxpayers horrendous amounts to sort it all out! Let alone anyone now trying to sell there houses in the area are going to get nothing as nobody wants to live near a gypsy site! Pay there own way or leave!! Treat them like everybody else not like royalty!!!
It's disgusting that the council think it's ok to usr taxpayers money to build somewhere for the travellers to live if they want to live there they should pay there way like everyone else does and not skate by other people's hard earnedmoney! I uunderstand they will set up camp anywhere as they don't care but why don't authorities move them on as soon as they get somewhere!its outrageous! They won't just stay there for a few weeks they will be there for ages chucking there mess around all over the place and costing the taxpayers horrendous amounts to sort it all out! Let alone anyone now trying to sell there houses in the area are going to get nothing as nobody wants to live near a gypsy site! Pay there own way or leave!! Treat them like everybody else not like royalty!!! honestreader
  • Score: 18

8:41am Thu 27 Feb 14

BIGTONE says...

Well,this new twist does say its a done deal with no other solution.
Well,this new twist does say its a done deal with no other solution. BIGTONE
  • Score: 11

8:47am Thu 27 Feb 14

moleman says...

How can Poole Council turn down the chance of 200 jobs for locals and in favour of a caravan site for travellers, in order to provide a temporary stopping site.
I have heard it all now.
If you thought the Council operated on behalf of its residents you can now see that this is clearly not true. Please remember this when you vote in the local elections.
How can Poole Council turn down the chance of 200 jobs for locals and in favour of a caravan site for travellers, in order to provide a temporary stopping site. I have heard it all now. If you thought the Council operated on behalf of its residents you can now see that this is clearly not true. Please remember this when you vote in the local elections. moleman
  • Score: 27

8:56am Thu 27 Feb 14

RM says...

Is it the Cllrs or the Council employees making this decision? The statement is by John McBride, an unelected employee.
Is it the Cllrs or the Council employees making this decision? The statement is by John McBride, an unelected employee. RM
  • Score: 10

9:01am Thu 27 Feb 14

Baysider says...

moleman wrote:
How can Poole Council turn down the chance of 200 jobs for locals and in favour of a caravan site for travellers, in order to provide a temporary stopping site.
I have heard it all now.
If you thought the Council operated on behalf of its residents you can now see that this is clearly not true. Please remember this when you vote in the local elections.
No what it's turned down is a cheeky offer from a property speculator who see an opportunity to make a few quid on a deal which would leave the council with a few quid in the bank which it will then have to spend sorting out the same issue elsewhere. Plus a bit more besides if you take the long view. Not a good use of our money at all.

If these (potential) jobs are available here, they are also available elsewhere then aren't they? The same cannot be said about this transit site though, unless you consider the park & ride as an alternative but the same objections will only happen there too.
[quote][p][bold]moleman[/bold] wrote: How can Poole Council turn down the chance of 200 jobs for locals and in favour of a caravan site for travellers, in order to provide a temporary stopping site. I have heard it all now. If you thought the Council operated on behalf of its residents you can now see that this is clearly not true. Please remember this when you vote in the local elections.[/p][/quote]No what it's turned down is a cheeky offer from a property speculator who see an opportunity to make a few quid on a deal which would leave the council with a few quid in the bank which it will then have to spend sorting out the same issue elsewhere. Plus a bit more besides if you take the long view. Not a good use of our money at all. If these (potential) jobs are available here, they are also available elsewhere then aren't they? The same cannot be said about this transit site though, unless you consider the park & ride as an alternative but the same objections will only happen there too. Baysider
  • Score: -4

9:02am Thu 27 Feb 14

dogsoftheworld says...

Baysider wrote:
we-shall-see wrote:
A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!!

How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!!

Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?
...and if they accept the offer, where does the site go instead? It kicks it into the long grass for the time being but that £250k will only pay for so much cleaning up of illegal sites, securing of other open spaces and legal costs getting them evicted.

I'd also suggest a site that size next door to its existing building, with Planning Permission is worth a little more and this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to scaremonger the council into selling off the land cheap and defering dealing with the issue properly.
Don't forget, it doesn't have to go anywhere!
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!! How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!! Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?[/p][/quote]...and if they accept the offer, where does the site go instead? It kicks it into the long grass for the time being but that £250k will only pay for so much cleaning up of illegal sites, securing of other open spaces and legal costs getting them evicted. I'd also suggest a site that size next door to its existing building, with Planning Permission is worth a little more and this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to scaremonger the council into selling off the land cheap and defering dealing with the issue properly.[/p][/quote]Don't forget, it doesn't have to go anywhere! dogsoftheworld
  • Score: 9

9:05am Thu 27 Feb 14

sea poole says...

RM- Absolutely. This whole matter stinks of a stitch-up. The Chief Executive is retiring anyway -does he wish this site to be known for heritage as Development Under McBride's Brief (DUMB)?
RM- Absolutely. This whole matter stinks of a stitch-up. The Chief Executive is retiring anyway -does he wish this site to be known for heritage as Development Under McBride's Brief (DUMB)? sea poole
  • Score: 12

9:07am Thu 27 Feb 14

speedy231278 says...

TheDistrict wrote:
The point is, regardless if the TSP goes ahead (12 places), Poole Council says this will give the powers to move on other illegal sites. But where will they go. The illegal site in Baiter Park last summer had more than 12 occupants (caravans), so if there already occupants at Marshes End, where will they go. Secondly, no traveller is going to pitch up on a site that is made for them, with a possible charge. Think back to Mannings Heath, it became a derelict site within weeks of opening with flushing toilets, washrooms and other facilities. All taken. I wish people would stop using that expression, "where will they go", "they will end up in our back yard". It makes no difference where Poole build a TSP or how many. The traveller will not use them if they can help it. Poole will be better off taking the money offered, and call it a day.
They will only have said powers IF all 12 spaces are not occupied. If the site is full, then no suitable alternative pitches exist, and we are back to square one because the eviction powers are reduced to the level they are at the moment. The only way it can be solved is to have enough pitches for every single caravan that turns up, and once the council decides to cater for that event, more and more will keep appearing until the entire UK population is settled in the area.

As an aside, I wish the council luck in making them move on the date the site is supposed to close for winter. Even money says they'll set up for good and the council won't have the balls to evict them.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: The point is, regardless if the TSP goes ahead (12 places), Poole Council says this will give the powers to move on other illegal sites. But where will they go. The illegal site in Baiter Park last summer had more than 12 occupants (caravans), so if there already occupants at Marshes End, where will they go. Secondly, no traveller is going to pitch up on a site that is made for them, with a possible charge. Think back to Mannings Heath, it became a derelict site within weeks of opening with flushing toilets, washrooms and other facilities. All taken. I wish people would stop using that expression, "where will they go", "they will end up in our back yard". It makes no difference where Poole build a TSP or how many. The traveller will not use them if they can help it. Poole will be better off taking the money offered, and call it a day.[/p][/quote]They will only have said powers IF all 12 spaces are not occupied. If the site is full, then no suitable alternative pitches exist, and we are back to square one because the eviction powers are reduced to the level they are at the moment. The only way it can be solved is to have enough pitches for every single caravan that turns up, and once the council decides to cater for that event, more and more will keep appearing until the entire UK population is settled in the area. As an aside, I wish the council luck in making them move on the date the site is supposed to close for winter. Even money says they'll set up for good and the council won't have the balls to evict them. speedy231278
  • Score: 6

9:07am Thu 27 Feb 14

speedy231278 says...

TheDistrict wrote:
The point is, regardless if the TSP goes ahead (12 places), Poole Council says this will give the powers to move on other illegal sites. But where will they go. The illegal site in Baiter Park last summer had more than 12 occupants (caravans), so if there already occupants at Marshes End, where will they go. Secondly, no traveller is going to pitch up on a site that is made for them, with a possible charge. Think back to Mannings Heath, it became a derelict site within weeks of opening with flushing toilets, washrooms and other facilities. All taken. I wish people would stop using that expression, "where will they go", "they will end up in our back yard". It makes no difference where Poole build a TSP or how many. The traveller will not use them if they can help it. Poole will be better off taking the money offered, and call it a day.
They will only have said powers IF all 12 spaces are not occupied. If the site is full, then no suitable alternative pitches exist, and we are back to square one because the eviction powers are reduced to the level they are at the moment. The only way it can be solved is to have enough pitches for every single caravan that turns up, and once the council decides to cater for that event, more and more will keep appearing until the entire UK population is settled in the area.

As an aside, I wish the council luck in making them move on the date the site is supposed to close for winter. Even money says they'll set up for good and the council won't have the balls to evict them.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: The point is, regardless if the TSP goes ahead (12 places), Poole Council says this will give the powers to move on other illegal sites. But where will they go. The illegal site in Baiter Park last summer had more than 12 occupants (caravans), so if there already occupants at Marshes End, where will they go. Secondly, no traveller is going to pitch up on a site that is made for them, with a possible charge. Think back to Mannings Heath, it became a derelict site within weeks of opening with flushing toilets, washrooms and other facilities. All taken. I wish people would stop using that expression, "where will they go", "they will end up in our back yard". It makes no difference where Poole build a TSP or how many. The traveller will not use them if they can help it. Poole will be better off taking the money offered, and call it a day.[/p][/quote]They will only have said powers IF all 12 spaces are not occupied. If the site is full, then no suitable alternative pitches exist, and we are back to square one because the eviction powers are reduced to the level they are at the moment. The only way it can be solved is to have enough pitches for every single caravan that turns up, and once the council decides to cater for that event, more and more will keep appearing until the entire UK population is settled in the area. As an aside, I wish the council luck in making them move on the date the site is supposed to close for winter. Even money says they'll set up for good and the council won't have the balls to evict them. speedy231278
  • Score: 4

9:08am Thu 27 Feb 14

Baysider says...

dogsoftheworld wrote:
Baysider wrote:
we-shall-see wrote:
A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!!

How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!!

Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?
...and if they accept the offer, where does the site go instead? It kicks it into the long grass for the time being but that £250k will only pay for so much cleaning up of illegal sites, securing of other open spaces and legal costs getting them evicted.

I'd also suggest a site that size next door to its existing building, with Planning Permission is worth a little more and this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to scaremonger the council into selling off the land cheap and defering dealing with the issue properly.
Don't forget, it doesn't have to go anywhere!
Yes, you're right but then we carry on with the unsatisfactory status quo instead then, with shed loads of resources being spent chasing them around every year. Good for The Echo advertising revenue but bad for everyone else...
[quote][p][bold]dogsoftheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!! How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!! Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?[/p][/quote]...and if they accept the offer, where does the site go instead? It kicks it into the long grass for the time being but that £250k will only pay for so much cleaning up of illegal sites, securing of other open spaces and legal costs getting them evicted. I'd also suggest a site that size next door to its existing building, with Planning Permission is worth a little more and this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to scaremonger the council into selling off the land cheap and defering dealing with the issue properly.[/p][/quote]Don't forget, it doesn't have to go anywhere![/p][/quote]Yes, you're right but then we carry on with the unsatisfactory status quo instead then, with shed loads of resources being spent chasing them around every year. Good for The Echo advertising revenue but bad for everyone else... Baysider
  • Score: -9

9:10am Thu 27 Feb 14

Tictock says...

History has demonstrated that these traveller people will not 'play the game' and use something they have to pay for - joke! But, until national government change the law Poole /council along with others are in a fix as to how to deal with these freeloaders.
History has demonstrated that these traveller people will not 'play the game' and use something they have to pay for - joke! But, until national government change the law Poole /council along with others are in a fix as to how to deal with these freeloaders. Tictock
  • Score: 11

9:43am Thu 27 Feb 14

apm1954 says...

sell it .
sell it . apm1954
  • Score: 4

10:03am Thu 27 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

If nothing else, it just goes to show how entrenched this council and it's minions really are. This way to the cliffs conservative and Liberal lemmings.
If nothing else, it just goes to show how entrenched this council and it's minions really are. This way to the cliffs conservative and Liberal lemmings. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 11

10:07am Thu 27 Feb 14

Jo__Go says...

Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise?
His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.
Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise? His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward. Jo__Go
  • Score: 11

10:12am Thu 27 Feb 14

disquiet says...

Our clown councillors wanted to be seen to be making a 'difficult' decision ... they now do not have the courage to admit they have made a ludicrous decision.

This TSP is doomed to failure.
Our clown councillors wanted to be seen to be making a 'difficult' decision ... they now do not have the courage to admit they have made a ludicrous decision. This TSP is doomed to failure. disquiet
  • Score: 14

10:37am Thu 27 Feb 14

Major Futtock says...

Once again Poole Council show what lunatics they are. Other comments above are quite correct. What ARE the Council thinking of putting 'Travellers' with all their accompanying detritus together with the awful "Welcome to Poole a Beautiful Place" welcome to visitors, ahead of hundreds of local jobs AND giving the Council £1/4Mil towards another site.
Of course Our CEO doesn't give a ****, he's off soon!
I don't think this particular 'village has lost it's idiot', we seem to have more than our fair share!
Once again Poole Council show what lunatics they are. Other comments above are quite correct. What ARE the Council thinking of putting 'Travellers' with all their accompanying detritus together with the awful "Welcome to Poole a Beautiful Place" welcome to visitors, ahead of hundreds of local jobs AND giving the Council £1/4Mil towards another site. Of course Our CEO doesn't give a ****, he's off soon! I don't think this particular 'village has lost it's idiot', we seem to have more than our fair share! Major Futtock
  • Score: 11

10:42am Thu 27 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

If the panning permission is granted, and the transit site remains unoccupied as many predict, and travellers pitch up on private land so the landowner is then responsible for getting eviction orders instead of the council, will the council regard that as a good result? I expect they will, even though they will just have shifted the problem onto others and residents will be no better off.
......
If that happens then residents should demand that all involved, council officers and councillors, who pushed for this regardless of the environmental/safety issues and prediction that it will not be used, should resign/step down. Of course they won't. They have no conscience. The only recourse will be through the ballot boxes - remember those councillors who voted in favour have been listed in several places.
If the panning permission is granted, and the transit site remains unoccupied as many predict, and travellers pitch up on private land so the landowner is then responsible for getting eviction orders instead of the council, will the council regard that as a good result? I expect they will, even though they will just have shifted the problem onto others and residents will be no better off. ...... If that happens then residents should demand that all involved, council officers and councillors, who pushed for this regardless of the environmental/safety issues and prediction that it will not be used, should resign/step down. Of course they won't. They have no conscience. The only recourse will be through the ballot boxes - remember those councillors who voted in favour have been listed in several places. Carolyn43
  • Score: 5

10:44am Thu 27 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

I really fail to see how John McBride, a council employee can state that an offer of £250,000 for the land could not be of benefit to the taxpayers. I would cover the costs of building a transit site at alternative site, saving the taxpayers £250,000 and it would also create 200 new jobs.

Obviously £250,000 is not a lot of money for John MCBride as it would only cover his salary for the next two years. A job which he himself describes as, "My job is all about helping the Council to raise the quality of life in Poole."
I really fail to see how John McBride, a council employee can state that an offer of £250,000 for the land could not be of benefit to the taxpayers. I would cover the costs of building a transit site at alternative site, saving the taxpayers £250,000 and it would also create 200 new jobs. Obviously £250,000 is not a lot of money for John MCBride as it would only cover his salary for the next two years. A job which he himself describes as, "My job is all about helping the Council to raise the quality of life in Poole." Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 11

10:54am Thu 27 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

If anyone has looked at the comments on both planning applications, some of the comments are on the wrong application. At least they were a couple of days ago.
.......
Unless they've changed them and moved them to the correct application, then is this incompetence or a deliberate attempt to try to confuse. They think residents are all idiots and don't realise what the council is up to.
....
They didn't even get the application right. They said the surface would be covered with "noggin" - a wall filling, but they've now changed that and made other initialled corrections. Would you or I be allowed to do that? I doubt it - we'd have to resubmit; but then they can do as they like. They are the council.
If anyone has looked at the comments on both planning applications, some of the comments are on the wrong application. At least they were a couple of days ago. ....... Unless they've changed them and moved them to the correct application, then is this incompetence or a deliberate attempt to try to confuse. They think residents are all idiots and don't realise what the council is up to. .... They didn't even get the application right. They said the surface would be covered with "noggin" - a wall filling, but they've now changed that and made other initialled corrections. Would you or I be allowed to do that? I doubt it - we'd have to resubmit; but then they can do as they like. They are the council. Carolyn43
  • Score: 8

10:57am Thu 27 Feb 14

Major Futtock says...

The word asterisked out by the Echo PC autobot was d a m n. A really naughty word apparently?!
The word asterisked out by the Echo PC autobot was d a m n. A really naughty word apparently?! Major Futtock
  • Score: 2

11:12am Thu 27 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

Question: Is a single council employee authorised to decide whether or not a council asset should be sold or not?
.......
I would have thought a decision like that would need to be referred to others and a decision agreed on after a lot of investigation of the pros and cons.
Question: Is a single council employee authorised to decide whether or not a council asset should be sold or not? ....... I would have thought a decision like that would need to be referred to others and a decision agreed on after a lot of investigation of the pros and cons. Carolyn43
  • Score: 5

11:47am Thu 27 Feb 14

TheDistrict says...

speedy231278 wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
The point is, regardless if the TSP goes ahead (12 places), Poole Council says this will give the powers to move on other illegal sites. But where will they go. The illegal site in Baiter Park last summer had more than 12 occupants (caravans), so if there already occupants at Marshes End, where will they go. Secondly, no traveller is going to pitch up on a site that is made for them, with a possible charge. Think back to Mannings Heath, it became a derelict site within weeks of opening with flushing toilets, washrooms and other facilities. All taken. I wish people would stop using that expression, "where will they go", "they will end up in our back yard". It makes no difference where Poole build a TSP or how many. The traveller will not use them if they can help it. Poole will be better off taking the money offered, and call it a day.
They will only have said powers IF all 12 spaces are not occupied. If the site is full, then no suitable alternative pitches exist, and we are back to square one because the eviction powers are reduced to the level they are at the moment. The only way it can be solved is to have enough pitches for every single caravan that turns up, and once the council decides to cater for that event, more and more will keep appearing until the entire UK population is settled in the area.

As an aside, I wish the council luck in making them move on the date the site is supposed to close for winter. Even money says they'll set up for good and the council won't have the balls to evict them.
Something Poole Council have obviously not considered. In my own opinion all travellers should directed to the Steam Fair grounds, which is where they ultimately end up after earning a few shillings around the county. The owner of the land is happy for them to stay as it is cheap or free labour for him when the Steam Rally begins.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: The point is, regardless if the TSP goes ahead (12 places), Poole Council says this will give the powers to move on other illegal sites. But where will they go. The illegal site in Baiter Park last summer had more than 12 occupants (caravans), so if there already occupants at Marshes End, where will they go. Secondly, no traveller is going to pitch up on a site that is made for them, with a possible charge. Think back to Mannings Heath, it became a derelict site within weeks of opening with flushing toilets, washrooms and other facilities. All taken. I wish people would stop using that expression, "where will they go", "they will end up in our back yard". It makes no difference where Poole build a TSP or how many. The traveller will not use them if they can help it. Poole will be better off taking the money offered, and call it a day.[/p][/quote]They will only have said powers IF all 12 spaces are not occupied. If the site is full, then no suitable alternative pitches exist, and we are back to square one because the eviction powers are reduced to the level they are at the moment. The only way it can be solved is to have enough pitches for every single caravan that turns up, and once the council decides to cater for that event, more and more will keep appearing until the entire UK population is settled in the area. As an aside, I wish the council luck in making them move on the date the site is supposed to close for winter. Even money says they'll set up for good and the council won't have the balls to evict them.[/p][/quote]Something Poole Council have obviously not considered. In my own opinion all travellers should directed to the Steam Fair grounds, which is where they ultimately end up after earning a few shillings around the county. The owner of the land is happy for them to stay as it is cheap or free labour for him when the Steam Rally begins. TheDistrict
  • Score: 7

12:14pm Thu 27 Feb 14

dogsoftheworld says...

Baysider wrote:
dogsoftheworld wrote:
Baysider wrote:
we-shall-see wrote:
A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!!

How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!!

Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?
...and if they accept the offer, where does the site go instead? It kicks it into the long grass for the time being but that £250k will only pay for so much cleaning up of illegal sites, securing of other open spaces and legal costs getting them evicted.

I'd also suggest a site that size next door to its existing building, with Planning Permission is worth a little more and this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to scaremonger the council into selling off the land cheap and defering dealing with the issue properly.
Don't forget, it doesn't have to go anywhere!
Yes, you're right but then we carry on with the unsatisfactory status quo instead then, with shed loads of resources being spent chasing them around every year. Good for The Echo advertising revenue but bad for everyone else...
Both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have been deeply wounded by this ridiculous decision to have a TSP, and to put it in Creekmoor. The councilors who voted for this have shown just how pig- headed, arrogant and out of touch they are. They won't listen, won't stop even though the evidence against this site just keeps mounting up. Now they could gain £250k and 200 jobs instead of spending £250k and likely losing 100 jobs and the business rates that go with them. There is no way this can benefit Poole, and in 2015 they will be punished for it unless they see sense. They appear to be at war with their own residents and handing Poole out on a plate to PPP or UKIP, especially in Creekmoor. Even though the councilors there are fighting it, all Tories will be tarred with the same brush come election time.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dogsoftheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!! How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!! Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?[/p][/quote]...and if they accept the offer, where does the site go instead? It kicks it into the long grass for the time being but that £250k will only pay for so much cleaning up of illegal sites, securing of other open spaces and legal costs getting them evicted. I'd also suggest a site that size next door to its existing building, with Planning Permission is worth a little more and this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to scaremonger the council into selling off the land cheap and defering dealing with the issue properly.[/p][/quote]Don't forget, it doesn't have to go anywhere![/p][/quote]Yes, you're right but then we carry on with the unsatisfactory status quo instead then, with shed loads of resources being spent chasing them around every year. Good for The Echo advertising revenue but bad for everyone else...[/p][/quote]Both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have been deeply wounded by this ridiculous decision to have a TSP, and to put it in Creekmoor. The councilors who voted for this have shown just how pig- headed, arrogant and out of touch they are. They won't listen, won't stop even though the evidence against this site just keeps mounting up. Now they could gain £250k and 200 jobs instead of spending £250k and likely losing 100 jobs and the business rates that go with them. There is no way this can benefit Poole, and in 2015 they will be punished for it unless they see sense. They appear to be at war with their own residents and handing Poole out on a plate to PPP or UKIP, especially in Creekmoor. Even though the councilors there are fighting it, all Tories will be tarred with the same brush come election time. dogsoftheworld
  • Score: 7

12:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Sandbanks Showpony says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise?
His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.
"Defend the indefensible"...inte
resting.

This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists.

Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial.

I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise? His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.[/p][/quote]"Defend the indefensible"...inte resting. This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists. Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial. I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish. Sandbanks Showpony
  • Score: -21

12:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

Sandbanks Showpony wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise?
His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.
"Defend the indefensible"...inte

resting.

This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists.

Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial.

I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.
Oh goody, a refreshingly new poster who clearly has not been following these post from the beginning. Had she done so she (I'm assuming she), then she would know the problem does not lay with genuine gypsies but more fully with Irish Travellers who have no thought for anyone but themselves while on their sixteen weeks tax free holidays over here. Perhaps she would like to review some of the previous post, just type in Butt in the search box and you will get a good selection. Having said this, if you like, you could also propose to your local councillors that they follow your lead and offer suitable summer accommodation within your own ward for these hard done by people.
[quote][p][bold]Sandbanks Showpony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise? His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.[/p][/quote]"Defend the indefensible"...inte resting. This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists. Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial. I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.[/p][/quote]Oh goody, a refreshingly new poster who clearly has not been following these post from the beginning. Had she done so she (I'm assuming she), then she would know the problem does not lay with genuine gypsies but more fully with Irish Travellers who have no thought for anyone but themselves while on their sixteen weeks tax free holidays over here. Perhaps she would like to review some of the previous post, just type in Butt in the search box and you will get a good selection. Having said this, if you like, you could also propose to your local councillors that they follow your lead and offer suitable summer accommodation within your own ward for these hard done by people. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 14

12:55pm Thu 27 Feb 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

Baysider wrote:
we-shall-see wrote:
A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!!

How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!!

Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?
...and if they accept the offer, where does the site go instead? It kicks it into the long grass for the time being but that £250k will only pay for so much cleaning up of illegal sites, securing of other open spaces and legal costs getting them evicted.

I'd also suggest a site that size next door to its existing building, with Planning Permission is worth a little more and this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to scaremonger the council into selling off the land cheap and defering dealing with the issue properly.
Nowhere - better to sell it off cheap than to give it away free to a bunch of freeloaders.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: A contaminated marsh is considered "important council asset" ?!! How much would this contaminated plot fetch on the open market? No where near the offer they have received I would bet!! Why don't those councillors who are so desperate to offer accommodation to travellers - over the wishes of THOSE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES - invite them to park up outside their own homes, in their front gardens, or even on their driveways instead?[/p][/quote]...and if they accept the offer, where does the site go instead? It kicks it into the long grass for the time being but that £250k will only pay for so much cleaning up of illegal sites, securing of other open spaces and legal costs getting them evicted. I'd also suggest a site that size next door to its existing building, with Planning Permission is worth a little more and this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to scaremonger the council into selling off the land cheap and defering dealing with the issue properly.[/p][/quote]Nowhere - better to sell it off cheap than to give it away free to a bunch of freeloaders. fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 5

1:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Nice one. Well done local councillors, stand proud. You have denied the opportunity to create 200 jobs in the area for the sake of parties of travelling non-contributors to society. I hope you are very pleased with another poor days work.
Nice one. Well done local councillors, stand proud. You have denied the opportunity to create 200 jobs in the area for the sake of parties of travelling non-contributors to society. I hope you are very pleased with another poor days work. Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 8

1:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

disquiet says...

Sandbanks Showpony wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise?
His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.
"Defend the indefensible"...inte

resting.

This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists.

Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial.

I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.
In fairness the Gypsy community do not want this site either. Amongst the many objections to this proposed site, found at the following location:

https://boppa.boroug
hofpoole.com/online-
applications/applica
tionDetails.do?activ
eTab=documents&keyVa
l=_POOLE_DCAPR_22672
5

You will find an objection from Joseph Jones of the Gypsy Council who states the site is not suitable for a number of health and safety reasons.
[quote][p][bold]Sandbanks Showpony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise? His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.[/p][/quote]"Defend the indefensible"...inte resting. This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists. Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial. I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.[/p][/quote]In fairness the Gypsy community do not want this site either. Amongst the many objections to this proposed site, found at the following location: https://boppa.boroug hofpoole.com/online- applications/applica tionDetails.do?activ eTab=documents&keyVa l=_POOLE_DCAPR_22672 5 You will find an objection from Joseph Jones of the Gypsy Council who states the site is not suitable for a number of health and safety reasons. disquiet
  • Score: 10

1:25pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ADST_2008 says...

Hang on a minute, there are plenty more places for the TSPs in Poole, there were 90 sites identified and only two suitable??? I think not as do many other people. These sites need proper scrutiny again by the elected members not the Portfolio Holder alone and an officer or two, then the money from the sale of the contaminated land, (hardly a valuable asset) can be used to create many more TSP's in the Borough, in full consultation of course with the Gypsy Council , residents and Ward Cllrs !!!! Poole also gets a landmark building on the gateway to Poole site, with 200 more jobs and a boost to our economy, at least then Cllr Judy Butt's ultimate sacrifice will not have been in vain, will it? I know how I will be voting as to 1000's I think in 2015!!!!!
Hang on a minute, there are plenty more places for the TSPs in Poole, there were 90 sites identified and only two suitable??? I think not as do many other people. These sites need proper scrutiny again by the elected members not the Portfolio Holder alone and an officer or two, then the money from the sale of the contaminated land, (hardly a valuable asset) can be used to create many more TSP's in the Borough, in full consultation of course with the Gypsy Council , residents and Ward Cllrs !!!! Poole also gets a landmark building on the gateway to Poole site, with 200 more jobs and a boost to our economy, at least then Cllr Judy Butt's ultimate sacrifice will not have been in vain, will it? I know how I will be voting as to 1000's I think in 2015!!!!! ADST_2008
  • Score: 10

1:38pm Thu 27 Feb 14

portia6 says...

Sandbanks Showpony wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise?
His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.
"Defend the indefensible"...inte

resting.

This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists.

Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial.

I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.
A good moot point we are supposed to be all God's children, integration
not segregation in an ideal world!
[quote][p][bold]Sandbanks Showpony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise? His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.[/p][/quote]"Defend the indefensible"...inte resting. This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists. Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial. I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.[/p][/quote]A good moot point we are supposed to be all God's children, integration not segregation in an ideal world! portia6
  • Score: -8

1:40pm Thu 27 Feb 14

portia6 says...

Sandbanks Showpony wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise?
His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.
"Defend the indefensible"...inte

resting.

This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists.

Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial.

I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.
A good moot point we are supposed to be all God's children, integration
not segregation in an ideal world!
[quote][p][bold]Sandbanks Showpony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise? His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.[/p][/quote]"Defend the indefensible"...inte resting. This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists. Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial. I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.[/p][/quote]A good moot point we are supposed to be all God's children, integration not segregation in an ideal world! portia6
  • Score: -6

1:47pm Thu 27 Feb 14

fairandsquared says...

I bet all the people posting here would be more than happy for the Travellers (whatever their background) to carry on parking up in Rockley Park, Whitecliff Broadstone and Canford Heath, and anywhere else they were last Summer, and then have the residents in those areas jumping up and down. Where are the people now who pushed for this to go ahead? I was one of them, and pushed for my local Councillors to do something, but i don't see anyone else coming forward. The site has to be somewhere otherwise we all suffer every year. They were not on holiday, we had them knocking on our door and all over the area looking to do the driveway and trim trees. They are transient workers.
(my nieghbour got a great new driveway, so if people give them work they stay around)
I bet all the people posting here would be more than happy for the Travellers (whatever their background) to carry on parking up in Rockley Park, Whitecliff Broadstone and Canford Heath, and anywhere else they were last Summer, and then have the residents in those areas jumping up and down. Where are the people now who pushed for this to go ahead? I was one of them, and pushed for my local Councillors to do something, but i don't see anyone else coming forward. The site has to be somewhere otherwise we all suffer every year. They were not on holiday, we had them knocking on our door and all over the area looking to do the driveway and trim trees. They are transient workers. (my nieghbour got a great new driveway, so if people give them work they stay around) fairandsquared
  • Score: -7

1:48pm Thu 27 Feb 14

richardcompton3 says...

“The council has no plans to sell the site and does
not consider that it would be in the best interests of local taxpayers to accept an offer for an important council asset without full and proper assessment of its market value." Whereas a Temporary Transit Site is in the best interests of the local taxpayers??? I think not!

A valuable asset? Sounds more like not a big enough brown envelope was handed over.
“The council has no plans to sell the site and does not consider that it would be in the best interests of local taxpayers to accept an offer for an important council asset without full and proper assessment of its market value." Whereas a Temporary Transit Site is in the best interests of the local taxpayers??? I think not! A valuable asset? Sounds more like not a big enough brown envelope was handed over. richardcompton3
  • Score: 11

2:12pm Thu 27 Feb 14

portia6 says...

Where's the Lone Ranger when you need him, oh I know gone off with Tonto
to his transient camp!
Where's the Lone Ranger when you need him, oh I know gone off with Tonto to his transient camp! portia6
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Baysider says...

fairandsquared wrote:
I bet all the people posting here would be more than happy for the Travellers (whatever their background) to carry on parking up in Rockley Park, Whitecliff Broadstone and Canford Heath, and anywhere else they were last Summer, and then have the residents in those areas jumping up and down. Where are the people now who pushed for this to go ahead? I was one of them, and pushed for my local Councillors to do something, but i don't see anyone else coming forward. The site has to be somewhere otherwise we all suffer every year. They were not on holiday, we had them knocking on our door and all over the area looking to do the driveway and trim trees. They are transient workers.
(my nieghbour got a great new driveway, so if people give them work they stay around)
Halaluya someone else gets it! Firstly things CANNOT stay the same and SOMETHING must be done to prevent the farce of previous years and secondly they ARE here to work.

The ONLY people with the wherewithal to do something about that are our MP's by amending the laws around illegal sites to make it easier to move them on but as importantly banning people selling driveways, gardening, etc door to door. No work = no travellers tipping up every year...literally in some cases. In the meantime, council are left trying to find a solution that's really just the least worst option. Maybe Toby et al would like to address that problem for us rather than keeping their head down?

As usual there's bags of rhetoric spoken on here but zero in the way of workable solutions.
[quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: I bet all the people posting here would be more than happy for the Travellers (whatever their background) to carry on parking up in Rockley Park, Whitecliff Broadstone and Canford Heath, and anywhere else they were last Summer, and then have the residents in those areas jumping up and down. Where are the people now who pushed for this to go ahead? I was one of them, and pushed for my local Councillors to do something, but i don't see anyone else coming forward. The site has to be somewhere otherwise we all suffer every year. They were not on holiday, we had them knocking on our door and all over the area looking to do the driveway and trim trees. They are transient workers. (my nieghbour got a great new driveway, so if people give them work they stay around)[/p][/quote]Halaluya someone else gets it! Firstly things CANNOT stay the same and SOMETHING must be done to prevent the farce of previous years and secondly they ARE here to work. The ONLY people with the wherewithal to do something about that are our MP's by amending the laws around illegal sites to make it easier to move them on but as importantly banning people selling driveways, gardening, etc door to door. No work = no travellers tipping up every year...literally in some cases. In the meantime, council are left trying to find a solution that's really just the least worst option. Maybe Toby et al would like to address that problem for us rather than keeping their head down? As usual there's bags of rhetoric spoken on here but zero in the way of workable solutions. Baysider
  • Score: -10

2:32pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Mad Karew says...

ADST_2008 wrote:
Hang on a minute, there are plenty more places for the TSPs in Poole, there were 90 sites identified and only two suitable??? I think not as do many other people. These sites need proper scrutiny again by the elected members not the Portfolio Holder alone and an officer or two, then the money from the sale of the contaminated land, (hardly a valuable asset) can be used to create many more TSP's in the Borough, in full consultation of course with the Gypsy Council , residents and Ward Cllrs !!!! Poole also gets a landmark building on the gateway to Poole site, with 200 more jobs and a boost to our economy, at least then Cllr Judy Butt's ultimate sacrifice will not have been in vain, will it? I know how I will be voting as to 1000's I think in 2015!!!!!
This is a good point - I think this TSP has been deliberately designed to be as horrible as possible so that travellers won't want to go there. The police are then free to escort them right out of the borough, so the intention is to get them out of Poole altogether. Sneaky!!

Judy Butt and her supporters are absolutely right to oppose this nasty site. Maybe then the Council might actually talk to the Gypsy Council (did I see a pig flying past?) to come up with a solution which will allow itinerants to be provided for in a way which is less challenging to settled residents and maybe discourage the bad behaviour

And improve the local economy in the process, which they suddenly don't seem to care about. Poole Open for Business? Prove it!!
[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: Hang on a minute, there are plenty more places for the TSPs in Poole, there were 90 sites identified and only two suitable??? I think not as do many other people. These sites need proper scrutiny again by the elected members not the Portfolio Holder alone and an officer or two, then the money from the sale of the contaminated land, (hardly a valuable asset) can be used to create many more TSP's in the Borough, in full consultation of course with the Gypsy Council , residents and Ward Cllrs !!!! Poole also gets a landmark building on the gateway to Poole site, with 200 more jobs and a boost to our economy, at least then Cllr Judy Butt's ultimate sacrifice will not have been in vain, will it? I know how I will be voting as to 1000's I think in 2015!!!!![/p][/quote]This is a good point - I think this TSP has been deliberately designed to be as horrible as possible so that travellers won't want to go there. The police are then free to escort them right out of the borough, so the intention is to get them out of Poole altogether. Sneaky!! Judy Butt and her supporters are absolutely right to oppose this nasty site. Maybe then the Council might actually talk to the Gypsy Council (did I see a pig flying past?) to come up with a solution which will allow itinerants to be provided for in a way which is less challenging to settled residents and maybe discourage the bad behaviour And improve the local economy in the process, which they suddenly don't seem to care about. Poole Open for Business? Prove it!! Mad Karew
  • Score: 4

3:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

cyberbob45 says...

Yeah if you look at this link below you will see what I mean with bussiness for Poole

The Leader Akintson says that Poole is open for Business ????

http://www.dorsetlep
.co.uk/about-the-dor
set-lep/the-board/me
mbers/elaine-atkinso
n/
Yeah if you look at this link below you will see what I mean with bussiness for Poole The Leader Akintson says that Poole is open for Business ???? http://www.dorsetlep .co.uk/about-the-dor set-lep/the-board/me mbers/elaine-atkinso n/ cyberbob45
  • Score: -1

5:14pm Thu 27 Feb 14

sea poole says...

Cllr Atkinson? Open for business? Open for incompetence and total embarrassment. So where's our local MP (Missing Person) when you need his opinion? Guess what he's filling in...and it's not the transit site!
Cllr Atkinson? Open for business? Open for incompetence and total embarrassment. So where's our local MP (Missing Person) when you need his opinion? Guess what he's filling in...and it's not the transit site! sea poole
  • Score: 5

5:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Jo__Go says...

Sandbanks Showpony wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise?
His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.
"Defend the indefensible"...inte

resting.

This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists.

Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial.

I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.
WooHoo ... the *racist* card is played. How long before we wheel out Hitler and the Nazis?
Classic loony left smokescreen from the Slowpony, meant to stifle debate by making the subject a sacred cow. Sorry buster, this debate is more about white elephants and Council black magic. I'd love to hear your definition of integration ... Does it by any chance involve settling into a non-travelling lifestyle, paying taxes and being good citizens? I think you'll find we already have provision for that at Mannings Heath. If instead you want to support the establishment of a special site on a contaminated swamp then I call trumps, you're more of a segregationist than I am, by a very wide margin.

By the way, I love the idea of travellers being afraid of my opinions, which of course come direct from the Daily Mail (I'll save you the bother of using loony left smokescreen #2)
[quote][p][bold]Sandbanks Showpony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise? His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.[/p][/quote]"Defend the indefensible"...inte resting. This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists. Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial. I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.[/p][/quote]WooHoo ... the *racist* card is played. How long before we wheel out Hitler and the Nazis? Classic loony left smokescreen from the Slowpony, meant to stifle debate by making the subject a sacred cow. Sorry buster, this debate is more about white elephants and Council black magic. I'd love to hear your definition of integration ... Does it by any chance involve settling into a non-travelling lifestyle, paying taxes and being good citizens? I think you'll find we already have provision for that at Mannings Heath. If instead you want to support the establishment of a special site on a contaminated swamp then I call trumps, you're more of a segregationist than I am, by a very wide margin. By the way, I love the idea of travellers being afraid of my opinions, which of course come direct from the Daily Mail (I'll save you the bother of using loony left smokescreen #2) Jo__Go
  • Score: 2

5:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

cunone says...

The object of the adjoining land owner making such an offer proves the land is capable of supporting an employment use. The offer may not have been commercially acceptable but it does raise the issue, is this the right site for the proposed use?
200 jobs and Business Rate revenue would be a great boost to Poole.
Creekmoor has suffered the problem of travellers for years and yes we want a solution like all the residents of Poole
The Creekmoor Cage that shows no respect for the settled community or travellers. It will cost Poole over £200k and the Council cannot say if they can collect rent.
The scheme will not protect the rest of Poole from Travellers as its only 12 pitches and did you know if the groups of Travellers do not like each other they do not have to share the site. So you could have 3 pitches used and Travellers camping up in Poole Park
Why don't we take a step back and consider the problem properly which eventually may mean Marshes End is still used along with the Branksome Triangle and Turlin Moor. If we wait a few weeks the Mayor will end his term of office which makes using Branksome far more acceptable
The object of the adjoining land owner making such an offer proves the land is capable of supporting an employment use. The offer may not have been commercially acceptable but it does raise the issue, is this the right site for the proposed use? 200 jobs and Business Rate revenue would be a great boost to Poole. Creekmoor has suffered the problem of travellers for years and yes we want a solution like all the residents of Poole The Creekmoor Cage that shows no respect for the settled community or travellers. It will cost Poole over £200k and the Council cannot say if they can collect rent. The scheme will not protect the rest of Poole from Travellers as its only 12 pitches and did you know if the groups of Travellers do not like each other they do not have to share the site. So you could have 3 pitches used and Travellers camping up in Poole Park Why don't we take a step back and consider the problem properly which eventually may mean Marshes End is still used along with the Branksome Triangle and Turlin Moor. If we wait a few weeks the Mayor will end his term of office which makes using Branksome far more acceptable cunone
  • Score: 5

6:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

palmertree says...

fairandsquared wrote:
I bet all the people posting here would be more than happy for the Travellers (whatever their background) to carry on parking up in Rockley Park, Whitecliff Broadstone and Canford Heath, and anywhere else they were last Summer, and then have the residents in those areas jumping up and down. Where are the people now who pushed for this to go ahead? I was one of them, and pushed for my local Councillors to do something, but i don't see anyone else coming forward. The site has to be somewhere otherwise we all suffer every year. They were not on holiday, we had them knocking on our door and all over the area looking to do the driveway and trim trees. They are transient workers.
(my nieghbour got a great new driveway, so if people give them work they stay around)
They still will park up in Rockley Park, Whitecliff, Broadstone, Baiter etc. or wherever they choose.
Picture this scenario, it's a Saturday afternoon in June and 10 vans park at Baiter. With a TSP in place I believe the council would be able to move these 10 vans no later than the Monday to the TSP. Then, on Wedesday of the same week 15 caravans arrive at Branksome and another 10 vans at the recreation ground in Broadstone. Where do these go? The situation will remain exactly the same for these encampments as in previous years. The proposed TSP is a waste of money and wont change anything. This money should undoubtedly be used to benefit Poole, a smart office block on entering the town plus the creation of jobs for local people....surely once the tunnel visioned councillors take a step back and re-assess, they will see sence?
[quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: I bet all the people posting here would be more than happy for the Travellers (whatever their background) to carry on parking up in Rockley Park, Whitecliff Broadstone and Canford Heath, and anywhere else they were last Summer, and then have the residents in those areas jumping up and down. Where are the people now who pushed for this to go ahead? I was one of them, and pushed for my local Councillors to do something, but i don't see anyone else coming forward. The site has to be somewhere otherwise we all suffer every year. They were not on holiday, we had them knocking on our door and all over the area looking to do the driveway and trim trees. They are transient workers. (my nieghbour got a great new driveway, so if people give them work they stay around)[/p][/quote]They still will park up in Rockley Park, Whitecliff, Broadstone, Baiter etc. or wherever they choose. Picture this scenario, it's a Saturday afternoon in June and 10 vans park at Baiter. With a TSP in place I believe the council would be able to move these 10 vans no later than the Monday to the TSP. Then, on Wedesday of the same week 15 caravans arrive at Branksome and another 10 vans at the recreation ground in Broadstone. Where do these go? The situation will remain exactly the same for these encampments as in previous years. The proposed TSP is a waste of money and wont change anything. This money should undoubtedly be used to benefit Poole, a smart office block on entering the town plus the creation of jobs for local people....surely once the tunnel visioned councillors take a step back and re-assess, they will see sence? palmertree
  • Score: 7

6:34pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

Mad Karew wrote:
ADST_2008 wrote:
Hang on a minute, there are plenty more places for the TSPs in Poole, there were 90 sites identified and only two suitable??? I think not as do many other people. These sites need proper scrutiny again by the elected members not the Portfolio Holder alone and an officer or two, then the money from the sale of the contaminated land, (hardly a valuable asset) can be used to create many more TSP's in the Borough, in full consultation of course with the Gypsy Council , residents and Ward Cllrs !!!! Poole also gets a landmark building on the gateway to Poole site, with 200 more jobs and a boost to our economy, at least then Cllr Judy Butt's ultimate sacrifice will not have been in vain, will it? I know how I will be voting as to 1000's I think in 2015!!!!!
This is a good point - I think this TSP has been deliberately designed to be as horrible as possible so that travellers won't want to go there. The police are then free to escort them right out of the borough, so the intention is to get them out of Poole altogether. Sneaky!!

Judy Butt and her supporters are absolutely right to oppose this nasty site. Maybe then the Council might actually talk to the Gypsy Council (did I see a pig flying past?) to come up with a solution which will allow itinerants to be provided for in a way which is less challenging to settled residents and maybe discourage the bad behaviour

And improve the local economy in the process, which they suddenly don't seem to care about. Poole Open for Business? Prove it!!
Mad Karew wrote: "This is a good point - I think this TSP has been deliberately designed to be as horrible as possible so that travellers won't want to go there. The police are then free to escort them right out of the borough, so the intention is to get them out of Poole altogether. Sneaky!!"
.......
That isn't the case. If the travellers don't go there they will pitch up on PRIVATE land anywhere in the borough and the police will have no more powers to move them on than they did with public land. It will be up to the landowner to get the necessary eviction order which will take just as long as it did the council. Nothing will improve.
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: Hang on a minute, there are plenty more places for the TSPs in Poole, there were 90 sites identified and only two suitable??? I think not as do many other people. These sites need proper scrutiny again by the elected members not the Portfolio Holder alone and an officer or two, then the money from the sale of the contaminated land, (hardly a valuable asset) can be used to create many more TSP's in the Borough, in full consultation of course with the Gypsy Council , residents and Ward Cllrs !!!! Poole also gets a landmark building on the gateway to Poole site, with 200 more jobs and a boost to our economy, at least then Cllr Judy Butt's ultimate sacrifice will not have been in vain, will it? I know how I will be voting as to 1000's I think in 2015!!!!![/p][/quote]This is a good point - I think this TSP has been deliberately designed to be as horrible as possible so that travellers won't want to go there. The police are then free to escort them right out of the borough, so the intention is to get them out of Poole altogether. Sneaky!! Judy Butt and her supporters are absolutely right to oppose this nasty site. Maybe then the Council might actually talk to the Gypsy Council (did I see a pig flying past?) to come up with a solution which will allow itinerants to be provided for in a way which is less challenging to settled residents and maybe discourage the bad behaviour And improve the local economy in the process, which they suddenly don't seem to care about. Poole Open for Business? Prove it!![/p][/quote]Mad Karew wrote: "This is a good point - I think this TSP has been deliberately designed to be as horrible as possible so that travellers won't want to go there. The police are then free to escort them right out of the borough, so the intention is to get them out of Poole altogether. Sneaky!!" ....... That isn't the case. If the travellers don't go there they will pitch up on PRIVATE land anywhere in the borough and the police will have no more powers to move them on than they did with public land. It will be up to the landowner to get the necessary eviction order which will take just as long as it did the council. Nothing will improve. Carolyn43
  • Score: 7

6:51pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

ADST_2008 wrote:
Hang on a minute, there are plenty more places for the TSPs in Poole, there were 90 sites identified and only two suitable??? I think not as do many other people. These sites need proper scrutiny again by the elected members not the Portfolio Holder alone and an officer or two, then the money from the sale of the contaminated land, (hardly a valuable asset) can be used to create many more TSP's in the Borough, in full consultation of course with the Gypsy Council , residents and Ward Cllrs !!!! Poole also gets a landmark building on the gateway to Poole site, with 200 more jobs and a boost to our economy, at least then Cllr Judy Butt's ultimate sacrifice will not have been in vain, will it? I know how I will be voting as to 1000's I think in 2015!!!!!
The problem is that all the other sites are too close to councillors wards, homes or business interests for them to be allowed, and as we all know, you don't **** on your own doorstep.....especia
lly if you're relying on votes at the next election. Our councillors are as bent as a recently crow-barred 5-bar gate............
[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: Hang on a minute, there are plenty more places for the TSPs in Poole, there were 90 sites identified and only two suitable??? I think not as do many other people. These sites need proper scrutiny again by the elected members not the Portfolio Holder alone and an officer or two, then the money from the sale of the contaminated land, (hardly a valuable asset) can be used to create many more TSP's in the Borough, in full consultation of course with the Gypsy Council , residents and Ward Cllrs !!!! Poole also gets a landmark building on the gateway to Poole site, with 200 more jobs and a boost to our economy, at least then Cllr Judy Butt's ultimate sacrifice will not have been in vain, will it? I know how I will be voting as to 1000's I think in 2015!!!!![/p][/quote]The problem is that all the other sites are too close to councillors wards, homes or business interests for them to be allowed, and as we all know, you don't **** on your own doorstep.....especia lly if you're relying on votes at the next election. Our councillors are as bent as a recently crow-barred 5-bar gate............ Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 5

6:36am Fri 28 Feb 14

manyogie says...

Maths
This site will cost £175,000 PA to run
After 5 years, IF costs are kept to this, it will cost US, the local taxpayers £875,000.
If its sold, the income of £250,000 plus the saving of the budgeted expenditureto run this site gives back to the coffers £1.125 million pounds.
That is with no allowance for every minute health, police, welfare time spent on a group who do not contribute financially to the supporting system.
Maths This site will cost £175,000 PA to run After 5 years, IF costs are kept to this, it will cost US, the local taxpayers £875,000. If its sold, the income of £250,000 plus the saving of the budgeted expenditureto run this site gives back to the coffers £1.125 million pounds. That is with no allowance for every minute health, police, welfare time spent on a group who do not contribute financially to the supporting system. manyogie
  • Score: 1

6:39am Fri 28 Feb 14

manyogie says...

manyogie wrote:
Maths
This site will cost £175,000 PA to run
After 5 years, IF costs are kept to this, it will cost US, the local taxpayers £875,000.
If its sold, the income of £250,000 plus the saving of the budgeted expenditureto run this site gives back to the coffers £1.125 million pounds.
That is with no allowance for every minute health, police, welfare time spent on a group who do not contribute financially to the supporting system.
And, not forgetting the extra income from business tax generated from the proposed development,pus the spin off to local economy from supplying these businessneeds
[quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: Maths This site will cost £175,000 PA to run After 5 years, IF costs are kept to this, it will cost US, the local taxpayers £875,000. If its sold, the income of £250,000 plus the saving of the budgeted expenditureto run this site gives back to the coffers £1.125 million pounds. That is with no allowance for every minute health, police, welfare time spent on a group who do not contribute financially to the supporting system.[/p][/quote]And, not forgetting the extra income from business tax generated from the proposed development,pus the spin off to local economy from supplying these businessneeds manyogie
  • Score: 2

9:25am Fri 28 Feb 14

WTFRUON says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Sandbanks Showpony wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise?
His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.
"Defend the indefensible"...inte


resting.

This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists.

Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial.

I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.
Oh goody, a refreshingly new poster who clearly has not been following these post from the beginning. Had she done so she (I'm assuming she), then she would know the problem does not lay with genuine gypsies but more fully with Irish Travellers who have no thought for anyone but themselves while on their sixteen weeks tax free holidays over here. Perhaps she would like to review some of the previous post, just type in Butt in the search box and you will get a good selection. Having said this, if you like, you could also propose to your local councillors that they follow your lead and offer suitable summer accommodation within your own ward for these hard done by people.
genuine gypsies / Irish Travelers, wouldn't matter which of these came and parked up there would still be shock horror gasp etc etc. If people were not so hostile half the problem would vanish overnight, there have been and are transit sites in various places in the UK that tick over relatively peacefully,but given that there are good and bad people in all walks of society. Another point to remember is that the majority of crime committed within a community is committed by residents of that community not by gypsy's / tinkers / pikeys or whichever tag you choose to use.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandbanks Showpony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise? His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.[/p][/quote]"Defend the indefensible"...inte resting. This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists. Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial. I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.[/p][/quote]Oh goody, a refreshingly new poster who clearly has not been following these post from the beginning. Had she done so she (I'm assuming she), then she would know the problem does not lay with genuine gypsies but more fully with Irish Travellers who have no thought for anyone but themselves while on their sixteen weeks tax free holidays over here. Perhaps she would like to review some of the previous post, just type in Butt in the search box and you will get a good selection. Having said this, if you like, you could also propose to your local councillors that they follow your lead and offer suitable summer accommodation within your own ward for these hard done by people.[/p][/quote]genuine gypsies / Irish Travelers, wouldn't matter which of these came and parked up there would still be shock horror gasp etc etc. If people were not so hostile half the problem would vanish overnight, there have been and are transit sites in various places in the UK that tick over relatively peacefully,but given that there are good and bad people in all walks of society. Another point to remember is that the majority of crime committed within a community is committed by residents of that community not by gypsy's / tinkers / pikeys or whichever tag you choose to use. WTFRUON
  • Score: -7

10:25am Fri 28 Feb 14

disquiet says...

Poole Council chose not to engage in meaningful consultation with the gypsy community, local residents nor local businesses.

The objections to the site would suggest that none of the above believe the site is suitable.

Businesses and local residents are outraged as they were not notified of this proposal, despite in some cases residing literally metres away from the site - feelings of local tax/rate payers appear to be unimportant to the council.

The gypsy community are upset that they are to be put into a cage on contaminated land, next to a busy dual carriageway and opposite a fire station - health & safety of the travelling community appear to be unimportant to the council.

Is there any wonder there is hostility?

Sites such as this, which are effectively forced upon all parties, are never going to result in harmonious relationships.
Poole Council chose not to engage in meaningful consultation with the gypsy community, local residents nor local businesses. The objections to the site would suggest that none of the above believe the site is suitable. Businesses and local residents are outraged as they were not notified of this proposal, despite in some cases residing literally metres away from the site - feelings of local tax/rate payers appear to be unimportant to the council. The gypsy community are upset that they are to be put into a cage on contaminated land, next to a busy dual carriageway and opposite a fire station - health & safety of the travelling community appear to be unimportant to the council. Is there any wonder there is hostility? Sites such as this, which are effectively forced upon all parties, are never going to result in harmonious relationships. disquiet
  • Score: 43

10:56am Fri 28 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

I find it amazing that Poole Council would rather have a metal cage, whether empty as predicted or, in the unlikely event it will be filled with caravans and vehicles, as the first sight those coming into Poole from the west will see rather than a high quality building in keeping with the other buildings that they insisted be of "quality" as the gateway to Poole.
.......
Once it's been rejected by travellers as a TSP the site will have lost value for any other purpose. The council would not be acting in the best interests of the residents they serve if they don't negotiate with the owners of the business park to sell it.
I find it amazing that Poole Council would rather have a metal cage, whether empty as predicted or, in the unlikely event it will be filled with caravans and vehicles, as the first sight those coming into Poole from the west will see rather than a high quality building in keeping with the other buildings that they insisted be of "quality" as the gateway to Poole. ....... Once it's been rejected by travellers as a TSP the site will have lost value for any other purpose. The council would not be acting in the best interests of the residents they serve if they don't negotiate with the owners of the business park to sell it. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

5:13pm Fri 28 Feb 14

alanhl says...

Sandbanks Showpony wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise?
His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.
"Defend the indefensible"...inte

resting.

This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists.

Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial.

I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.
THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY, YOU HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO BE THAT AND THEY DON'T
[quote][p][bold]Sandbanks Showpony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise? His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.[/p][/quote]"Defend the indefensible"...inte resting. This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists. Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial. I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.[/p][/quote]THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY, YOU HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO BE THAT AND THEY DON'T alanhl
  • Score: 2

5:19pm Fri 28 Feb 14

alanhl says...

WTFRUON wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
Sandbanks Showpony wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise?
His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.
"Defend the indefensible"...inte



resting.

This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists.

Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial.

I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.
Oh goody, a refreshingly new poster who clearly has not been following these post from the beginning. Had she done so she (I'm assuming she), then she would know the problem does not lay with genuine gypsies but more fully with Irish Travellers who have no thought for anyone but themselves while on their sixteen weeks tax free holidays over here. Perhaps she would like to review some of the previous post, just type in Butt in the search box and you will get a good selection. Having said this, if you like, you could also propose to your local councillors that they follow your lead and offer suitable summer accommodation within your own ward for these hard done by people.
genuine gypsies / Irish Travelers, wouldn't matter which of these came and parked up there would still be shock horror gasp etc etc. If people were not so hostile half the problem would vanish overnight, there have been and are transit sites in various places in the UK that tick over relatively peacefully,but given that there are good and bad people in all walks of society. Another point to remember is that the majority of crime committed within a community is committed by residents of that community not by gypsy's / tinkers / pikeys or whichever tag you choose to use.
where did you get that FACT from, suggest you research it again
[quote][p][bold]WTFRUON[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandbanks Showpony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Is Baysider Chubby Eades in disguise? His posts are a lone voice in the wilderness trying to defend the indefensible, using Alice in Wonderland logic. Surely it can only be our cuddly Mayor fighting hard to keep our esteemed guests out of his ward.[/p][/quote]"Defend the indefensible"...inte resting. This is just an example of one of the many posts I've read that shows that you're all just hidden rascists. Obviously, you haven't thought that they are the most persecuted members of our society. And instead of keepp kicking them out and treating them like parasites, we should try and welcome them and integrate them into society. With this mentally they might have the confidence to continue in school and go for jobs. With people like you making up the large proportion of society of course they're scared to integrate. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity and be the first in a programme of change. Instead of just ignoring them and making this a perennial. I'll probably get a load of thumbs down...but to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I think like you anyway...it's all far too selfish.[/p][/quote]Oh goody, a refreshingly new poster who clearly has not been following these post from the beginning. Had she done so she (I'm assuming she), then she would know the problem does not lay with genuine gypsies but more fully with Irish Travellers who have no thought for anyone but themselves while on their sixteen weeks tax free holidays over here. Perhaps she would like to review some of the previous post, just type in Butt in the search box and you will get a good selection. Having said this, if you like, you could also propose to your local councillors that they follow your lead and offer suitable summer accommodation within your own ward for these hard done by people.[/p][/quote]genuine gypsies / Irish Travelers, wouldn't matter which of these came and parked up there would still be shock horror gasp etc etc. If people were not so hostile half the problem would vanish overnight, there have been and are transit sites in various places in the UK that tick over relatively peacefully,but given that there are good and bad people in all walks of society. Another point to remember is that the majority of crime committed within a community is committed by residents of that community not by gypsy's / tinkers / pikeys or whichever tag you choose to use.[/p][/quote]where did you get that FACT from, suggest you research it again alanhl
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree